Frederick Barbarossa Survives

[Jaenera Targaryen]

Basically as the title says: Emperor Frederick I doesn't die in en route to the Holy Land.

1) Can he win the crusade?

2) Can he turn the Holy Roman Empire into a coherent state on the same level as France and England?

 

[Riain]

The crusade would most likely succeed and leave behind enough people to change the European demographic to a more German one.

 

[Count Valerian]

I'm fairly certain Frederick Barbarossa could have succeeded in permanently-cementing Imperial rule...in Germany proper. Not sure about Northern Italy though, not with the Pope and the Italian States' interests clashing with those of the Emperor's in the region. And what about France? I doubt they'd stand by and watch as Germany rises to power over Central Europe. We might see the Thirty Years War start centuries early.

 

[Matteo]

The crusade would most likely succeed and leave behind enough people to change the European demographic to a more German one.

What's the link between a succesful Crusaders and german demography ?

I'm fairly certain Frederick Barbarossa could have succeeded in permanently-cementing Imperial rule...in Germany proper. Not sure about Northern Italy though, not with the Pope and the Italian States' interests clashing with those of the Emperor's in the region. And what about France? I doubt they'd stand by and watch as Germany rises to power over Central Europe. We might see the Thirty Years War start centuries early.

This sounds like wishful thinking.

The fact is that Frederick Barbarossa was less powerful as an emperor than Ottonian'or Salian emperors.

Winning the crusade (in which Plantagenet and french forced were quite similar to the HRE's) has no relation with strengthening imperial power inside the german kingdom. And anyway, Frederick Barbarossa was 68 years old when he accidentally died. He was close to the end, be it naturally or accidentally.
And after Henry VI's death, you have everybody reason to have the same mess happen.

 

[Gurroruo]

What's the link between a succesful Crusaders and german demography ?

He's saying that with a German crusade succeeding there would be more German settling of the Holy lands, leading to their being more Germans within the European population of the Holy Land.

 

[Riain]

AT the time of Hattin the Frankish population of Outremer was about 90% French, due to origin of the majority of the First Crusade and survivors of the second being French. After Hattin a lot of these were killed or expelled, leaving a lot of vacancies in Outremer. If Barabrossa's huge army had made it to Outremer intact due to him not dying the majority of the people who would stay behind would be Germans from Barby's Army, soldiers high and low as well as camp followers. An injection of maybe 5,000-10,000 German settlers might make the KoJ 30% German in 1190 and bring German dynastic politics into the region rather than just French.

 

[Faeelin]

And after Henry VI's death, you have everybody reason to have the same mess happen.

I'm not sure how inevitable the interregnum after Henry VI's death was, though. If Henry VI dies in the 1210s, the son of the man who liberated Jerusalem, having milked Sicily for all its worth, doesn't the Imperial position look very different?

 

[Monter]

Would Henry conquer Sicily without Richard's ransom?

 

[Faeelin]

Would Henry conquer Sicily without Richard's ransom?

Interesting question; I would guess no, but I'm not sure how Richard avoids imprisonment, unless the POD is that Barbarossa would never let his son keep him prisoner.

 

[Riain]

Wasn't Barby old by the time of the 3rd Crusade? How much more longer could he have lived afterwards, how much more could he have done?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Interesting question; I would guess no, but I'm not sure how Richard avoids imprisonment, unless the POD is that Barbarossa would never let his son keep him prisoner.

That's actually quite easy. Either Richard doesn't stupidly insult Duke Leopold or goes home a different way (Toulouse to Bordeaux perhaps?).

 

[Matteo]

Wasn't Barby old by the time of the 3rd Crusade? How much more longer could he have lived afterwards, how much more could he have done?

That's the most obvious point : he was 68 years-old. And I really can't figure out what he would and could change in the HRE that he had not done in his past 38 years of reigning.

 

[Avrorrange]

Interesting question; I would guess no, but I'm not sure how Richard avoids imprisonment, unless the POD is that Barbarossa would never let his son keep him prisoner.

The whole imprisonment thing happened because the Duke of Austria staked the banner of the Austria on the ramparts of Acre and claimed himself to be the equal of Richard and Philippe as the leader of the Imperial contingent.It was a pretty pretentious claim for a mere Duke to insist that he is the equal of a crowned head,especially if the contingent he lead is pretty small. Richard wouldn't have felt as insulted if Barbarossa claimed to be his equal if not a superior given he is an emperor crowned by the Pope,as well as the massive contingent he brought.Even if Richard mentioned the whole "I am born of a rank which recognizes no superior but God",he would have still accepted Barbarossa as some kind of first among equals.The whole vendetta between him and the Duke of Austria would have been butterflied away as the Duke wouldn't have claimed to be the equal of Richard if his emperor is there.

 

[Faeelin]

That's actually quite easy. Either Richard doesn't stupidly insult Duke Leopold or goes home a different way (Toulouse to Bordeaux perhaps?).

See, while I could see Richard going home a different way, "Richard I not being an arrogant prick who insults everyone" seems a stretch, given his repeated rebellions, his whimsical conquests of Sicily and Cyprus, and the way he pissed off Philip Augustus by ditching his sister at the altar.

 

[VVD0D95]

See, while I could see Richard going home a different way, "Richard I not being an arrogant prick who insults everyone" seems a stretch, given his repeated rebellions, his whimsical conquests of Sicily and Cyprus, and the way he pissed off Philip Augustus by ditching his sister at the altar.

I've never quite understood why he is so revered within England, living there myself, he seems like such a prick.

 

[Avrorrange]

I've never quite understood why he is so revered within England, living there myself, he seems like such a prick.

Times changed.Back in the day,any king who is a great commander is considered a great king.Just look at Edward III.The man was a popular king because of his military exploits,despite not having won much land permanently and actually lost more than he had gained in the end.The fact that Richard's heir John was a worse king,and that he was a loser as a commander,helped seal Richard's reputation as a 'great king'.

 

[VVD0D95]

Times changed.Back in the day,any king who is a great commander is considered a great king.Just look at Edward III.The man was a popular king because of his military exploits,despite not having won much land permanently and actually lost more than he had gained in the end.The fact that Richard's heir John was a worse king,and that he was a loser as a commander,helped seal Richard's reputation as a 'great king'.

True enough. That and most don't bother actually looking into things

 

[isabella]

See, while I could see Richard going home a different way, "Richard I not being an arrogant prick who insults everyone" seems a stretch, given his repeated rebellions, his whimsical conquests of Sicily and Cyprus, and the way he pissed off Philip Augustus by ditching his sister at the altar.

Unfortunately Richard had good reasons for doing all this things...
Princess Alais was reputed to be his father's lover and that was more than enough for discarding her as bride and he was provoched by both the King of Sicily (who keeped captive Richard's sister Joanna, who was widow of the late King) and the ruler of Cyprus (who captured both Joanna and Richard's bride-to-be Berengaria) and the Duke of Austria was not of the same rank of Richard and Philip while Emperor Frederick had at least their same rank (but likely higher)...

Henry II was a great king, a great warrior and maybe also a great ruler but a very bad husband and father... If he was not the tyrant and maniac of control who he was likely his wife and sons will not have rebelled against him. If he had let his sons ruled their possession (who after all he had assigned to them) without orders and extreme interferences (he had also take away some important fortresses and/or castles away from the lands of the other sons (who needed them for being able to controlling well their territories) and gave them as inheritance to John (without asking)...
And if Henry had let Richard and Alais marry as soon as they had reached the right age instead to keep the girl with him Richard will have not any reason for not marrying her