Can the Crusaders hold on to Egypt?

AmericanCataphract

In OTL, there were a large number of invasions of Egypt, launched from France, the HRE, Byzantium, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, aimed at conquering Egypt for Christendom. Some of these even experienced temporary success. These included the Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Crusades, as well as the Alexandrian Crusade. What would have to change for one of these crusades to successfully take and hold a large portion of Egypt, for a period of several generations? Also, how might this have affected the Near East in the future?

Feel free to answer either or both questions, though the first one is my main interest.
 

Lysandros Aikiedes

The powers of Europe, through Egypt, would have access to trade in the Indian Ocean. And it would aid in the military stabilization of Christian rule in the Levant. Also, it will cut off the Muslim North African and Andalusian states from their eastern brethren.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
Since Egypt is some sort of nexus for Hadji routes across N Africa, it could consistently come under attack from such people. Napoleon himself remarked that especially on their way back from Mecca such people were fanatic to the point in suicide, having just had all that bunf on eternal virgins and so on from the Haj

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

mojojojo

Gone Fishin'
Lysandros Aikiedes said:
The powers of Europe, through Egypt, would have access to trade in the Indian Ocean. And it would aid in the military stabilization of Christian rule in the Levant. Also, it will cut off the Muslim North African and Andalusian states from their eastern brethren.
Click to expand...
In such a world what would the religious landscape look like?
 

Lysandros Aikiedes

With Egypt as a Christian kingdom, along with the likes of Edessa, Jerusalem, and Syria, it would geographically divide the Islamosphere.

If those crusader states were to hold off the eastern Muslim assault such as from the Seljuks and others, then perhaps the next crusades could be waged against the Muslims of North Africa and Spain.

If the Christian conquests in those parts hold, you might have a lot of Andulusi and Magrebi Muslims gradually migrate across the Sahara, all the way to the Muslim kingdoms of West Africa. The northern exodites would bring with them advanced concepts in science, theology, mathamatics, architecture, and engineering. This could possibly help to tech-up some of the African states before the Age of Discovery.

With the Kingdom of Egypt in Christian hands, one could have the merchants from Venice, Genoa, Amalfi, and Pisa have access through Egyptian interior, where they could sail down the Nile to trade with the Christian Nubians and Ethiopians, as well ashave a presence in the Red Sea ports, where they could hire ships that trade with the Arabs, as well with the Hindu states of India. Before you know it, goods from China may be had through the overseas route.

With Syria, Egypt, and Jerusalem under Christian rule, the rulers of any of those countries would attempt to revive the ancient Patriachates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, to reduce the Popes political influence among the crusader forces. By the 1400 and 1500 hundreds, with the Reformation taking place in Europe, the ruling dynasties throughout the Levant might convert from Latin Christianity. The Egyptian Princes would become Coptics, or the rulers of Syria could convert to indigenous Syrian Orthodox, etc.
 
Last edited:

Ace Venom

We're talking about a huge if here. The Copts are likely going to welcome the Crusader overlords at first, but that's a honeymoon that won't last forever. The Church will appoint a new Patriarch of Alexandria to sit on the Chair of St. Mark while making moves to bring the Coptic Church into the Catholic Church as an Eastern Catholic Church like they did with the Maronites.

But what's your timeline here? Which Crusade are we talking about? If we're talking about after the First Crusade, you could eliminate Saladin if they've already taken Syria. And what do you mean by hold? A century? Two centuries? Three centuries? I say the longest they could hold Egypt would be until the Mongols come knocking. That's the extreme.

The Crusaders would have needed to be very serious about conquering large swaths of Islamic territory to rule the area that covered Syria and Egypt. You'd essentially create a new dynamic in the Middle East. If you want to go full-on Crusaderwank, have the Byzantines reconquer Anatolia as well, but Cilicia remains independent. Assuming the Muslims do not try to regain territory, and they would once they reorganized around Baghdad, you have a collection of states that looks very attractive to the Mongols because of all the Eastern Med trade.

Even Crusaderwank couldn't take you beyond Syria and Egypt without going into total lunacy. North Africa is off-limits. Why waste resources there when you still have Arab rulers in Spain? So let's say you've established a nice feudal eastern med around the time of the First and Second Crusades. You'd have kings of Jerusalem, Syria and Egypt along with some smaller states.
 

Matthais Corvinus

If you look at history of the Latins in the Outremer, the Kings of Jerusalem were pretty consistent in saying that if Egypt fell to the Latins, then they would move to Egypt and cede Jerusalem to the Papacy.

If Egypt fell to the Crusaders (what is the POD here?) then I think that its possible to hold it for awhile. Egypt has the kind of land wealth that would make it quite popular with European knights. Its my opinion that the key to the survival of the Latin East was a large enough pool of native manpower (and by native I mean transplanted European knights) to fight wars on its own. This native manpower pool could only be created by capturing enough fertile land to set up a large knightly class. Jerusalem never took enough of this kind of land, and eventually failed. Egypt is thus the perfect place to establish a permanent Latin presence in the East. The knightly class doesn't even need to directly control the land. In fact, a lot of fiefs in the Kingdom of Jerusalem were "money fiefs" that were basically guarenteed income from the King. With control of Egypt, the King could probably keep the knightly class mostly urban, and provide money fiefs and largely maintain the Fatimid bureaucracy that already existed. So basically, you see Christianization in the cities, with Latin merchants and knights, perhaps even native conversion to Catholicism in order to participate in the lucrative Latin market, while rural Egypt remains basically as it was before.

