WI King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem dies at 1179?

In April 1179 while leading the army against the forces of Saladin in the battle of Banias King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem was caught off guard by a small detachment of Arabs soldiers lead by Saladin's nephew Faruk Shah... The King was thrown off his horse but he was saved the last moment by Humphrey II de Toron who was mortally wounded while protecting the King...
WI Baldwin IV dies then? His nephew was only 2 years old Sibylla was still a widow and Isabella was an infant... Could Raymond of Tripoli staged a coup and claimed power for himself? Or Baldwn d' Ibelin breaks through and marries (forcibly perhaps?) Sibylle? How i that changing History? Any thoughts?
 
I am thinking of it... But now i am working on something different... i am writing a dramatological analysis of Euripede's Bacchae.... But i have plans for that too...
 

Keenir

Banned
In April 1179 while leading the army against the forces of Saladin in the battle of Banias King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem was caught off guard by a small detachment of Arabs soldiers lead by Saladin's nephew Faruk Shah... The King was thrown off his horse but he was saved the last moment by Humphrey II de Toron who was mortally wounded while protecting the King...
WI Baldwin IV dies then? His nephew was only 2 years old Sibylla was still a widow and Isabella was an infant... Could Raymond of Tripoli staged a coup and claimed power for himself? Or Baldwn d' Ibelin breaks through and marries (forcibly perhaps?) Sibylle? How i that changing History? Any thoughts?

I might tackle something like that...if I do, do you know of any good references (aside from wiki) that I could use?
 
With Baldwin IV dead i think that leaves the way open for Baldwin d'Ibelin to marry Sibylla and claim the regency for himself in the name of his step-son the 2-year Baldwin V... Unless Raymond III of Tripoli decides to take action against Baldwin since he would be the closest male blood relative to Baldwin IV (through female line but it wouldnt matter anyway in the ensuing chaos...)
 
With Baldwin IV dead i think that leaves the way open for Baldwin d'Ibelin to marry Sibylla and claim the regency for himself in the name of his step-son the 2-year Baldwin V... Unless Raymond III of Tripoli decides to take action against Baldwin since he would be the closest male blood relative to Baldwin IV (through female line but it wouldnt matter anyway in the ensuing chaos...)

By this point though Jerusalem was already doomed. Since the failed 2nd Crusade the Syrian frontier had been united against the Crusaders, and Egypt was now under the control of Saladin. Now Egypt had been a frontier for the Kingdom of Jerusalem, but as the wars Jerusalem fought in Egypt showed, Jerusalem simply did not have the manpower to make any military victory stick (in the sense of conquest).

Now while some of those things could change (Saladin could die, fomenting civil war and Muslim infighting), the Kingdom of Jerusalem's lack of manpower was simply fatal. Unless you have a large POD that allows the Latin Crusaders to control much more of Syria (as in Aleppo or Damascus) then you're not going to have the native supply of manpower to allow the Crusaders extended staying power.

However, if you solve this manpower problem, perhaps with the capture of Aleppo or Damascus in the 1st Crusade, then I think that the possibilities are much larger for the Crusaders. With more manpower, the conquest of Egypt becomes a slim but distinct possibility (especially in alliance with the Byzantines- OTL the alliance and attempt was made, but lack of manpower and joint planning doomed the operation). And if Egypt falls to actual Crusader conquest, then the Nile River Valley could provide the venue that could attract enough European knights and other settlers to make a much longer-term Latin presence in the East possible.
 
With this scenario the Kingdom is not doomed by Saladin... It will collapse from the internal struggle for the throne... if Raymond III attempts a coup to claim the Throne this leads directly to civil war between the Court faction and the Barons faction...
 
With this scenario the Kingdom is not doomed by Saladin... It will collapse from the internal struggle for the throne... if Raymond III attempts a coup to claim the Throne this leads directly to civil war between the Court faction and the Barons faction...

My friend, look at the Latin history in the East. Nur al-Din forced the Crusaders into Egypt after the failure of the 2nd Crusade by uniting Aleppo and Damascus. Then the Latins, despite an alliance with the Fatimid Caliph and several military victories were unable to conquer Egypt. Saladin united Syria and Egypt and that was it, game over for the Latins.

Unless the Latins gets Aleppo or Damascus, then this scenario will play out at some point, and the Latins will lose.

Did Latin internal politics play a role in the exact time of Latin failure? Sure. But completely stable Latin internal politics wouldn't save them from the basic demographic and strategic position they were in.
 
Well WI if we add a succesfull assassination attempt against Saladin? Without Saladin the Arab realm will sunk into civil war and will be split in 2 parts... And if we have a strong King in Jerusalem (like Raymond III of Tripoli or Baldwin d'Ibelin) Crusader States might have a chance...
 
Well WI if we add a succesfull assassination attempt against Saladin? Without Saladin the Arab realm will sunk into civil war and will be split in 2 parts... And if we have a strong King in Jerusalem (like Raymond III of Tripoli or Baldwin d'Ibelin) Crusader States might have a chance...

While a strong King could certainly keep them independent for a decade or two more, the Latin East does not have the native manpower to take either Aleppo or Damascus (and no where near enough to conquer Egypt). Plus, the West doesn't seem likely to launch another Crusade in the East while the Latins still hold Jerusalem, so that takes out the major potential outside troop supply.

