The destruction of Outremere

[Advo-san]

I would like to read your opinion about the events that ment the loss of the French Crusaders Kingdom.

Which one was the most critical? I will start by suggesting a few, but I cannot decide the most important.
1) The destruction of the second Crusade. It would have made the holy land swarming with french people.
2) The loss of Edessa. After the loss of this outpost the Crusaders were unable to threaten Jezira (Mesopotamia) anymore, but they were also unable to prevent the solid union of Alep with Mossul.
3) The loss of Egypt. It was obvious from a point that the one who annexed Egypt, would win the holy land race. The Muslims did it..
4) The fourth Crusade. Because the latin empire drained all the fine immigrating people leaving the scum for Outremere.
5) The death of Barbarossa.

Pick one or add your own! Comment, spam, suite yourself!!

[Advo-san]

No interest in Outremer? No interest in the most important moment of the middle ages, whose effects are still visible today?? That's a shock.

[Advo-san]

Oh nooo.... Outremer is my favourite historical topic.... I can't believe I won't get to discuss its perish with the patrons!
This thread 's dead alright...

[zukenft]

only 3 hours and you said it's dead? not yet.

I see how all options you mentioned lead to the fall, except for Barbarossa. Explain how?

[edyzmedieval]

Advo-San,

It's OUTREMER, without the last e.

Apart from Barbarossa, nothing interesting.

[Advo-san]

only 3 hours and you said it's dead? not yet.

I see how all options you mentioned lead to the fall, except for Barbarossa. Explain how?

Well, they say Barbarossa would have conquered Alep, Homs, Damaskus, Egypt, mabe Mossul aswell... The Muslims destroyed the fortifications of Edessa because they were afraid of his army and thought the city couldn't be held.... But his unexpected death stopped the march of the german crusade.

[Advo-san]

Advo-San,

It's OUTREMER, without the last e.

Apart from Barbarossa, nothing interesting.

Oooops... Stuuupid! Will edit it.Thnx ed!

[AggonyDuck]

Yup, the German crusade was the largest of three crusades that made the 3rd Crusade. But it kinda dissipated after Barbarossa's death. (AFAIK)

[Meneldil]

The Fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders in 1204 was as important as the death of Barbarossa, if no more.

But what led to the destruction of Outremer, apart from the petty fights between Crusader Kingdoms and the simple fact that Christians were by far outnumbered was probably that European kings did not really care about the middle east. The French and the English Kingdoms were fighting each others, the German Emperor was struggling to rule his vassals, the spanish kingdoms were achieving the Reconquista, the Italian cities were in a deep rivalry about trading issues, and eastern Europe was facing invasions from the Steppe tribes.

[Pindar]

I think there are two noteworthy elements. One you mentioned: the death of Barbarossa. It is unlikely the Muslim forces arrayed against the "Franj" could have withstood the Emperor's coming.

The Second element was the Western failure to establish a viable land bridge through Anatolia linking Outremer with Europe. Dependence on the sea was a death knell.

[AggonyDuck]

Also another important factor was when the muslims actually became more or less united under Nureddin (sp?) and later on Saladin. The role of the unification is atleast as crucial as any of the other factors stated. (IMO)

[Aenlic]

I think the end came much later, actually. With the active opposition of the Venetians and Genoese to Pierre I de Lusignan's (King of Cyrpus and nominal King of Jerusalem) efforts to rally an army for a new crusade. By then, the Venetians and Genoese were deeply involved in illegal trading with the Muslim world, especially Egypt. They sabotaged Pierre's attempts to build a fleet and recruit an army in Europe and they actively lobbied the Pope to make peace with the Sultan. With the combination of active hostility from the Venetians and Genoese, and indifferent Holy Roman Emperor and the Hundred Years' War tying down the forces of the English and French, Pierre was unable to raise an army in spite of his fame and obvious abilities.

Pierre I, with his army and supported by Hospitaller's from Rhodes, took the supposedly impregnable Turkish fortress at Adalia and established a new foothold in Asian Minor. His fleet demolished a Turkish fleet off Cilicia. He even managed to capture and sack Alexandria, right in the heart of the Sultanate.

