WI Frederick Barbarossa doesn’t drown (2023 ed)

[John Fredrick Parker]

What if Frederick Barbarossa didn't drown in the Göksu River? How would it have affected the Third Crusade and other things and events?

As long as Frederick is around, the Crusade has a leader with undisputed authority and there are much more German participants than in OTL. Which means that Richard is a less visible figure, especially taking into an account that he was associated with the “wrong” Germans. Degree of the Crusade’s success is anybody’s guess.

That extra manpower could help in making a real push for Jerusalem, but whether it can be taken is still up in the air. Frederick at least would be a valuable mediator between the egos of Richard and Philip, being the emperor and all.

Furthermore, Frederick would have final say as to who ends up as the King of Jerusalem, as there was a major squabble between Guy de Lusignan and Conrad of Montferrat.

Pretty likely who the Crusade will stay unite and Jerusalem will be retaken by the Crusaders.
The Emperor will be the main commander (and undisputed leader) of the Crusade, followed by Richard and Philip in this order (because the King of England was without doubt the better military commander of the two and was a kinsman of the Jerusalem’s royals).
With Frederick, Richard and Philip to decide about Jerusalem’s Crown, Conrad and Isabella would be recognized as rulers of Jerusalem much earlier than OTL (as Guy had already lost his right to rule with the deaths of his wife and their daughters) and that would likely imply an earlier cession of Cyprus to Guy from Richard

let's say that apart from what he has already highlighted John Frederick Parker, I would suggest a subtle change in the 3rd crusade, that is, that Frederick Barbarossa does not die crossing Anatolia, so that he brings his army of at least 20 thousand men to the holy land, which would be a formidable help to the weakened army of Outremer

So if I'm reading this right -- general consensus is, if Frederick Barbarossa doesn't die, then the Crusaders retake Jerusalem and Saladin fails to create the Ayubid Empire. Am I right?

Let’s see if we can work go short term to longer term with this: to start, assuming that the travels of Richard I and Phillip II are unaffected during said period (so they still arrive at Acre on April 20, 1191), how do the next ten months play out differently? Does the emperor intercede on the succession question in Jerusalem before they even arrive (especially since Sybeline still dies about a month after the PoD)? More generally, with the changes to these ten months and after the arrival of English and French forces, how does the Third Crusade proceed differently?

And once we have a sense of how the short term conflict plays out -- what if the longer term?

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

So if I'm reading this right -- general consensus is, if Frederick Barbarossa doesn't die, then the Crusaders retake Jerusalem and Saladin fails to create the Ayubid Empire. Am I right?

Let’s see if we can work go short term to longer term with this: to start, assuming that the travels of Richard I and Phillip II are unaffected during said period (so they still arrive at Acre on April 20, 1191), how do the next ten months play out differently? Does the emperor intercede on the succession question in Jerusalem before they even arrive (especially since Sybeline still dies about a month after the PoD)? More generally, with the changes to these ten months and after the arrival of English and French forces, how does the Third Crusade proceed differently?

And once we have a sense of how the short term conflict plays out -- what if the longer term?

The Fourth Crusade might be butterflied away but I'm not sure. Also, Saladin would be deposed after failing to defeat the Christian forces.

 

[Mikestone8]

So if I'm reading this right -- general consensus is, if Frederick Barbarossa doesn't die, then the Crusaders retake Jerusalem and Saladin fails to create the Ayubid Empire. Am I right?

Indeed if he lives beyond 1193 he *outlives* Saladin.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Also, Saladin would be deposed after failing to defeat the Christian forces.

So what happens to Egypt and Syria then? If we assume the Crusaders wouldn’t be any more successful taking Egypt than they were OTL, who rules there instead? More importantly, does this mean Syria and Egypt are politically divided?

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

So what happens to Egypt and Syria then? If we assume the Crusaders wouldn’t be any more successful taking Egypt than they were OTL, who rules there instead? More importantly, does this mean Syria and Egypt are politically divided?

The Fatimids likely remain in power in Egypt for a few decades afterwards, but Mamluks would have the real power. Syria would remain divided, though, with the prosperous cities in Crusader hands.

 

[piratedude]

Well, Freddy B's smartest move would be to move on, and hopefully take, Damascus on his way south. Moving on it puts Salah ad-Din in a tight spot, and if it's successfully taken it really improves the position of outremere a lot more than simply retaking Jerusalem would.

