What if William, the eldest son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, lived and inherited the lands of both his parents? The younger brothers would all need to marry heiress and that can end with Richard being sent in Jerusalem for marrying princess Sibylla, who was her brother’s heiress presumptive. In alternative Richard can go to Outremer for any reason and receiving the offer of marrying Sibylla once arrived there.
 
Trees
Henry II, King of England (b. 1133) married Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine (b. 1122) in 1152
  1. William III, King of England (b. 1153) married Margaret of France, Countess of Vexin (b. 1158) with issues
  2. Henry, Duke of Brittany (b. 1155) married Constance, Duchess of Brittany (b. 1161) with issues
  3. Matilda (b. 1156) married Henry III, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria (b. 1131) with issues
  4. Richard, King of Jerusalem (b. 1157) married Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem (b. 1160) in 1173 with issues
  5. Geoffrey, Duke of Savoy (b. 1158) married Alicia of Savoy (b. 1166) with issues
  6. Eleanor (b. 1162) married Alfonso VIII, King of Castile (b. 1155) with issues
  7. Joan (b. 1165) married William II, King of Sicily (b. 1153) with issues
  8. John (b. 1166), Cardinal
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Pretty unlikely going that way and the two Kingdoms would be split in any case
Well, I guess if we allow female or female line succession, but other than Matilda that has no great precedent in England at this time.

It seems not at all without the bounds of possibility that the England and Breton lines might die out in the male line, and the Jerusalem line ( as long as we assume Richard is not actually gay ) MIGHT be the senior male line.
 
Well, I guess if we allow female or female line succession, but other than Matilda that has no great precedent in England at this time.

It seems not at all without the bounds of possibility that the England and Breton lines might die out in the male line, and the Jerusalem line ( as long as we assume Richard is not actually gay ) MIGHT be the senior male line.
Oh, Richard and Sibylla will have kids (if you note all the weddings are signed as with issues) but is unlikely who both the senior lines would completely die (as England fully allowed female succession. Maud was the designated heiress of her father and had lost her crown NOT for being female BUT because the barons disliked her husband. And about allowing female line’s succession BOTH Stephen and Henry II’s claims originated from their mothers so…

Still Richard in place of Guy of Lusignan mean who a) Jerusalem will NOT fall, b) Saladin will NOT be able to get great results against Jerusalem
 
Warfare in the holy land is very different to fighting on Western Europe which has a over-reliance on cavalry.
If you look at Richards success in the middle east he showed :
1 planning- one of the few crusader leaders who built a significant war chest pre starting the crusade
2 seige warfare. Capture of Acre. Including bringing granite boulders for the seige engines. (Harder rock)
3 battle. Defeated Salidin at b of Arsuf.
4 defeated saladin again at Jaffa.
5 captured Cyprus and Sicily in almost blitzkrieg fashion.
6 personal heroism.
There commenced a period of minor skirmishes with Saladin's forces, punctuated by another defeat in the field for the Ayyubid army at the Battle of Jaffa. Baha' al-Din, a contemporary Muslim soldier and biographer of Saladin, recorded a tribute to Richard's martial prowess at this battle: "I have been assured ... that on that day the king of England, lance in hand, rode along the whole length of our army from right to left, and not one of our soldiers left the ranks to attack him. The Sultan was wroth thereat and left the battlefield in anger...".[97
Wiki Richard 1.
7 strategy. did not wish to attempt an attack on Jerusalem for logistic reasons but capture Egypt instead. (What would become most crusader targets from then on )
So if Richard had been installed in 1173. Better if 1168 he would have focused on Egypt first, then Damascus, then Aleppo. Take these three areas and you taken the jump points for Muslim attacks on the crusader kingdoms, protected the original areas of the kingdom from raids, and made the ,kingdom very wealthy.
 
Last edited:
Richard of course was a military genius so the great defeats could be butterflied.
The biggest defeats would be butterflied by default as you need simply to have someone less stupid than Guy of Lusignan (and Gerard of Rideford and Raynald of Chatillon) as King of Jerusalem (and that is pretty easy as their idiocy was very big). Richard, after some years in Jerusalem, would NEVER believe who a field battle against Saladin was a good idea (and surely would NOT believe who the true cross would be enough for giving him the victory).
 
