WI Jerusalem re-fortified from 1228.

Emperor Fredrick II won an unfortified Jerusalem by negotiation during the 6th Crusade. The locals didn't want it because it couldn't be held without holding Oultrejordain, so they didn't re-fortify it and the citadel fell in 27 days during the next siege 15 years later.

But what if they did? What if they used the 15 years they had to reclaim their hold on the area instead of sticking to their tiny coastal strip?
 
Wasn't Kerak de Chevaliars held after Hattin? From what I understand after Hattin and the 3rd Crusade Outremer was reduced to a coastal strip plus a few castles dotted here and there further inland. Adding Jerusalem to that would add a fair bit of hinterland territory, presumably strengthening the kingdom rather than weakening it, but apparently not as it turned out.
 
Wasn't Kerak de Chevaliars held after Hattin? From what I understand after Hattin and the 3rd Crusade Outremer was reduced to a coastal strip plus a few castles dotted here and there further inland. Adding Jerusalem to that would add a fair bit of hinterland territory, presumably strengthening the kingdom rather than weakening it, but apparently not as it turned out.
You seem to be confusing Kerak with Krak des Chevaliers. The former lies in Jordan and was captured by Saladin in 1189, the latter lies in Syria and was only captured in 1271.
 
Jerusalem

You still have the problem of manpower. Most of the soldiers killed at Hattin were natives, who could not be replaced. A re-fortified Jerusalem would have to be defended by one or both the military orders such as the Templars..
 
Apparently once Cyprus and the Empire were captured ambitious nobles preferred rich estates there rather than a hard life in Outremer. And who could blame them really?
 
I think that whether Jerusalem was re-fortified or not, Frederick II sealed the fate of the kingdom of Jerusalem. He, while excommunicated, crowned himself king of Jerusalem and threw out John of Brienne, the only good king Jerusalem had after Hattin. What basically followed was a civil war within the Kingdom of Jerusalem between forces loyal to Frederick and his son and those who favored the Kings of Cyprus. It was the civil war that doomed the kingdom and honestly the kingdom would have been better if Frederick had never shown up.
 
Jerusalem

I think that whether Jerusalem was re-fortified or not, Frederick II sealed the fate of the kingdom of Jerusalem. He, while excommunicated, crowned himself king of Jerusalem and threw out John of Brienne, the only good king Jerusalem had after Hattin. What basically followed was a civil war within the Kingdom of Jerusalem between forces loyal to Frederick and his son and those who favored the Kings of Cyprus. It was the civil war that doomed the kingdom and honestly the kingdom would have been better if Frederick had never shown up.
I agree. Frederick was more interested in his own ego than anything else.
 
I've given up on the Crusaders as a topic now, it's just too annoying. They negotiated bit by bit an expansion of the Kingdom and then went to war and lost it all. It's like they just couldn't be dumber.
 
Top