The Kingdom of Outremer

[Stuperman]

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.

[TinCow]

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.

[Kagemusha]

Dietrich Von saxony

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.

[econ21]

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.

[TinCow]

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.

[econ21]

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.

[TinCow]

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.