Re: Council of Crusaders
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.
Bookmarks