Frederick Barbarossa Lives An Additional Five Years or More

[futurist]

What if Frederick Barbarossa would have lived an additional five years or more?

Would the Third Crusade have succeeded in conquering Jerusalem in this scenario? If so, would Saladin's empire have collapsed and crumbled afterwards due to Saladin's loss of prestige?

Also, would the Crusader states have survived longer in this scenario? If so, then how much longer would they have survived (in comparison to real life)?

Indeed, any thoughts on all of this?

[lordroel]

Jun 20, 2016 3:53:52 GMT futurist said:

What if Frederick Barbarossa would have lived an additional five years or more?

Would the Third Crusade have succeeded in conquering Jerusalem in this scenario? If so, would Saladin's empire have collapsed and crumbled afterwards due to Saladin's loss of prestige?

Also, would the Crusader states have survived longer in this scenario? If so, then how much longer would they have survived (in comparison to real life)?

Indeed, any thoughts on all of this?

So he does not drown in Saleph river due a hart attack, but what prevent him having a hart attack a year later.

[stevep]

The 3rd crusade might have done better as he would not only have brought significant additional forces to it but also provided a leadership that might have been immume, or at least less affected by the tension between Richard I and the French king. Or with three powerful rulers seeking power and influence there might have been even less co-operation.

Since the Germans are coming down from the north they might threaten Saladin's Syrian possessions more and force him to divert resources to defend this. However even Richard, a very good military leader, failed to take Jerusalm largely because the Muslims destroyed many of the water supplies and other resources near the city, making a successful seige impossible. Unless Saladin say dies in some conflict with the Germans the presence of more crusaders is unlikely to change that.

The best bet for the crusades, presuming Saladin doesn't do something stupid, is to make gains in the northern area, especially if say they could capture Allepo and or Damascus. This would give the crusade states significantly more staying power and a more secure NE frontier, at least until the Mongols come along. [Unless say Frederick is able to organise an invasion of Egypt and pull it off.

While he was a powerful emperor I don't know how his forces would have faired against the Muslim troops with their light cavalry and missile forces. Richard developed tactics that made his forces largely secure, although it also meant he had to wait until then enemy came to him unless he could trap them in a seige. Frederick might do as well/better or insist on different tactics and possibly even prompt disaster for the crusaders.

[futurist]

Jun 20, 2016 14:20:43 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 20, 2016 3:53:52 GMT futurist said:

What if Frederick Barbarossa would have lived an additional five years or more?

Would the Third Crusade have succeeded in conquering Jerusalem in this scenario? If so, would Saladin's empire have collapsed and crumbled afterwards due to Saladin's loss of prestige?

Also, would the Crusader states have survived longer in this scenario? If so, then how much longer would they have survived (in comparison to real life)?

Indeed, any thoughts on all of this?

So he does not drown in Saleph river due a hart attack, but what prevent him having a hart attack a year later.

A better lifestyle in the previous years and decades.

[futurist]

Jun 20, 2016 22:26:49 GMT stevep said:

1. The 3rd crusade might have done better as he would not only have brought significant additional forces to it but also provided a leadership that might have been immume, or at least less affected by the tension between Richard I and the French king. Or with three powerful rulers seeking power and influence there might have been even less co-operation.

2. Since the Germans are coming down from the north they might threaten Saladin's Syrian possessions more and force him to divert resources to defend this.

3. However even Richard, a very good military leader, failed to take Jerusalm largely because the Muslims destroyed many of the water supplies and other resources near the city, making a successful seige impossible. Unless Saladin say dies in some conflict with the Germans the presence of more crusaders is unlikely to change that.

4. The best bet for the crusades, presuming Saladin doesn't do something stupid, is to make gains in the northern area, especially if say they could capture Allepo and or Damascus. This would give the crusade states significantly more staying power and a more secure NE frontier, at least until the Mongols come along. [Unless say Frederick is able to organise an invasion of Egypt and pull it off.

