Purposes of the Kingdom:
1. First and foremost, we are in place to guard Papal Jerusalem and the rest of Christianity from attacks by Muslims, Mongols, or similar-minded invaders who would seek to do Christianity harm.
2. We are to provide a safe haven for pilgrims who come to worship.
3. We are to protect the interests of the Holy Roman Empire and provide the Reich with goods to trade from the East.
The Charter of the Kingdom of Outremer
1. The Kingdom of Outremer will consist of Antioch, Acre, Adana, Aleppo, Edessa and Damascus.
2. The Kingdom of Outremer is an integral part of the Reich. It is not a fifth House.
3. The function of the Kingdom is defensive: to safeguard Jerusalem and protect the gateway to Christendom
4. The Kingdom will be overseen by a King of Outremer, who will be appointed by the Emperor at each full Diet session. The King will temporarily renounce all loyalties to his House for the duration of his appointment (e.g. if Duke, must appoint a Steward).
5. The King will command a Household Army, both acting according to Charter Amendment 5.2 (with the King assuming the role of “Duke”). He may delegate the day to day command of the Army (assign other generals to lead it in battle). However, contrary to CA5.1, to be in accordance with article (1), the Army may not be used to permanently conquer neighbouring provinces (recapturing Christian settlements taken by non-Christians and returning them to their original owners would be allowed).
6. Outremer’s provinces will be governed by Crusading Counts. These will also be appointed at every Diet, by the new King. The Dukes and the Emperor will set the build queue for any provinces without a Count which are allocated to their control.
7. Both the King and Crusading Counts must be physically located outside Europe for the duration of their appointments.
8. All four Houses of the Reich have a stake in the Kingdom. Damascus is assigned to Austria; Adana is assigned to Bavaria; Acre is assigned to Swabia; and Aleppo is assigned to Franconia. Antioch will be the capital of Outremer and an Imperial province governed by the King of Outremer. Edessa will also be an Imperial province, governed by a Count chosen by the King of Outremer. The Crusading Count for a settlement must come from the appropriate House. They will gain +1 influence, but only if they are not already a Count in their Duchy, and only for the Diet session that marks their appointment. The cap of 6 influence for all but the Emperor remains.
Charter Amendment 11.3: The King of Outremer is allowed to propose three Edicts (or Charter Amendments) per Diet Session. Prior to being tabled in the Diet, these must be seconded by two Crusader Counts in the Council of Crusaders.
Charter Amendment 11.6:The position of King of Outremer is appointed by the emperor. The King of Outremer is permitted to resign, if the emperor is willing to accept the resignation, upon which a new King is appointed by the emperor. If the King of Outremer is deemed incapable of the assignment, he may be impeached by the emperor and 2 Dukes.
King Jan adds: There are two Armies of Outremer. Where possible, army commands will rotate so as to make sure everyone has a turn at leading an army. The King still reserves the right to appoint/deny army commands as he sees fit and a crusader still reserves the right to ask for garrison duty.
King Jan adds: For now, the Prince has decided that his army will be stationed in Outremer. It is not a third AoO. The Prince is a guest and will be treated as such. He will be informed of the strategic situation and then he will decide how he wishes to help. The King will not interfere with this in any way and all Chancellors are urged to respect this while the Prince's army is in Outremer.
Current assignments:
Antioch - King Jan (Privateerkev)
Damascus - Karl Zirn (Northnovas)
Adana - Matthias Steffen (OverKnight)
Acre - Elberhard (econ21)
Aleppo - Dieter Bresch (Bob_the_Great)
Edessa - unassigned
Kings of Outremer:
Kaiser Henry (econ21) - 1200-1210 (informal)
Otto von Kassel (OverKnight) - 1210-1232 (1210-1220 informal)
Conrad Salier (GeneralHankerchief) - 1232-1276
Prince Elberhard (econ21) - 1276-1280 (steward)
Jan von Hamburg (Privateerkev) - 1280-???
Prinz Henry: At the risk of prejudging the final outcome of the First Emergency Diet polls, I believe now may be an opportune moment to begin planning our great Crusade to Jerusalem.
