What if Richard the Lionheart besieged Jerusalem, Success or Failure?

What if Richard the Lionheart besieged Jerusalem?

  • Success

    Votes: 11 50.0%
  • Failure

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • Total voters
    22
What if Richard the Lionheart besieged Jerusalem, Success or Failure?

Richard's decision not to attack Jerusalem has always been a controversial one. Any attempt to take the city would have been difficult and the arrival of a relief army likely. In OTL Richard valuing the lives of his soldiers decided not to assault the city. What if instead Richard had of gambled and besieged the city? Would it have resulted in a victory like Antioch or a disaster like Damascus?

In November 1191, following the fall of Jaffa, the Crusader army advanced inland towards Jerusalem. The army then marched to Beit Nuba, only 12 miles from Jerusalem. Muslim morale in Jerusalem was so low that the arrival of the Crusaders would probably have caused the city to fall quickly. However, the weather was appallingly bad, cold with heavy rain and hailstorms; this, combined with the fear that the Crusader army, if it besieged Jerusalem, might be trapped by a relieving force, led to the decision to retreat back to the coast.[77] Richard attempted to negotiate with Saladin, but this was unsuccessful. In the first half of 1192 he and his troops refortified Ascalon.

An election forced Richard to accept Conrad of Montferrat as King of Jerusalem, and he sold Cyprus to his defeated protégé, Guy. Only days later, on 28 April 1192, Conrad was stabbed to death by Hashshashin (Assassins) before he could be crowned. Eight days later Richard's own nephew Henry II of Champagne was married to the widowed Isabella, although she was carrying Conrad's child. The murder has never been conclusively solved, and Richard's contemporaries widely suspected his involvement.

The Crusader army made another advance on Jerusalem, and in June 1192 it came within sight of the city before being forced to retreat once again, this time because of dissension amongst its leaders. In particular, Richard and the majority of the army council wanted to force Saladin to relinquish Jerusalem by attacking the basis of his power through an invasion of Egypt. The leader of the French contingent, the Duke of Burgundy, however, was adamant that a direct attack on Jerusalem should be made. This split the Crusader army into two factions, and neither was strong enough to achieve its objective. Richard stated that he would accompany any attack on Jerusalem but only as a simple soldier; he refused to lead the army. Without a united command the army had little choice but to retreat back to the coast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England
 
Four persons so far voted on the poll but no one explained the reasoning behind it... I'm not complaining, I'm genuinely curious to understand why (as I really don't know as much about the 3rd Crusade as about the 1st one).

Ok, going ahead, let's suppose that the siege is successful (as the text above claims the morale of the defenders was low), and that the city is captured with relatively low casualties (enough to allow it to be temporarily garrisoned against a quick Muslim advance). What's next for Jerusalem?

Richard and his English-Aquitanian forces will sooner or later return to Europe. I can't remember if by now Phillip Augustus had already returned to France; anyways, his departure leaves a huge military vaccuum in the region. Frederick Barbarossa is since long dead. The Kingdom of Jerusalem, differently from the period of the 1st Crusade - when the Muslim Near East was chaotically divided among the warring heirs of Alp Arslan, the Levantine Arabs and the Egyptians - is still completely surrounded by Saladin's domains, and he despite his setbacks is a formidable commander with a strong base in Egypt and Syria. Besides the now King Henry I of Jerusalem, unless he strives for a very upsetting compromise with Saladin, doesn't have a lot of support either directly from Europe and I believe neither from Byzantium. I really can't see hope for the Jerusalemites in the medium and long run.

The butterflies arising from this triumph also bring back the question about the 4th Crusade. Will it happen exactly like OTL?

Again, as various threads in this forum regarding KoJ's survival reach the conclusion that it will depend, in the least, on the successful conquest, or at least severe handicapping of Ayyubid Egypt. The best scenario would be securing Egypt, Africa and western Syria. By this point, I don't believe that even the capture of Damascus could last against a determined Turkish or Mamluk force. In short, I think the 3rd Crusade context was very different than that of the 1st Crusade.
 
Last edited:
Ok, going ahead, let's suppose that the siege is successful (as the text above claims the morale of the defenders was low), and that the city is captured with relatively low casualties (enough to allow it to be temporarily garrisoned against a quick Muslim advance). What's next for Jerusalem?

I don't think that the Crusader's could have taken AND held Jeruselem. If they attack in 1191 there are a few problems. First is the weather. That is not the type of weather you want for a seige. The heavy rain would make tunneling difficult (could cause flooding), it is going to make the troops cold and miserable which is going to lower their moral. Second is the fact that, in a seige even a few men can cause a lot problems for the attacking force so they would probably still take atleast moderate casualties. Also, if the defenders put up ANY resistance it is going to really slow things down which means that the Crusaders could get caught be another force attacking them from behind. The attack in 1192 would probably fail if the leadership is fighting amongst itself. You need the Army to work together to win in a seige and it's pretty obvious that these guy's were a bit stubern. However lets assume that Richard does take and hold Jeruselem.

In all honesty, I really don't think it will change much in the long term. The kingdom of Jerusalem is still going to be surrounded by Muslim lands and sooner or later they are going to try to take it back from the Christians. If they do, then eventually we will have another Crusade and the cycle of conflict over the Holy land will continue just like OTL, eventually ending in a Muslim victory.

The butterflies arising from this triumph also bring back the question about the 4th Crusade. Will it happen exactly like OTL?

I suspect a 4th crusade will happen, but it's timing depends on when the Muslim's retake Jerusalem and any number of factors could affect the outcome so I won't predict who will win.
 
Thanks for the comments thus far. From what I've read Richard seems to have been more focused on a potential Egyptian campaign then Jerusalem. He was convinced that the Crusader states would never be safe unless Egypt was dealt with. Richard would have liked to have moved on Ascalon earlier then OTL instead of being forced to prepare for the march on Jerusalem in 1191.

As far as the potential for siege of the city goes both 1191 and 1192 have their separate problems. 1191 as outlined above had weather difficulties and seems like a coin flip to me either victory or crushing defeat. 1192 Richard is in a better position with Ascalon secured, blocking easy troop movement between Egypt-Levant, however this time around he was suffering from a chronic water shortage in addition to the command difficulties.
 
Top