AHC: Better 13th Century for the Crusader States

[John Fredrick Parker]

With no PoDs prior to 1216 (and preferably by 1251), how can the Crusader States be in the healthiest position for the latter 13th Century, and going into the 14th? Bonus points if Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor is still King of Jerusalem.

CONSOLIDATE: My own PoD suggestion - - Frederick doesn’t get sick on his way to the Holy Land in 1227; because he doesn’t delay, he isn’t excommunicated this first time; and because he wasn’t excommunicated at the time, he won’t be excommunicated a second time for the specific reason of crusading while excommunicated the first time. He can certainly be excommunicated later for different reasons, but for the time being, the Pope won’t be trying to delegitimize the first successful reclamation of Jerusalem in over a century.

Now it’s just a matter of avoiding the Second Loss of Jerusalem in 1244; honestly, now that I think about it, I wonder if it’s possible for Jerusalem to have defended itself following the Baron’s Crusade, since that was their greatest territorial height since they were founded.

 

[Silver01]

Ironically have the mongols win at ain jalut thus battle has been way overblown but a victory with crusader support does allow the pro Christian halagu to at the very least take part of north Syria moving the border away from the Euphrates

 

[Avrorrange]

It is vital that the 5th or the 7th crusade succeeds in conquering Egypt. If Egypt is under Christian control, the Levantine states would survive.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Ironically have the mongols win at ain jalut thus battle has been way overblown but a victory with crusader support does allow the pro Christian halagu to at the very least take part of north Syria moving the border away from the Euphrates

Technically works; I'm more partial to discussing potential for the 1215 to 1250 period myself, since the Frederick II is such an interesting figure and his conflict with the papacy around this time was an integral part of the context of the crusades of the period. (After 1250 is what I like to think of as the "Mongolian Period" of Outremer History.)

It is vital that the 5th or the 7th crusade succeeds in conquering Egypt. If Egypt is under Christian control, the Levantine states would survive.

Well it would certainly be a plus, but it's also a pretty steep price; is taking Egypt strictly necessary for the Crusader States longer term survival?

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

Well it would certainly be a plus, but it's also a pretty steep price; is taking Egypt strictly necessary for the Crusader States longer term survival?

Not my comment I know but I’ve seen it said how the crusaders would not be able to survive long term without if Egypt and Syria were threats at the same time. Or was it if they were United? Either way one of them has to go so the crusaders can’t force on oke place at a time.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So looking at the Second Fall of Jerusalem in 1244, something stuck out at me, that the Ayubid Sultanate used a mercenary army of 10,000 Khwarazmian cavalry; this is noteworthy since, technically, the Fall of the Khwarazmian Empire (1219-21) happens within the parameters of the OP. If this major world history event had been averted, would one side effect be that Jerusalem doesn't fall as easily?

 

[Elfwine]

Put me as another voice for Frankish control of Egypt being their best chance. It may not be necessary in the sense that you could potentially have Egypt outside Frankish hands and have a better than OTL outcome, but I'm not sure it's in the spirit of the challenge to say that Baibars dying young (and someone else being sultan in 1261-1277) is also "better" because Antioch may hold out into 1270s with a less aggressive sultan.

Frederick II is a fascinating figure, but his potential to have a beneficial long term effect is limited - he's an absentee king with a lot of concerns to deal with outside the Levant, and assuming roughly similar fates as far as marriage and children as OTL, his (second) oldest son may be that as well.

So looking at the Second Fall of Jerusalem in 1244, something stuck out at me, that the Ayubid Sultanate used a mercenary army of 10,000 Khwarazmian cavalry; this is noteworthy since, technically, the Fall of the Khwarazmian Empire (1219-21) happens within the parameters of the OP. If this major world history event had been averted, would one side effect be that Jerusalem doesn't fall as easily?