I propose all generals involved in the Crusade should gather together in this Council to plan and make decisions regarding the crusade.
The laws under which we must act are:
Edict E1.1:In an effort to make penance for whatever sins we have incurred upon our souls during the violent overthrow and death of Pope Greogry, the Reich will launch a Crusade to capture the Holy City of Jerusalem. After the city is captured, it will be given as a gift to the sitting Pope, to allow him to permanently reign over Christendom from the land of Christ. The Crusade will be governed as follows:
1: Every general who wishes to join the Crusade may do so.
2: For the duration of the Crusade, all limits on army composition will not apply to any Crusade armies.
3: The Crusade is authorized to declare war on any non-Catholic faction it encounters, if it deems such a declaration of war to be necessary.
4: All strategic decisions regarding the Crusade, such as choice of settlements to attack and commanders of the Crusading armies, will be made by the generals who participate in the Crusade. All decisions will be made by majority vote, without regard for earthly influence. We are all equal in the eyes of God on this Holy Mission.
5: All Edicts relating to the Crusade will remain in effect until the Papacy governs Jerusalem or until every last Crusader lies dead, whichever comes first.
and:
Edict E1.7:Should edict E1.1 pass for the duration of the Crusade, the Reich will refrain from conquering any Catholic settlement and instead focus on defending the borders from outside attack and developing our provinces. This Edict does not apply to Thorn, Venice, Marseille and Breslau, nor does it apply to any settlement of the Reich which is captured by our enemies. Additionally, should the HRE be attacked by any nations it is not at war with at the time of the attack, one (1) settlement may be annexed from that nation of the Chancellor's choice.
At the moment the Council of Crusaders comprises:
Maximillan Mandorf (TinCow) Prinz Henry (econ21) Dietrich von Saxony (Kagemusha) Otto Kassel (Overknight) Jonas von Mahren (Jalf)
Any other generals wishing to join the crusade should declare their intent here.
Dietrich Von Saxony
"If this crusade is to come. I think those of us who hold the title of Duke should name the next Dukes for their Duchy before leaving and setting him as the Steward, for the time of the Crusade and incase we dont come back, that person should be named as the Duke. Also i dont think we should try to send any notes about how the reich should be ruled to Diet,while we are in our Holy mission. Those left behind should handle the affairs and we should focus on our task to fight our way to the Holy land."
Duke von Saxony, I know you are not entirely pleased with the nature of this Crusade, yet you have still volunteered to leave your lands and join us. That is an immense sacrifice and it demonstrates more nobility and faith in God than any man I know. I am very pleased to have a man of your quality on what is sure to be a long and difficult journey. I look forward to drawing my sword with you in service to the Lord.
*Mandorf makes a long and respectful bow towards the Duke.*
There are several issues we can profitably discuss at this moment.
First, the composition of the crusade. We should bear in mind the normal composition of our armies:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
8. Historical armies
The following rules apply for field armies of 15+ or more units.
Generals - max 2 units
Knights - cavalry or foot, max 8 units inc. generals
[The class of knights is therefore: Dismtd Feudal knights; Dismtd Imperial knights; Dismtd Gothic knights; Mailed knights; Feudal knights; Imperial knights; Teutonic knights; General’s bodyguard; Gothic knights; plus any mercenary knights included those great dismounted knights you get in the Holy Land.)
Total cavalry - maximum 8 units, inc mounted knights and generals
[Non-knightly cavalry includes: Mounted crossbowmen ; Reiters; Merchant cavalry; Mounted sergeants]
Artillery - maximum 2 units (5 in a siege - if caught in a field battle immediately withdraw excess of over two)
Foot missiles - maximum 6 units including artillery
[Foot missiles include: Peasant archers; Peasant crossbowmen; Crossbow militia; Pavisse crossbowmen; Arquebusiers; Handgunners ]
Total elite heavy infantry - max 6
[Elite infantry comprises Zweihander; Forlorn Hope; Landsknechts; dismounted knights and equivalent mercs - e.g. Galllowglass?]