Had Pierre not been contending with the opposition of the Italian trading states, or the HRE not been indifferent, or France or England not already involved, I have no doubt that Pierre was capable of significant success. But the cards were stacked against him.

[Vykke]

I think the failure of the Crusade of 1101 is definitely worthy of mention. It was at least as large as the First Crusade, and played a bit like the Second Crusade did, but happened much earlier (only a few years after the First Crusade), therefore the Muslims were less accustomed to dealing with Frankish tactics. Also, its leaders were on better terms with each other and with Byzantium. If they'd done only half as well as the First Crusade (and they could have, if the leaders had only coordinated their strategic efforts more), then Outremer would have established itself much more firmly. I think it's even possible they could have taken Baghdad if they got a few miracle victories like their predecessors did.

As it was, they just got annihilated in Asia Minor and worked up some bad blood between Byzantium and the West. This stopped the influx of Latin immigrants to Outremer, and showed both Christians and Muslims that Crusaders were nowhere close to invincible.

[Horatius]

One thing you all seem to forget is the ineptness of Guy de Lusignan.

Had Raymond III become King the Battle of Hattin would never have happened at all, and Saladin would have been forced to go home.

It was at that battle were the kingdom fell apart.

Had Raymond III been in command according to the historians of both sides Saladin's campaign would have done nothing more then get him some loot, however because Guy de Lusignan was in command Saladin was able to lure them into the desert were they had no water, and were Saladin easily got the better position and they got defeated.

I think that Saladin would have failed to keep the Muslim World united had it not been for Hattin, and the Crusader State would still be around today.

[Advo-san]

One thing you all seem to forget is the ineptness of Guy de Lusignan.

Had Raymond III become King the Battle of Hattin would never have happened at all, and Saladin would have been forced to go home.

It was at that battle were the kingdom fell apart.

Had Raymond III been in command according to the historians of both sides Saladin's campaign would have done nothing more then get him some loot, however because Guy de Lusignan was in command Saladin was able to lure them into the desert were they had no water, and were Saladin easily got the better position and they got defeated.

I think that Saladin would have failed to keep the Muslim World united had it not been for Hattin, and the Crusader State would still be around today.

I definitely agree with you. Taking your thoughts one step further, may I add that if the Crusaders weren't destroyed at Hattin they would probably be capable to launch a succesfull counter-attack after Saladin's death, when the Muslims were most vulnerable and divided into two royal lines, Saladin's and Nuredin's. But they lost it all in the sands of Galilea.

[Knight Templar]

Yes, it's gonna be a long (I hope not boring) post, but it's my vision why crusaders states fell.
Forgive me if I'll make gramar, spelling or phrase mistakes, my English is not so good.

First of all, I'd recommend great book abvout crusades and its effects on Muslim world: Amin Maalouf- «Cristian barbars in the Holy land: Crusades by eyes of Arab». It's really great and helped me to understand Outemer, Muslim states around it and occasions in 12th and 13th century.

