Personally I agree more with @Elfwine. I don’t think Barbarossa surviving and his army participating in the third crusade is the end all be all that’ll so utterly destroy the Muslims and expand the crusader states to the point of the Muslims being unable to invade again as has been suggested. I think if the German army, and the French army (as iirc Phillipe Augustus left after Fredrick died so maybe they’d stay this time?) taking part would’ve made the third crusade a more successful war. I do think the Kingdom of Jerusalem would’ve been restored and possibly gain some minor strategic gains. But I don’t think it would be some end all be all defeat for the Muslims. Not unless we see Saladin and his Ayubid dynasty fall, with Egypt and Syria not only soundly defeated by the crusaders but also left in turmoil long enough for the crusader states to catch their breath and if the two never reunite. That’s not impossible but not to the degree as some have said here. And even if Egypt and Syria go through turmoil I don’t see the Muslims being forever pushed back and eventually we will see another round of wars.
WI Frederick Barbarossa doesn’t drown (2023 ed)
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
I think the events there are, at best, "if things go well for Frederick". Not ASB, but not a normal middle of the road scenario that only the worst possible turn of events (from a German POV) prevented from being realized.
As stated before, if it was simply one field battle going his way, that's believable. But treating it like there's nothing in the entire period between June 10 (picked since well, he doesn't die then TTL) and December to meaningfully complicate this - if you want to write that, write that.
I don't know what else there is to say on that.
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Technically, me and Elfwine have lately only been going back and forth on whether Frederick can secure the Orontes (north of Homs) in the ten months he has before the arrival of Richard and Phillip; beyond that, I would agree the three monarchs working together and settling the leadership of Jerusalem is likely to be enough to restore the Kingdom to its pre-Saladin borders (or at least securing the coast as far south as Asacalom and/or Darum and pushing inland as far as the Dead Sea and Jordan River. After that...
There are two major strongholds in Muslim Syria worth noting at this point -- Homs and Damascus. By the time you get as far north as Aleppo, you're practically knocking on the door of Mosul or the Sejuks.
Now, I'm not saying the Third Crusade takes these two major strongholds while also restoring the Kingdom of Jerusalem. But I am saying that, with another crusade down the line, not only could Egypt and Syria be cut off from each other, but "Muslim Syria" could become effectively non-existent (notwithstanding Aleppo, etc); Egypt could invade the Kingdom of Jerusalem from the south, and Antioch could be attacked from the northeast (by way of Edessa and Aleppo), but the muslim powers can't fully suround the Crusaders from the due east. Yes yes, those two cities have to actually have to fall first -- but in this scenario, it's something that the Crusaders and the Crusader States could seriously consider.
That's the general direction anyway; getting there is another matter.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Even if we disagree about the particulars, there seems to be consensus that at the very least the Kingdom of Jerusalem reclaims its namesake city and at least most of its lost territory. What can we infer about the wider 13th Century based on this change alone?
First, would there be subsequent crusades, and if there were, would they focus on conquering Egypt? If no, that would mean no Fourth Crusade, to start; it might also mean less conflict between the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor (“less” as in below OTL Frederick II levels). Would the papacy try, as it did under Innocent III and his successors, to claim the mantle of ruling Christendom? What other changes could we see?
First, would there be subsequent crusades, and if there were, would they focus on conquering Egypt? If no, that would mean no Fourth Crusade, to start; it might also mean less conflict between the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor (“less” as in below OTL Frederick II levels). Would the papacy try, as it did under Innocent III and his successors, to claim the mantle of ruling Christendom? What other changes could we see?
Well first off who becomes King of Jerusalem? Does Frederick come down in favor of Guy of Lusingion? Is the death of Conrad of Monferrato butterflied away? And if it is, is Isabella made to marry a German instead of Hugh of Blois?
I think Frederick will favor Conrad in his dispute with Guy because he would want to favor a dynasty with ties to the Empire, though I am not sure what his relationship was to the Alermaci at the time.
Saladin is probably going to die at around the same time as OTL, if not sooner due to the stress of losing Jerusalem. His realm will split between Egypt and Syria, giving the Latins time to breathe.
I think Frederick will favor Conrad in his dispute with Guy because he would want to favor a dynasty with ties to the Empire, though I am not sure what his relationship was to the Alermaci at the time.
Saladin is probably going to die at around the same time as OTL, if not sooner due to the stress of losing Jerusalem. His realm will split between Egypt and Syria, giving the Latins time to breathe.
Guy of Lusingan would remain King while his wife lives. If Sybilla still dies as OTL and none of their children survive, then Isabella would be thee undisputed Queen.
Who is that Hugh of Blois? If you mean Isabella’s third husband he was called Henry of Champagne and if Conrad still die (likely) I doubt who Frederick would put some candidate of his own over Henry, who is half-nephew of both Richard and Philip
Yeah, Elfwine, I think you are getting misdirected by Parker mentioning the specific names of fortifications, when this is just fundamentally minor frontier adjustment with no truly major strongholds. The comparison to the Siege of Crema, a fairly large city, is not these minor strongholds (it is perfectly normal for siege of these smaller places to last as little as days). Rather it is the major fortresses. Damascus, Homs, Aleppo, etc. Which indeed will take a long time almost certainly even if successful. I suspect it will follow course Parker says initially. Then probably head down to relieve the Siege of Acre. By that time likely stick around, wait for other crusaders.