5. While he was a powerful emperor I don't know how his forces would have faired against the Muslim troops with their light cavalry and missile forces. Richard developed tactics that made his forces largely secure, although it also meant he had to wait until then enemy came to him unless he could trap them in a seige. Frederick might do as well/better or insist on different tactics and possibly even prompt disaster for the crusaders.

1. Completely agreed. Indeed, both of these appear to be very real possibilities.

2. Wouldn't defending Jerusalem (as an Muslim holy city) be more important for Saladin than defending Syria, though?

3. What about having Frederick's troops (or, alternatively, Richard's troops) quickly build roads and bring supplies to the Crusader forces who are located near Jerusalem, though?

4. Does that mean giving up on the idea of capturing Jerusalem, though?

5. What about if Frederick agrees to follow and to implement Richard's tactics after he sees the success and effectiveness of Richard's tactics, though?

[futurist]

Also, while this might be a radical idea, what about having the Crusaders try capturing Mesopotamia if they are unable to capture either Jerusalem or Egypt but are able to make significant territorial advances/gains in Syria? After all, couldn't Mesopotamian agriculture have helped the Crusader states survive, flourish, and avoid starvation (as in, in the event that Europe itself will experience food shortages)?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

[stevep]

Jun 22, 2016 23:52:15 GMT futurist said:

Jun 20, 2016 22:26:49 GMT stevep said:

1. The 3rd crusade might have done better as he would not only have brought significant additional forces to it but also provided a leadership that might have been immume, or at least less affected by the tension between Richard I and the French king. Or with three powerful rulers seeking power and influence there might have been even less co-operation.

2. Since the Germans are coming down from the north they might threaten Saladin's Syrian possessions more and force him to divert resources to defend this.

3. However even Richard, a very good military leader, failed to take Jerusalm largely because the Muslims destroyed many of the water supplies and other resources near the city, making a successful seige impossible. Unless Saladin say dies in some conflict with the Germans the presence of more crusaders is unlikely to change that.

4. The best bet for the crusades, presuming Saladin doesn't do something stupid, is to make gains in the northern area, especially if say they could capture Allepo and or Damascus. This would give the crusade states significantly more staying power and a more secure NE frontier, at least until the Mongols come along. [Unless say Frederick is able to organise an invasion of Egypt and pull it off.

5. While he was a powerful emperor I don't know how his forces would have faired against the Muslim troops with their light cavalry and missile forces. Richard developed tactics that made his forces largely secure, although it also meant he had to wait until then enemy came to him unless he could trap them in a seige. Frederick might do as well/better or insist on different tactics and possibly even prompt disaster for the crusaders.

1. Completely agreed. Indeed, both of these appear to be very real possibilities.

2. Wouldn't defending Jerusalem (as an Muslim holy city) be more important for Saladin than defending Syria, though?

3. What about having Frederick's troops (or, alternatively, Richard's troops) quickly build roads and bring supplies to the Crusader forces who are located near Jerusalem, though?

4. Does that mean giving up on the idea of capturing Jerusalem, though?

5. What about if Frederick agrees to follow and to implement Richard's tactics after he sees the success and effectiveness of Richard's tactics, though?

 2)  Defending Jerusalm would be mportant but, while he also now ruled Egypt, which was even richer his roots and original power base were in northern Syria.  Also they had some very important settlements there so I think it would force some diversion of resources.  If nothing else I suspect a fair number of Saladin's men probably came from that area and would be unwilling to see their homes conquered and familes enslaves/ravaged/slaughtered.

  3)  I don't know if this would have occurred to the 12th C mind or what capacity they had for such work.  Didn't think any real roads had been built in western Europe since the fall of Rome.  Also would it still have still been a problem of logistics moving enough supplies to support a long seige.

  4)  In the short term possibly, which would be unpopular but a stronger crusader presence in Syria would boost the chance of taking Jerusalm at a later stage.  Or if by some miracle Egypt could also be taken then Jeruslam could be undefendable for the Muslims.

  5) That would be a big boost but I don't know enough about Frederick and his men to say how likely that would be.