Victory in the Eighth Crusade?

[Pachac]

One of the reasons why the Eighth Crusade, whose goal was to take Tunis as a stopping point before the Levant (and encouraged by false rumors that al-Mustansir, the Hafsid ruler of Tunisia, could be converted to Christianity) failed was because of the timing. Bad weather and other factors as well as Louis' enthusiasm for the whole thing caused for the attack on Tunis to be done at the worst possible time; the middle of an excruciatingly hot summer.

What if Louis had delayed his attack until he had met up with the English forces which had been pledged to join him but did not actually reach Tunis until the French King was dead and a truce had been signed with al-Mustansir? It was clear that the emir took the crusaders for a threat; otherwise he would not have signed a favorable trading agreement with them instead of just outright beating them back. Perhaps, if they had a better time, around November or December, they could have taken the city?

And once that was done, what would the consequences be of crusader control of Tunis for the rest of the Hafsids as well as for Jerusalem? The original plan was to go to Syria after finishing up in Tunis. With the French King still alive and the original plan still together instead of being ripped apart by the failure of the siege, how well would they perform against Baybars? I assume quite badly but it's always nice to get a second opinion.

Finally, with all that in mind, how long could the crusaders keep a decisive hold on Tunis? Charles of Naples would want to keep it, most likely, as he had a vested interest in the area, but are there long-term prospects of holding it and expanding in the region, particularly after the fall of Jerusalem, as a sort of new crusading initiative in the South Med? I'd think that the big trading republics particularly would support the idea of Tunis controlled by a power friendly to them.

 

[LSCatilina]

One of the reasons why the Eighth Crusade, whose goal was to take Tunis as a stopping point before the Levant (and encouraged by false rumors that al-Mustansir, the Hafsid ruler of Tunisia, could be converted to Christianity).

It was more likely, politically speaking at least, motivated by his brother Charles d'Anjou that ruled Sicily at this time, and more specifically his ambitions.

Hafsid indeed harboured some of his rivals, they didn't payed the previous tribute, and a possible protectorate or holdings (as Roger II had in his time) could have interested him (all of these, except the latter, were resolved after Louis' death).
It would be as well a measure in order to stop the incoming Sicilian expedition in Morea, and integrate it in the crusader army rather than having it wasting forces against Greeks.

The possibility to harm partially the food provisioning of Egypt (whom Tunis was part of) may be another factor.

Bad weather and other factors as well as Louis' enthusiasm for the whole thing caused for the attack on Tunis to be done at the worst possible time; the middle of an excruciatingly hot summer.

I'd disagree with enthusiasm. Louis waited for his brother to crush the last resistances in Sicily before crusading : many over did before him, as the duke of Bavaria. Traces of possible talks (as a Hafsid embassy in 1269 in France) point out as well at least tentative to deal with without an actual expedition.

Plague and lack of water did the rest.

What if Louis had delayed his attack until he had met up with the English forces which had been pledged to join him but did not actually reach Tunis until the French King was dead and a truce had been signed with al-Mustansir?

Err...Which attack?
Crusaders' tactic there was basically to wait the city for surrender, and the king even avoided to counter-attack when Tunisians made small attacks on the encampments.

The only real attack was made by Charles d'Anjou after Louis IX's death (an attack that he wouldn't have made if he was alive, in my opinion), that forced Hafsids to launch an attack that different from the previous skirmishes, that they lost.

I imagine that if Edward reached Tunis early enough to participate in the expedition, it may have changed something (maybe more harsh treaty), but that's all.

Perhaps, if they had a better time, around November or December, they could have taken the city?

I don't think so, lack of water would have still be a pain, and Tunisians would have even more time to protect themselves. Attacking in summer, before the harvests, with both Tunis and Egypt lacking provisioning may have been more fitting.

And once that was done, what would the consequences be of crusader control of Tunis for the rest of the Hafsids as well as for Jerusalem?

Close to none.
Even assuming Tunis is conquered (as in not only taken, but in Crusader's control)
The Latin States by then were but a clusterfuck of factions and nobles fighting over, under the benevolence of Venetian and Genoese infighting.

I don't think Louis IX would do better than Edward did. His policy in Jerusalem, critically on focusing on fortifications restoration, did worked a time, but Baibars campaign broke most of their lines, and politically everything was to be rebuild again from scratch.

I could see him putting his brother Charles as regent or even king of Jerusalem, trying to repair the whole thing the best he could, but even there, Anjou would be too focused (and dispersed) on his other Mediterranean positions.

Finally, with all that in mind, how long could the crusaders keep a decisive hold on Tunis?

I don't think it would end with a Crusader takeover, to be honest. At best, Tunis will end under Charles's rule (while he would have to be forced on it, maybe by his brother), but it couldn't last against a whole hinterland as soon the army is gone.

Charles of Naples would want to keep it, most likely, as he had a vested interest in the area,

Actually, he didn't. It's why he made a treaty with Tunisians : he wasn't interested on holding it, more focused on Greece.

I'd think that the big trading republics particularly would support the idea of Tunis controlled by a power friendly to them.

Not really. If something they were more about preventing rivals to emerge, even "friendly" rivals, and Crusaders weren't too much on working graciously for cities-states.
The Barbary Crusade points what their goals would be : treaty enforcing their trade dominance.

 

[Pachac]

Interesting. Thanks for the quick reply; this particular crusade is pretty damn undocumented from what I can find.