That seems like it trades possibly not falling in 1244 for not having the Mamluks (or Ayyubids) having the Mongols as more important to focus on than removing all traces of Frankish presence between Antioch and Arish, so far as doing one takes resources that are needed for the other.

 

[Nuraghe]

With no PoDs prior to 1216 (and preferably by 1251), how can the Crusader States be in the healthiest position for the latter 13th Century, and going into the 14th? Bonus points if Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor is still King of Jerusalem.

CONSOLIDATE: My own PoD suggestion - - Frederick doesn’t get sick on his way to the Holy Land in 1227; because he doesn’t delay, he isn’t excommunicated this first time; and because he wasn’t excommunicated at the time, he won’t be excommunicated a second time for the specific reason of crusading while excommunicated the first time. He can certainly be excommunicated later for different reasons, but for the time being, the Pope won’t be trying to delegitimize the first successful reclamation of Jerusalem in over a century.

Now it’s just a matter of avoiding the Second Loss of Jerusalem in 1244; honestly, now that I think about it, I wonder if it’s possible for Jerusalem to have defended itself following the Baron’s Crusade, since that was their greatest territorial height since they were founded.

well for the Crusader intelligence of the time it was, after all already from the 4th Crusade ( this idea had been formed in the Crusaders since around 1160, with the joint campaigns of Almaric and Manuel ) the potential that the capture of Egypt had been understood gave to Outremer, furthermore it must be considered that in Jerusalem they still have in mind Saladin, who held full control of both Syria and the land of the pharaohs, so that he could threaten the crusader states on two fronts at the same time, which is why his capture was considered fundamental ( or at least prevent it from ending up in the hands of those who control Syria ), then returning to the pod in question ( excellent idea anyway, furthermore Frederick II is my absolute favorite Sovereign ) furthermore we must keep in mind that in theory he had promised to the pontiff of having to take part in the fifth crusade ( even swearing at his coronation as Rex Romanorum in 1215, but he never took part in it due to his constant delays which greatly annoyed Honorius III, furthermore he was a trusted ally of the sultan Ayyubid, already weakened at the time, therefore did not want to see his ally fall in the region, also because they had a common enemy in North Africa ) I would suggest letting Constance survive longer ( she died in 1222 ), so that Frederick can take the idea of his participation in the expedition more seriously, perhaps during the meeting in March 1223 with the emperor, in Ferentino, the pope convinces him by giving him his possible support against the Guelph party in Germany and a possible Rinascente Lombard League in Italy ( which will reform in 1226 Otl ) is really using the threat of excommunication if he does not respect his promise to take up the cross, so that Frederick is truly motivated to participate, then once the expedition began, I would say around 1224 I would suggest marrying a son of Frederick to the very young Jolanda of Brienne, daughter of John of Brienne and Mary of Montferrat and holder of the crown of Jerusalem ( certainly she will still be the father has to manage everything, but at least Jerusalem will have a king present there, because Otl with his marriage to Jolanda in 1223, Frederick decided to leave seriously only in 1227, of course he had more urgent commitments elsewhere, but this demonstrates his little will to change geopolitics in the region especially if it weakens Egypt )

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Another interesting point about the PoD restriction -- as of 1222, the Empire of Nicea was at pretty much its weakest point, and its subsequent recovery seems unlikely to be predetermined. (Whether that would be a good thing for the Crusader States as a whole is a different matter entirely, but it might be worth noting just in case.)

 

[Nuraghe]

Another interesting point about the PoD restriction -- as of 1222, the Empire of Nicea was at pretty much its weakest point, and its subsequent recovery seems unlikely to be predetermined. (Whether that would be a good thing for the Crusader States as a whole is a different matter entirely, but it might be worth noting just in case.)