As far as I noticed, only 1pain1Duck noticed real reason why Outemer had to fall: Muslims (and their idea of Jihad). I'll write about Muslim states and their idea of Jihad by the time of first three crusades. The Outemer had to fall, it was 4 Crhistian states surrounded by Muslims. But, 1092. assassins killed Seljuk sultan, and Seljuk empire declined (2 decades of heirs fighting for throne followed). Every bigger city in Syria was practicaly independent (Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, Hama, Chayzar, Edesa, Antioch, Tripoli). These city states were often in war with each other. Bigger of them (like Antioch) could rally only few thousands soldiers, smaller much less. And in this situation 25-30 thousands crusaders come in Syria. They conquered Edesa, defeated huge, but discordant, Muslim army led by Kerghboga (sorry if it's wrong spelling) in the battle of Antioch. Other Muslim cities followed (Antioch, Beirut, Sidon, Jerusalem, finally Tripoli in 1109.). The Muslim problem was that they observed crusaders just as Byzantine mercenaries which Empire hired to conquer Antioch. The first men who realised the danger coming from the crusaders and thought of jihad was cadi of Allepo, Ibn al-Khachab. He knew strong leaders are neccesary to fight the crusaders, not incapable and drunk ones. He was the one who invited Ilghazi to rule the city (drunk, but very good comander) who defeated Roger of Antioch in the battle of Ager Sanguinis. 6 years after Ilghazi's death came Zengi, ruler of Allepo and Mosul (1128-46). He fought many battles against crusaders (mostly won), he even conqured capital of one crusader state- Edesa. He was killed and was succeded by his sons, Nur-ed-din in Aleppo and Saif-ed-din in Mosul. By the time of 2nd crusade, there were only 2 strong cities-states in Syria: Aleppo and Damascus, and they co-operated to defeat crusaders in front of Damascus 1148. Note that in the time of 1st crusade there was many cities-states which lived in discord. Nur-ed-din was completely loyal to the idea of jihad and also fought against the crusaders. He also united Syria by conquering Damascus in 1154. The main battlefield was Egypt. King of Jerusalem Amaury had obsession to conquer it (attacked Egypt 5 times in 6 years), and Nur-ed-din, as wise politician, realised he can't let that happen because of richness of Egypt, so he sent his best general Chirkuk, to fight in Egypt. After 6 years of war, Chirkuk managed to expell Amaury from Egypt, he killed grand vizier, so he became the new grand visier. But, after only 2 months he died, leaving Egypt to his nephew, Salah-ed-din (Saladin). After Nur-ed-din's death, Saladin conquered Syria (1174-83). After few years former duke of Antioch, Renaud of Chatillon, provoked war. We know how war ended (battle of Hattin 4.7.1187), Saladin conquered many cities, including Jerusalem. By the time of 3rd crusade, there was one strong Muslim state under Saladin.
4th crusade was shame for crusades, crusade where crusaders destroyed two Christian cities because of Enrico Dandolo.
After end od Saladin's Ayubid dynasty (1250), Mamluks lead war against rest of crusader lands much faster, with much more determination. In 41 years they expelled crusaders from Syria.

The second important reason is idea of crusades. The first crusade was, let us say, Church's crusades. After the Cluny's reform, the Church had moral authority in the eyes of Catholics. So, when Urban II called for crusade, thousands of religious Catholics (peasents, citizens and nobels) with pleasure went to holy land to conquer Jerusalem. Later on, crusades just became ocassion for kings and nobels to pillage cities on the way to and in Syria and to gain some influence. The crusaders in the first crusade were mostly united, while kings in later crusades weren't.

As I see, many of you point Barbarosa's death as one of main reasons why Outemer falled to Muslims. I disagree. Barbarosa's army was mostly made of heavily armoured knights, incapable for fighting in desert. Ok, let's say he even had conquered Jerusalem. What could he do next? Kill citizens and pillage city. And then? He couldn't stay in Syria, he had buisness at home, in Germany, he needed army there. After conquering Jerusalem, he would probably return home. After that, Saladin would re-conquer it. Barbarosa's home was in Germany, not in Syria, but Saladin's home was (in Syria).

That's my vision of Outemer and how it fell, Muslims graduately became stronger and united, but crusades became weaker and weaker.

[Advo-san]

First of all, I'd recommend great book abvout crusades and its effects on Muslim world: Amin Maalouf- «Cristian barbars in the Holy land: Crusades by eyes of Arab». It's really great and helped me to understand Outemer, Muslim states around it and occasions in 12th and 13th century.

As far as I noticed, only 1pain1Duck noticed real reason why Outemer had to fall: Muslims (and their idea of Jihad).

The second important reason is idea of crusades. The first crusade was, let us say, Church's crusades. After the Cluny's reform, the Church had moral authority in the eyes of Catholics. So, when Urban II called for crusade, thousands of religious Catholics (peasents, citizens and nobels) with pleasure went to holy land to conquer Jerusalem. Later on, crusades just became ocassion for kings and nobels to pillage cities on the way to and in Syria and to gain some influence. The crusaders in the first crusade were mostly united, while kings in later crusades weren't.

