WI: Crusader victory at the Siege of Damascus?

Well if and it's a big if they manage to capture it then except the mother of all fallings out over what to do with it. The Crusade was chronically divided and frankly was just waiting for an excuse to fall apart and blame each other.
 
Walking this backward.

1) Victory at Siege of Damascus would likely require more troops.

2) More troops requires the German contingent under King Conrad not getting starved and the stuffing beaten out of during its march across Anatolia.

3) Not being debilitated across the length of Anatolia requires not marching across Anatolia.

4) Not marching across Anatolia means going by boat.

5) Going by boat means having boats and no threat from hostile boats.

6) A better shipping environment requires Roger II of Sicily either actively participating in the Crusade or at least vowing not to undertake any hostile action against his brother Christians while they Crusade.

7) How to sway over Roger II? Haven't a clue. Concessions of some kind in Italy from the Pope or King Conrad? A big enough bribe from Louis VII of France and Eleanor of Aquitaine? Something from Emperor Manuel Comnenus (VERY doubtful)? Agreement that the Principality of Antioch returns to the control of a true Sicilian-Norman cousin of Roger's?
 
The siege of Damascus was a major diplomatic blunder. The Kingdom of Jerusalem had traditionally had an alliance with the Damascenes and they were the counterweight against Nur ed-din. By attacking them the crusaders forced them to appeal to Nur ed-din and surrender their city to him. This was not an easy thing to avoid, however; there was a very big push from the newer crusaders to invade the Damascenes regardless of their strategic importance. The fall of Damascus would greatly weaken the Kingdom of Jerusalem as they would have a new, dangerous, rebellious population and Nur ed-din would have swept up their famished and demoralized army with ease following their taking of it, leaving them in a worse situation than OTL. They may be able to buoy their financial reserves by pillaging Damascus but in the long run it'll damage them a lot.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The siege of Damascus was a major diplomatic blunder. The Kingdom of Jerusalem had traditionally had an alliance with the Damascenes and they were the counterweight against Nur ed-din. By attacking them the crusaders forced them to appeal to Nur ed-din and surrender their city to him. This was not an easy thing to avoid, however; there was a very big push from the newer crusaders to invade the Damascenes regardless of their strategic importance. The fall of Damascus would greatly weaken the Kingdom of Jerusalem as they would have a new, dangerous, rebellious population and Nur ed-din would have swept up their famished and demoralized army with ease following their taking of it, leaving them in a worse situation than OTL. They may be able to buoy their financial reserves by pillaging Damascus but in the long run it'll damage them a lot.

Pretty much this. A better POD would be for the Crusaders not to have attacked Damascus at all.
 
Damascus

The siege of Damascus was a major diplomatic blunder. The Kingdom of Jerusalem had traditionally had an alliance with the Damascenes and they were the counterweight against Nur ed-din. By attacking them the crusaders forced them to appeal to Nur ed-din and surrender their city to him. This was not an easy thing to avoid, however; there was a very big push from the newer crusaders to invade the Damascenes regardless of their strategic importance. The fall of Damascus would greatly weaken the Kingdom of Jerusalem as they would have a new, dangerous, rebellious population and Nur ed-din would have swept up their famished and demoralized army with ease following their taking of it, leaving them in a worse situation than OTL. They may be able to buoy their financial reserves by pillaging Damascus but in the long run it'll damage them a lot.
Exactly! Most of the western armies would have returned to western Europe anyhow.
 
Walking this backward.

1) Victory at Siege of Damascus would likely require more troops.

2) More troops requires the German contingent under King Conrad not getting starved and the stuffing beaten out of during its march across Anatolia.

3) Not being debilitated across the length of Anatolia requires not marching across Anatolia.

4) Not marching across Anatolia means going by boat.

5) Going by boat means having boats and no threat from hostile boats.

6) A better shipping environment requires Roger II of Sicily either actively participating in the Crusade or at least vowing not to undertake any hostile action against his brother Christians while they Crusade.

7) How to sway over Roger II? Haven't a clue. Concessions of some kind in Italy from the Pope or King Conrad? A big enough bribe from Louis VII of France and Eleanor of Aquitaine? Something from Emperor Manuel Comnenus (VERY doubtful)? Agreement that the Principality of Antioch returns to the control of a true Sicilian-Norman cousin of Roger's?

Anatolia can be crossed readily enough, the Byz army did it all the time. The French were accompanied by a high ranking Templar, whose advice they rejected until they suffered a serious revers, they then handed command of the march over to him and did quite well. The 2nd Crusade was the 4th time a transit of Anatolia was attempted by Crusaders, I don`t think it beyond the realms of possibility that they learned from two failures and one success and made a successful transit.

