The Outremer States

[VandalCarthage]

Prompted by the interesting thread regarding how the Roman Empire might have further endured, I was wondering if anyone had any particular thoughts on how the Outremer States:

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem
The Kingdom of Souther Armenia
The Principality of Antioch
The County of Tropoli
The County of something beginning with an E...

Might have endured against Saladin or their other Muslim enemies?

[therussian]

...Edessa.

[MoROmeTe]

Edessa...
This needs a lot of reading... and I don't really have the time right now... Maybe tomorrow...

This I didn't know... The part about how all the kingdoms on the land depended on Jerusalem.

Aside from the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there were also three other major Crusader states on the mainland, the County of Edessa, the County of Tripoli, and the Principality of Antioch, which nominally bore some dependency on the Kingdom. The King of Jerusalem was bound to reconcile them in case of disputes (or between the Prince and Patriarich in Antioch), and could claim the regency in case of a vacancy or minority in their successions.

So it basically about the Kingdom of Jerusalem...

[Pompeius Minus]

Might the Outremer States have endured against Saladin or their other Muslim enemies?

Maybe not impossible. Before Hattin they were quite successful in holding off Saladin, and Hattin was certainly one of those disasters that could have been avoided. The Muslim world was very fragmented politically, and it was by no means easy for them to mount a unified response to the crusaders.

But long term success would still depend on attracting a sufficient number of Frankish settlers from Europe. And even if they survived Saladin, they'd still have to contend with the Mongols 75 years later.

[{nF}remix]

now that i would have liked to see, Geghis khan laying siege againts the kingdom of Jerusalem. Im not sure who would win, but something tells me that khan would slaughter everybody in Jerusalem and the Pope would declare another crusade aimed at the khan. Now that i would like to see !

[S.P.Q.R.]

....hmmm... I don't think that Ghengis Khan could undertake a siege at all, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he was uncapable of such warfare, after all open field was their favorite ground.
If those greedy and envious europens could have one great leader and collaborate (as they never did ) today we would have less problems in the middle east

[Pompeius Minus]

Huh? I think you seriously underestimate the Mongols. They were infamous for their sieges, which sometimes ended with the massacre of the entire population.

Although they were nomads themselves, by the time they got to the Middle East they had recruited excellent Chinese and Arab siege engineers. The Mongols successfully laid siege to Baghdad twice, and that was a major city.

If those greedy and envious europens could have one great leader and collaborate (as they never did )...

To be fair the Muslims had exactly the same problems. Their neverending dynastic and intra-religious struggles seriously weakened them against both the Crusaders and the Mongols, with disastrous consequences.

[VandalCarthage]

...Edessa.

Cheers!

But long term success would still depend on attracting a sufficient number of Frankish settlers from Europe. And even if they survived Saladin, they'd still have to contend with the Mongols 75 years later.

I think if the army under King Guy hadn't been lured into the desert by Saladin's army, and had managed to confront them on a level theater of battle, they probably would have won. Saladin's forces were already slightly weakened by an unsuccessful approach to one of Prince Reynald's well fortified strongholds, so it seems to me that a couple well placed charges with the knight's superior cavalry could have handled him.

But that's the key up there, they really did have strongholds that they defended admirably and often with great success. With the victory, I think the outremer states would have become incredibly powerful, gaining new credit to actually enlist the natives and the 1/2 Franks as yeoman in a truly effective army. That was obviously their major military short come; few to now strong native levies.

[The Knight 2100]

One of the largest problems with the Crusader States was that they always had a problem with numbers. At the Battle of the Horns of Hattin for instance, once the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was defeated, almost their entire military was defeated. They simply didn't have a large enough population base of Europeans. This could have been remedied however, if they had somehow managed to get Europeans to immigrate into the Crusader States.

I think that the Kingdom of Jerusalem also made a large mistake when they fought Saladin at the Battle of the Horns of Hattin. What they should have done is fought him in a way similar to how they fought him at the Battle of Montgisard, where they used a relatively small force to defeat Saladin's army after he had travelled far into the Kingdom of Jerusalem's territory. Instead, at the Battle of the Horns of Hattin, the Kingdom of Jerusalem raised a large army, therefore gutting the strength of their town's, cities' and castle's garrisons. The effect of this was that when they were defeated in battle against Saladin, almost the entire military of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was defeated, leaving few soldiers to defend the Kingdom fo Jersualem once the initial battle was lost.

Essentially, I think that the Crusader States needed more permanent reinforcements from Europe in order for them to survive, as well as not make some of the mistakes that they made along the way. I wonder what would have happened had the Kingdom of Jersualem defeated Saladin's invasion in 1187, or if the Second Crusade had captured and held Damascus...

The Crusades that were sent from Europe, also had a problem with unity. There were a lot of instances where the leaders of the crusade disagreed and where the soldiers only really followed their own lords.

