How long could the Crusader states survive?

[Colonel Levnekov]

Per the above.

I would also like to extend the question: what would the circumstances need to be, in order for the Crusader states to survive for as long as possible?

 

[Space Oddity]

Which ones are you talking about?

There were multiple Crusader States after all, some of which hung on until the 16th century in some form or another.

 

[Deleted member 93645]

If Norman adventurers (e.g. Roussel de Bailleul) retained control over central Anatolia, then there would be an intact road network and safe land path for the crusaders. In that situation, the Crusader states could last indefinitely.

 

[Space Oddity]

If Norman adventurers (e.g. Roussel de Bailleul) retained control over central Anatolia, then there would be an intact road network and safe land path for the crusaders. In that situation, the Crusader states could last indefinitely.

Roussel de Baileul was long dead by the time the First Crusade started. And honestly, if Alexius' problem is Norman adventurers on both flanks, he ain't calling the Pope for reinforcements.

So no Crusade.

 

[Deleted member 93645]

Roussel de Baileul was long dead by the time the First Crusade started. And honestly, if Alexius' problem is Norman adventurers on both flanks, he ain't calling the Pope for reinforcements.

So no Crusade.

By the 1090s though, with the continuous Seljuk advance, the surviving Norman principality in Anatolia would probably ally with or swear fealty to the Byzantines. Otherwise it wouldn't have survived.

 

[Space Oddity]

By the 1090s though, with the continuous Seljuk advance, the surviving Norman principality in Anatolia would probably ally with or swear fealty to the Byzantines.

In which case, Alexius will probably make them not Norman principalities anymore.

 

[Deleted member 93645]

In which case, Alexius will probably make them not Norman principalities anymore.

Still means better road network/less Seljuk presence in Anatolia.

 

[Space Oddity]

Still means better road network/less Seljuk presence in Anatolia.

But if Alexius is in a better situation he's not calling for reinforcements. No First Crusade.

People really don't get how EXCEPTIONAL it was, and how it simply altered the entire power balance in Asia Minor and Syria.

 

[Deleted member 93645]

But if Alexius is in a better situation he's not calling for reinforcements. No First Crusade.

People really don't get how EXCEPTIONAL it was, and how it simply altered the entire power balance in Asia Minor and Syria.

If he doesn't control Nicaea he could still call for reinforcements.

Maybe something like this. The Turks are close enough to Constantinople to still be a serious threat, but subsumed Norman principalities give the Byzantines a decent control of southern Anatolia.

 

[ben0628]

Per the above.

I would also like to extend the question: what would the circumstances need to be, in order for the Crusader states to survive for as long as possible?

If we are talking about the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Principality of Antioch, and the County of Tripoli, and the County of Edessa you will need a couple of things. First, a larger peasant population. Unfortunately, after the battle of Hattin, the crusader states were only strong if an actual European sponsored crusade was occurring. Before the battle of Hattin, the crusader states could field a sizable force, but after this army was crushed, the crusader states were really only capable of defensive warfare by themselves. If you could get more people from Europe to move to the middle east and settle there, the crusader states would have the manpower to once again field an effective army without the help of a European power. Secondly, the Islamic nations in the middle east MUST remain divided, meaning that it would be in the Crusader states best interest if the Fatimid Caliphate survived. If Saladin can unite the middle east like he did in real life, Crusader States don't have a chance. Also, there are inter state rivalries that leads to political problems as well. It would be best if they are all unified under one state.

Those first three changes are necessary. Other changes that could help is if the Knights Templar can hold onto Cyprus, the Crusader States enact military reforms (Knights on armored horses don't work well against light cavalry and horse archers), NO FOURTH CRUSADE, naval superiority in the Mediterranean, and the capture and Christianization of Aleppo and Damascus (don't know if this is possible).

Also, In reality only Tripoli, Antioch, and Jerusalem can survive. The County of Edessa, although closest to the Byzantine Empire, is landlocked which means it will most likely fall. Not only this, but if we keep the Fatimid state alive (necessary), then the creation of Mamluk Egypt is butterflied away. This is important because the Mamluks are responsible for keeping the Mongols at bay.

If you do all this, the Crusader States will survive until the Ottomans come to power unless the Mongols wipe out the Crusader States first.

 

[el t]

Per the above.

I would also like to extend the question: what would the circumstances need to be, in order for the Crusader states to survive for as long as possible?

