Crusader wank

[gochisox]

I dont know how fiasable this is but it always seems that the problem for the Crusader States was manpower, the Teutonic States and Spain were both successfully Christianize because of immigration. So what if Urban instead of just offered indulgences for the pilgrimage, offered some sort of indulgence for living in the holy land. Put in some law that by living where Jesus lived, the sins were lessened(since he made up indulgences, he could make up something like that)
That would allow a fairly consistent stream of people moving to there, and they would most likely be a mix of all types of carriers, allowing a more stable society, a super religious one yes, but over a couple generations they would be more acclimated.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I think the butterflies are fascinating - if Christendom defeated Islam in the Mediterranean, is it possible that, now having a more controlling position in the Red Sea trade with Asia, that they are less interested in crossing the Atlantic?

Probably not, I'd say -- from the point of view of the Western European powers, finding a direct route to the Far East and cut out the middleman is going to seem an attractive prospect, regardless of whether than middleman is Christian or Muslim. It's quite significant that, when the Portuguese first managed to sail round Africa and into the Indian Ocean, their King boasted of having his boot on the neck, not of the Turks, but of the Venetians.

 

[TFSmith121]

An actual "Tenth Crusade" in the 1300s?

With a POD anytime during or after the Council of Clermont, make it so that the various crusades manage to permanently return Palestine, Egypt and North Africa to Christendom.

An actual organized "Tenth Crusade" in the 1300s? Called for by the Church (Urban V, perhaps?) to deal with the pressures of (say) the Hundred Years War and similar conflicts in Europe itself, as much a diversion as anything else, but it actually succeeds? Granted, he's in Avignon, but presmably that would help focus western European attention on such a crusade...

There were some campaigns against the Turks/Muslims in the century that had some military success (Smyrniote, Alexandrian, Savoyard) that actually included cooperation between the western crusaders and the Byzantines.

It's certainly very late, and Nicopolis suggests one potential outcome, but as witness the Reconquista, the Muslims were not invincible.

Best,

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I dont know how fiasable this is but it always seems that the problem for the Crusader States was manpower, the Teutonic States and Spain were both successfully Christianize because of immigration. So what if Urban instead of just offered indulgences for the pilgrimage, offered some sort of indulgence for living in the holy land. Put in some law that by living where Jesus lived, the sins were lessened(since he made up indulgences, he could make up something like that)
That would allow a fairly consistent stream of people moving to there, and they would most likely be a mix of all types of carriers, allowing a more stable society, a super religious one yes, but over a couple generations they would be more acclimated.

I think the biggest problem with immigration to the Holy Land would be sheer distance -- Prussia and Spain were both on the borders of Christian powers, so it was much easier to colonise them than a land thousands of miles across the ocean.

Plus, it's not really necessary to Christianise them. The crusaders could just do what the Muslims had originally done, but in reverse -- don't persecute Muslims, but make them pay extra taxes and bar them from holding certain important positions so that it's more advantageous for them to become Christians. Over the years the number of conversions will gradually add up, until a majority of the population are Christians.

 

[Cueg]

Egypt maybe; Persia was a bit far to pose a real threat to Jerusalem.

Historically, whoever ruled Persia typically ruled Mesopotamia. Since said rulers would most likely be Islamic in some form, there would probably be an inclination to take back Al Aqsa and protect Mecca and Medina. Even with Egypt, you would still have to deal with, based on OTL, the Seljuk. If not they, then whatever power had replaced them.

With the POD needed, you can't count on the Tengri Mongols to swoop in and overthrow the established aristocracy; Sunni Turkmen and Arab Sunni. In that sense, there would be ample pretext for perpetual war against whatever polity the Crusaders manage to create. Whilst war isn't assured, the Persian based polity would probably err on conquest of the Levant and Egypt. The very same thing happened historically between the Sunni Turkmen and Shiite Fatmid, so why would it be any different?

EDIT : It should be noted that even with the Mongols, you'd still have to deal with, well, the Mongols. The Ilkhanate tried to conquer Egypt and the Levant like the Seljuk of old. In essence, theres always going to be an enemy at the gates.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Historically, whoever ruled Persia typically ruled Mesopotamia. Since said rulers would most likely be Islamic in some form, there would probably be an inclination to take back Al Aqsa and protect Mecca and Medina. Even with Egypt, you would still have to deal with, based on OTL, the Seljuk. If not they, then whatever power had replaced them.

