Third Crusade Success

The Third Crusade had many things going against it. There was the refusal to adopt the local Arabian horses, which could carry a fully armed knight, albeit with a slower top speed than the European mounts. The crusaders were only going to spend a few years and then wander back home, leaving behind just the Kingdom of Jerusalem to fend for itself (I think its the only one left anyways...). They were unfamiliar with the terrain. And most of them were really bad tacticians, or at least let hatred override tactical sense. They were outnumbered almost as badly as the Mongols were when they attacked proto-Russia, except the Mongols had tactical sense and the Catholics kept falling for fake retreats against the Mongols. The crusaders cannot expect to enjoy that advantage to offset their numerical problems.

But let's say the Third Crusade succeeds in recapturing all of Jerusalem and stamp out any guerilla resistance. Let's also say Richard the Lionhearted of England makes a limited offensive into the Levenant and advances all the way to the cities of the Tigris river, beating a field army three times the size of his own.

OK, now what happens? The Tigris area is outside of what the crusaders were intending to keep anyways. Sure the Muslim field armies were defeated and many of them dead, but they can make another army. Does Jerusalem just fall in a decade after the crusaders leave? Did the crusaders bring people to settle the place? The area gets little rain, so the kingdom would be poor (yes the Arabs were on a large piece of desert, but they had Egypt too so they weren't poor), preventing them from recurring mercenaries to defend themselves.
 
The Third Crusade had many things going against it. There was the refusal to adopt the local Arabian horses, which could carry a fully armed knight, albeit with a slower top speed than the European mounts. The crusaders were only going to spend a few years and then wander back home, leaving behind just the Kingdom of Jerusalem to fend for itself (I think its the only one left anyways...). They were unfamiliar with the terrain. And most of them were really bad tacticians, or at least let hatred override tactical sense. They were outnumbered almost as badly as the Mongols were when they attacked proto-Russia, except the Mongols had tactical sense and the Catholics kept falling for fake retreats against the Mongols. The crusaders cannot expect to enjoy that advantage to offset their numerical problems.

But let's say the Third Crusade succeeds in recapturing all of Jerusalem and stamp out any guerilla resistance. Let's also say Richard the Lionhearted of England makes a limited offensive into the Levenant and advances all the way to the cities of the Tigris river, beating a field army three times the size of his own.

OK, now what happens? The Tigris area is outside of what the crusaders were intending to keep anyways. Sure the Muslim field armies were defeated and many of them dead, but they can make another army. Does Jerusalem just fall in a decade after the crusaders leave? Did the crusaders bring people to settle the place? The area gets little rain, so the kingdom would be poor (yes the Arabs were on a large piece of desert, but they had Egypt too so they weren't poor), preventing them from recurring mercenaries to defend themselves.

One possible Butterfly might be there isn't a Fourth Crusade, and no pillaging of Constantinople; and that could possibly be a very big butterfly...
 
As vandevere has already mentioned it could mean than Constantinople is spared. All kinds of possibilities suddenly exist. The East Roman Empire is much stronger than IOTL. Islam is held back or even defeated if the 'crusaders' can consolidate their gains. Egypt is suddenly very vulnerable. Would make for a very interesting alternative time-line.
 
Russia is an Orthodox country.

Oops. Wikipedia claims in the Mongol conquest of Europe, the Russians got their butts kicked and the Catholics could have won by attrition if they didn't keep falling for fake retreats.

Say, what's your profile picture? It looks interesting.

As vandevere has already mentioned it could mean than Constantinople is spared. All kinds of possibilities suddenly exist. The East Roman Empire is much stronger than IOTL. Islam is held back or even defeated if the 'crusaders' can consolidate their gains. Egypt is suddenly very vulnerable. Would make for a very interesting alternative time-line.

Hmmm, the thing though is that once Jerusalem falls, another Crusade might get called. What I described might give the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1, maybe even 3.5 decades of reprieve. The fact remains that the Kingdom is economically self sustaining as long as it doesn't need to pay for defense, which is kind of needs to do.

Richard would return with more War Booty from the Tigris "side mission." This could be used to buy stone and shore up defenses in Normandy. If John still manages to lose them, he looks really stupid compared to his brother who did everything right.