It must be kept in mind that Frederick from 1230 onwards sought close collaboration with Nicaea many times in an anti-papal function ( and to a lesser extent anti-Latin Empire and Bulgaria ) because he considered them, like him, victims of the aggressiveness of Gregory IX and Innocent IV Otl, so depending on how the situation develops the alliance between them can arise much earlier ( as well as the often feared but never actually carried out march on Rome to oust the Pope by Frederick, furthermore if the crusade is successful it is not unlikely that the Stupor Mundi will organize a triumph in Rome to demonstrate its greatness and the continuity of its government with the previous Roman emperors, a bit like Otl did when he sent the pontiff the conquered chariot of the Lombard league and paraded it through the streets of the city )

 

[Nuraghe]

well for the Crusader intelligence of the time it was, after all already from the 4th Crusade ( this idea had been formed in the Crusaders since around 1160, with the joint campaigns of Almaric and Manuel ) the potential that the capture of Egypt had been understood gave to Outremer, furthermore it must be considered that in Jerusalem they still have in mind Saladin, who held full control of both Syria and the land of the pharaohs, so that he could threaten the crusader states on two fronts at the same time, which is why his capture was considered fundamental ( or at least prevent it from ending up in the hands of those who control Syria ), then returning to the pod in question ( excellent idea anyway, furthermore Frederick II is my absolute favorite Sovereign ) furthermore we must keep in mind that in theory he had promised to the pontiff of having to take part in the fifth crusade ( even swearing at his coronation as Rex Romanorum in 1215, but he never took part in it due to his constant delays which greatly annoyed Honorius III, furthermore he was a trusted ally of the sultan Ayyubid, already weakened at the time, therefore did not want to see his ally fall in the region, also because they had a common enemy in North Africa ) I would suggest letting Constance survive longer ( she died in 1222 ), so that Frederick can take the idea of his participation in the expedition more seriously, perhaps during the meeting in March 1223 with the emperor, in Ferentino, the pope convinces him by giving him his possible support against the Guelph party in Germany and a possible Rinascente Lombard League in Italy ( which will reform in 1226 Otl ) is really using the threat of excommunication if he does not respect his promise to take up the cross, so that Frederick is truly motivated to participate, then once the expedition began, I would say around 1224 I would suggest marrying a son of Frederick to the very young Jolanda of Brienne, daughter of John of Brienne and Mary of Montferrat and holder of the crown of Jerusalem ( certainly she will still be the father has to manage everything, but at least Jerusalem will have a king present there, because Otl with his marriage to Jolanda in 1223, Frederick decided to leave seriously only in 1227, of course he had more urgent commitments elsewhere, but this demonstrates his little will to change geopolitics in the region especially if it weakens Egypt )

furthermore, making Frederick go on the crusade in advance of Otl also helps to prevent his excommunication of 1228 and the subsequent war of the keys ( or as it is more likely known by the name of crusade against Frederick of 1229 - 1230 ). Of course, the problem remains that for Gregory the diplomatic agreement ( with attached ten-year truce ) between the Emperor and the sultan al-Malik al-Kamil for the peaceful cession of Jerusalem as long as it was not militarized, was not much to his liking, furthermore the agreement lasted only as long as the sultan was remained alive ( died in 1238 )


in the long run I believe that with a similar pod we can not only extend the life of the Crusader states but also facilitate in a small way the life and government of Frederick over his possessions, ( although I still think he should have made a further trip to Germany to try and alleviate the chaos his actions and the war between his family and the Guelphs caused in the kingdom ( 1 ), of course if the papacy permitting in the long run ) with the very small possibility of extending his life a little


1 ) but considering that Federico saw Germany as a strange and barbaric place ( in particular their laws and customs of government ), and in the end he considered ( he is right ) more of an Italian than a German, I find it difficult, but with him, never say never !

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

With no PoDs prior to 1216 (and preferably by 1251), how can the Crusader States be in the healthiest position for the latter 13th Century, and going into the 14th? Bonus points if Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor is still King of Jerusalem.

