WI: Pope Honorius III does not declare a Crusade?

Following the death of Pope Innocent III and the Lateran Council of 1215, Pope Honorius was put under pressure to call a Crusade. To give the movement any hope of success, the Pope called on his former pupil Emperor Frederick II for support. In an attempt to convince him to reclaim the Holy Lands, the Pope yielded to the emperor in many things which under different circumstances he would have strenuously opposed. This included such things as supporting Frederick's son Henry as King of the Romans, effectively uniting the Kingdom of Sicily and the Holy Roman Empire.

So, what if, Pope Honorius just continues delaying the Fifth Crusade until his death in 1227? He was already overstretched dealing with matters in Europe and believed that peace was needed between the European kingdoms before success could be met in the Holy Lands. It is not impossible to imagine him deciding Europe 'unready' and continually delaying until his death.
 
Hmmm, no responses? I suppose I can start this off then.

The pontificate of Pope Honorius III represented a significant loss of temporal power and prestige of the papacy. Despite being elected at the height of Papal power, Honorius was terrified that if he relied on the same methods as his predecessor, he would cause a complete break with Frederick and undermine the mission. Instead, he resorted to appeasing him, which Fredrick recognized and exploited. This would set the stage for an increasingly marginalized Papacy. The Pope would never again wield the same power as Innocent III had.

Without a Fifth Crusade for Frederick to lord of Honorius's head, many actions of his papacy simply do not occur or at least happen under different circumstances. Although I do think the degree of authority wielded by Innocent is unsustainable, this would at least delay the Papacy's decline a bit. Without the compromise regarding Frederick's son, the Papal State is left in a better position for future battles with the Holy Roman Emperor. It is also possible that Honorius withholds from crowning Frederick himself in 1220, as it was only done in hopes of hastening the ruler's departure. I'm also guessing his marriage to Isabella II of Jerusalem is aborted. Who he marries instead I'm not certain.


In addition, this frees Honorius's hands to do what he genuinely wanted to, rooting out heresy and promoting peace between the Catholic powers. By intervening in the Holy Land, he overstretched himself. He had already bound himself to forward the repression of Cathar heresy in the south of France, the war for the faith in the Spanish peninsula, the planting of Christianity in the lands along the Baltic Sea, and the maintenance of the impossible Latin empire in Constantinople. It is likely that the Cathar heresy and Albigensian Crusade receive more attention but I'm not sure if he can do much to combat the resurgence of Catharism brought about by Raymond and his son. He could pressure the French king to intervene sooner, but again I am unsure about how successful this would be.

Then again, I'm not really an expert. I probably made a mistake somewhere along the line.
 
Nothing? I thought that someone would surely have found this interesting.

Is it ASB? I know Innocent issued Quia maior in 1215, calling for all of Christendom to reclaim the Holy Land, but it does not specify when this should occur. Honorius III even delayed the actual declaration until 1217.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this gives a short break between the Fourth Crusade and the next. While I doubt the outcome would be significantly altered, it does offer an opportunity to rest and recover manpower.
 
Top