As I see, many of you point Barbarosa's death as one of main reasons why Outemer falled to Muslims. I disagree. Barbarosa's army was mostly made of heavily armoured knights, incapable for fighting in desert. Ok, let's say he even had conquered Jerusalem. What could he do next? Kill citizens and pillage city. And then? He couldn't stay in Syria, he had buisness at home, in Germany, he needed army there. After conquering Jerusalem, he would probably return home. After that, Saladin would re-conquer it. Barbarosa's home was in Germany, not in Syria, but Saladin's home was (in Syria).

That's my vision of Outemer and how it fell, Muslims graduately became stronger and united, but crusades became weaker and weaker.

@Knight Templar. I mostly agree with you.
1) I ve read Maalouf's book so many times, I have began to memorize it... Exellent book indeed.
2) I realize you are correctly considering Muslim union as the main reason for the loss of Outremer. But this union was neither unstoppable nor unbreakable.
- Christian possession of Edessa could guarrantee that Mosul and Halep would never become united under one ruler. But western incompetence delivered Edessa to Zeggi, and the unification of Halep and Mossul that followed was pretty much the beggining of the End for the Christians.
- Another major event that would have prevented further Muslim unification, was the loss of Egypt. The land of the Nile could easily be conquered by the Crusaders, if only they had cooperated with the Byzantines... But hatred did its job well... But even later, if it wasn't this foolish Spaniard named Pelagius, Outremer would have successfully annexed Egypt.
- Besides that, many times (p.e: after the death of Saladin) had the Crusaders the chance to shatter the fragile Muslim union, but they never seized the opportunity. They delivered Damascus to the hands of the Sultan actually...
- What I 'm trying to say is that Muslim Union was of course the result of the work of great Muslim leaders, but the Crusaders could have prevented it; but they didn't...
3) You also focus on the idea of the Crusade. IMHO all Crusades were (and still are....) just a way for the nobles to gain lands and riches. ALL of them, included the first one. But this doesn't mean that the Crusaders didn't see Outremer as their Home. I can see you are reffering to the letter that Saladin sent to Richard: "This is my land, I m here to stay, while you will eventually leave...." But with Barbarossa this wasn't the case; the german army was loaded with smaller counts and dukes and a whole legion of second-born nobles that were ready to colonize the land, in case the Crusade was successfull. The Emperor's army was followed by women, children, craftsmen. Some of them might returned back to the HRE, but not the majority. Since Barbarossa was in peace with the Pope and the Italians there was no obvious reason for the whole army to return, unlike Richard's army that had to quickly disengage from Outremer in order to fight the French. The Crusades were not ment to fail...Damaskus and Jerusalem were in muslim hands for barely 2 centuries, Antioch and Edessa even less time. No. The Crusades should have successfully re-established the status-quo ante between Christians and Muslims in the syrian frontier. But, Luck turned its back at the Crusades in a small river in northern Syria...

What a lovely debate!!

[Knight Templar]

@Knight Templar. I mostly agree with you.

Glad to hear it

What a lovely debate!!

Agree.


And now about your post:
1) Me too, read it many, many times....great book
2)Yes, I think main reason was Muslim union
a) Zengi became ruler of Aleppo and Mosul in 1128. , 16 years before he conqured Edesa. Maalouf pointed that union of Aleppo and Mosul under one ruler was strong enough to oppose crusaders.
b)I don't realise how do you mean "loss of Egypt"? It would mean crusaders once owned Egypt, but lost it, but they never did. I'll list crusader attempts to gain Egypt:

I King Badouin I conqured Farama in 1118. . He ment to go foward, but got sick and died.
II As I said in my previous post, king Amaury attacked Egypt 5 times in 6 years, but every time he was repelled or forced to turn away. His main opponent was Chirkuk.
III 5th crusade, crusaders conquered Damietta, but were ruined by stupid Pelagius's decisions, so they were forced to withdraw to Europe without achieving anything. But remember sultan al-Kamel in his ceasefire offers never offered crusaders Egypt, but Jerusalem.
IV 1st crusade of Louis IX, he managed to conquer Damietta, but was defeated by Mamluks.