I propose we adhere to the above as much as possible, with the exception of our relative abundance of generals. The Chancellor will manage this, but I suggest we aim for a full army of 20 regiments comprising the best troops available to us. The crusade should have first call on the advanced troops recenlly available from Staufen and the Teutonic Order: those left behind can train such men when we are gone, but once we leave the Reich, we will be unable to do so:
Cavalry - 7
3 generals
2 Teutonic knights - these are the finest warriors available to us and would naturally be drawn to such a pious endeavour
1 Mailed knights - these are faster than the Teutons, but still formiddable in combat
1 Mounted sergeant
Missiles - 6
2 Pavisse crossbowmen - these are the best we can get, but we their number is limited
2 Other crossbows
2 Peasant archers - their flaming arrows may be useful
No artillery - they will slow us down too much.
Infantry - 7
2 Dismounted feudal knights - their number is limited by what Staufen can produce
5 Armoured sergeants
I recognise that logistics may prevent the above being feasible (and that there may be trade-off between quality and time of departure). We might also give thought to recruiting mercenaries further on in our campaign. However, I fear our excommunication and the prospect of our crusade will swell the coffers of our enemies, so relying on later recruitment of mercenaries may be unwise.
A second issue is the route of the crusade. I propose that we travel by land, via Zagreb and Byzantium but gather a Mediterranean fleet capable of reinforcing or extracting us if we get into serious trouble.
A third issue is the stance of crusade towards neutrals. I propose that we refrain from attacking third parties, except any rebels we encounter. For example, securing a rebel island near the Middle East might provide a useful staging point and supply base for our future Crusader kingdom.
A fourth issue is leadership of the crusade. I propose that Mandorf, as Chancellor, should have responsibility for day to day operations. We should give thought to one of us running for Chancellor at the next Diet, so as to facillitate our activities. Perhaps Duke Dietrich or a second term for Count Mandorf? In terms of any battles, I believe as Prince, I am the natural leader but propose we should alternate command - perhaps starting with me and then moving to other generals by their command rank.
A final issue is what to do when we arrive in the Holy Land. I propose that we aim for Jerusalem first and gift it to the Pope. However, after that we should aim to establish our own crusader kingdom so that we can protect Jerusalem. I suggest we aim to take at least four other provinces, one for each House in the Reich.
I agree with the recruitment policies outlined by Prinz Henry, but I admit I am unsure of the specifics. I will take a close look what forces can be assembled by the end of my term and report back when I have more information.
I also agree with Prinz Henry's proposed route. While going by sea could be faster, it is widely known that Venice controls Ragusa, Durazzo, Iraklion, and Rhodes. We would be constantly subjected to attacks by their fleets during our voyage and would run a great risk of total catastrophe. While the land route will be slower, I believe it will be safer.
I will order our diplomat in Byzantine territory to attempt to negotiate military access with the Orthodox Emperor. I doubt he will be successful, but it is worth asking. If one cannot be achieved, we might want to consider supporting an Edict in 1160 to donate a small amount of regular tribute to Byzantium, so that they do not become too outraged by the progress of our army.
I thank you Maximillien Mandorf from your kind words. I cant think better way for an old knight to go meet my creator,then taking this Holy task and maybe find salvation in the eyes of the Lord from it.
I agree with Prinz Henry on army composition and route. But i dont understand how it would be benefitial for a Crusader to be a Chancellor of Reich. Im sure that Mandorf can set things in motion during his last period of Chancellorship. And the next Chancellor will take things from there. But when we take that Holy cross and place it in our tunics to cover our hearts, we place our selves in the hands of the Lord and he will decide our faith.
I dont see how us, who are on our way to the Holy Land could govern Reich as a Chancellor. We will be first hundreds and later thousends of kilometers from Reich and communication back to Reich will be very slow and might at some point cut off completely,when we enter the enemy territory.
In those circumstances we should trust on those,who are actually in the Reich to handle the affairs of the Reich. We will not be aware of the latest affairs back home and thus should not interfere on them. Im sure that You Prinz Henry will come back one day to the Reich and will take over our mighty Empire,but during this crusade we should focus on it and nothing else.
Prinz Henry: Welcome, Duke Otto! Now there are four - that is a more of a proper Council!
