Norman Guiscard invades Fatimid Egypt instead of Byzantine Empire
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
Not like the eastern Roman’s have an amazing track record in dealing with so called heretical Christian groups :V
I do not know exactly if the Normans can rule over Egypt directly, but a interesting possibility is the Normans support a Coptic Christian ruled Egyptian dynasty, which could have interesting effects on history.
So not orthodox then.
The Normans are flexible in dealings with everyone at this time, and ofc the Pope has a small problem with the Emperor and to be fair with the Normans every so often.
The small problem with the Emperor is a big problem for the Normans, you can see OTL that despite going to war with the Byzantines who are much closer than Egypt that this conflict was deadly during a foreign adventure, there is no way the Normans can conquer Egypt on top of conflicts with the HRE and ERE.
Not an expert
I think an issue we may need to tackle is the Norman focus on the Byzantine empire. Perhaps this was the result of the state of the Byzantine state in the 1070s and 1080s, which could have made Robert Guiscard consider it an easy target. If this did play an important role, perhaps we could redirect Norman energies elsewhere by having the Byzantines not look so feeble - a stabler 1060s and 1070s, and no collapse of imperial authority in Asia Minor could help perhaps with that. Thus, the Normans could decide perhaps to try to gain a presence in northern Africa after the conquest of Sicily - the island already had close economic and cultural links with the area, as well as a long story of political dependence on the states located there. If successful, they could manage to establish something akin to the "Kingdom of Africa" some decades earlier than OTL. I guess that a campaign to establish Christian control over Jerusalem could still occur, and with the Byzantines being in a more powerful position and in less/no need of military aid from the West, perhaps a strike against Egypt and then Palestine could be contemplated; or, the campaign could still move through the same areas as IOTL, but with the Normans and perhaps others undertaking their own operations.
I think an issue we may need to tackle is the Norman focus on the Byzantine empire. Perhaps this was the result of the state of the Byzantine state in the 1070s and 1080s, which could have made Robert Guiscard consider it an easy target. If this did play an important role, perhaps we could redirect Norman energies elsewhere by having the Byzantines not look so feeble - a stabler 1060s and 1070s, and no collapse of imperial authority in Asia Minor could help perhaps with that. Thus, the Normans could decide perhaps to try to gain a presence in northern Africa after the conquest of Sicily - the island already had close economic and cultural links with the area, as well as a long story of political dependence on the states located there. If successful, they could manage to establish something akin to the "Kingdom of Africa" some decades earlier than OTL. I guess that a campaign to establish Christian control over Jerusalem could still occur, and with the Byzantines being in a more powerful position and in less/no need of military aid from the West, perhaps a strike against Egypt and then Palestine could be contemplated; or, the campaign could still move through the same areas as IOTL, but with the Normans and perhaps others undertaking their own operations.
If the ERE doesn't lose Anatolia there are no Crusades.
Well, the idea of campaigning under the guidance of the Pope in order to reclaim Christian lands would already be there in some form (the campaign of the Normans to conquer Sicily being an example of that); Jerusalem was also rising in prominence as a site of pilgrimage. So to say there would be no crusades because Byzantine rule in Anatolia didn't collapse is a bit unfounded I think.
Even IOTL the Crusade was all but expected, the Pope only planned to send a mercenary force to the ERE so I doubt it will happen if the Muslims aren't crushing the Byzantines in Anatolia.
But they don't have border with Egypt. Maybe you're thinking of Makuria
No Guiscard only came into conflict with HRE and ERE because he invaded the Byzantine Balkans who responded by paying the HRE to attack them. That won't happen with the Fatimids.
Normans were very tolerant of non Catholic Christians in Southern Italy and Sicily. They even tolerate Muslims. All were part of their administration.
The Normans were in conflict with the HRE because they backed the Pope against the Emperor and to create their kingdom they conquered ERE land in Southern Italy, if they're on an adventure in North Africa they'll at least have conflicts with the HRE and they will be in an even worse position than IOTL.
They weren't known for being very tolerant during wartime.
Maybe in First Crusade Byzantium and Normans agree to partition the Seljuk Empire with the former getting Anatolia and the latter getting the Levant while Cilician Armenia becomes their buffer and the treaty gets sealed by the marriage of Bohemond Crown Prince of Egyptian Empire and Anna Komnene Porphyrogenita.
They were especially horrible, as essentially all of Southern Italy (including the common people) tried to prevent them from becoming their rulers, which will not get them benevolent attention.
The Normans in Southern Italy were not hated because of a particularly intolerant approach to language, custom, and religion, but because of the same reason Normans were hated everywhere else they went.
The Normans precisely because of their lack of interest in administration were more than willing to devolve these things to local talent
No, it's that they were insufferably violent in their own local feuds, they were onerous in demands for taxation and in-kind tribute and labor, culturally they tended to be insular from the people they ruled when differences existed, they were extremely land hungry in terms of their dealings with the local gentry and would expropriate them at every opportunity, and the tendencies of its baronial class to pillage everything in sight was not handled adequately by superior authorities.
Everyone was like that in the Middle East. Exterminating the conquered city's inhabitants was the standard procedure there. Do you know what the Fatimids did to the Byzantine cities they conquered or what the Seljuks did to the Armenian cities ?