With the POD needed, you can't count on the Tengri Mongols to swoop in and overthrow the established aristocracy; Sunni Turkmen and Arab Sunni. In that sense, there would be ample pretext for perpetual war against whatever polity the Crusaders manage to create. Whilst war isn't assured, the Persian based polity would probably err on conquest of the Levant and Egypt. The very same thing happened historically between the Sunni Turkmen and Shiite Fatmid, so why would it be any different?

EDIT : It should be noted that even with the Mongols, you'd still have to deal with, well, the Mongols. The Ilkhanate tried to conquer Egypt and the Levant like the Seljuk of old. In essence, theres always going to be an enemy at the gates.

IOTL the Seljuqs were collapsing during the later 11th century, after which the Abbasids regained power in Iraq. So, whereas Mesopotamia and Persia have often been ruled by the same country, they weren't during the Crusader Era.

 

[Cueg]

IOTL the Seljuqs were collapsing during the later 11th century, after which the Abbasids regained power in Iraq. So, whereas Mesopotamia and Persia have often been ruled by the same country, they weren't during the Crusader Era.

Fair point. Did the Khwarazmian try to conquer the Abbasid, or did the Ayyubid nominally control it? I genuinely don't know.

 

[Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)]

Historically, whoever ruled Persia typically ruled Mesopotamia. Since said rulers would most likely be Islamic in some form, there would probably be an inclination to take back Al Aqsa and protect Mecca and Medina. Even with Egypt, you would still have to deal with, based on OTL, the Seljuk. If not they, then whatever power had replaced them.

(...)

I agree with your assessment.

Since this is an ATL website, let's go for a thought experiment: would be a conquest of Mesopotamia by the Crusaders be possible, in the best case scenario that they reconquer the whole of eastern Mediterranean? A previous poster pointed that Damascus is a crucial strategic target on the long run to protect the northeastern borders. Can Syria be a powerbase to allow the advance through Assyria and down the Euphrates plain?

Another question: how convenient to the Crusaders is an eventual reconquest of Anatolia by the Byzantine Empire? I'm under the impression that the Komnenoi had enough of bad blood with the Crusaders, but their failure to reconquest the country after Manzikert effectively isolated the Crusader States. If they had succeeded, would it be in their interest to ensure the survival of the Crusader States against the Muslims?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I agree with your assessment.

Since this is an ATL website, let's go for a thought experiment: would be a conquest of Mesopotamia by the Crusaders be possible, in the best case scenario that they reconquer the whole of eastern Mediterranean? A previous poster pointed that Damascus is a crucial strategic target on the long run to protect the northeastern borders. Can Syria be a powerbase to allow the advance through Assyria and down the Euphrates plain?

Best-case, scenario, as I can think of it: By the time the Mongols come, the crusaders are firmly ensconced in Egypt and Syria. Recognising the futility of fighting them, the crusaders conclude an alliance instead. The Mongols ravage Persia and Mesopotamia, setting up a short-lived empire, before collapsing in the 1330s as IOTL. With no really powerful states left, the crusader kingdom of Egypt + Syria is able to step into the power vacuum and take Mesopotamia.

 

[gochisox]

I think the biggest problem with immigration to the Holy Land would be sheer distance -- Prussia and Spain were both on the borders of Christian powers, so it was much easier to colonise them than a land thousands of miles across the ocean.

Plus, it's not really necessary to Christianise them. The crusaders could just do what the Muslims had originally done, but in reverse -- don't persecute Muslims, but make them pay extra taxes and bar them from holding certain important positions so that it's more advantageous for them to become Christians. Over the years the number of conversions will gradually add up, until a majority of the population are Christians.

Thats definitely true, but I'm not sure if it's fisable to do it that way. The Crusades were so stuck in the idea of holy war and I'm not sure they would be able to treat the Muslims well enough that they would want to convert within a reasonable time frame. And even if they did, it would take at least a century for that to work (I would bet longer then that.) but at the same time, if there are a lot of religious fighting going on, even if they like the Crusader they will most likely support Saladin or whoevers attacking. To be able to have a large support for early attacks you need a large Christian population that would support you rather then the Muslims.