Pray tell me, Duke, have you come to remind us that we have forgotten to mention the most important forces to bring on our crusade? Yes? Why priests, of course! How could I have forgotten to mention them when discussing the composition of our crusade! We must bring many - they may scout ahead of our forces but more importantly, they must spread the word among the population of the Holy Land. Islam has usurped the true faith among the locals and while the hearts of the people are against us, all the soldiers in the Empire will not win us a true peace.
I dare say the experience of converting the heathen will do wonders for our clergy as well. The renown they gain may well help us to restore our influence among the College of Cardinals.
Oh and on the subject of settlements on our way - if Rhodes happens to be held by rebels, we might consider a landing to secure a base there. In the longer run we must establish sea communications between North Italy and the Levant. Rhodes would be a good halfway point, where our ships could resupply and refit.
Prinz Henry, I regret to inform you that merchant ships coming into our Italian ports have reported that Venice has been in firm control of Rhodes for several years. The Venitians dominate the trade lanes from Venice all the way to Asia. It will take a great deal of time and money to wrest the seas from them.
From my own study of the maps, I believe that Adana should be our first objective. By the time we reach that place, we will be far from the Reich and totally isolated. It would be good to have a defensive location to retreat to in the event of a disaster.
Yes we will need priests, and a few spies, at least one diplomat and a few assassins, at least for protection.
It is very important that even if we go by land, that we have a strong fleet shadow the Army. This will allow for reinforcements and messages to be shuttled back and forth. I happily volunteer Bologna to help build the fleet. That way ships can follow us as we proceed down the Adriatic. We should address the issue of fleet development in the next Diet.
The idea of Rhodes is a good one. If I didn't want to sully this Crusade with temporal thoughts, I would suggest we take Crete from the Venetians, but that would clearly be against the spirit of our endeavor.
I am new here, so I will study the situation and see if I can provide further insight.
Chancellor - it is a shame about Rhodes; I suppose Adana would suffice provided it is rebel when we arrive. I would not wish to start a war with the Turks before we have even set eyes on Jerusalem.
Duke Otto - what are your thoughts on a crusader running for Chancellor? Perhaps even a Bavarian crusader...?
If one of the Crusaders runs for Chancellor, it might open them up to the criticism, as mentioned by Duke von Saxony, that someone who is absent should not be running the Reich.
This is balanced by the fact, however, that the Crusaders must have a Chancellor in office who will give full support to the Crusade. Your brother might run, Prinz, and I'm not sure of his intentions towards this version of the Crusade.
Council, I have completed an initial survey of our forces. The limitations on our recruitment for the Crusade will be those forces which must travel from a long distance. This include soldiers from Staufen and Magdeburg and the Teutons from Frankfurt. Accordingly, we will only be able to take regiments which can be recruited from those territories in the next year or two. Any which assemble beyond that time period will result in a great delay to our departure. As it is, I doubt whether we will be able to leave the borders of the Reich until after the next Chancellorship election.
That said, I believe we will be able to assemble an army of the following:
Ourselves and our 4 regiments of bodyguards (assuming no other Electors join the Crusade)
3 regiments of Teutonic Knights, including Captain Welf's men who have been with me for some time and have lost 1/6 of their strength
3 regiments of Armored Spearmen
2.5 regiments of Dismounted Feudal Knights
2 regiments of Pavise Crossbowmen
We can easily recruit a large number of Sergeant Spearmen and Peasant Crossbowmen to complete the army. It is possible that 2 more regiments of Armored Spearmen may become available in time for departure, but that depends on factors that I cannot yet predict.
Clearly the strength of our army should be concentrated around our Dismounted Knights and Pavise Crossbowmen. They are excellent soldiers and have proved that Prinz Henry was correct in insisting on the construction of a fortress at Staufen. We would be wise to conserve them, as we are unlikely to be able to replace them at any point in our Crusade.
