WI: Saladin and his Successors Vassalized the Crusader States

A bit of a weird (and I don't know how plausible) idea that came to my mind after hearing of how Saladin spared the first King of Cyprus (and King jure uxoris of Jerusalem) after capturing him at the Battle of Hattin. What If, instead of simply annexing almost the entirety of the lands of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, he decided for vassalizing it* while annexing only the Lordships of St Abraham, Darum and Jerusalem (as well as the southernmost part of Outerjordain)

What would be the effects of the kingdom (let's just imagine that Jerusalem does not decide for rebelling at the first chance the have) existing under the Ayubids, and what would be the effects if, after Jerusalem, Saladin and his successors turned Tripoli and Antioch (and probably Cyprus and Cilician Armenia) into vassals as well.

Could the states, if they played their cards extremely right and remained with their heads down for centuries, survive until modern times by accepting the overlordship of every Caliph and Sultan coming their way? And what would the effects of being under Islamic suzeranity have on the non-muslim aristocracy and the non-muslim parts of the population of the crusader states? And, just to finish, what would be the effects of this on broader Christendom, Europe and the occurence of future Crusades?

*(if just him deciding to do that is impossible, just imagine that events of the war moved in a manner that made if seem like a reasonable idea)
 
« A bit of a weird (and I don't know how plausible) idea that came to my mind after hearing of how Saladin spared the first King of Cyprus (and King jure uxoris of Jerusalem) after capturing him at the Battle of Hattin. What If, instead of simply annexing almost the entirety of the lands of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, he decided for vassalizing it* while annexing only the Lordships of St Abraham, Darum and Jerusalem (as well as the southernmost part of Outerjordain) »
it seem to little honestly with just that much annexion the crusaders state are still too big and a genuine threat for the sultan to accept them as simple vassals as ne the crusaders themselves will have enough ressource to not be willing on accepting Muslim suzerainty .
« What would be the effects of the kingdom (let's just imagine that Jerusalem does not decide for rebelling at the first chance the have) »
It wouldn’t be only one chance of rebelling , if you want the states to exist to modern days you must make the idea of rebellion itself be implausible and against theirs interest to the crusaders themselves

Could the states, if they played their cards extremely right and remained with their heads down for centuries, survive until modern times by accepting the overlordship of every Caliph and Sultan coming their way?
I think with your PoD specifically it’s so unlikely that it’s implausible , but a crusader state surviving to modern day isn’t really impossible , I personally always thinked something like that was more likely to happen and last between the remaining crusaders of Acre and the Mamluks , i read that the Mamluk were willing to keep the crusaders in Acre as a trading post with the west until a Christian mob murdered Muslim in the city and the crusaders refused to give the culprits to the Mameluke for theirs punishment, such a relationship could have evolved towards a working relationship (beneficial to both party) where the crusaders in acre become vassals of the mamluk sultan , especially with the weakening of crusaders spirit .
 
it seem to little honestly with just that much annexion the crusaders state are still too big and a genuine threat for the sultan to accept them as simple vassals as ne the crusaders themselves will have enough ressource to not be willing on accepting Muslim suzerainty .
Would turning otl’s coastal strip into a vassal be possible ?
 
Top