WI: Raymond St. Gilles accepts being King of Jerusalem?

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

As the title says, after the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 Raymond was offered the Kingship. What do you see happening after that?

From the research I've done - it seems there would be:

(1) Much stronger ties with Byzantium, as Raymond was historically criticized for being too friendly with the Greeks during the campaign. Would they have helped him capture more cities earlier on?
(2) his legitimate son from what I've read was actually born in the Holy land, so would have stayed and been raised there. Even if Raymond lived longer, (say 1115, dying around 74) Alfonso-Jordan would have been 12, and there would have been a regency - who are credible Lords for that title?
(3) If Raymond didn't go back - my guess is that many of his vassal lords may have stayed, so the lords of the kingdom would be quite different than under Godfrey and Baldwin.
(4) Baldwin was according to some of the books I've read, an excellent King. Would he have made a much stronger County of Eddesa that avoids being slaughtered in 1144?
(5) Where does Godfrey go? He had captured some towns near Antioch during the seige, but would have accepted being a vassal of Bohemond? Would he get work with Alexios I with the crusade of 1101?
(6) Raymond was a major leader of the 1101 Crusade, who replaces him? What would happen with this replacement?

 

[kasumigenx]

Cathar crusade is butterflied as well.

 

[Marc Anthony]

(1) Much stronger ties with Byzantium, as Raymond was historically criticized for being too friendly with the Greeks during the campaign. Would they have helped him capture more cities earlier on?

more important than extra land was the fact, had he taken control even before the fall of Jerusalem, he could have prevented the slaughter of the local Greek orthodox population or at least mitigated it. Thus he could secure their support and gave his Kingdom a far more stable foundation.

(3) If Raymond didn't go back - my guess is that many of his vassal lords may have stayed, so the lords of the kingdom would be quite different than under Godfrey and Baldwin.

i wonder if they would bring over peasant settlers with them. in OTL the Franks (the term used for the crusaders that settled the kingdom and created a new ethnicity) tried to encourage peasents to emigrate to the holy land in order to increase the the "frankish" population and secure the food supply. that enterprise ultimately failed due to the peasents hailing from northern France and the low countries and therefore not used to the climate and differant soil. And the difficulties of getting them to emigrate. So maybe bringing in emigrants from a meditteranian type climate would have different results though not completely successful

 

[Kome]

(5) Where does Godfrey go? He had captured some towns near Antioch during the seige, but would have accepted being a vassal of Bohemond? Would he get work with Alexios I with the crusade of 1101?

The most optimal fief for Godfrey in this scenario would be Ascalon. The crusaders had a chance to do take it during the First Crusade but infighting between Raymond and Godfrey over the divisions of spoils prevented them from doing so. The failure to take the fort would be one of the worst mistakes of the First Crusade (up there with certain events in the Siege of Antioch) resulting in multiple failed attempts at taking Ascalon in the future wasting their efforts and battles to defend themselves from Egyptian attacks. Without the fortress the Jerusalem had no defenses against Egypt and it wouldn't be taken until 50 years later in the reign of Baldwin III.

But as for whether having Raymond in charge will do something to alleviate the rivalry between Raymond and Godfrey long enough to take the city? Its hard to say. Raymond naturally resented Godfrey for being chosen to lead Jerusalem over him (despite both claiming they didn't want it) and Godfrey feared increasing Raymond's influence by granting him a fief. Unclear whether they would act differently if the positions were reversed.

 

[Kome]

i wonder if they would bring over peasant settlers with them. in OTL the Franks (the term used for the crusaders that settled the kingdom and created a new ethnicity) tried to encourage peasents to emigrate to the holy land in order to increase the the "frankish" population and secure the food supply. that enterprise ultimately failed due to the peasents hailing from northern France and the low countries and therefore not used to the climate and differant soil. And the difficulties of getting them to emigrate. So maybe bringing in emigrants from a meditteranian type climate would have different results though not completely successful

The failure to attract further colonists was at least partially due to the failure to provide adequate security to the countryside imo. To do that would require Jerusalem to secure Ascalon, Aleppo, and Damascus to eliminate the Muslim staging areas for raids. The crusaders had an opportunity to take each of them or neutralize them with alliances at various points, but lost their chances.