the Leper King

[HistIdiot]

OK, so if King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem ahd not been a leper and consigned to an early death, what would the historic implications have been. I think that Baldwin IV was the best king the Kingdom of Jerusalem ever had and would have been able to stabilize and perhaps preserve the Kingdom. The Fourth Crusade grew out of the desire to prevent and later reverse the post-Baldwin IV loss of Jerusalem. With Baldwin IV surviving, and the Kingdom retaining Jerusalem, the Fourth Crusade could have been dealyed or never have happened. In that case, I think that the Doge of Venice would probably have died by then and not been able to subvert the Fourth into seizing Constantinople, since most of the Crusaders on the Fourth were signing up to go to Egypt. Anywho, without the loss of Constantinople in 1204, maybe the Byzantines would have been in a better spot to resist the Turks.

Any thoughts on longer-term consequences?

 

[Hermanubis]

I'm not sure that if Baldwin hadn't had Leprosy that it would have saved the Kingdom, but even if it did for a while it still has lots of other problems

 

[HistIdiot]

Yeah, but given that he was the only King of Jerusalem who was actually born in the East, he probably understood the East far better than Western-born crusaders. And, for the sake of argument, let's assume he does survive, consolidate power within the Crusader states at least partially, and keeps Jerusalem until at least 1205 or so.

Oh yeah, and I don't think the Kingdom of Jerusalem would have surrvived for a lot longer even with Baldwin IV living longer, but if he had I think there would be some interesting changes to the timeline. Hell, the only change could be a longer lived Baldwin IV and the Kingdom having Jerusalem for longer, with the Turks still conquering Byzantium and all that stuff.

 

[Michael B]

Given that it was Guy of Lusignan's order (thanks to a mixture of bad advice and innate stupidity) to advance from the Wells of Saffaria to the distaster of Hattin, any replacement of the Crusader CinC has to be a move in the right direction.

Had the Crusaders remained at the Wells, Saladin would have either retreat with a loss of face or advance and fight his enemy on more even terms. Instead on OTL he fought a battle against an opponent that had been weakened by extreme heat. No wonder the Saracens won one of the most decisive battles in history.

With the Kingdom still intact in 1187, the Third Crusade could have been targeted at say Damasscus or Edessa, ie either to retake lost territory or cut the Near East-Egyptian land trade route.

Of course even Baldwin IV would have had his work out trying to control Reynald Chatillon