Regarding command of the army, Duke von Kassel and Duke von Saxony are more experienced than either Prinz Henry or myself. In addition, both are well known for their ability to motivate their armies towards faster movement. I believe it would be prudent to place them in charge of the Crusade, at least in the beginning. Perhaps if we recruited an excess of Sergeant Spearmen and Peasant Crossbowmen one of the two Dukes could lead a small contingent of perhaps 7 regiments ahead of the main body as a vanguard. The remaining 15 or 16 regiments could follow behind as the main force.
Even bringing along spear militia would be a good idea. If we do take any cities, they are a ready made garrison that won't cost much if anything to maintain, and their numbers can be replenished from local populations. We can also use them as shock troops to shield our more elite units from losses.
I would be humbled to command the Army, I do know how to motivate men to great speed. Still if the Prinz is owed pride of place (OOC: He always commands the stack he's in, true?), this might interfere.
What will be our attitude toward mercenaries? Do we hire by dire need, or if we see an interesting unit in an exotic land may we hire them freely?
When it comes to the hiring of mercenaries, we will probably be beholden to whoever is the Chancellor at the time. That is one reason why I am supportive of a Crusader standing for election. It is true the Holy Land should provide many interesting and valuable warriors who can be bought for the right price. Turcomans who practice archery while mounted may be particularly useful, while we may even be able to hire dismounted crusader knights to supplement our own meagre complement of swordsmen. We will surely have need of replacements if we are to storm Jerusalem and four other provinces.
I would also like to draw the attention of the Council to an idea that my son Hans (OOC: Factionheir) has raised with me. He scrutinised Edict E1.7 and noted that the prescription against taking settlements applied only to those loyal to Catholic rulers. If our spies were to encourage Rhodes or another Venetian settlement to rebel against their masters, we would legally be authorised to claim it for the Reich. Quite where my son gets his cunning from, I am not sure. I suspect it must be his Grandfather rather than me.
I believe you are right Prinz Henry, the wording of E1.7 was designed to shield against further angering the pope (with a few exceptions). Should Crete or Rhodes fall to rebels, the crusading force is within thier right to take them. Righ port cities like those would help greatly in paying for this endevour.
Fredericus Erlach, Overseer of Genoa, Count of Ajaccio in exile, 4th elector of Bavaria.
Taking Rhodes will require a large fleet of Imperial ships, otherwise transporting a sufficient army to the island will take many years and cause a severe delay to the Crusade. With our Adriatic fleet sunk, we will have to build a completely new fleet in order to accomplish this. The Venitian war galleys are more than a match for our own ships in combat and they already have a significant fleet in Venice. Even after Duke Leopold takes the city, that fleet will remain and it will surely be reinforced by the Venetian ports at Ragusa, Durazzo, Iraklion, and Rhodes. It will require a significant investment of Imperial funds to build a fleet capable of defeting the Venetians, sailing to Rhodes, and transporting the Crusade to the island without danger. This does not even take into account the difficulty we would have in enciting Rhodes to revolt in the first place. I would not be opposed to such a plan, but I doubt whether it will be feasible without a Chancellor who is wholely dedicated to its success.
Regarding mercenaries, we must remember that the Reich Treasury is not bottomless. During my Chancellorship, I have often had great difficulties in meeting the financial needs of all of the Houses. The Crusade will add another significant financial burden. While mercenaries do not cost much more than normal regiments for annual upkeep, their initial hiring cost can be excessively high. If I were the next Chancellor, I would be most displeased to receive constant requests for mercenary recruitment from an army in a far away land which drained monies from our coffers without contributing anything of worth. I think we should attempt to do without mercenaries for as long as we are able. If the decision is made that we simply must recruit them, it might be wise to consider sacking a nearby Muslim city in order to pay for the cost. We can always abandon the city to rebels when we leave.
I will be atleast 55 years old when we will depart.So i ask.Give the leadership first to me and i will help you as long as i can. When i cant hold my lance anymore,may someone else take my place.And you should leave me to my faith.I ask this as an last favour for an old knight of the Reich.
Otto is atleast as experienced as i am and im happy to see him join this holy mission, but let me put us on our way and then others continue,becouse i think that i will not be with you to the end of our mission.
