My inner Habsburg fan cries at that, even though I LOVE Barbarossa.
WI Frederick Barbarossa doesn’t drown (2023 ed)
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
Frederick living to see his son take control of Sicily (and possibly bypassing Henry VI's entire reign) has some pretty massive implications.
I agree, furthermore his survival guarantees a simple transfer of power to his son, Henry VI, who here can be crowned emperor from a better position of strength than Otl, furthermore the Guelph party will be weaker, given that Otto IV does not become emperor, perhaps Frederick manages to convince Richard I to mediate with his nephew ( let's remember that the Welfs are closely related to the Plantagenets at this time ) the situation in Sicily is a quagmire, but considering that Henry, despite the strategy of terror, had managed to regain control control of the kingdom before he dies, it is probable that here he does not really need it, but could adopt a less drastic policy, also because there is a need to allay papal fears ( which with the Hohenstaufen being so strong in appearance are very high ), as well as those of the Lombard league ( which could reform earlier than Otl ), also because I believe that Fred's survival will affect not only Henrich but also his brother Philip, which leaves the dynasty much more consolidated, in the long run this could only be a good thing for the government of the empire by the future Frederick II, who could have in his hands a less ramshackle HRE from an administrative point of view, he will certainly have considerable opposition, but nothing too different from Otl
it may be that the Habsburgs end up working closely with Frederick II, becoming together with his family, his cornerstones for governing Germany, when he cannot / wants to go there in person, also because he would have too much else to worry about
in theory with the survival of their father, too his brother Henrich also survives, which also affects his political vision of Otl, and it means that the Swabians are stronger within the HRE, and the central power will be slightly greater can be kept under control the imperial princes, but in case of deposition of the main branch ( quite difficult scenario, but considering Otl Frederick II situation.... ) , Philip's descendants would be the default candidates to succeed him
Last edited:
furthermore, in the event of a successful crusade, I do not exclude that Frederick and his royal colleagues want to make a thanksgiving pilgrimage to Rome itself, to bring before the Pope, those who saved Christianity, in what is the medieval equivalent of a triumph, after all Federico did it several times after his victories against the Lombard league, and his nephew was also a true master in this, transforming these ceremonies into moments of glorification of his government/power and tracing its meaning of being directly connected to the classical Roman Emperors, his direct predecessors
By this point the Habsburgs were the southern counterpart to the Württembergs in the northern Swabian lands, gaining more will be tricky. The Hohenstaufen/Staufer wouldn't want the Premyslids to gain the duchies of Austria, Styria and Carinthia and the margraviate of Carniola either. OTOH IIRC one of the disinherited sons of Frederick II had sons with a Babenberg heiress, so these grandsons might be the first choice for Austria & Styria. Not sure Carinthia & Carniola is worth, or that they should wait until the Brandenburg Ascanians go extinct and an electorate becomes available (albeit the poorest of them all).
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Looking back, I've got some more general questions:
-----
(2) Would the Pope still be calling crusades as frequently afterward as OTL, if the Third was a success? After all, the Second Crusade was called by the pope over half a century after the first, whilst the Third was called 42 years after that; conversely, the eight decades following said conflict saw five more crusades called, and average of a new papal call to March on the Holy Land every 16 years or so. My impression is that it was the loss of Jerusalem in the Third Crusade and Outremer's now more precarious position, in conjunction with subsequent failures to fix this situation to their satisfaction, that, in part, was responsible for this increase. What do you guys think?
- would a more successful Third Crusade likely mean there's no "Crusade that turns into an all-out pillaging of the Eastern Roman Empire by the Latins"? If so, can we infer that the Byzantines are in a much stronger position by the mid 13th Century?
- if we can safely assume that both the Byzantines and Outremer are much more secure by the mid-13th Century, would this put them in a much better position to take advantage of the chaos created by the Mongols around this time?
- since both Richard I and Phillip II were present at the Third Crusade, how likely/plausible is it that things are changed in such a way as the Angevin Empire doesn't collapse in the early 13th Century as it did OTL?
- if both the Angevins (vis a vis the Capets) and the Emperors (vis a vis the Pope) are stronger in the 13th Century, in combination with Outremer being in better shape (and no latin kingdoms carved from Byzantines), how does/might that change Western Christendom?
-----
Couple of thoughts -- (1) how does strengthening the hand of the Holy Roman Emperor (and the Hofenhausen specifically) overall affect the power of the papacy overall?
(2) Would the Pope still be calling crusades as frequently afterward as OTL, if the Third was a success? After all, the Second Crusade was called by the pope over half a century after the first, whilst the Third was called 42 years after that; conversely, the eight decades following said conflict saw five more crusades called, and average of a new papal call to March on the Holy Land every 16 years or so. My impression is that it was the loss of Jerusalem in the Third Crusade and Outremer's now more precarious position, in conjunction with subsequent failures to fix this situation to their satisfaction, that, in part, was responsible for this increase. What do you guys think?
Last edited:
Lots of thoughts. Guesses
1 Barbarossa takes Damascus on way to Jerusalem. Lots of profits. His success in the field vs the seljuks showed the discipline of his forces
2 upon Richard's arrival I believe he would take the additional time after a quicker conquest of Jerusalem and take a very weak Egypt.