As for Damascus, it was near the dry-farming area between the fertile levant and the Syrian/Arabian desert. It was by this route that armies could transit from Syria to Egypt, water and food being available along the way, therefore it is a key to joining or preventing the joining of Egypt and Syria into one political unit. This is why it is such a strategic prize and why, to the confusion of many armchair strategists, it was attacked rather than the much more convenient/threatening Aleppo.
 
As for Damascus, it was near the dry-farming area between the fertile levant and the Syrian/Arabian desert. It was by this route that armies could transit from Syria to Egypt, water and food being available along the way, therefore it is a key to joining or preventing the joining of Egypt and Syria into one political unit. This is why it is such a strategic prize and why, to the confusion of many armchair strategists, it was attacked rather than the much more convenient/threatening Aleppo.

There is an inherently false assumption. Yes, Damascus was an important area between Egypt and Syria. However, it is the very armchair strategists you are talking about that would have planned an invasion of Damascus. It was incredibly foolish to attempt to attack Damascus, an ally of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Aleppo was often chosen as a target and it was very close to having fallen in 1126, had Bohemund III and Joscelin concentrated their efforts instead of feuding. Aleppo too would have nipped the Zangids in the bud and Imam Zengi would never have been able to seize Aleppo and threaten the crusaders. However, they chose feuding.

Damascus was chosen because it was the land of the infidel. Any strategic considerations were downplayed by the fact that there was a considerable lobby among the new arrivals who wanted to invade it. In reality it was disastrous to invade Damascus but there was essentially nothing that Baldwin III could do to stop from pushing for the invasion since many didn't really contemplate the possibility of a Saracen-Crusader alliance. In hindsight Damascus might have important to keep the Zangids from conquering Egypt, but even then the armies of the Crusaders are far too frail to hold Damascus for long and with its fortifications damaged by whatever fighting and the besiegers almost out of supplies, the city would have fallen quickly and the Kingdom would be in a very precarious situation.
 
Damascus

There is an inherently false assumption. Yes, Damascus was an important area between Egypt and Syria. However, it is the very armchair strategists you are talking about that would have planned an invasion of Damascus. It was incredibly foolish to attempt to attack Damascus, an ally of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Aleppo was often chosen as a target and it was very close to having fallen in 1126, had Bohemund III and Joscelin concentrated their efforts instead of feuding. Aleppo too would have nipped the Zangids in the bud and Imam Zengi would never have been able to seize Aleppo and threaten the crusaders. However, they chose feuding.

Damascus was chosen because it was the land of the infidel. Any strategic considerations were downplayed by the fact that there was a considerable lobby among the new arrivals who wanted to invade it. In reality it was disastrous to invade Damascus but there was essentially nothing that Baldwin III could do to stop from pushing for the invasion since many didn't really contemplate the possibility of a Saracen-Crusader alliance. In hindsight Damascus might have important to keep the Zangids from conquering Egypt, but even then the armies of the Crusaders are far too frail to hold Damascus for long and with its fortifications damaged by whatever fighting and the besiegers almost out of supplies, the city would have fallen quickly and the Kingdom would be in a very precarious situation.
I agree. I don't think the Crusaders were strong enough to hold Damascus without massive help from the west, which was not forthcoming. And attacking an ally would not have bode well for the future.
 
There is an inherently false assumption. Yes, Damascus was an important area between Egypt and Syria. However, it is the very armchair strategists you are talking about that would have planned an invasion of Damascus. It was incredibly foolish to attempt to attack Damascus, an ally of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Aleppo was often chosen as a target and it was very close to having fallen in 1126, had Bohemund III and Joscelin concentrated their efforts instead of feuding. Aleppo too would have nipped the Zangids in the bud and Imam Zengi would never have been able to seize Aleppo and threaten the crusaders. However, they chose feuding.

Damascus was chosen because it was the land of the infidel. Any strategic considerations were downplayed by the fact that there was a considerable lobby among the new arrivals who wanted to invade it. In reality it was disastrous to invade Damascus but there was essentially nothing that Baldwin III could do to stop from pushing for the invasion since many didn't really contemplate the possibility of a Saracen-Crusader alliance. In hindsight Damascus might have important to keep the Zangids from conquering Egypt, but even then the armies of the Crusaders are far too frail to hold Damascus for long and with its fortifications damaged by whatever fighting and the besiegers almost out of supplies, the city would have fallen quickly and the Kingdom would be in a very precarious situation.


I`m not suggesting that the Crusaders had any strategic sense, they had very little and regularly shot themselves in the foot. What I am suggesting is that if they are going to capture a city with long term strategic value Damascus is the best one. Retaking Damascus will be one more tough job the Zhengids will have to do in their climb to hegemonic power, and every tough job, every hard seige is a risky undertaking which invites butterflies to do their dance.
 
Top