CONSOLIDATE: My own PoD suggestion - - Frederick doesn’t get sick on his way to the Holy Land in 1227; because he doesn’t delay, he isn’t excommunicated this first time; and because he wasn’t excommunicated at the time, he won’t be excommunicated a second time for the specific reason of crusading while excommunicated the first time. He can certainly be excommunicated later for different reasons, but for the time being, the Pope won’t be trying to delegitimize the first successful reclamation of Jerusalem in over a century.

Now it’s just a matter of avoiding the Second Loss of Jerusalem in 1244; honestly, now that I think about it, I wonder if it’s possible for Jerusalem to have defended itself following the Baron’s Crusade, since that was their greatest territorial height since they were founded.

Butterfly the Khwarziman invasion of Georgia, allowing them to join the Crusades on the Crusaders' side. They would make major gains and almost win the war until the Mongols arrived.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

So looking at the Second Fall of Jerusalem in 1244, something stuck out at me, that the Ayubid Sultanate used a mercenary army of 10,000 Khwarazmian cavalry; this is noteworthy since, technically, the Fall of the Khwarazmian Empire (1219-21) happens within the parameters of the OP. If this major world history event had been averted, would one side effect be that Jerusalem doesn't fall as easily?

Aside from a Mongol Conquest of Persia and expansion into Syria not distracting the Ayyubids/Mameluks, there is also the Khwarazmian Empire itself to take into account. Shortly before the conquest it had entered into a period of rapid expansion under Ala al-Din Muhammad (1200-1220) and seems to have been making moves even further west. It is not out of the question that they would expand into Syria eventually and threaten the Crusader States from the east.

Regarding Egypt, you don't necessarily need it in Frankish hands to benefit the Crusader States. Although that would be ideal since it would fully remove, at least for a time, the main threat to their survival. Even a unified Crusader front can't match the wealth and manpower of a stable Egypt and is in a much more vulnerable position. The Crusades against it don't have to conquer it, however. Decapitating the Ayyubid leadership or doing enough damage to cause internal unrest and or civil war would be enough.

Best case the Crusaders make the best decisions possible, catch enough lucky breaks (like back during the First Crusade), Frederick II. is not involved in his drama with the Popes (at least not while on Crusade) and the Egyptians hit a few rough spots.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

On the conquest or destabilization of Egypt being necessary -- doesn’t the fact that the Ayubids were willing to give the Crusaders Jerusalem twice indicate that the threat of invading could be a useful deterrent to trying to retake Jerusalem?

On the Khwarazim and potential lack of Mongols - - first, would Egypt be resting more easily than OTL prior to 1260? Second, if there were more serious muslim players in the region of Syria, wouldn’t that be to the Crusaders benefit (if, as @Admiral_Zann says, the Khwarazim move west)? Third, as @Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis noted, the Kingdom of Georgia can also aid the Crusaders if they’re in a stronger position, no?

 

[Elfwine]

On the conquest or destabilization of Egypt being necessary -- doesn’t the fact that the Ayubids were willing to give the Crusaders Jerusalem twice indicate that the threat of invading could be a useful deterrent to trying to retake Jerusalem?

If you're okay with whether or not the Franks hold Jerusalem being entirely dependent on the Ayyubids not considering regaining Jerusalem for Islam to be more beneficial to them than it staying in Christian hands for the time being, that might work for a time.

"Can we keep the Crusader States alive while doing the absolute minimum to change the actual strategically vulnerable position they're in?" is not an absolute no, but it really isn't the ideal situation for them (although whether or not a conquest of Egypt is possible is its own question).

Third, as @Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis noted, the Kingdom of Georgia can also aid the Crusaders if they’re in a stronger position, no?

What exactly is the Kingdom of Georgia going to actually do is the question here.

I'm not trying to play down that a Georgian army might be awfully handy, but the real long term future of the Crusader States needs a long term change in the area, not a Georgian king returning from Jerusalem covered in glory and sunburns but without having changed the strategic picture for more than a few campaign seasons.

