Third Crusade & Acre.

Saladin captured Acre not long after the battle of Hattin, which was a sound strategy, in that it restricted the Crusaders on the coasts. WI: Acre had managed to hold out, perhaps with help from Venice, or a later arriving army? How does this change the course of the wars and battles of the Third Crusade?
 
Possibly not by very much, since it was "liberated" by the Third Crusade anyway.
No, it actually changes everything.

Acre was a HUGE win for Guy of Lusignan since he got into a fight with the other Crusaders and marched south to start the siege. Both Richard and Phillip got sick there and though they both recovered Phillip was always a little sickly afterwards and left. No siege means that even if Richard and Phillip still go (and they probably still would as long as Jerusalem fell) they won't be in the horrible conditions of the siege. In fact that siege was like a trial by fire-hell-on earth thing if you read the accounts. It sounds like trench warfare from the last century. So not only was Guy's prestige recovered, but his patron Richard was in charge at the end. Without a siege of Acre, Richard might find it impossible to take his side and then the Crusaders will have a better leader because aside from Richard's brother John, I find it hard to think of a more spectacular failure as a king.

Anyhow, Acre held up the Crusade for a long time because they simply had to have it to push on. If Acre is already held by the Christians Richard (and probably Philip) will push on south and Richard would have a lot more time to capture Jerusalem. If you look at what happened after Arsuf, the maneuverings, Richard had to try for Jerusalem because the army demanded it. He might have been able to take it, but he would NEVER have been able to hold it, and he knew that. He wanted to consolidate, but he also couldn't afford to spend even more time there because Phillip was causing trouble for him back home. Saladin had a number of money and political difficulties as well and they struck their deal.

You will have leadership struggles between the two kings (Richard obviously became the leader of the Crusader after Acre) but it's certainly possible Phillip goes home early or Richard who had more resources and better organization (you can tell by the Crusader preparation records) just outmaneuvers him. Now Saladin actually wasn't that a good general. He was average. Richard was probably a better commander. But Saladin was an excellent politician and was able to unite the Muslims and keep them in the field against Richards army for a long time. If Richard has more resources and more time to press him however, it's possible Saladin's coalition will probably collapse or start to fritter away. It nearly happened in OTL. And remember, Saladin died shortly thereafter. If Saladin has to work harder maybe he'll get sick and die while Richard is still there and then there will be a huge opportunity.

So if Acre is held it could possibly lead to a full on revival of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
 
No, it actually changes everything.

Acre was a HUGE win for Guy of Lusignan since he got into a fight with the other Crusaders and marched south to start the siege. Both Richard and Phillip got sick there and though they both recovered Phillip was always a little sickly afterwards and left. No siege means that even if Richard and Phillip still go (and they probably still would as long as Jerusalem fell) they won't be in the horrible conditions of the siege. In fact that siege was like a trial by fire-hell-on earth thing if you read the accounts. It sounds like trench warfare from the last century. So not only was Guy's prestige recovered, but his patron Richard was in charge at the end. Without a siege of Acre, Richard might find it impossible to take his side and then the Crusaders will have a better leader because aside from Richard's brother John, I find it hard to think of a more spectacular failure as a king.

Anyhow, Acre held up the Crusade for a long time because they simply had to have it to push on. If Acre is already held by the Christians Richard (and probably Philip) will push on south and Richard would have a lot more time to capture Jerusalem. If you look at what happened after Arsuf, the maneuverings, Richard had to try for Jerusalem because the army demanded it. He might have been able to take it, but he would NEVER have been able to hold it, and he knew that. He wanted to consolidate, but he also couldn't afford to spend even more time there because Phillip was causing trouble for him back home. Saladin had a number of money and political difficulties as well and they struck their deal.

Point taken on the conditions of the siege, but will Richard really have more time, or will Philip just leave earlier (and thus give Richard the same grief back home)? And how much more will Richard be able to hold Jerusalem (see below) than our timeline?

As for Guy, who takes his place?

You will have leadership struggles between the two kings (Richard obviously became the leader of the Crusader after Acre) but it's certainly possible Phillip goes home early or Richard who had more resources and better organization (you can tell by the Crusader preparation records) just outmaneuvers him. Now Saladin actually wasn't that a good general. He was average. Richard was probably a better commander. But Saladin was an excellent politician and was able to unite the Muslims and keep them in the field against Richards army for a long time. If Richard has more resources and more time to press him however, it's possible Saladin's coalition will probably collapse or start to fritter away. It nearly happened in OTL. And remember, Saladin died shortly thereafter. If Saladin has to work harder maybe he'll get sick and die while Richard is still there and then there will be a huge opportunity.

So if Acre is held it could possible lead to a full on revival of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
The problem I have with the idea of that - and this is whether Acre holds or not, just looking at the situation of the Kingdom after its forces were gutted at Hattin - is that I'm not sure it has the resources to hold in the long term. Richard being an almighty success doesn't necessarily translate into more knights and sergeants actually staying in the east. And that seems to be the problem that has to be overcome for any revival to mean much.
 
You make some good points and I will answer them later when I have more time. I'll answer your king question now though. Conrad of Montferrat was supported by both Phillip and most of the Outremer locals. Richard himself abandoned Guy's claims in April of 1192 and accepted Conrad as king. That's how Guy got Cyprus, a consolation prize.
 