As you can see, every crusaders attempt to conquer Egypt ended unsuccessfully.

he land of the Nile could easily be conquered by the Crusaders, if only they had cooperated with the Byzantines.

I read one very good book about Byz history by George of Ostrogor (apologies for possible wrong spell)The Empire was under Comnen dynasty (1081-1185) in that time, they had enough wars at home (mostly victorious), they could hardly think of Egypt. Dynasty had three important rulers, Alexius I, John II and Manuel I.

Alexius I (1081-1118)-when he became emperor, he succeded weak and ruined Empire. In almost 40 years of his reign, he maneged to gain western Lesser Asia, and repel Pecheneg and Norman attacks. Conclusion: he used most of his forces and energy to re-estabilish strong Empire, had enough wars at home, couldn't think of Egypt. Besides, Egyptian vizier al-Afdal was his ally.
John II (1118-43), wise and capable emperor, lead wars with Hungarians, Serbs, Pechenegs. Conclusion: as wise emperor, he most certinaly realised he can't attack Egypt.
The only Comnen who maybe thought of Egypt was Manuel I (1143-80), known as temperate ruler. But he was in more wars than any of his ancestors Comnens (lon wars with Croatian-Hungary kingdom and Normans, Serb rebellions, disaster for Byz army and Myriocephalon 1176. in the battle against Turks).Conclusion: he maybe thought of Egypt, but surely couldn't afford one more war.

After Comnen dynasty (1185-1205), Empire got weak, emperors had to think about saving Empire from Bulgars, Germans, crusaders, not about Egypt.
What I'm trying to say was Empire couldn't, with all his problems, go to war in Egypt with crusaders.

- Besides that, many times (p.e: after the death of Saladin) had the Crusaders the chance to shatter the fragile Muslim union, but they never seized the opportunity. They delivered Damascus to the hands of the Sultan actually...

You're correct, but how do you mean delivered (crusaders never owned Damascus)?

- What I 'm trying to say is that Muslim Union was of course the result of the work of great Muslim leaders, but the Crusaders could have prevented it; but they didn't...

I entirely agree.

3) You also focus on the idea of the Crusade. IMHO all Crusades were (and still are....) just a way for the nobles to gain lands and riches. ALL of them, included the first one. But this doesn't mean that the Crusaders didn't see Outremer as their Home.

3) You're right abou gaining new lands and richies, but crsuaders in the 1st crusades were mostly united, which was not the case with later crusaders.

I can see you are reffering to the letter that Saladin sent to Richard: "This is my land, I m here to stay, while you will eventually leave...." But with Barbarossa this wasn't the case; the german army was loaded with smaller counts and dukes and a whole legion of second-born nobles that were ready to colonize the land, in case the Crusade was successfull. The Emperor's army was followed by women, children, craftsmen. Some of them might returned back to the HRE, but not the majority. Since Barbarossa was in peace with the Pope and the Italians there was no obvious reason for the whole army to return, unlike Richard's army that had to quickly disengage from Outremer in order to fight the French.

I must say, interesting theory. But, do you really think they could hold out in Outemer for a long time, surrounded by Muslims? Besides, I was refering to Saladin's letter.

.Damaskus and Jerusalem were in muslim hands for barely 2 centuries, Antioch and Edessa even less time. No. The Crusades should have successfully re-established the status-quo ante between Christians and Muslims in the syrian frontier.

About status quo- yes, but crusaders were far away from Byzantines, who owned these lands before (I mean way of life, culture, art. science). Byzantines aprecciated Arabs, they lived near Arabs for centuries. But crusaders were acting like barbars, treir science (medicine for example) for primitive etc.
Secondly, how do you mean 2 centuries for Antioch and Jerusalem. Byzantines lost Antioch in 1084. , crusaders conquered it in 1098 (14 years). Jerusalem was in Muslim hands from 638. to 1099, much more then 2 centuries.

