The Kingdom of Outremer

[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.

[OverKnight]

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?

[TinCow]

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.

[OverKnight]

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.

[Ignoramus]

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.