raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 22, 2018 19:53:19 GMT
Recently, I was reading a little about the fifth crusade and found that its leader (Pelagius) was made an amazing offer after the crusaders took Damietta, the holy land in return for the city. This basically was the strategy of the crusade, to threaten Egypt to get Jerusalem back, but Pelagius didn't accept and continued the campaign in Egypt, eventually leading to a disaster.
But what would have happened if the crusaders had taken the deal?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033 
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 23, 2018 3:52:12 GMT
But what would have happened if the crusaders had taken the deal? Do not know, never heard of him before you posted this thread.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Apr 23, 2018 15:33:41 GMT
Recently, I was reading a little about the fifth crusade and found that its leader (Pelagius) was made an amazing offer after the crusaders took Damietta, the holy land in return for the city. This basically was the strategy of the crusade, to threaten Egypt to get Jerusalem back, but Pelagius didn't accept and continued the campaign in Egypt, eventually leading to a disaster. But what would have happened if the crusaders had taken the deal? Interesting and it likes a right mess of incompetence and infighting, which seems to have been the case of most of the crusades. At least from a quick read of the Wiki page, Fifth_Crusade, which notes that Andrew II of Hungary, who took part in the crusade, the previous year actually won victories including on the Jordan and that "In Jerusalem, the walls and fortifications were demolished to prevent the Christians from being able to defend the city, if they did manage to reach it and take it". Which sounds rather strange and I doubt it was done completely as it then says "The crusaders' catapults and trebuchets did not arrive in time, so they had fruitless assaults on the fortresses of the Lebanon and on Mount Tabor". However if that is accurate, then if Pegagius, who seems to have been the leader of the Papal presence had accepted the offer and Al-Kamil, the Egyptian sultan had fulfilled his part of the deal then the crusaders may not have held it for long. It is noticeable that the decision to reject the offer lead to some crusaders withdrawing from the effort. Also that earlier the German emperor Frederick II joined the crusade but because he was excommunicated at that point a number of groups including the Knights Templar had to withdraw their support from him. He still had some successes and in 1229 [which may be a typo?] managed a deal which brought most of Jerusalem and some other areas religiously important to Christians to Frederick. Ironically the Georgians had also offered a large component, possibly up to 45,000 men, which would have about doubled the total crusader forces but this ran into scouting Mongol forces and was largely annihilated in a couple of battles. However that sounds like a possible butterfly that could have had an impact.
Quite a chaotic period in the region by the sound of it.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 24, 2018 12:18:25 GMT
Recently, I was reading a little about the fifth crusade and found that its leader (Pelagius) was made an amazing offer after the crusaders took Damietta, the holy land in return for the city. This basically was the strategy of the crusade, to threaten Egypt to get Jerusalem back, but Pelagius didn't accept and continued the campaign in Egypt, eventually leading to a disaster. But what would have happened if the crusaders had taken the deal? The Muslims would've gotten it back. Like they always do. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Apr 24, 2018 21:26:46 GMT
Recently, I was reading a little about the fifth crusade and found that its leader (Pelagius) was made an amazing offer after the crusaders took Damietta, the holy land in return for the city. This basically was the strategy of the crusade, to threaten Egypt to get Jerusalem back, but Pelagius didn't accept and continued the campaign in Egypt, eventually leading to a disaster. But what would have happened if the crusaders had taken the deal? The Muslims would've gotten it back. Like they always do. Not really. They didn't get Iberia or Sicily back and if Basil II had done his primary job as emperor and produced a clear heir, which could well have prevent the period of turmoil and internal decay after his death in 1025 Byzantium could well have kept not just Anatolia but also a good chunk more of the ME as they held a large proportion of Syria at that point. True if the Mongols still turn up their likely to really do them over but with a still Orthodox Anatolia [at least] your likely to see it being reclaimed as the Mongols fade away. Of course in the event of the Byzantium empire staying strong there could still be crusades, probably against it, if it gained control of Jerusalem. Similarly Muslims have ruled much of the Balkans and India for centuries but apart from relatively isolated areas they no longer have political control of. There's nothing inevitable about the expansion of Islam or any other group or culture. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 24, 2018 22:08:06 GMT
Jerusalem would have been hard to hold, but taking it would have brought a lot of prestige. Additionally, the sultan of Egypt gave it up, which substantially weakens his position, leading to a nice bunch of wars. But then again, it's always really hard to say, especially for someone like me who isn't much of an expert in the era.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jun 28, 2018 6:06:50 GMT
Main reason the Crusaders continued on is that removing Egypt from the playing field would've collapsed Islamic power utterly; without Egypt, the Crusaders can easily demolish the Muslim presence east of Mesopotamia. The Muslim position in Iberia and North Africa would've also become untenable, as they are now cut off and the Crusaders would have control of Egypt.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Jun 28, 2018 9:36:50 GMT
Main reason the Crusaders continued on is that removing Egypt from the playing field would've collapsed Islamic power utterly; without Egypt, the Crusaders can easily demolish the Muslim presence east of Mesopotamia. The Muslim position in Iberia and North Africa would've also become untenable, as they are now cut off and the Crusaders would have control of Egypt.
It would have split the Islamic world, for as long as they could hold Egypt, which is arguably markedly more difficult than Palestine. [Large Muslim population, sizeable Coptic minority which would probably be treated better by the Muslims than by Catholic crusaders and fairly open borders.] Not saying its impossible but you would need something a hell of a lot more organised and less crippled by infighting than the crusades generally were. Basically you would probably need at least one genius level leader. Plus such a character is likely, because of Egypt's wealth and hence potential power, to be on the receiving end of a lot of jealousy and hostility, including by the Papacy.
Also while the Muslims in N Africa would still have been relatively powerful as a couple of dynasties showed about this time so IF Egypt was held and converted to Catholicism - which I think is difficult - their likely to fall eventually but probably going to take at least 100-200 years to clear Iberia and then further time to take N Africa.
Not to mention, unless their wise enough to acknowledge Mongol supremacy for a while their likely to be bashed by them, especially since they wouldn't have the same power base as the Mamluks in Egypt. In such a case its likely to be a Muslim state, quite possibly a Mongol dynasty as elsewhere in the ME when non-monotheistic Mongol power declines.
|
|