I remain convinced the Latin East could have survived, with the fall of Aleppo or Damascus in the First Crusade, or with the 2nd Crusade deciding to go after Aleppo and then vigorously handwaving (Nur al-Din killed in the attempt to relieve the city, so city's defenders are disheartened, city falls).

Then you award that city to one of the Western Crusaders, preferably one with a few sons. Aleppo will become a powerful county, as it is the end of the Silk Road (the city's position made it larger, richer, and more strategic than Damascus, but the latters biblical importance played a prominent role in the 2nd Crusades selection). It also has some pretty good agricultural land around it, and whomever become the Count of Aleppo will become a wealthy and powerful lord in the East. He will probably end up holding the balance of power in the East, because his manpower and his coffers could support the successful attempt to take Damascus. He will also be commanding the frontier against any attempts to retake Aleppo, or attack Jerusalem from the north or east (for instance an attacks from al-Din's family, which is based in Mosul).
 
Montferrat had interests in the area... The Marquises de Montferrat were close blood relatives to the infant King Baldwin V so they could claim some authority and bring with them foreign aid... But i doubt if the local Nobility would allow them to interfere...
 
Montferrat had interests in the area... The Marquises de Montferrat were close blood relatives to the infant King Baldwin V so they could claim some authority and bring with them foreign aid... But i doubt if the local Nobility would allow them to interfere...

And there lies the whole problem that the East had. The Eastern Latins knew what had to be done, but didn't have the manpower to make it happen. The Western Latins had the manpower, but no idea of the on-the-ground realities in the East. So the West messed things up, and the East didn't have the manpower to clean up the mess (witness the lead up to the Fall of Jerusalem).

Solve the native manpower issue, and you will save the East. The fact is that without solving the manpower issue, at some point the internal politics will not be optimal and the Frankish East will be destroyed (as per OTL).
 
Solve the native manpower issue, and you will save the East. The fact is that without solving the manpower issue, at some point the internal politics will not be optimal and the Frankish East will be destroyed (as per OTL).
Depends a lot on how native they go. If they become sufficiently intergrated onto the politcal and economic situation of the Levant they could last rather longer even without the manpower. Of course if the manpower thing were solved they would still become increasingle estraged from Latin Europe (recall the differences involved stances on forced conversion and killing every muslim in sight).

HTG
 
Depends a lot on how native they go. If they become sufficiently intergrated onto the politcal and economic situation of the Levant they could last rather longer even without the manpower. Of course if the manpower thing were solved they would still become increasingle estraged from Latin Europe (recall the differences involved stances on forced conversion and killing every muslim in sight).

I should be more specific on what I mean by "manpower"- I mean European knights. The Latin Armies were based on heavy calvary (knights) and needed more land in order to support more knights. This is basically part of a larger need for greater strategic depth. The only way to increase European manpower was to expand into Syria (via either Aleppo or Damascus). This expansion would both increase manpower and create a large buffer for the Latin East. Basically, if Aleppo and Damascus can both be captured, then there the Latins would be able to significantly reduce the threat from the East. Basically, Syria forms a rather nice little unit, and if you can take that unit, then it there is not another base to launch an easy attack on any Syrian city.

A totally Latin-occupied Syria would be able to survive for a long time. It would have the manpower to be able to beat off Muslim invasions, and would control the end point of the Silk Road, so it would have a lot of economic might. Further military expeditions could be launched north, to aid the Byzantines in their war against the Iconium Sultanate, or south, into Fatimid Egypt.

The politics of such a Latin state would be really cool, because you have the Kingdom of Jerusalem, occupying some spiritually important land (and thus $$$ from pilgrams), while the Counts of Aleppo and Damascus would be fighting over market share from the Silk Road. The Latin lords who rule Aleppo and Damscus are going to very rich princes, who will probably be able to be basically independent of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (and the Byzantine Empire). If a King of Jerusalem gets Aleppo though, he may be able to use the economic leverage from that possession to unify the kingdom. Your also going to be dealing with some cool urban politics. I bet that with Latin control of the end point of the Silk Road, you'll see more conversions to Latin Catholicism among Arab merchants, who will probably face legal prohibitions on trade if they remain muslims. The trade wealth in Damascus and Aleppo could even lead to a situation like in Italy, where successful merchants are able to marginalize or overthrow their princes. Additionally, death was common among the Eastern Latins, and this would probably continue even with larger numbers of Latins. Things like legitimizing bastards will probably be common (I think it already was OTL) in order to keep family lines going. This is going to contribute to an interesting political situation, with bastards running counties, and Arab Merchant-Princes running cities.
 
Baldwin IV

Perhaps an intervention of western powers may have come into play. I remember vaguely that the ultimate responsibility lay with the Holy Roman Empire, France, and England. The kingdom may even have become some sort of colonial dependancy as the only means of prolonged survival.
 
Perhaps an intervention of western powers may have come into play. I remember vaguely that the ultimate responsibility lay with the Holy Roman Empire, France, and England. The kingdom may even have become some sort of colonial dependancy as the only means of prolonged survival.

So why didn't this happen OTL?
 
Baldwin IV

From what I remember, the western faction defied Baldwin IV's will when Guy and Sybilla were crowned in 1186.
 
Top