 

[Nuraghe]

If you're okay with whether or not the Franks hold Jerusalem being entirely dependent on the Ayyubids not considering regaining Jerusalem for Islam to be more beneficial to them than it staying in Christian hands for the time being, that might work for a time.

"Can we keep the Crusader States alive while doing the absolute minimum to change the actual strategically vulnerable position they're in?" is not an absolute no, but it really isn't the ideal situation for them (although whether or not a conquest of Egypt is possible is its own question).


What exactly is the Kingdom of Georgia going to actually do is the question here.

I'm not trying to play down that a Georgian army might be awfully handy, but the real long term future of the Crusader States needs a long term change in the area, not a Georgian king returning from Jerusalem covered in glory and sunburns but without having changed the strategic picture for more than a few campaign seasons.

I think the situation where the crusader states have the region around them very fragmented is a very important thing for their survival, especially keeping Egypt and Syria separate, also they don't actually need to conquer Egypt but to control it / limit it, it would be enough for the fortresses of Damietta and Ascalon to be in the hands of the crusaders to change the situation in an important way ( since they force Cairo to first have to chase away a possible invasion from its territory ) finally to consolidate the possibilities of Outremer it would be necessary for a small percentage of crusaders remain permanently in the area after each expedition ( not many would be needed, even just 500 - 300 crusaders at a time would be useful, with also a civilian population following them ) as is the ability to co-opt Christian minorities into the region to a greater extent than Otl, perhaps as happened for the Armenians who had become an integral part of the elite of the states of Antioch and Edessa

 

[Elfwine]

I think the situation where the crusader states have the region around them very fragmented is a very important thing for their survival, especially keeping Egypt and Syria separate, also they don't actually need to conquer Egypt but to control it / limit it, it would be enough for the fortresses of Damietta and Ascalon to be in the hands of the crusaders to change the situation in an important way ( since they force Cairo to first have to chase away a possible invasion from its territory )

They don't actually need to conquer Egypt, no. But I'm not sure taking Damietta and Ascalon are enough for more than "Fine, so Acre falls in - say - 1311." types of change, especially post-1216.

 

[Prince of Permsia]

Maybe have Isabella the Second survive. That would give Frederick more legitimacy, especially if he brought her with him to the Holy Land. Admittedly this is just because I feel bad for her and want her to survive so I am not sure if it will do too much.

 

[Nuraghe]

They don't actually need to conquer Egypt, no. But I'm not sure taking Damietta and Ascalon are enough for more than "Fine, so Acre falls in - say - 1311." types of change, especially post-1216.

of course you are right that controlling those two strongholds alone is not enough to lengthen the crusaders' chances of remaining in the region, but they can help control/threaten Egypt and cut off communication and possible collaboration with armies coming from Syria ( it's more like a useful defensive technique based on the strategic depth of operating in enemy territory ) certainly their real chances of rooting their presence in the region do not depend on these two citadels ( but they can still help ) but on other changes within the politics of the Jerusalem kingdom

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

If you're okay with whether or not the Franks hold Jerusalem being entirely dependent on the Ayyubids not considering regaining Jerusalem for Islam to be more beneficial to them than it staying in Christian hands for the time being, that might work for a time.

"Can we keep the Crusader States alive while doing the absolute minimum to change the actual strategically vulnerable position they're in?" is not an absolute no, but it really isn't the ideal situation for them (although whether or not a conquest of Egypt is possible is its own question).


What exactly is the Kingdom of Georgia going to actually do is the question here.

I'm not trying to play down that a Georgian army might be awfully handy, but the real long term future of the Crusader States needs a long term change in the area, not a Georgian king returning from Jerusalem covered in glory and sunburns but without having changed the strategic picture for more than a few campaign seasons.

Georgia joining on its own would not make the Crusaders' situation extremely better, and I can see their intervention failing like Tamar's 1208 offensive.

When I say ''I can see'' on this site, I mean that it could happen, not that it absolutely would.