WI The Second Crusaders are competent?

Just what it says on the tin: the initial bunch don't try to repeat the epic trek through Asia Minor and don't get wiped out, and then when the main body of the force arrives it decides to attack someone other than the Kingdom of Jerusalem's crucial ally.


What happens?
 
Just what it says on the tin: the initial bunch don't try to repeat the epic trek through Asia Minor and don't get wiped out, and then when the main body of the force arrives it decides to attack someone other than the Kingdom of Jerusalem's crucial ally.


What happens?

Well, how do they get to Palestine other than through Asia Minor, and why do they decide not to do it?

That's the first question.
 
Who would be next likely to be attacked, is there an obvious target, or is the choice less easy?

What is the reason for the change in strategy? Different leaders? Different circumstances? Muslim invasion of Kingdom Of Jerusalem?
 
The trek through Asia Minor was do-able, John Komnenos did it in 1137 and 1143 and Barbarossa in 1190. It`s just that the 2nd Crusaders were stubborn dickheads, when command of the rest of the march was given to a high ranking Templar no more incidents happened.

As for Damascus, taking it would sever Syria from Egypt until it was re-taken. Armies used to pass between these countries in the grazing and dry farming land on the edge of the desert. Damascus was on this route and was a prime strategic position, this is a permanent thing transcending any temporary alliance.
 
The trek through Asia Minor was do-able, John Komnenos did it in 1137 and 1143 and Barbarossa in 1190. It`s just that the 2nd Crusaders were stubborn dickheads, when command of the rest of the march was given to a high ranking Templar no more incidents happened.

As for Damascus, taking it would sever Syria from Egypt until it was re-taken. Armies used to pass between these countries in the grazing and dry farming land on the edge of the desert. Damascus was on this route and was a prime strategic position, this is a permanent thing transcending any temporary alliance.

On the other hand, if it's going to be attacked at all, it needs a much better strategy than was used OTL, and a lot less bickering on "So, when we take it, I want to control it." "No, me!" "No, me!".
 
Oh yes, they were idiots. It probably would have been better if Johnny K had taken it, at least then there would be no arguments about who owned it.
 
Who would be next likely to be attacked, is there an obvious target, or is the choice less easy?
Aleppo.

What is the reason for the change in strategy? Different leaders? Different circumstances? Muslim invasion of Kingdom Of Jerusalem?
The crusade's leaders actually listen to the King of Jerusalem?
 
Just what it says on the tin: the initial bunch don't try to repeat the epic trek through Asia Minor and don't get wiped out, and then when the main body of the force arrives it decides to attack someone other than the Kingdom of Jerusalem's crucial ally.


What happens?

The first epic trek worked, so why fix what ain't broken?
 
Oh yes, they were idiots. It probably would have been better if Johnny K had taken it, at least then there would be no arguments about who owned it.

Yeah. The Byzantines may be deeply resented already, but they do have an unambiguous legal claim to the area compared to any Western Europeans (including those within the KoJ for discussion's sake as "Western Europeans" - the Kingdom of Jerusalem's lands were all spear-won).
 
The first order of business for a competent Second Crusader would be to placate Roger II of Sicily. He was powerful, could have been a useful ally, and mucked up the edges of the Crusade IOTL by fighting with Byzantium.


How is placating Roger really possible, not sure. He's fought or disagreed with the Papacy, Byzantium, and King Conrad III of Germany for years. Also his feelings toward the Crusader States probably aren't so good as old King Baldwin I of Jerusalem married then threw out Roger's mother Adelaide. And their wedding contract had said if Adelaide bore no offspring for Baldwin, then Roger would become the next King of Jerusalem, which clearly didn't happen.

Some ideas:
- Have Pope Eugene III and King Conrad III (also King of Italy, for what it was worth) confirm all of Roger's gains in southern Italy.
- Promise him that one of his sons will become head of a Crusader State, say a newly conquered Aleppo.
- If he has an eligible/legitimate daughter, get a promise from Baldwin III of Jerusalem to marry her.
- Find him an appropriately tempting royal/noble wife, as he has been a widow since 1135 (and didn't remarry IOTL till 1149).