Back to Jerusalem, can they consolidate their gains? Richard's side quest meant that one front is relieved for awhile. If the Crusaders ever adopted the Arabian horse they would be better off. "Let's see, this local mount is slower but consumes 7/8 as much water when it's not excreting and 1/3 as much water on a day I battle. It also lasts longer in the sun. Nah, I'll stick with my trusty horse that served me well in Italy/Normandy/Hungary and survived the voyage to the Holy Land and any decedents it sired."During the Third Crusade, the Europeans were working on good castles that were greatly improved compared to previous designs (ie, they stole Muslim designs and added their own improvements to make them better), allowing them to withstand pre-gunpowder bombardment and have a force multiplier of 30-35 on a full frontal assault (and not much a force multiple when a traitor opens the gate...). They never won enough land to use them in the holy land, so the designs were brought back home.
 
I'd suggest a prerequisite for success is the survival of Barbarossa and the entry of his huge army into Outremer, providing the critical mass to defeat Saladin.

After most Crusades a small portion of Crusaders stayed behind in Outremer, so with a big German army backed by a medium English army the demographics of an almost entirely French Outremer would change to include large numbers (In terms of there being only about 2000 noble families in Outremer in 1187) of Germans and significant numbers of English taking up newly won fiefs by right of conquest. This would also impact the Knightly orders, the Teutonic knights might become more important and the expense of the Templars and Hospitalliers.

What's more the successful transit of Anatolia by Barbarossa and revival of power of KoJ might make it possible for the Byzantines to take greater control of Anatolia and allow greater pilgrimage by land, further topping up the Latin population of Outremer.

BTW what is the old German world for 'overseas'? Maybe the Crusader states get a name change in the vernacular.
 
I'd suggest a prerequisite for success is the survival of Barbarossa and the entry of his huge army into Outremer, providing the critical mass to defeat Saladin.

Saladin engaged with 30% of his mass of professionals. He didn't call the extra because the logistics (you know, food, water, whatever was used to wipe posteriors) would be annoying. So beating the first army would simply lead to him raising another. Barbossa's huge army doesn't give the Crusaders a total numerical advantage. So I don't see how they would win in the first place, but that's a good idea to start.

Anyways, so the premise was that, somehow for whatever reason, The Kingdom of Jerusalem is successfully taken and the Third Crusade was a success. And that Richard just went over and went a bit overboard, going outside the area they were intending to hold anyways. So thanks for your input.

After most Crusades a small portion of Crusaders stayed behind in Outremer, so with a big German army backed by a medium English army the demographics of an almost entirely French Outremer would change to include large numbers (In terms of there being only about 2000 noble families in Outremer in 1187) of Germans and significant numbers of English taking up newly won fiefs by right of conquest. This would also impact the Knightly orders, the Teutonic knights might become more important and the expense of the Templars and Hospitalliers.

Hospitalliers had triple the numbers as the Teutonic Knights I think, but at least in TTL Third Crusade the Teutonic knights showed up at all. Hm, so this could end up Germanizing and Normanizing the area.

BTW what is the old German world for 'overseas'? Maybe the Crusader states get a name change in the vernacular.

That would be Übersee. Nah, I think Jerusalem sticks.

I wonder what impact this has on the Normans.

Thanks for your input @Riain
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What's more the successful transit of Anatolia by Barbarossa and revival of power of KoJ might make it possible for the Byzantines to take greater control of Anatolia and allow greater pilgrimage by land, further topping up the Latin population of Outremer.
Weren't the Byzantines already beginning to weaken by the late 1180s, though? Indeed, if a stronger Byzantine Empire couldn't win at Myriokephalon (sp?) in 1171, what makes you think that a weaker Byzantine Empire would be able to expand in this TL?
 
Weren't the Byzantines already beginning to weaken by the late 1180s, though? Indeed, if a stronger Byzantine Empire couldn't win at Myriokephalon (sp?) in 1171, what makes you think that a weaker Byzantine Empire would be able to expand in this TL?

They may not be able to expand but may be able to stabilise existing positions and recover and adjust economically if the Crusaders knock the Islamic powers down a bit and then hold their attention for a while.
 
Top