I doubt though the pre-Hattin borders will be restored. Having a clear leader will help, but leadership disputes are par for the crusader norm. They will still have to chop along the coast. Then strike inland. Which will be a major siege. Took 6 weeks to capture Jerusalem first time. 2 weeks for Saladin but that was a negotiated surrender as defenders knew situation was helpless. Attrition and logistics will be much worse inland. They likely succeed. But a lot of the crusaders will consider themselves done at that point. I think pretty likely are the 1229 borders on this map plus Ascalon, Gaza, and an Antioch extending SW to Hama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Crusade#/media/File:Map_Crusader_states_1240-eng.png. Maybe even as far as Jordan river with good negotiation. But not Oultrejordain, which means Saladin retains a secure route connecting Egypt and Syria and the major cities of inland Syria (there are strong fortresses in Oultrejordain, Saladin will be *very* relucant to cede them, and it is dangerously far inland, plus of course crusaders dropping out post-Jerusalem. Not happening).
I doubt though the pre-Hattin borders will be restored. Having a clear leader will help, but leadership disputes are par for the crusader norm. They will still have to chop along the coast. Then strike inland. Which will be a major siege. Took 6 weeks to capture Jerusalem first time. 2 weeks for Saladin but that was a negotiated surrender as defenders knew situation was helpless. Attrition and logistics will be much worse inland. They likely succeed. But a lot of the crusaders will consider themselves done at that point. I think pretty likely are the 1229 borders on this map plus Ascalon, Gaza, and an Antioch extending SW to Hama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Crusade#/media/File:Map_Crusader_states_1240-eng.png. Maybe even as far as Jordan river with good negotiation. But not Oultrejordain, which means Saladin retains a secure route connecting Egypt and Syria and the major cities of inland Syria (there are strong fortresses in Oultrejordain, Saladin will be *very* relucant to cede them, and it is dangerously far inland, plus of course crusaders dropping out post-Jerusalem. Not happening).
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
@Prince of Permsia @isabella I agree Isabella is the new undisputed Queen of Jerusalem here; however, her annulment to Humphrey of Toulon and her controversial remarriage to Conrad haven’t happened as of the PoD or death of her sister. If Barbarossa is already in the Holy Land at this point, might the Court of Jerusalem decide to wait a little longer for his arrival? I imagine at the very least, the emperor will ask for that much.
Maybe or maybe not. Isabella‘s annulment is mostly an internal matter and seen as quite urgent, but delaying her remarriage is possible if not likely considering who her half-sister had been married to his brother and had a child with him (still the fact who Isabella would end marrying a brother of each husband of Sybilla is telling)
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
At any rate, what you’re not likely to get here is Richard backing Guy du Lusignan against Isabella’s husband, not if the both Phillip and Barbarossa monarchs are supporting the latter. That means the succession issue of Jerusalem is settled, and the Kingdom is in a much stronger place longer term.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I mean, there's no reason to think she won't. given the late PoD.
Hm, maybe? Not sure how big a difference that makes on its own.
If we have Jerusalem succession settled - - what would it mean more generally if Outremer was still in a strong position at the start of the 13th Century?
I dont see any reason to change the course of the development of the papacy from a successful crusade, they were promoted by the papacy after all, and those centralization efforts started before the crusades and continued long after the last major crusade. If anything, it would tend to strengthen the papacy, seeing as even the emperor has joined in the popes efforts and look! great success comes from following the pope. It might change the course of any follow up crusades, might incline more to follow the inland route, which in OTL was practically abandoned following Freds death. These follow on attempts could be directed more at Syria than Egypt, towards Homs, Aleppo, and towards the lost lands of the kingdom of Jerusalem.
Probably, though it was his brother and heir Amalric, who got (or was recognized) the royal title of Cyprus. Cyprus was conquered by England, though they had no intention to keeping it permanently. Compensating the defeated English de Lusignan candidate, with English conquered Cyprus. Seems a good way to settle the whole matter. I can even see ITTL, like IOTL, the HRE, with his prerogative as Emperor, recognizing the Royal Crown of Cyprus for the 'de Lusignan' dynasty.
Possibly for Jerusalem, which was already established, though a very strong Emperor might be able to demand this. Cyprus OTOH would be a new grant, so there it would happen. Still question remains, whether this will last with possibly weaker Emperors in the future.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Related question - - supposing the Crusader States are in a stronger position at the start of the 13th Century, and subsequently have an appreciably better subsequent century than OTL (not being destroyed, and experiencing substantially less existential peril); is this, in itself, good or bad for Europe’s Socio-Political Development in the 13th Century?
What I mean here is, consider how “far along” Europe was (in terms of agricultural development, trade, spread of technologies like put iron, the founding of “academic” institutions, etc) at the start of OTL’s 14th Century, just before undergoing the multiple crises of said century; would Europe be more or less likely to be at least as “far along” as OTL given this improved situation in Outremer, or would it make no appreciable difference at all?
To put it another way -- to what extent was OTL's continuing "renaissance" of the 13th Century hindered or aided by the continuation of the crusades?
What I mean here is, consider how “far along” Europe was (in terms of agricultural development, trade, spread of technologies like put iron, the founding of “academic” institutions, etc) at the start of OTL’s 14th Century, just before undergoing the multiple crises of said century; would Europe be more or less likely to be at least as “far along” as OTL given this improved situation in Outremer, or would it make no appreciable difference at all?
To put it another way -- to what extent was OTL's continuing "renaissance" of the 13th Century hindered or aided by the continuation of the crusades?
What would the effects of a surviving Barbarossa be on the Holy Roman Empire?
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Well to start, there’s no interruption of Hohenstaufen rule (OTL 1197 to 1220), quite possibly translating to reduced papal meddling in the Empire (possibly mind you).