| August 12 |  |
Editor says, what if the First Crusade had failed at the last battle? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the August 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1099, on this day the numerically-superior Fatimid army defeated the crusader army led by Godfrey of Bouillon. This unexpected crushing defeat at the Battle of Ashkelon immediately threatened the security of newly-occupied Jerusalem.
Fatimid Victory at the Battle of AscalonIt was a crippling blow because the crusaders had negotiated with the Fatimids of Egypt during their march to Jerusalem, but no satisfactory compromise could be reached - the Fatimids were willing to give up control of Syria but not Palestine, but this was unacceptable to the crusaders, whose goal was the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was captured from the Fatimids on July 15, 1099, after a long siege, and immediately the crusaders learned that a Fatimid army was on its way to besiege them.
The Fatimids were led by vizier al-Afdal Shahanshah, who commanded 50,000 troops of Seljuk Turk, Arab, Persian, Armenian, Kurdish and Ethiopian origin. They easily outflanked the Crusader Army, and despite some heroics from Godfrey, their smaller force of 9,000 men was insufficient to carry the day.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Politicians Source: Wikipedia Labels: Godfrey of Bouillon, Ascalon, Crusade, Fatimid, Ashkelon. Editor says, in authoring this post we have repurposed content Wikipedia which reports ~ the Battle of Ascalon took place on August 12, 1099 shortly after the capture of Jerusalem, and is often considered the last action of the First Crusade. The crusader army led by Godfrey of Bouillon defeated and drove off the numerically-superior Fatimid army, securing the safety of Jerusalem.
~ Without this defeat of the Muslims, would there have been a Third...led by none other than Richard the Lion-Hearted? And if the Lionheart had stayed home, would King John never have replaced him and been forced to sign the Magna Carta because he was such a crummy king? And didn't Richard's exploits help lead to national unity and patriotic spirit? Talk about unintended consequences...
~ The Crusader kingdom was always on a precarious footing, but this would have made it fall faster IMNSHO. However, there would have been more Crusades...Richard I would have gone if he'd had to swim the whole way naked.
~ Would he? From stories that I've read, he wasn't too eager at first to go crusading. It was only after he'd been convinced and things were under way that he seems to have caught the fever. And how does this possibly no extended Crusading Period change relations between the Muslims and Christians down to road to the 21st Century?
~ I've read that Muslims even today have objected to seeing any noble mission described as a "Crusade."
~ Could've contributed to more fervor or squelched the idea of crusading, all depends on how Christendom spun it.
~ As to Richard's own personal influence...I have read that it is still so great, Arab mothers warn their naughty children, "Melek Rik will get you." And "Melek Rik" translates to "King Richard."
comments powered by Disqus
Related posts from the same era that you may also like
 The Seventh Wife of "Henry VIII" |  "Mary", Queen of France |  Livonian Order victorious at the "Battle of Turaida" |
 "Francis Xavier" Vows an Eternal Portuguese Empire |  Plantagenet lose "Baron's War" |  Happy Endings Part "22": The Escape from Loch Leven Castle |
 Happy Endings "Part 21": Jadwiga betrothed to William the Courteous, Duke of Austria |  Ascension of "King Arthur II" |  Siege of "Siena" Lifted |
 Golden Horde triumph at the "Terek River" |  Habsburg Victory at the "Battle of Nafels" |  Birth of "Henry IX (The Great)", King of England |
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