Dietrich, I have given some thought to the question of the "leadership" of this Council. Given it's "democratic" mandate, it is not obvious what this means. However, I can see at least three different roles:
Battlefield Commander: only one man can command any given battle.
Imperial liason: this person will be responsible for liasing with the Chancellor over the day to day operation of the crusade - its movement etc
Chair of the Council: this person will steer discussion in the Council and identify its will.
There is no reason why one man should hold all three offices, although there is an obvious advantage in combining roles (2) and (3) in the same person.
At the moment, it is clear that Maximillan should be Imperial liason - he is already Chancellor, so let us cut out the middle man! Likewise if one of us is elected Chancellor in future, he should also be Imperial liason.
As to the Chair of the Council, I believe my experience and station as Prinz makes me most suitable for that task. However, I am happy to hand the post over to Maximillan for the remainder of his term as Chancellor if he believes it would make things run more smoothly.
That leaves the post of Battlefield Commander. I have proposed that we adopt a principle of a rotating command so that the battles are shared out amongst us equally. We are all capable commanders and it would seem invidious to deny each other the chance of glory. I quite happy to have the order of rotation determined by age, in deference to Dietrich.
So, let me pose the following questions to the Council:
(1) Are you happy for me to Chair this Council?
(2) Are you happy for Maximillan to be Imperial Liason for the remainder of his term in office?
(3) Are you happy to adopt a principle of rotating battlefield command, with the order determined by age?
If no one objects, I will take silence to mean consent. But I anticipate (3) in particular may be controversial so I welcome refinements, objections and counter-proposals.
I agree with (1) and (2). I agree somewhat with (3). There is value in allowing us all to command the army, but I think that in the event of critical battles, our best man should take the field, regardless of age. I am actually thinking of myself in this matter, for I am the least experienced commander of the four of us. I would not wish to take command of a critical battle instead of a great general like Sir Dietrich simply because it was Thursday.
I see the wisdom in what you are saying, Chancellor, but I am concerned that the chain of command be clearly established. When the cry of battle comes, all (OOC: the Chancellor) must be clear who is in charge. Altering it depending on whether the battle is "critical" is problematic without a clear definition of "critical".
We can procede in several ways. We could adopt the rotating principle, but allow generals to defer to one another if they judge the battle too critical. Alternatively, we could make Dietrich the default battlefield commander with the understanding that he may delegate lesser battles.
For my part, I care only that we have clarity on this matter (OOC: on who the Chancellor initially gives the battle to). In practice, I suspect the issue of who commands in battle will matter little until we reach Jerusalem. I anticipate there will be few battles before then. I presume we will try to avoid wasting time and men in fighting - and making new enemies. After Jersusalem falls, however, all hell will break loose and we will want to revisit the issue of command, as the crusade itself will probably be sub-divided into separate armies.
You have made several references to avoiding conflict with the Turks. I must admit that I do not share you feelings on this matter. Whatever political differences there may be between the Turkish and Egyptian hordes, they are all heathens in the eyes of God. At least the Byzantine Emperor is only misguided in his worship of Our Lord, whereas these eastern horselovers are abominations. Do not forget that their brethren in Iberia have been waging brutal war against the followers of Christ for hundreds of years. If they were at our borders, we would find our own peoples under similar threat.
A Crusade to Jerusalem is a war against all Muslim peoples, regardless of which leader they bow and grovel to. If leaving the Turks at peace is advantageous to us, we may certainly do so. However, if attacking them and taking their strongholds will give us worthwhile benefits, we should not hesitate for a moment.
My specific opinion on the matter is that we should give strong consideration to securing a chain of strongholds in the east. This will give greater security to pilgrims following our route and will provide us with defensive locations to fall back to in the event of an emergency. Remember that Jerusalem will be given to the Papal States and we will thus be unable to use it as a base of operations. If we do not have at least one other settlement secured before we take Jerusalem, we could find ourselves in a dangerous predicament. Heavy losses in the assault could make us too weak to capture a further stronghold. The situation will have to be evaluated once we arrive, but I firmly advocate for the siezure of the strongpoints at Adana and Acre before our assault on Jerusalem. Cities we should ignore or simply plunder, as they will be far too difficult for us to garrison and control. It would likely require the strength of the entire Crusade to keep a city like Antioch from revolting.