Egypt would have to successfully conquered and colonized by westerners. King Amalric of Jerusalem fully understood this. Had Egypt been conquered, then most of the other Crusader states could have survived at least until the coming of the Mongols.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

If he doesn't control Nicaea he could still call for reinforcements.

Maybe something like this. The Turks are close enough to Constantinople to still be a serious threat, but subsumed Norman principalities give the Byzantines a decent control of southern Anatolia.

View attachment 276778

If Alexius is doing that well that he has control of virtually the entire southern half of Anatolia, he's not going to need to petition the pope.

 

[Luminous]

Egypt would have to successfully conquered and colonized by westerners. King Amalric of Jerusalem fully understood this. Had Egypt been conquered, then most of the other Crusader states could have survived at least until the coming of the Mongols.

Pretty much this right here. With a strong Egypt to the west and the Mesopotamia to the East, the Crusader states are in trouble if they ever unite, regardless of whom possesses them.

A Crusader state in Egypt, along with a conquered Damascus, Allepo, and Harran, will give the Crusader states time to breathe. This would be the first and most important step. Perhaps a successful Cilician Armenia and a resurgent Byzantine would help as well, although quarreling would resume soon enough. Still, if it can carry through to the times of the Mongols....

Well, that's the problem. With whom would the Mongols ally at that point? Crusader states against the Byzantines? Vice versa?

 

[Space Oddity]

Egypt would have to successfully conquered and colonized by westerners. King Amalric of Jerusalem fully understood this. Had Egypt been conquered, then most of the other Crusader states could have survived at least until the coming of the Mongols.

...

The Crusaders are as likely to conquer Egypt as they are to spontaneously develop the power to fly. Every damn attempt on Egypt rapidly became a bloody waste of men and life, where logistics did half of Egypt's rulers' work for them. At this point, we're wishing for unicorn ponies.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Per the above.

I would also like to extend the question: what would the circumstances need to be, in order for the Crusader states to survive for as long as possible?

As for the second question, conquering Egypt would make things a gazillion times easier, albeit a successful conquest would be pretty unlikely. (Then again, the First Crusade IOTL was almost ASB-level successful, so...) Probably you'd have to have some debilitating civil war breaking out which the Crusaders can take advantage of.

 

[Space Oddity]

(Then again, the First Crusade IOTL was almost ASB-level successful, so...)

Not really. It was remarkable, sure, but the entire nature of Palestine and Syria in this era lent itself to just this sort of sweeping conquest. Once the First Crusade got a few lucky breaks, taking over a sizable chunk of territory was a good possibility.

It was keeping it that was tough.

Probably you'd have to have some debilitating civil war breaking out which the Crusaders can take advantage of.

That happened with startling regularity in the late Fatimid era. It really didn't help the Crusaders much.

 

[123456789blaaa]

Roger II inherits Jerusalem. See my comments here at the bottom.

EDIT: Though now I disagree that his primary focus would be Southern Italy instead of Outremer.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Not really. It was remarkable, sure, but the entire nature of Palestine and Syria in this era lent itself to just this sort of sweeping conquest. Once the First Crusade got a few lucky breaks, taking over a sizable chunk of territory was a good possibility.

Even with the weakness of Muslim Syria, carving out a series of kingdoms whilst operating thousands of miles away from your supply bases is still pretty improbable.

That happened with startling regularity in the late Fatimid era. It really didn't help the Crusaders much.

You'd have to time it well. Maybe have the disturbances following Saladin's death last longer, until the Fourth Crusade turns up and is able to take advantage of it. Also the Forth Crusade actually goes to Egypt like planned, instead of dicking around in Constantinople.

 

[Riain]

A successful Crusade of 1101 would be a godsend to Outremer. It would go a long way toward opening up Anatolia, consolidating the fledgling Outremer states and provide an influx of settlers from the Army and Camp to boost the Poulain class from the very start.

 

[TheSlovakPatriot]

...

The Crusaders are as likely to conquer Egypt as they are to spontaneously develop the power to fly. Every damn attempt on Egypt rapidly became a bloody waste of men and life, where logistics did half of Egypt's rulers' work for them. At this point, we're wishing for unicorn ponies.

Well if 4th Crusade could conquer Constantinople then with a little more common sense the crusaders can move south and conquer Egypt. .. with a Crusader held Egypt the Outremer has a strong hinderground in Egypt.