If Roger can be placating, what would the Crusaders like from him in exchange:
- At a bare minimum, don't go to war with Byzantium and have Byzantium actually believe he won't go to war with them. Perhaps send a son to live as a hostage?
- Extremely helpful would be to have his fleets transport the armies of Louis VII and the other French Lords to the Crusader States. With his past conflicts with King Conrad, ASB to think either side would trust putting German soldiers on Roger's ships.
- Amazing support would be to have Roger II send actual troops to fight in the Crusade.


Possible Benefits:
- The Byzantines aren't distracted by having to defend at land and at sea against Roger II's fleets, raids, and invasions. Theoritically they could focus more on the Crusade (which might not be a good thing) with supplies, ships, and maybe even troops.
- If Louis VII goes by ship, that removes the logistic stress and accompanying bad feelings caused by two large forces, separated by only a couple months, marching across the exact same land route through Hungary and the western Byzantine Empire to just get to Constantinople.
- If Louis VII arrives quicker in either Byzantium or the Crusader States by taking ships, then the campaign season might start sooner.
- A more secure Byzantium, with better feelings toward the Crusaders, might (a big might) be willing to use its fleets to transport King Conrad III(brother-in-law of Emperor Manuel's wife) and the German Crusaders to the Crusader States. Thus avoiding in its entirety the disasterous German march through Asia Minor.
 
Last edited:
The obvious targets are Edessa and Aleppo. If all goes well, maybe the Crusaders could go as far as Mosul and eliminate the Zengids altogether. I can only see that coming off if they had allies among the Moslem states.
 
One of these days I'll try a "Ladies Crusade" where everyone listens to Melisande and Eleanor since they seemed to actually have thought about things compared to everyone else. It might not have ended up much better, but it probably would have avoided the embarrassment of OTL.
 
One of these days I'll try a "Ladies Crusade" where everyone listens to Melisande and Eleanor since they seemed to actually have thought about things compared to everyone else. It might not have ended up much better, but it probably would have avoided the embarrassment of OTL.
And been more stylishly dressed?
 
How would the advice of those in Outremer have helped with the transit of Anatolia, which is where the 2nd Crusade really died in the arse?

As I understand it the Germans went ahead in 2 groups; Conrad went inland toward Iconium and was mostly destroyed at 2nd Dorylaeum. Otto with a much weaker force went went south within Byz territory and was destroyed near Laodicea. The French went the same route as Otto and made it to Laodicea where they were joined by Conrad and 2000 German survivors, but was defeated after a fuckup at Mt Cadmus. After Mt Cadmus Louis gave command of the march to a Templar whose name escape me and the march reached Attaleia without further incident. At Attaleia the Knights took ships direct to Outremer and the bulk of the army tried to march to Armeian Cicilia and was gutted on the way.

So all that arrived in Outremer were those who got ships from Atalleia and those who survived the overland trek, which doesn`t amount to much. No wonder the 2nd Crusade didn`t amount to much.
 
Second Crusade

Louis VII basically wanted to go on a crusade. He did'nt particularly care for the Prince of Antioch, Raymond of Poitiers, who was related to Eleanor of Aquitaine. The expedition would have been more successful had the crusade concentrated on attacking Nurredin. ( and possibly capturing Aleppo.).
 
Again, this Crusade was ruined in Anatolia, concentrating on Allepo with the shattered forces remaining won`t make this go away.
 
Again, this Crusade was ruined in Anatolia, concentrating on Allepo with the shattered forces remaining won`t make this go away.

Although it does seem they had enough to work with - though with the help of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which kind of undermines the idea of it being just the stupid foreign Franks messing with the KoJ (there was enough idiocy to go around) - to besiege Damascus, so why couldn't they concentrate on Aleppo?

Also, they didn't handle the siege very well, which is another thing that has to be fixed - we're just not looking at good leadership when it comes to Louis and whoever is representing the Germans (Not sure if Conrad was back with the others at Damascus, I know he had to take a convalescence in Constantinople).

This is almost doomed. And I say this as someone who thinks the crusades - the campaigns we number as such, that is - generally had at least a slim chance up until St. Louis's end. But when your leadership sucks and your forces are gutted . . .
 
Top