Also, Richard wasn't really wrong in realizing that a muslim held Egypt would be a constant geopolitical threat to a christian kingdom of Jerusalem

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Syria would remain divided, though, with the prosperous cities in Crusader hands.

Well, Freddy B's smartest move would be to move on, and hopefully take, Damascus on his way south. Moving on it puts Salah ad-Din in a tight spot, and if it's successfully taken it really improves the position of outremere a lot more than simply retaking Jerusalem would.

If both Damascus and Jerusalem fall, how tenuous is the muslim position in the levant? I ask because Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo are basically the only cities in the region that didn’t fall to the Crusaders at some point OTL.

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

If both Damascus and Jerusalem fall, how tenuous is the muslim position in the levant? I ask because Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo are basically the only cities in the region that didn’t fall to the Crusaders at some point OTL.

It would be significantly weaker, but not insurmountable, since the Muslims would still control Homs and Aleppo.

 

[HunterX]

The Fatimids likely remain in power in Egypt for a few decades afterwards, but Mamluks would have the real power. Syria would remain divided, though, with the prosperous cities in Crusader hands.

Fatimids were already toast by 1190. And too many butterflies to assume Mamluks ever come to power.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

It would be significantly weaker, but not insurmountable, since the Muslims would still control Homs and Aleppo.

And the former County of Edessa -- Second Crusade remember -- which I imagine Aleppo would protect. But if the Crusaders control pretty much every major city between Gaza and Antioch or Aleppo (including Jerusalem, Damascus, and Homs, and possibly Gaza itself as well) -- well what base of operations do the muslim powers have to threaten the crusader states?

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

And the former County of Edessa -- Second Crusade remember -- which I imagine Aleppo would protect. But if the Crusaders control pretty much every major city between Gaza and Antioch or Aleppo (including Jerusalem, Damascus, and Homs, and possibly Gaza itself as well) -- well what base of operations do the muslim powers have to threaten the crusader states?

Then the Muslims would be unable to launch offensives against the Crusaders.

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

Fatimids were already toast by 1190. And too many butterflies to assume Mamluks ever come to power.

They were overthrown in 1171. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Fatimids were already toast by 1190. And too many butterflies to assume Mamluks ever come to power.

They were overthrown in 1171. Thanks for pointing that out!

So who do you think rules Egypt in this scenario?

Then the Muslims would be unable to launch offensives against the Crusaders.

Wow, that makes for a very different 13th Century..,

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

So who do you think rules Egypt in this scenario?

Probably a completely diferent dynasty founded by a Muslim general or noble claiming descent from Muhammad.

 

[Elfwine]

And the former County of Edessa -- Second Crusade remember -- which I imagine Aleppo would protect. But if the Crusaders control pretty much every major city between Gaza and Antioch or Aleppo (including Jerusalem, Damascus, and Homs, and possibly Gaza itself as well) -- well what base of operations do the muslim powers have to threaten the crusader states?

A question:
How exactly are you achieving this (as in not just Jerusalem but Damascus, Homs, etc.) from Barbarossa not drowning?

And of course, even if that happens...Mosul comes to mind for one. The Seljuks of Rum are (as of the 3rd Crusade) not an immediate threat, but they're not too far away from the Crusader States once things settle down there.

Egypt itself isn't either.

This would certainly be a different 13th century, but not one where the Muslim powers are unable to do anything aggressive. I am honestly wondering what happens to Saladin's brother as far as Egypt (even in the chance Saladin himself loses power), since "Barbarossa retakes Jerusalem." and "Barbarosa totally destroys the Ayyubids." are not the same thing.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

How exactly are you achieving this (as in not just Jerusalem but Damascus, Homs, etc.) from Barbarossa not drowning?

It was suggested earlier that Barbarossa attacks Damascus instead of beelining to Acre or Jerusalem; thinking about it though, Homs would make more sense, geographically speaking. By the time said city falls, the other two monarchs likely land in Acre, and Frederick will want to meet up with them.

In any event, having Jerusalem fall back into Crusader hands after this seems simple enough, considering it came close to happening OTL with just Richard. Would Damascus be likely to hold after all that? I suppose it would depend in part on how United the muslims are at that point, and how tired the Crusaders are. But it seems doable.

And of course, even if that happens...Mosul comes to mind for one. The Seljuks of Rum are (as of the 3rd Crusade) not an immediate threat, but they're not too far away from the Crusader States once things settle down there. Egypt itself isn't either.