Duke von Saxony, I will gladly accede to your request. You may lead the Crusade for as long as you may.
I agree with Prinz Henry's three proposals. I believe Army Command should rotate in a simple matter so the Chancellor can keep track. Though I'm told I'm more experienced, we are all capable commanders here. Perhaps if I lived up to my reputation I wouldn't have lost as many spearmen as I did to the Milanese, figlio di puttana that I am. (OOC: One issue, Faction Leaders, not heirs, take pride of place in any stack or battle they're in, we'll have to keep this in mind once Henry is Kaiser.)
I'm still a bit uncertain on our route, allow me to show you this map I acquired:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Once we have crossed the Hellespont, there is little doubt to our path. How we get to the straits is another question. I'm assuming we want to stay on the roads. There is the northern route through the Zagreb and Sofia regions and the southern route through the Ragusa, Durazzo and Thessalonica regions. Both routes assume we have taken Venice, otherwise we'll have to go north around the Alps.
The northern route I think is shorter, but we will violate Hungarian territory in addition to Byzantine. The southern route is longer, but our navy, if we have one, will be able to shadow us. We will be going through Ragusa and Durazzo and will most likely have to fend off Venetian armies. We will be violating Byzantine territory for a longer time with this route. They could, potentially, make crossing into Asia Minor very difficult.
If I was in a more temporal mindset, I would say we could use the southern route to take Ragusa and Durazzo and crush the Venetian presence on the continent. But that would take time and men, luxuries we will not have.
Do these routes look about right to you? I have tried to sync them with the terrain and available roads of the territories we will be passing through. Of course I cannot predict actual conditions, and our route has many choke points where potential enemy armies could hold us up or bleed us.
Let me ask a blunt question. There has been talk of a Crusader Chancellor, this would be ideal for the Crusade, and if we maintain an efficient messenger service it would be serviceable for the Reich. Duke von Saxony has expressed his disfavor about the idea. Maximillian has stated that he will not run again. This leaves us with two candidates. Considering why I am going on this Crusade, I'm sure the Diet would rather elect a Frenchman than myself. So, have you considered running mein Prinz?
Duke von Kassel, your analysis of the possible routes is accurate, but I do not like either of these choices. First, I should say that I have ordered the various parts of the Crusade to rendevous at or near Zagreb. Any path we take will start from there.
Regarding the routes themselves, I am very wary of trespassing on Hungarian lands. So far they have remained neutral, but our relations with them are not good. It would be extremely bad if our parting gift to the Reich was yet another war. I do not believe we should trespass in Hungarian lands.
The Venetian route will require us to march by Ragusa which is heavily fortified and defended. We will most certainly find it slow going and will likely have to engage the Venetians in several battles just to break through their lines and emerge into Byzantine territory. The Venetians are very capable soldiers and it would be extremely discouraging if we lost a sizable portion of the Crusade before we had even entered Asia!
I believe we should pursue a third course, between the two you have outlined. Let us leave Zagreb and head directly into Byzantine lands. It will require some offroad travel, but I believe a slower start is better than the northern or southern alternatives. We can follow the road towards Sofia, but turn off south before we reach the Hungarian border. After we enter Byzantine territory, we can then head east to the Hellespont.
Very well, the middle route it is. The spies in our army will earn their keep scouting out mountain passes and cow paths.
Returning to the topic of what areas we should seize besides Jerusalem, I fully agree Acre should be a prime target. We shall reach it before Jerusalem on our route and it should be taken at that time. This will provide a recruiting center for new units and replacements for our current forces as well as a port. If the worst should happen at Jerusalem, it will also serve as a refuge. I see it as our main base in the Holy Land once Jerusalem is handed over to the Pope.
As for Adana, I am reluctant to take it. It is somewhat removed from our goal, and it may prove more of a drain on resources and men than a boon. To effectively lead the garrison, one of us would have to stay behind, an unenviable duty. Our first goal, besides Acre, should be Jerusalem. We can then brach out from there. Of course, I will reevaluate my position depending on the circumstances we find on the journey.
