What's new

The Leper King's Legacy

#1
There are two ripples in this scenario.

The first one takes place at the Battle of Montgisard, on the 25th of November in the Year Of Our Lord 1177. With just 1000 knights and 4000 infantrymen, the terminally ill King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem won against an Ayyubid Army consisting of 21,000-26,000 men and slew 90% of them. Salah ad-Din, the leader of that army and the Sultan of Egypt and Syria, attempted to escape on a racing camel. However the camel tripped and broke it's leg before it could get it's rider off of the battlefield, and so Salah ad-Din was surrounded by Crusader Infantrymen and killed on the spot. The next ripple occurred in the Year Of Our Lord 1186. The New King, Baldwin V of Jerusalem (the nephew of The Leper King), recovered from his ill health and became far more robust. In addition to living long enough to marry and produce an heir, he'll also keep Guy and Sibylla off of the throne.

With these two changes, would the Crusader States be able to survive and possibly even come to dominate the Middle East?
 

Eliar

Active member
#2
Nope! The crusader states at this point are one decisive defeat from being wiped out and the constant and incessant raiding by the surrounding Turks/Kurds/Arabs have kept and will keep them that way until the next Muslim overlord, Seljuks or Mongols or Mamluks or Turks put them out of their misery
 
#4
Nope! The crusader states at this point are one decisive defeat from being wiped out and the constant and incessant raiding by the surrounding Turks/Kurds/Arabs have kept and will keep them that way until the next Muslim overlord, Seljuks or Mongols or Mamluks or Turks put them out of their misery
This isn't all that accurate. Please don't make sweeping generalizations.

The man reason the Crusaders lost Jerusalem was due to the Battle of Hattin, in which they lost their entire army (not because they were low on soldiers to begin with, but because King Guy decided to put all his eggs in that basket). If Saladin is dead, and if Guy isn't on the throne, then it's likely the Battle of Hattin doesn't happen. Moreover, when Saladin died his empire was divided among two of his sons (Al-Aziz Uthman got Egypt, and Al-Afdal ibn Salah ad-Din got Syria) so that means the the Crusaders wouldn't be facing one united force anymore. Especially not if the two brothers decided to wage war against each other (as was often the case when a realm was divided among sons). It seems to me this would, at the very least, buy the Crusader States some time.

If the Kings decide to launch a Crusade (possibly against Egypt or Anatolia), then that could lead to the establishment of some new Crusader States.
 

Eliar

Active member
#5
This isn't all that accurate. Please don't make sweeping generalizations.

The man reason the Crusaders lost Jerusalem was due to the Battle of Hattin, in which they lost their entire army (not because they were low on soldiers to begin with, but because King Guy decided to put all his eggs in that basket). If Saladin is dead, and if Guy isn't on the throne, then it's likely the Battle of Hattin doesn't happen. Moreover, when Saladin died his empire was divided among two of his sons (Al-Aziz Uthman got Egypt, and Al-Afdal ibn Salah ad-Din got Syria) so that means the the Crusaders wouldn't be facing one united force anymore. Especially not if the two brothers decided to wage war against each other (as was often the case when a realm was divided among sons). It seems to me this would, at the very least, buy the Crusader States some time.

If the Kings decide to launch a Crusade (possibly against Egypt or Anatolia), then that could lead to the establishment of some new Crusader States.
The crusader states needed a massive influx of new blood/settlers and some breathing room. They never got either and I doubt they will in the new timeline, especially if the Byzantines bite it like OTL. There are too few of them and too many opponents all around and the initial tech and tactical advantage they enjoyed is gone. To cling to hope of a new successful crusade is a pretty forlorn one.

Not impossible but pretty far out there.
 
#6
The crusader states needed a massive influx of new blood/settlers and some breathing room. They never got either and I doubt they will in the new timeline, especially if the Byzantines bite it like OTL. There are too few of them and too many opponents all around and the initial tech and tactical advantage they enjoyed is gone. To cling to hope of a new successful crusade is a pretty forlorn one.
The breathing room is Saladin's death and the power struggle that would likely arise between his two sons. The new blood would come in the 3rd Crusade, when the Kings arrive with their armies to reinforce the Crusader States and conquer more lands.
 

Eliar

Active member
#7
The breathing room is Saladin's death and the power struggle that would likely arise between his two sons. The new blood would come in the 3rd Crusade, when the Kings arrive with their armies to reinforce the Crusader States and conquer more lands.
The third crusade was launched in response to the loss at Hattin and most important of all the fall of Jerusalem. I assume a similar disaster would be needed to prompt the launch of a third crusade. More important is that Crusades and crusading in general was for the vast majority of participants combat tourism with a side order of pilgrimage and looting. In the event of a Crusade some would stay. The majority would leave once the goal was reached or the Crusade was declared failed.
 
#8
The third crusade was launched in response to the loss at Hattin and most important of all the fall of Jerusalem. I assume a similar disaster would be needed to prompt the launch of a third crusade.
Maybe, but there would have been more crusades even if Jerusalem didn't fall. The Second Crusade was called specifically to reinforce Jerusalem. It could be that a third one could be called for the same purpose.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top