This would certainly be a different 13th century, but not one where the Muslim powers are unable to do anything aggressive.

Mosul is controlling Edessa and Aleppo here, right? Then yeah, they are a threat. The Sejuks would have to go through Armenian Cilicia before they could do anything else; that said, they start by doing that much, especially with Mosul’s help.

As for Egypt -- even if they control Gaza (which the Crusaders will likely contest), they have a harder time supply lines to invade; depending on the political situation in Egypt, that could be particularly challenging.

I am honestly wondering what happens to Saladin's brother as far as Egypt (even in the chance Saladin himself loses power)…

That’s a good point.

 

[Elfwine]

It was suggested earlier that Barbarossa attacks Damascus instead of beelining to Acre or Jerusalem; thinking about it though, Homs would make more sense, geographically speaking. By the time said city falls, the other two monarchs likely land in Acre, and Frederick will want to meet up with them.

In any event, having Jerusalem fall back into Crusader hands after this seems simple enough, considering it came close to happening OTL with just Richard. Would Damascus be likely to hold after all that? I suppose it would depend in part on how United the muslims are at that point, and how tired the Crusaders are. But it seems doable.

It seems feasible it could fall, but I'm certainly not betting on it being merely a matter of Barbarossa showing up as opposed to an extended campaign on its own (perhaps no longer than the OTL 3rd Crusade, but not significantly shorter if we're talking more than simply occupying the city itself and ignoring places like Ascalon or inland castles).

Damascus feels like it would be a campaign too far at this point. Most of the Crusaders are going to feel they did what they came for once Jerusalem is taken and secured, at a minimum, and Barbarossa is (in 1191) 68-69 and bearing the weight of extra campaigning even if he's lived past June 1190. Add in any other reasons for anyone to want to return home as affairs there and I'm reasonably confident in asserting it's not going to happen unless its wide open to attack.

Maybe a later follow up - I can't imagine Henry (Barbarossa's son) would mind launching a crusade TTL - but here and now needs to establish that the crusade has what it came for secured, IMO.

Mosul is controlling Edessa and Aleppo here, right? Then yeah, they are a threat. The Sejuks would have to go through Armenian Cilicia before they could do anything else; that said, they start by doing that much, especially with Mosul’s help.

As for Egypt -- even if they control Gaza (which the Crusaders will likely contest), they have a harder time supply lines to invade; depending on the political situation in Egypt, that could be particularly challenging.

Both of those are very possible (going through Cilicia and Gaza). Even if the Seljuks don't go around Cilicia, which is not great but not impossible.

If we can suggest that the Crusaders could even consider taking Damascus in 1191, I think expecting Egypt to find campaigns in the Levant a logistical ordeal is going to need something suggesting they're really bad at what hasn't been out of reach for campaigning for Egypt since it had pharaohs.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

It seems feasible it could fall, but I'm certainly not betting on it being merely a matter of Barbarossa showing up as opposed to an extended campaign on its own (perhaps no longer than the OTL 3rd Crusade, but not significantly shorter if we're talking more than simply occupying the city itself and ignoring places like Ascalon or inland castles).

I think it was implicit that Barbarossa would be spending several months besieging Homs; that’s most of what he’s doing in the ten months between the PoD and Richard and Phillip showing up.

Acre, Ascalon, Jerusalem -- those cities can wait for when he can hook up with said reinforcements.

 

[Elfwine]

I think it was implicit that Barbarossa would be spending several months besieging Homs; that’s most of what he’s doing in the ten months between the PoD and Richard and Phillip showing up.

Acre, Ascalon, Jerusalem -- those cities can wait for when he can hook up with said reinforcements.

Surely. But ten months of campaigning (and disease hit the Germans hard around Antioch OTL, if I'm not mistaken) and marching is leaving a diminished force for once they do reach Jerusalem and deal with the rest of that area.

It's better than OTL for the Crusaders most likely, but I'd err on the side of cautious for how much better past the point of "Can Jerusalem be retaken?"

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@Elfwine Think of it this way - - since he got to the Holy Land ten months before his allies, Barbarossa is going to have to be doing something before they show up; might as well be something useful. And as long as he and/or some fraction of his army is still around when they do, that in itself will make taking Jerusalem more likely; and considering how close it was OTL, that’s about the same as saying it does happen.

Beyond that, we can err on the side of caution.