I half-heartedly apologize if this topic has already been discussed multiple times before, but i'll say it anyway.
As we all know, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa's last venture was his campaign in the Third Crusade. After defeating the Seljuks, he drowned in a river, his army abandoned the crusade, yadda yadda and all that.
So, assume that Frederick does not drown in Seleukeia in 1190. Fred was a quite strong and healthy man for the environment he lived in, i could easily see him living till his mid-70's. He keeps his large army together, and meets the other major participants of the Kings' Crusade, Philip II "Augustus" of France and Richard of England, at Antioch or somewhere nearby.
IIRC, Richard and Philip squabbled and argued plenty in OTL's crusader campaign, which led to the latter deciding to abandon ship and return to France in august 1191. Richard, alone, went on to score a stunning victory over Saladin at Arsuf a month later, but could not retake Jerusalem.
If, IATL, all three kings are present and cooperating (if still with some rivalry), what course of action will they take? Jerusalem is the obvious priority, but given the large armies now involved, could some soldiers be spared for conquering Damascus or Aleppo? Perhaps a future campaign in Egypt at an undefined date?
Another issue was Conrad of Montferrat's mysterious murder at the hands of the Hashashin in 1192. He was an ally of Frederick, and was well-poised to be a capable ruler of Jerusalem before the incident. If his assassination can be somehow avoided by butterflies, could the battered KoJ have a chance to recover?
Also, what about the reaction of the Byzantine Empire? Isaac Angelos was the emperor from 1185 to 1195, and there's plenty of evidence to point to him as a secret ally of Saladin. If Saladin is thoroughly beaten by the Crusader army and the Latin kingdoms are strengthened, how will Isaac react, given Frederick's previous threats towards the city Constantinople and increasing distrust against the Latin west (especially after the 1184 Massacre of the Latins)?
Any further thoughts?
 
Last edited:
i apologize if this topic has already been discussed multiple times before, but i'll say it anyway.
As we all know, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa's last venture was his campaign in the Third Crusade. After defeating the Seljuks, he drowned in a river, his army abandoned the crusade, yadda yadda and all that.
So, assume that Frederick does not drown in Seleukeia in 1190. Fred was a quite strong and healthy man for the environment he lived in, i could easily see him living till his mid-70's. He keeps his large army together, and meets the other major participants of the Kings' Crusade, Philip II "Augustus" of France and Richard of England, at Antioch or somewhere nearby.
IIRC, Richard and Philip squabbled and argued plenty in OTL's crusader campaign, which led to the latter deciding to abandon ship and return to France in august 1191. Richard, alone, went on to score a stunning victory over Saladin at Arsuf a month later, but could not retake Jerusalem.
If, IATL, all three kings are present and cooperating (if still with some rivalry), what course of action will they take? Jerusalem is the obvious priority, but given the large armies now involved, could some soldiers be spared for conquering Damascus or Aleppo? Perhaps a future campaign in Egypt at an undefined date?
Another issue was Conrad of Montferrat's mysterious murder at the hands of the Hashashin in 1192. He was an ally of Frederick, and was well-poised to be a capable ruler of Jerusalem before the incident. If his assassination can be somehow avoided by butterflies, could the battered KoJ have a chance to recover?
Also, what about the reaction of the Byzantine Empire? Isaac Angelos was the emperor from 1185 to 1195, and there's plenty of evidence to point to him as a secret ally of Saladin. If Saladin is thoroughly beaten by the Crusader army and the Latin kingdoms are strengthened, how will Isaac react, given Frederick's previous threats towards the city Constantinople and increasing distrust against the Latin west (especially after the 1184 Massacre of the Latins)?
Any further thoughts?
Montferrat was allegedly killed to make way for Henry of Champagne..
 
i apologize if this topic has already been discussed multiple times before, but i'll say it anyway.
As we all know, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa's last venture was his campaign in the Third Crusade. After defeating the Seljuks, he drowned in a river, his army abandoned the crusade, yadda yadda and all that.
So, assume that Frederick does not drown in Seleukeia in 1190. Fred was a quite strong and healthy man for the environment he lived in, i could easily see him living till his mid-70's. He keeps his large army together, and meets the other major participants of the Kings' Crusade, Philip II "Augustus" of France and Richard of England, at Antioch or somewhere nearby.
IIRC, Richard and Philip squabbled and argued plenty in OTL's crusader campaign, which led to the latter deciding to abandon ship and return to France in august 1191. Richard, alone, went on to score a stunning victory over Saladin at Arsuf a month later, but could not retake Jerusalem.
If, IATL, all three kings are present and cooperating (if still with some rivalry), what course of action will they take?

Whatever happens, there is no “rivalry” because Frederick significantly overweights Phillip and Richard in rank, experience and probably a number of troops (his and those who would rather follow him) as well.
 
Whatever happens, there is no “rivalry” because Frederick significantly overweights Phillip and Richard in rank, experience and probably a number of troops (his and those who would rather follow him) as well.
In OTL Richard had much contrasts with the Duke of Austria who was the leader or de-facto leader of the German contingent after Frederick’s death right?
Here that contrasts (over rank, position and similar things) will not happen so Philip II will not have the same chances for making mischief he had in OTL...
Likely Frederick will have the nominal leadership with Richard as real militar leader (as he is the first cousin once removed of Queens Sybilla and Isabella of Jerusalem).
Henry of Champagne was a nephew of both Richard and Philip while Conrad of Montferrat was an enemy of Richard (who was also the feudal lord of his rival Guy of Lusignan and a relative of the royal family of Jerusalem)
 
Last edited:
In OTL Richard had much contrasts with the Duke of Austria who was the leader or de-facto leader of the German contingent after Frederick’s death right?
Here that contrasts (over rank, position and similar things) will not happen so Philip II will not have the same chances for making mischief he had in OTL...
Likely Frederick will have the nominal leadership with Richard as real militar leader

Barbarossa hardly would need anybody but himself as a "military leader": his military career was quite impressive. Besides, Richard was affiliated with Barbarossa's opponents which should make his candidacy even less likely.
 
Top