WI the Crusader States did not suffer such succession crises

WI the Crusader States did not suffer such succession crises

Reading the genealogies of the major players in Antioch, Edessa, Tripoli and Jerusalem itself, one is struck by how much they diverted their enegies into succession crises rather than against the common enemy. Of course, I realise that having lived and settled there they did not see the Muslim states surrounding them in the same black/White way as did people back in West/Central Europe, but the draining of manpower fighting against and among themselves was certainly a major contributory factor to the eventual loss of territory

I am not proposing that these individuals suddenly adopt a different world view, such would be too massive a change, but if the succession to the major titles actually went SOMEWHAT better than in OTL then the states would be stronger at various crucial moments in their OTL decline

Given contemporaneous European history I am probably asking for the Crusader states to have some GOOD LUCK rather than not to have BAD LUCK, since in comparison with many other nations their plight is nothing special. It only had greater implications in its consequences.

But there are things - Baldwin III had 4 daughters and no sons, Baldwin IV had leprosy, Baldwin V inherited the throne at a crucial stage as a minor. This is definitely a RUN of bad luck, even if each individual instance is nothing special in contemporary terms

Antioch was a key, an anchor, and was undone as much through dynastic crises as through military outcomes. What if these crises were lessened, the succession clearer - no female regents, no minorities ? Or at least FEWER thereof, since none is stretching it

WI Antioch had been merged into Armenia (Cilicia) ? A couple of occasions offered this possibility, not least with Guy de Lusignan/Constantine IV, but the elders of Antioch could not see the dangers - a weak independence versus a strong unification. Perhaps one cannot blame them for this (why vote to subsume your identity in someone else's ?) but it would soon destroy them

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The problem is that the Latin East seemed to kill off a lot of leaders, either through actual war (things like the Field of Blood, and the Battle of Hattin) or through a lack of heirs (Several crisis in Antioch; the Kingdom of Jerusalem brought in King Fulk, King Guy, and many others following Guy because of a lack of male heirs; and Raymond III of Tripoli's inability to just assume the throne).

There was a small population, and a lot of danger and disease, which combinded to make the Latin East particularly vulnerable to these kinds of crisis. Having said that, I think the Latin East generally showed more unity than a lot of their european counter-parts, the Latin East didn't reach out and out latin-on-latin war, even in periods of intense political manuvering.

I think if the Latin East had been able to maintain itself in the Levant, you probably would have seen the area develop a lot like Italy, with bastards raised as part of the family and having the ability to inherit pieces of their fathers' estates. This would have been necessary, because of the noble families' high die-off rate. Bastard heirs are better than no heirs at all.
 
Top