[Meneldil]

I think Maalouf is quite biased towards the Crusaders and Middle Age Christians in general.

I never read the book you're speaking about, but from my past experiences, I was kinda disapointed as he quite often blame the christians while excusing all muslims' sins.

[Advo-san]

a) Zengi became ruler of Aleppo and Mosul in 1128. , 16 years before he conqured Edesa. Maalouf pointed that union of Aleppo and Mosul under one ruler was strong enough to oppose crusaders.
b)I don't realise how do you mean "loss of Egypt"? It would mean crusaders once owned Egypt, but lost it, but they never did. I'll list crusader attempts to gain Egypt:


I read one very good book about Byz history by George of Ostrogor (apologies for possible wrong spell)The Empire was under Comnen dynasty (1081-1185) in that time, they had enough wars at home (mostly victorious), they could hardly think of Egypt.

You're correct, but how do you mean delivered (crusaders never owned Damascus)?


I must say, interesting theory. But, do you really think they could hold out in Outemer for a long time, surrounded by Muslims? Besides, I was refering to Saladin's letter.


About status quo- yes, but crusaders were far away from Byzantines, who owned these lands before (I mean way of life, culture, art. science). Byzantines aprecciated Arabs, they lived near Arabs for centuries. But crusaders were acting like barbars, treir science (medicine for example) for primitive etc.

Secondly, how do you mean 2 centuries for Antioch and Jerusalem. Byzantines lost Antioch in 1084. , crusaders conquered it in 1098 (14 years). Jerusalem was in Muslim hands from 638. to 1099, much more then 2 centuries.

How do you do this fragmented quotation trick, I can't get it to work... Anyway:
- Indeed it took Zeggi 16 years to conquer Edessa after he was assigned ruler of Halep, along with Mossul. But common lordship and stable union are two different things. Edessa was a nail in the soft belly of Zeggi's kingdom, actually the doorway from Mesopotamia to northern Syria. A suddent strike on Halep from Antioch or Tripoly would mean that Mossul's army would have to litteraly march besides the walls of Edessa to assist the city. Edessa's role was to assure that when the time to destroy Halep would arrive, noone wouldn' t come to assist it. So, yes, it took Zeggi 16 years to raze Edessa, but only then he truely united his realm; only then he was certain that nothing would stand in the way of Mossul to assist Halep, if ever needed.
- Of course the Crusaders never annexed Egypt, though they made it a few times their protectorate. Allow me to rephrase: The crusaders didn't loose Egypt, but they lost the race for Egypt, and they did loose it several times too.
- My ancestors the byzantines couldn't, but also didn't have to fight to Egypt. All they had to do was cover Jerusalem's back while the Crusaders did the fighting, plus some naval support. But of course they would have wanted Antioch as a price, and I think this was ruining every attemt to join forces, even though Amori got pretty close in cutting the deal..
- Damascus wouldn't have been annexed if the Crusaders haven't attacked it while it was their ally. No way. Stupid call by Conrad and Phillipe.. That is what I ment "delivered".
-Yes, I believe Barbarossa would have pulled the trick and let me explain why: He didn't need the local French to beat the Muslims. He crossed Anatolia intact, and he had the will and the manpower to establish a New Authority in Syria. Barbarossa was not the alliances type of guy. He marched alone and held what he conquered for himself. He would have conquered Edessa, Halep, Seizar, Damascus, Jerusalem and even Egypt and he would have assigned his own men, his loyals, as leaders. He was the dude, he was His Royal Dudeness. "Wilhelm, I name you duke of Edessa. I know Peter also wanted it, and he did fight bravely, but I m the Dude, I have the red beard and I feel like naming you Duke."No promices to the locals, no secret emissaries to the Muslims, no oaths to the Byzantines, nothing.
- By saying return to the status quo ante I ment the balance of powers between Muslims and Christians, not the actual ownership of the regions that used to be byzantine as you correctly mentioned. I mostly focused on the incapability of the Muslims to harm Constantinople with the Crusaders present, something that was not eventually avoided.
- Indeed Jerusalem was perished at the 7th century. I was reffering to the successfull march of Emperor John Tzimiskes in the 9th century, even though he didn't actually capture either Jerusalem or Damascus. I never said two centuries about Antioch though..