The distance is a problems but I could see an holy order pop up to help with that, a fully naval one or something like that which would transport colonizers (for a small fee of course)

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Thats definitely true, but I'm not sure if it's fisable to do it that way. The Crusades were so stuck in the idea of holy war and I'm not sure they would be able to treat the Muslims well enough that they would want to convert within a reasonable time frame. And even if they did, it would take at least a century for that to work (I would bet longer then that.) but at the same time, if there are a lot of religious fighting going on, even if they like the Crusader they will most likely support Saladin or whoevers attacking. To be able to have a large support for early attacks you need a large Christian population that would support you rather then the Muslims.

The distance is a problems but I could see an holy order pop up to help with that, a fully naval one or something like that which would transport colonizers (for a small fee of course)

The kingdoms of Outremer actually tended to treat their Muslim and non-Catholic Christian subjects fairly well; religious motivations are powerful, but so is realpolitik, and the Kings of Jerusalem were astute enough to realise that they couldn't hold on to power by alienating the majority of their subjects.

Definitely any process of conversion would take a long time; Egypt wasn't majority-Islamic until the eleventh century or so, so we might be looking at a timescale of several centuries, although there were still more Christians in the Middle East c. 1099 than there were Muslims c. 636. Still, I think the likelihood that Muslim subjects would support Saladin (or whoever takes his place ITTL) over their Christian overlords can be overstated. IOTL, as far as I know, the Kingdom of Jerusalem's Muslim subjects didn't cause it much trouble; nor for that matter did the Christians of seventh-century Palestine cause much trouble for their Islamic conquerors. The risks associated with rebellion is generally high enough to deter people, even when they'd be in principle sympathetic to their ruler's enemies.

 

[JonasResende]

Bit late to the party, but if a kingdom of Egypt is established, is there not a possibility of falling out among thieves as to who the king would be? The three main powers in the Crusades - England, France and the Holy Roman Empire - are all going to be lobbying for someone of their choosing. And even if we marry the person of A's candidature to the daughter of B's candidate, it still leaves C standing out in the cold. Or am I getting it wrong?

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Bit late to the party, but if a kingdom of Egypt is established, is there not a possibility of falling out among thieves as to who the king would be? The three main powers in the Crusades - England, France and the Holy Roman Empire - are all going to be lobbying for someone of their choosing. And even if we marry the person of A's candidature to the daughter of B's candidate, it still leaves C standing out in the cold. Or am I getting it wrong?

Well, you should probably add another Party (Jerusalem) but considering both the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Latin Empire were both able to find ultimate rulers, I would be surprised if Egypt failed. Although, I guess it would be plausible to divide Egypt into two kingdoms - Upper and Lower Egypt, there is a precedent after all.

 

[Reydan]

Bit late to the party, but if a kingdom of Egypt is established, is there not a possibility of falling out among thieves as to who the king would be? The three main powers in the Crusades - England, France and the Holy Roman Empire - are all going to be lobbying for someone of their choosing. And even if we marry the person of A's candidature to the daughter of B's candidate, it still leaves C standing out in the cold. Or am I getting it wrong?

Well, you should probably add another Party (Jerusalem) but considering both the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Latin Empire were both able to find ultimate rulers, I would be surprised if Egypt failed. Although, I guess it would be plausible to divide Egypt into two kingdoms - Upper and Lower Egypt, there is a precedent after all.

Depending on the POD, I think this chap

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_II,_Count_of_Champagne

would be an acceptable compromise - with links to both France and England. Obviously this still leaves HRE out in the cold. It also depends on whether the Byzantines are involved in the attack...

Its unlikely, in the event of a Crusade invasion, that Jerusalem's claim to sovereignty over Egypt would be upheld by the invaders - too many young knights hungry for land. Plus any crusade from the west is going to be sparked by crisis in Jerusalem anyway, which suggests Jerusalem would be unable to hold additional land.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Bit late to the party, but if a kingdom of Egypt is established, is there not a possibility of falling out among thieves as to who the king would be? The three main powers in the Crusades - England, France and the Holy Roman Empire - are all going to be lobbying for someone of their choosing. And even if we marry the person of A's candidature to the daughter of B's candidate, it still leaves C standing out in the cold. Or am I getting it wrong?

It kinda depends. If a more successful Third Crusade (say because Barbarossa manages to bring his army intact to the Holy Land) manages to take Egypt after conquering Jerusalem, we could well see the three leaders falling out among themselves. If the POD is a successful Fourth Crusade, the monarchs in question didn't take part, so their input on who gets the new kingdom would be minimal to non-existent.