You make some good points and I will answer them later when I have more time. I'll answer your king question now though. Conrad of Montferrat was supported by both Phillip and most of the Outremer locals. Richard himself abandoned Guy's claims in April of 1192 and accepted Conrad as king. That's how Guy got Cyprus, a consolation prize.

Thought so, wasn't sure - my knowledge of the situation is, as you can guess, not very good.
 
Third Crusade & Acre

Point taken on the conditions of the siege, but will Richard really have more time, or will Philip just leave earlier (and thus give Richard the same grief back home)? And how much more will Richard be able to hold Jerusalem (see below) than our timeline?

As for Guy, who takes his place?

The problem I have with the idea of that - and this is whether Acre holds or not, just looking at the situation of the Kingdom after its forces were gutted at Hattin - is that I'm not sure it has the resources to hold in the long term. Richard being an almighty success doesn't necessarily translate into more knights and sergeants actually staying in the east. And that seems to be the problem that has to be overcome for any revival to mean much.
I see the military orders taking over for the main defenses of the kingdom, since the territorial nobility was virtually completedly wiped out at Hattin.
 
I see the military orders taking over for the main defenses of the kingdom, since the territorial nobility was virtually completedly wiped out at Hattin.

The problem is that the military orders are - in terms of knights, I don't know about sergeants - very, very small. And also decimated at Hattin.

This might be easier to recover from, but it still is not enough - we're talking about three hundred knights apiece, tops, probably less.
 
Elfwine said:
Point taken on the conditions of the siege, but will Richard really have more time, or will Philip just leave earlier (and thus give Richard the same grief back home)?

I don't think Philip would leave the Crusade earlier with no siege at Acre. But I think he could still leave later in the campaign.

OTL, Philip Augustus left the crusades for several reasons :

1°) He had a huge quarrel with Richard.
First, on their way to the Holy Land, Richard cancelled his engagement to Philip's sister Adèle (or Alix) so that he could marry Berengaria of Navarra. Philip felt outraged and left Sicily before Richard's new wife arrived.
Second, they often conflicted during the siege of Acre. Philip was also probably a bit jealous as he was making strategies while Richard got all the credit because he was out on the field fighting.

2°) As was stated earlier in the thread, Philip got sick during the crusade. He lost nails, hairs and even one eye because of his illness. This probably played a part in his decision to go back to France.
Not to mention that Philip's succession back then was far from secure : he was the only son of Louis VII and had only one son, Louis, who was still a child back there (he was around 10). If Philip had died on the crusade, there would have been troubles.

3°) Several of the great French Barons who were with Philip died during the Third Crusade, most notably Philip of Alsace, count of Flanders, who died at Acre. Philip probably thought this would be of a huge political advantage to him : with so many great barons dead or absent from his Kingdom, he would face fewer opposition and be able to strengthen his authority (and he did). Plus, he had to play his part in the succession to Flanders and secure Artois for his son Louis (as Artois was the dowry of Philip's now dead first wife, Isabella of Hainaut).
Finally, this was an occasion to do nasty things in Richard's back, since he was no longer getting along with him and the Plantagenêt were a problem to Philip anyway (owning half of your kingdom generally gives you this kind of feeling :D).

Without the Siege of Acre, Philip could stay longer on the Crusade, even if he and Richard are going to quarrel a lot. Saying that he will stay until the end is probably an overstatement though.
 
Well the only real way that cre could hold out is if hattin does not end in saladins victory. with Hattin you saw most cruaders wiped out. So should hattin end in Saladin's defeat and his death. With a decisive crusader victory, then Acre could hold out. No not only could acre hold out but so could jerusalum. You also deal a morale blow to saracens. why because saladin was what held the Islamic alliance togehter, with him dead this early said allliance would crumble. This would allow richard and Philip, and crusaders take Damsacus. Following the fall of Damascus Egypt will fall into civil war, thus the third crusade could be to take back alexandria. With barbarossa not dying, Richard and philip arriving timely, Egypt is in one screwed up situation.
 
Not sure how a fall of Damascus leads to a civil war in Egypt.

Not to mention that if Jerusalem doesn't fall, there probably isn't a call for Western help - so no third crusade, at least as we know it.
 
Not sure how a fall of Damascus leads to a civil war in Egypt.

Not to mention that if Jerusalem doesn't fall, there probably isn't a call for Western help - so no third crusade, at least as we know it.
Actually what I said was a civil war in Egypt because Saladin is dead.This means the arab alliance will crumble, with crusader victory at Hattin the crusaders can take Damscus with ease, because most of the muslim forces were wiped out at Hattin
 
Actually what I said was a civil war in Egypt because Saladin is dead.This means the arab alliance will crumble, with crusader victory at Hattin the crusaders can take Damscus with ease, because most of the muslim forces were wiped out at Hattin

Ah, misread. Still not sure things would go this well - the Muslims aren't in as precarious a position for manpower (don't know about leadership) as the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
 
Saladin

Saladin ruled Damascus, too, by the time of the Third Crusade.

Some sort of free-for-all is indeed likely if Saladin died at Hattin -- a failure of any clear succession rule to take hold was the curse of the Moslem side throughout the crusading period.
 
So someone else will take over. Even if the KoJ wins big at Hattin, its unlikely to lead to taking Syria.
 
Top