P.S. The equal of Maalouf is Rene Grousse's or Karousse's "Histoire des Croisades". A book I also love to read every now and then!

[Knight Templar]

How do you do this fragmented quotation trick, I can't get it to work... Anyway:
- Indeed it took Zeggi 16 years to conquer Edessa after he was assigned ruler of Halep, along with Mossul. But common lordship and stable union are two different things. Edessa was a nail in the soft belly of Zeggi's kingdom, actually the doorway from Mesopotamia to northern Syria. A suddent strike on Halep from Antioch or Tripoly would mean that Mossul's army would have to litteraly march besides the walls of Edessa to assist the city. Edessa's role was to assure that when the time to destroy Halep would arrive, noone wouldn' t come to assist it. So, yes, it took Zeggi 16 years to raze Edessa, but only then he truely united his realm; only then he was certain that nothing would stand in the way of Mossul to assist Halep, if ever needed.
- Of course the Crusaders never annexed Egypt, though they made it a few times their protectorate. Allow me to rephrase: The crusaders didn't loose Egypt, but they lost the race for Egypt, and they did loose it several times too.
- My ancestors the byzantines couldn't, but also didn't have to fight to Egypt. All they had to do was cover Jerusalem's back while the Crusaders did the fighting, plus some naval support. But of course they would have wanted Antioch as a price, and I think this was ruining every attemt to join forces, even though Amori got pretty close in cutting the deal..
- Damascus wouldn't have been annexed if the Crusaders haven't attacked it while it was their ally. No way. Stupid call by Conrad and Phillipe.. That is what I ment "delivered".
-Yes, I believe Barbarossa would have pulled the trick and let me explain why: He didn't need the local French to beat the Muslims. He crossed Anatolia intact, and he had the will and the manpower to establish a New Authority in Syria. Barbarossa was not the alliances type of guy. He marched alone and held what he conquered for himself.

He would have conquered Edessa, Halep, Seizar, Damascus, Jerusalem and even Egypt

and he would have assigned his own men, his loyals, as leaders. He was the dude, he was His Royal Dudeness. "Wilhelm, I name you duke of Edessa. I know Peter also wanted it, and he did fight bravely, but I m the Dude, I have the red beard and I feel like naming you Duke."No promices to the locals, no secret emissaries to the Muslims, no oaths to the Byzantines, nothing.
- By saying return to the status quo ante I ment the balance of powers between Muslims and Christians, not the actual ownership of the regions that used to be byzantine as you correctly mentioned. I mostly focused on the incapability of the Muslims to harm Constantinople with the Crusaders present, something that was not eventually avoided.
- Indeed Jerusalem was perished at the 7th century. I was reffering to the successfull march of Emperor John Tzimiskes in the 9th century, even though he didn't actually capture either Jerusalem or Damascus. I never said two centuries about Antioch though..

P.S. The equal of Maalouf is Rene Grousse's or Karousse's "Histoire des Croisades". A book I also love to read every now and then!

Tehnical part: in the icon list which begins with B (bold), I (italic), the last icon is quote, where I c/p you text.

Historical part:

1) Edesa- I looked on a map, I think Edesa is too north to be on a Aleppo-Mosul road. But, of course, conquering it makes that road safer.
2) and 3) Byzant and Egypt-agree
4) Barbarosa

He would have conquered Edessa, Halep, Seizar, Damascus, Jerusalem and even Egypt

If he had conquered, remember Saladin also had strong army, better prepared for fighting in desert.

5) agree
6) Campaign of John I Tzimiskes was one of the most successful Byz campaigns in the east. Burt they were in 10th century (he ruled 971-976)

I searched in all book stores, A. Maalouf's book was the only book I found about crusades.

Love this debate