The Italian Maritime Republics were already pretty involved in the Latin East OTL. If Egypt falls, then direct access to the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean beyond is going to be a major change in their economics.

I think that the Copts would be able to get along with the Catholics. Other Christian sects in the Latin East didn't have to give up any of their rites, they just swore allegiance to the Pope, and kept on the way they were before. The Copts could probably strike the same kind of deal, entering into communion with Rome while maintaining their own rites. Heck, the Copts could probably even keep their own Patriarch in Alexandria, with an agreement with the Latins to keep the Latin Patriarch in Cairo or something.
 
Last edited:

AmericanCataphract

Note: I'm wondering what you think might be some PODs that would result in extended Crusader success. One idea, for instance, is that the Pisans and Genoans don't hijack the Fourth Crusade, which was meant for Jerusalem via Egypt, and the Byzantines join in with military assistance. Suppose this allows the Crusaders to capture the Nile Delta, as far south as Cairo. That's an idea for a POD. I'm also particularly interested in whether Louis IX could have achieved a positive result in the Seventh Crusade if he had waited a few years and then exploited the strife in Egypt after the Mameluk takeover. What do you think?
 

Lysandros Aikiedes

AmericanCataphract said:
Note: I'm wondering what you think might be some PODs that would result in extended Crusader success. One idea, for instance, is that the Pisans and Genoans don't hijack the Fourth Crusade, which was meant for Jerusalem via Egypt, and the Byzantines join in with military assistance. Suppose this allows the Crusaders to capture the Nile Delta, as far south as Cairo. That's an idea for a POD. I'm also particularly interested in whether Louis IX could have achieved a positive result in the Seventh Crusade if he had waited a few years and then exploited the strife in Egypt after the Mameluk takeover. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Theres a thread by an author called Sicilian where the POD involves Robert Guiscard, after a discussion with a Byzantine diplomat, is convinced to abandon his campaign in northern Greece, and to instead invade Fatimid Egypt. A decade later, the First Crusade begins.
 
Last edited:

AmericanCataphract

Promethean said:
Maybe you have the Templars and Hospilitars joining in the invasion of Egypt by King Almarik of Jerusalem in 1166.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would make for an interesting POD. I wonder what repercussions it could have on Islamic efforts to recapture Jerusalem. It was only 21 years before the capture of Jerusalem. I would think that it would actually make things easier for Saladin if the knightly orders remain in Egypt, as that would deprive the Kingdom of Jerusalem of most of its permanent military guard.

Edit: It might actually be easier for the Crusaders to hold Egypt if they manage to make peace with the Coptic Church. Given that Outremer had a less prevalent Christian population and was therefore harder to keep pacified.
 

Promethean

AmericanCataphract said:
Yeah, that would make for an interesting POD. I wonder what repercussions it could have on Islamic efforts to recapture Jerusalem. It was only 21 years before the capture of Jerusalem. I would think that it would actually make things easier for Saladin if the knightly orders remain in Egypt, as that would deprive the Kingdom of Jerusalem of most of its permanent military guard.
Click to expand...

Well with not joining i meant none of them did anything in that Crusade i mean if they both would send like 500 Knights and Sergeants who could the back and front of the army that will be invading it will be possible. Also with any treat from Egypt gone they can send more troops to fight in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Did you know there were 10 Templar Knights to guard the entire island of Cyprus which was taken by Richard I of England so Egypt wont need that much surveilance also because i suspect much cooperation from the Coptic Christians in the start of the game so they will have time enough to kick Saladins ass in the North.
 

MarkA

If Alexandria can be taken and held in a surprise attack while the Islamic world is in turmoil as a result of the First Crusade, it would still require reinforcements from the West to continue to hold it and certainly to expand further. Perhaps the Emperor Alexius could send military forces by sea although this may lead to tensions with the crusaders.

With the conquests as in OTL plus Egypt (or part of it anyway) in crusader hands Islam would be faced with a crisis of confidence that Alexius would undoubtedly try to exploit to his advantage. Would it be possible that the news of the fall of Egypt could demoralise the Seljuks to the extent that Byzantium could expand further into their territory?

If a successful occupation of Egypt can last for a century or two, an earlier route to Cathay as mentioned by others here would lead to increased wealth for the Med powers, albeit if the trade is not hampered too badly by Islamic pirates. A shift in relative wealth and power towards the eastern Med and the Italian states may mean that even if the Reconquest of Spain continues (and there is no reason to suspect it will not) the quest for an alternate route to China will not be as urgent. It depends on the relations among the various states of course. In my opinion the attempt to try and reach China by sailing west from Europe will still happen although it may happen at a different time and place.

A resurgent Byzantium, a viable and long lasting Outremer along with the increased power, wealth and influence of Venice, Genoa and Pisa would mean the power relationships would be very different to OTL. Is Islam is a spent force? Can the Atlantic and Northern powers assert dominance over the newly revitalised areas? Is the papacy strengthened or weakened?
 

Matthais Corvinus

So, I came up with this rather interesting idea of a Norman-conquered Egypt that ends up leading to Italy being united by Norman leadership (Egyptian trade + opposition to the HRE = Italian alliance, which then leads to the Norman getting the Iron Crown of Lombardy, the Pope leaving Rome, going to France, leaving Rome Pope-less, and Jerusalem ending up as the capital of schismatic Pope overseeing an array of communions whose mutual need for each other outweighs their mutual disagreement over basic theological issues- Italy's Pope in Jerusalem, France Pope in Avignon, the Kingdom of Germany, the Empire of Italy, OH MY!) I obviously never wrote it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top