Madness! Adana is the key to Antioch. With it secured, one of the fairest cities of the Levant would be ours. I suggest that we also recover Iconium for the Byzantines, which would salve the dishonour of trespassing upon their land.
Ekklesia Mafia: - An exciting new mafia game set in ancient Athens - Sign up NOW!
***
"Oh, how I wish we could have just one Diet session where the Austrians didn't spend the entire time complaining about something." Fredericus von Hamburg
Fellow Crusaders, I can now provide you with a precise account of the army that will be following us to the Holy Lands. I have arranged for the following regiments to accompany us:
This totals 22 separate regiments and is too large for a single army. We have two choices: (1) we can leave behind 2 regiments or (2) we can move as two forces. Prinz Henry and I have joined forces and are with 1/3 of the army east of Genoa. We will arrive near Zagreb in 2 turns. Duke von Saxony is with a small contingent of infantry and the majority of the Teutons. He is east of Nuremburg, will be joined by more infantry from Innsbruck next turn and will arrive near Zagreb in 2 to 3 turns. Duke von Kassel made a detour to hurry along the Dismounted Knights and the Pavise Crossbowmen from Staufen. He is east of Staufen and will arrive near Zagreb in 4 to 5 turns. I therefore regret to inform you that the Crusade will not be able to leave our lands during my term.
I have also arranged for 3 priests and a spy to accompany us on our journey. They are already assembled and waiting for us near Zagreb.
Chancellor, you are to be congratulated on assembling such a powerful host. For my part, I would be inclined to split the crusade into two. It will take a long time to reach our destination and if we are to capture settlements before Jerusalem - whether Adana, Antioch or wherever - the advance guard may lay siege first, giving the rearguard time to catch up.
I would recommend that if we do divide our forces, the advance guard leave behind some spears and cavalry to accompany Duke Otto. His dismounted knights and pavise crossbowmen are valuable assets that must be protected. It may be best to aim for two fairly balanced and equal sized forces. It may even be prudent for one other general to wait to join Duke Otto. I would be willing to wait for him at Zagreb if the Council judge it wise.
[OOC: two half stacks may get into more interesting encounters than a scarey full stack.]
A fine army Chancellor, your work is inspired. Perhaps we should add a few units of militia as arrow fodder?
Mein Prinz, I would be honored if you were to wait for me. I'm not so sure about Rupert though, he came back quite shaken from his mission with you. (OOC: Very nice read, a good twist on the inquisitor.) The first army should set out as soon as possible. I'm sure events will ensure that the second will catch up eventually.
Two armies would be useful, we could maximize the amount of men we could bring, and it would increase our flexibility. Move apart, fight together, as they say. If the leading army stops to give battle or besiege a town, the trailing army could leap-frog them and move on, or reinforce if necessary.
I would suggest the spy stay with the leading army. The priests, as has been suggested, should fan out ahead of the army. They will convert the heathens and provide some useful intelligence, though not of the quality of a trained observer. Are we planning to send some of our Cardinals? Or will it just be the newly recruited priests? Of course, we could send them ahead completely, if Jerusalem has a Catholic resurgence, it will make it easier to hold. I doubt our gift to the Papacy will meet with much approval if the Muslim inhabitants of the city riot and throw off their new master.
May God grant us success in this enterprise! For He has certainly given me a headache thinking about it.
Apologies for my late arrival. I would be honored to join the crusade.
I see no need to force militia to join us on this journey, especially not as "arrow fodder" von Mahren speaks the last words dripping with sarcasm
Our militia are local citizens who have agreed to undergo basic military training to defend their home. They should not be forced to march thousands of miles, especially not if their only purpose is to die.
There seems to be agreement about splitting the army, which sounds like a clever strategy. May I suggest the Prinz at least stays in the rear army. That one is less liable to be ambushed, and to be blunt, an ageing duke is more expendable than a royal Prinz.
As for me, a mere knight, I am expendable as well, and would prefer to follow my Duke von Saxony, but I will go wherever I am needed for the Crusade to succeed.
The Kingdom of Outremer
Bookmarks