So if Richard had been installed in 1173. Better if 1168 he would have focused on Egypt first, then Damascus, then Aleppo. Take these three areas and you taken the jump points for Muslim attacks on the crusader kingdoms, protected the original areas of the kingdom from raids, and made the ,kingdom very wealthy.
Richard would be 11 in 1168 as I had him marrying Sibylla at 16 years old
 
What if William, the eldest son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, lived and inherited the lands of both his parents? The younger brothers would all need to marry heiress and that can end with Richard being sent in Jerusalem for marrying princess Sibylla, who was her brother’s heiress presumptive. In alternative Richard can go to Outremer for any reason and receiving the offer of marrying Sibylla once arrived there.
Interesting. However, given that the POD for this would be before the birth of Baldwin the Leper, it's entirely possible that the resulting butterflies result in his not being, well, a leper. If we end up with a healthy Baldwin IV, then he could end up marrying and having heirs of the body, thus negating Sibylla as his heir.

Also, this seemed appropriate:

 
Who gets Aquitaine ITTL? Henry? Richard was Eleanor's favourite son but a personal union between Aquitaine and Jerusalem would be impractical.
 
The biggest defeats would be butterflied by default as you need simply to have someone less stupid than Guy of Lusignan (and Gerard of Rideford and Raynald of Chatillon) as King of Jerusalem (and that is pretty easy as their idiocy was very big). Richard, after some years in Jerusalem, would NEVER believe who a field battle against Saladin was a good idea (and surely would NOT believe who the true cross would be enough for giving him the victory).
I don’t think Guy was truly stupid. He actually avoided fighting in a field battle against Saladin the first time he was in control of the army, but was chastised by many of the kingdom’s major nobles including his brother in law the King for that. Many of the kingdom’s nobles were essentially loose cannons.Richard by contrast should have the reputation and standing to withstand the pressure to fight Saladin. But honestly, I think Richard would actually want to fight the field battles, and unlike Guy would win.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think Guy was truly stupid. He actually avoided fighting in a field battle against Saladin the first time he was in control of the army, but was chastised by many of the kingdom’s major nobles including his brother in law the King for that. Many of the kingdom’s nobles were essentially loose cannons.Richard by contrast should have the reputation and standing to withstand the pressure to fight Saladin. But honestly, I think Richard would actually want to fight the field battles, and unlike Guy would win.
Yep he would have fought and won as he did 3 times. Acre, jaffa, arsuf
 
Who gets Aquitaine ITTL? Henry? Richard was Eleanor's favourite son but a personal union between Aquitaine and Jerusalem would be impractical.
The older brother, William, who here lived inherited all the lands of both parents.

Interesting. However, given that the POD for this would be before the birth of Baldwin the Leper, it's entirely possible that the resulting butterflies result in his not being, well, a leper. If we end up with a healthy Baldwin IV, then he could end up marrying and having heirs of the body, thus negating Sibylla as his heir.

Also, this seemed appropriate:

Pretty unlikely who butterflies will affect Jerusalem so early so Baldwin‘s fate would be unchanged and Sibylla will be the heiress

I don’t think Guy was truly stupid. He actually avoided fighting in a field battle against Saladin the first time he was in control of the army, but was chastised by many of the kingdom’s major nobles including his brother in law the King for that. Many of the kingdom’s nobles were essentially loose cannons.Richard by contrast should have the reputation and standing to withstand the pressure to fight Saladin. But honestly, I think Richard would actually want to fight the field battles, and unlike Guy would win.
Hattin was a monumental idiocy who anyone with a little of good sense would have avoided
 
Yep he would have fought and won as he did 3 times. Acre, jaffa, arsuf
He was NOT totally useless BUT often was unable to understand the right thing to do and made the wrong choice. He was arrogant and ended taking Saladin’s baits falling in his trap
 
The older brother, William, who here lived inherited all the lands of both parents.


Pretty unlikely who butterflies will affect Jerusalem so early so Baldwin‘s fate would be unchanged and Sibylla will be the heiress


Hattin was a monumental idiocy who anyone with a little of good sense would have avoided
And yet a large part of the Kingdom’s major nobles wanted to go ahead with exactly that. I think that the pressure was too great for Guy. Someone with very little standing, personal resources and lack of exceptional competence like Guy should have never been made king in the first place. Guy being made Sybilla‘s husband was itself a monumental display of idiocy.
 
Last edited:
Top