It would have been very difficult for the Crusader States to survive, especially without strong relations with Byzantium, Armenia, or the indigenous Christians. Unforunately, relations between the Crusaders and the Byzantine Empire, Armenia and the indigenous Christians weren't that great.

In the end, what the Crusader states needed-
1. Reinforcements from Europe
2. More unity in the Crusades
3. Better relations with other Christians in the area
4. Soldiers recruited among the native population

I also think that the best way for the Crusader states to survive would have been to follow the model of Sicily. In Sicily, Latin Christians, Orthodox Christians and Muslims lived in the same country, served in the same armies and worked in the same government. If that could have been achieved, perhaps it would have allowed for the Crusader States to exist longer.

[Perkele]

I guess it would just have been a matter of time.

[VandalCarthage]

3. Better relations with other Christians in the area

Definitely. A good many Byzantine Christians in southern Asia Minor were feeling entirely disenfranchised if they'd managed to survive in the area, and a stronger relationship with them could have brought a whole new sympathetic population to the region.

But central Greeks should have been courted as well, as they were in an area that couldn't have been called anything but hotly contested - the Duchy of Athens being one of the major testaments to local strife. The immigration of sympathetic foreign nationals and enlisting the locals as a stronger class of yoeman in the army, would have solved a good deal of the numerical problems - just as inter-ethnic marriage with the locals would have.

[al-caid]

I had a book with a very detailed history of these states, but written in the communist era, so it lacks objectivity :/ These states were led by impatient men, who wanted empires without first building them in generations.

[VandalCarthage]

That's the problem with it enduring. It was a hit or miss thing, and they missed because they thought their aims could be achieved by a giant sweeping crusade, rather then enjoying even the barest developmental stage.

[S.P.Q.R.]

Good analysis Knight 2100 I am glad to hear from you! :original:

[The Knight 2100]

Thanks S.P.Q.R.

Ultimately, I think it's a wonder that the Crusader States lasted as long as they did (almost 200 years) considering the circumstances of the Crusader States. There weren't many Europeans in Outremer, they were surrounded by enemies much of the time etc.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened had the Crusader States if they had sought an alliance with the Christians in Ethiopia. It sounds pretty far fetched, and I doubt that an alliance would have been feasable. But who knows. Ethiopia was far away, and had little contact with Europeans. I also don't know what they were capable of militarily. As far as I know, the Europeans knew very little about Ethiopia.

[VandalCarthage]

Ultimately, I think it's a wonder that the Crusader States lasted as long as they did (almost 200 years) considering the circumstances of the Crusader States. There weren't many Europeans in Outremer, they were surrounded by enemies much of the time etc.

Properly managed, the region could have been easily defended, but they were after holding too broad a frontier with too little actual land. If that held along the River Jordan, and the river that curves around Antioch, they could have maintained a well supplied frontier, and held back a good many enemies - or fallen backen into regions otherwise inhospitable for their enemies. The problem with that being, most maps of the time depicted the Pheonician coast as a sixth the breadth of Asia Minor, obviously preventing more then only marginal navigation - especially for newly arrived forces.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened had the Crusader States if they had sought an alliance with the Christians in Ethiopia. It sounds pretty far fetched, and I doubt that an alliance would have been feasable. But who knows. Ethiopia was far away, and had little contact with Europeans. I also don't know what they were capable of militarily. As far as I know, the Europeans knew very little about Ethiopia.

That's a good question. Their early fall is largely thanks to Saladin, and if the Egyptians had had to face an armed conflict in the South, they wouldn't have been able to sweep so swiftly up through the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

[turcopolier]

Good point Knight 2001, but after what I´ve read about Mont Gisard it was many factors involved especially a lot of luck on the Christian side.

Many good points have been brought up here, to many to count, so I´m just saying "great" to all of you! Some points, some are old, which I think would have made a difference:

1. Relations with the Byzantine Empire.

2. The Battle at the Horns of Hattin. A major mistake. The Christian strongholds in Outremer were some of the most advanced in the world at the time and the Muslim invasion would probably have ended like so many before; the army would have been disolved after some time.

3. The Christian resolve to still focus around the heavy cavalry. They hired Turcopoles, lightly armoured horsearchers, but only as a secondary force. If they would have adapted more to the fighting-style of the Muslims things might have been different.

4. Their disadvantage in numbers. This could have been helped by greater help from Europe or to use the excellent fortress to their maximum extent.

5. Greater coordination during military campaigns. This goes especially for the Crusades.

6. Greater coordination between the military orders.

[The Knight 2100]

Yes, the crusaders were pretty lucky at Montgisard. Not only did they surprise Saladin, but they did it when Saladin's army was scattered and uncoordinated. Even so, it does show that the Kingdom of Jerusalem would have had a better chance allowing their enemies to actually cross their borders a while, and fight the enemy in sieges and relatively small battles than to fight the enemy in a large engagement.