3 the additional wealth he brings home dramatically change western Europe.
4 crusader states much stronger with Egypt on board (still dominantly Christian at this time ). With key wealth areas and population centers under crusader control it would be very difficult for a fractured Muslim world with much of its wealthy areas to regain the initiative vs the crusader / byzantine state. Especially with more and more westerners heading to Egypt and the cities of the crusaders.
5 byzantium has recovery time, and most of the west will be focused on Egypt and trade
6 the 4th crusade goes to Egypt or additional raids.
7 henery vI comes back with his father or not. If with barbarossa then the glory of the crusade allows for a hereditary hre. Which butterfly's most of the later hre issues. If not he will still be a hero and most likely create a headline.
8brichard if he lives longer will take the captured resources of Egypt and make life miserable for France.
1 Barbarossa takes Damascus on way to Jerusalem. Lots of profits. His success in the field vs the seljuks showed the discipline of his forces
2 upon Richard's arrival I believe he would take the additional time after a quicker conquest of Jerusalem and take a very weak Egypt.
3 the additional wealth he brings home dramatically change western Europe.
4 crusader states much stronger with Egypt on board (still dominantly Christian at this time ). With key wealth areas and population centers under crusader control it would be very difficult for a fractured Muslim world with much of its wealthy areas to regain the initiative vs the crusader / byzantine state. Especially with more and more westerners heading to Egypt and the cities of the crusaders.
5 byzantium has recovery time, and most of the west will be focused on Egypt and trade
6 the 4th crusade goes to Egypt or additional raids.
7 henery vI comes back with his father or not. If with barbarossa then the glory of the crusade allows for a hereditary hre. Which butterfly's most of the later hre issues. If not he will still be a hero and most likely create a headline.
8brichard if he lives longer will take the captured resources of Egypt and make life miserable for France.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Earlier in the thread, we actually had a pretty contentious debate about whether it's even plausible for Barbarossa to lay siege to Homs before the arrival of Richard and Philip, much less take Damascus; for what it's worth, I can see Damascus falling eventually (and maybe, maybe in this same crusade) TTL, but at the very least, I'm pretty sure the Crusaders are going to want to take Jerusalem (and probably Homs) first.
I've seen a few estimated dates here, but it does seem that the Fatimids were particularly tolerant, and that it wasn't really until the Ayubbids and Mamluks that Egypt's muslim majority became solid.
Outside the prospect of looting Egypt, I can definitely see the Holy Roman and Angevin Emperors being in a stronger position TTL.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Side note -- but a lot of what makes Frederick II such a fascinating historical figure to modern audiences (his unorthodox skepticism and religious pragmatism) can be traced pretty directly to his upbringing and personal rule in Sicily; to my mind, at least, taking Sicily away from the Hofenstaufens would only make the prospect of their greater success less interesting.
The Popes seemed to be more at ease with separate branches of the Hohenstaufens ruling Germany and Sicily, so it may be best to split them up once Frederick II dies.
Barbarossa living a few more years might be helpful for Henry VI and the Erbreichsplan.
a clear example of this can be seen happening after the victory of Cortenuova in 1237 against the Lombard league, at this juncture Frederick had sent the conquered Milanese carroccio to Rome to be displayed ( against the Pope's will ) in the Capitoline Hill as a sign of his imperial triumph, the carroccio was accompanied by a letter addressed to the Senate and the people of Rome, in it the emperor expressed his attachment to the city of Rome and his desire to elevate the Urbs, which in his eyes remained the causa imperii , to its ancient splendor, invited Roman citizens to accept this gift of his, furthermore, always remaining on the propaganda theme, in his Augustalis ( which was widely spread throughout Italy ) Frederick II was represented with a laurel wreath following the example of Augustus, to conclude also in the triumphal arch built in Capua, consciously imitated the style used in those that could be seen in Milan and above all Rome
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
So this might be its own thread, but it might be worth asking here how much more successful the Crusades could have been in general with an 1190 PoD; more specifically, the big question here seems to be the extent to which Islamization in the region (the Levant and Egypt) had already come to pass, and likewise the extent to which a Christian majority and ruled power in the region could be formed longer term.
Last time this particular point was discussed in its own thread:
*Delhi I'm pretty sure of, Mali was only converted recently so I imagine it's true of them as well; also, obviously "pagan" here meaning "non-muslims not subject to 'people of the book' protections"
Last time this particular point was discussed in its own thread:
CONSOLIDATE: This actually has some pretty profound implications -- remember, Persia and Mesopotamia fall to the Mongols in the 13th Century OTL, and are thus already likely to remain subject to non-muslim rule for at least several decades TTL as well. That means it just might be conceivable that, by 1300 TTL, Islam doesn't really control any part of of *MENA*, and that their two largest empires, Mali and Delhi, both* have very overwhelming "pagan" majorities. This could potentially have a profound impact on the evolution and potential-growth of Islam going forward.
*Delhi I'm pretty sure of, Mali was only converted recently so I imagine it's true of them as well; also, obviously "pagan" here meaning "non-muslims not subject to 'people of the book' protections"
Last edited: