Perceptions and impacts of surviving crusader states in industrial era Europe

[Beefhammer]

Let's say that, by a combination of avoiding at least some of the unlucky breaks that did major damage to them (e.g. Stephen of Blois getting blackpilled about the crusade and abandoning it literally the day before the crusaders took Antioch and inadvertently convincing Alexios that the whole thing was a lost cause, causing the crusaders to waste six months around Antioch waiting for the emperor and permanently souring relations between the crusaders and the Byzantines) and playing their weak hands better than they already did, at least some crusader states survive and become stable fixtures in the Mediterranean. As an example of what a surviving crusader Levant could feasibly look like, not saying this setup is inherently part of the hypothetical, say the end result of the Crusades is a Kingdom of Jerusalem that also includes Mount Lebanon and a secure northeastern flank-possibly even secured by taking Damascus outright-where the majority is Christian but Sunni Islam remains the largest single religious sect and a crusader Kingdom of Egypt where the majority follows a Coptic Church that is likely to have entered communion with Rome.
Assuming history back in Europe continues more or less on the trajectory it did IOTL in spite of this, how will Europe's upper classes and chattering classes regard these offshoots of a bygone age once the Industrial Revolution gets underway? Would they, or at a minimum the crusader descendants among their upper classes, be begrudgingly regarded as 'honorary Europeans', so to speak? Would they be dismissed as Orientalized backwaters that Occidental commercial interests should have no qualms slapping around? Would they be regarded, at least by Protestants and/or Whigs and/or various anti-clericalists, as faintly risible anachronisms, reminders of an embarassingly backwards Europe best left buried? What would their influence on the arts be? How would they be integrated into the European-Mediterranean economy? And so on.

 

[Jürgen]

Surviving Crusader states would have other implication like what about the Ottomans? Will the Ottomans still have their empire and simply have conquered the crusader states, but those stayed Christian enough to rebel and establish a Christian dominated Levant, or do the Ottoman simply vassalize the Christian Levant like they did with Georgia and Romania, or have the Ottoman failed to expand at all? All those raise different question both for the culture of Europe (which was heavily effected by century long wars with the Ottomans) but also by how Levant is.

But let’s go with scenario one, the Levant stay under Crusader rule until the 16th century, where it overrun by the Ottomans. The 16th Century Levant is fully Christians, the Muslim population having being converted, expelled and massacred by the late 14th century. The 16th century Levantines are overwhelming Catholic Semitic speakers [1], through some Orthodox population still exists in the region. Under Ottoman rule a Muslim elite arise and Jews and Greeks replace the Italians in the cities of the Levant. But mostly the rural population stay Catholic.

We hit 1800 and the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt, the Levantine Christian stay under Ottoman rule, but are heavily inspired by new European ideas and when Muhammed Ali’s revolt against the Ottoman happens, the Levantine also rise up and and the Great powers of Europe decides to establish a independent Levantine state made up of Israel/Palestine, Western Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian coast, Hatay, “Lesser Armenia” and Cyprus. Some European Prince is elected king of Jerusalem.

As for how it will seem, it will simply be seen like the Balkans of the Middle East. Of course, the existence of such a state will likely result in the influx of a lot religious (Christian) weirdos from Europe, through it will likely also see a lot of Jews also migrate to the state.

[1] The local language having being heavily influenced by Italian and Greek and use the Latin alphabet.

 

[Lothal]

Surviving Crusader states would have other implication like what about the Ottomans? Will the Ottomans still have their empire and simply have conquered the crusader states, but those stayed Christian enough to rebel and establish a Christian dominated Levant, or do the Ottoman simply vassalize the Christian Levant like they did with Georgia and Romania, or have the Ottoman failed to expand at all? All those raise different question both for the culture of Europe (which was heavily effected by century long wars with the Ottomans) but also by how Levant is.

But let’s go with scenario one, the Levant stay under Crusader rule until the 16th century, where it overrun by the Ottomans. The 16th Century Levant is fully Christians, the Muslim population having being converted, expelled and massacred by the late 14th century. The 16th century Levantines are overwhelming Catholic Semitic speakers [1], through some Orthodox population still exists in the region. Under Ottoman rule a Muslim elite arise and Jews and Greeks replace the Italians in the cities of the Levant. But mostly the rural population stay Catholic.

We hit 1800 and the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt, the Levantine Christian stay under Ottoman rule, but are heavily inspired by new European ideas and when Muhammed Ali’s revolt against the Ottoman happens, the Levantine also rise up and and the Great powers of Europe decides to establish a independent Levantine state made up of Israel/Palestine, Western Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian coast, Hatay, “Lesser Armenia” and Cyprus. Some European Prince is elected king of Jerusalem.

As for how it will seem, it will simply be seen like the Balkans of the Middle East. Of course, the existence of such a state will likely result in the influx of a lot religious (Christian) weirdos from Europe, through it will likely also see a lot of Jews also migrate to the state.

[1] The local language having being heavily influenced by Italian and Greek and use the Latin alphabet.

lots of butterflies here. The big thing is that the Latins would have stayed a separate ethno-social class who would merge heavy elements of Levantine culture with with a French based aristocratic culture with partial Armenian ancestry if they manage to survive both the Saracens, the Mongols, and any other Mamluk/Turk Empire as well. Now onto the perceptions; consider the artistic movements of Orientalism, Turquerie, and Chinoiserie/Faux-Porcelain, the culture of the greater Islamic world was almost treated like a cultural oddity that was exotic and hence a vastly different reality to the tastes of Europeans. Part of Napoleon's justification for his campaign in Egypt and the Levant was the goal of propagating Enlightenment values and the extraction of cultural knowledge from the exotic and strange ancient Egyptian civilization which they were the first Europeans since the Arab conquest to see their ruins, which is why the ancient Egyptian civilization still today has people claiming that only aliens could have built their structures, but dont doubt that Greeks or Romans built heir structures...

 

[Domz]

lots of butterflies here. The big thing is that the Latins would have stayed a separate ethno-social class who would merge heavy elements of Levantine culture with with a French based aristocratic culture with partial Armenian ancestry if they manage to survive both the Saracens, the Mongols, and any other Mamluk/Turk Empire as well. Now onto the perceptions; consider the artistic movements of Orientalism, Turquerie, and Chinoiserie/Faux-Porcelain, the culture of the greater Islamic world was almost treated like a cultural oddity that was exotic and hence a vastly different reality to the tastes of Europeans. Part of Napoleon's justification for his campaign in Egypt and the Levant was the goal of propagating Enlightenment values and the extraction of cultural knowledge from the exotic and strange ancient Egyptian civilization which they were the first Europeans since the Arab conquest to see their ruins, which is why the ancient Egyptian civilization still today has people claiming that only aliens could have built their structures, but dont doubt that Greeks or Romans built heir structures...

Even the Byzantine Empire was viewed with suspicion by the Western Europeans as early as 800 CE. Being Christian wasn't enough for it to not get sacked and conquered by the Latins in 1204.

Russia is an interesting counterpoint to Byzantium however, even though it didn't really become a significant European power until Catherine the Great. Poland-Lithuania definitely tried to conquer Russia though in the 17th century.

 

[Beefhammer]

Being Christian wasn't enough for it to not get sacked and conquered by the Latins in 1204.

The Greeks didn't pay their debts. As would become the norm in the future.

Surviving Crusader states would have other implication like what about the Ottomans? Will the Ottomans still have their empire and simply have conquered the crusader states, but those stayed Christian enough to rebel and establish a Christian dominated Levant, or do the Ottoman simply vassalize the Christian Levant like they did with Georgia and Romania, or have the Ottoman failed to expand at all? All those raise different question both for the culture of Europe (which was heavily effected by century long wars with the Ottomans) but also by how Levant is.

But let’s go with scenario one, the Levant stay under Crusader rule until the 16th century, where it overrun by the Ottomans. The 16th Century Levant is fully Christians, the Muslim population having being converted, expelled and massacred by the late 14th century. The 16th century Levantines are overwhelming Catholic Semitic speakers [1], through some Orthodox population still exists in the region. Under Ottoman rule a Muslim elite arise and Jews and Greeks replace the Italians in the cities of the Levant. But mostly the rural population stay Catholic.

We hit 1800 and the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt, the Levantine Christian stay under Ottoman rule, but are heavily inspired by new European ideas and when Muhammed Ali’s revolt against the Ottoman happens, the Levantine also rise up and and the Great powers of Europe decides to establish a independent Levantine state made up of Israel/Palestine, Western Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian coast, Hatay, “Lesser Armenia” and Cyprus. Some European Prince is elected king of Jerusalem.

And in scenario two?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

Most likely I’d say these crusader kingdoms are seen as as European as Spain or Portugal- they’ve been successfully reconquistad, they’re Catholics and most likely quite fervent Catholics. The crusader monarchy’s have been well and truly integrated into the marriage and alliance system of Christian Europe, and take an active role in papal schisms, reacting to the reformation etc

we’re saying here that a crusader Egypt and Levant doesn’t effect the Byzantine collapse, the Latin empire still ends on schedule and the ottomans or an alt beylicate manages to take Constantinople (which seems very unlikely) and they manage to weather the Mongol storm without affecting the ilkhanate or really being affected in turn (which also seems unlikely)

Also having Arabic being an established language of Catholic kings means that Spain is likely to be a lot less discriminatory towards Arabic culture as it completes its own reconquista, and Spanish monarchs and administration, at least in the kingdom of Valencia is arabophone.

Alternatively the crusader kings maintain both their ethnic identity as latins and their Latinate language, meaning that a romance creole, maybe based on Occitan becomes the dominant administrative language in outremer and spreads to the people in the following centuries.

 

[raharris1973]

through it will likely also see a lot of Jews also migrate to the state.

This doesn't seem all that likely if it is a fervently Catholic country. I wouldn't expect restorers of Catholic/Christian rule to be friendly to new Jewish immigration if the centuries of Ottoman rule saw the Jews favored as the mercantile class over Christian Italians.

 

[kholieken]

Assuming history back in Europe continues more or less on the trajectory it did IOTL in spite of this, how will Europe's upper classes and chattering classes regard these offshoots of a bygone age once the Industrial Revolution gets underway?

These would be impossible. Iberians would have no need to seek Asia when Crusaders state control western end of Silk Road. Also Crusader - Byzantine better relations would butterfly Fourth Crusade and likely Ottoman Conqùest, which wouldcause Major butterfly in Southeast Europe. Also Renaissance would happen very differently with viable Christian states in Levant, Anatolia, and Egypt.

I think Christendom (instead of Europanism) would be far more successful ideology. Constant contact with Orthodox (Byzantines, Russian), Jacobites (Levant, Armenian, Copts, Ethiopia), and Nestorian (Assyria, Upper Mesopotamia) would influence science, philosophy, and theology in Western Europe. There also would be more contact with Muslims.

 

[Elfwine]

Not sure why Crusaders controlling the western end of the Silk Road removes the need to seek Asia - cutting out the middle men is still worthwhile - but I can't see them not influencing Europe's sense of itself and of other places.

 

[Grokborg]

The former Crusader states would change greatly over time, like the rest of the world. They could be seen as "Europe outsiders", but this could just as easily mean something like 19th century Britain, Russia, or even Ottoman Empire, just as much as it could be a holdout of 16th century Spain or Portugal in the 19th century.

They'd probably be unexpectedly cosmopolitan with a despotic side. Some long running influences of Mongol-Crusader alliance or Byzantine-Crusader alliance would likely be a big thing, even if both alliances and interactions were gone.

History is weird. it's possible that ruling classes and urban residents of a collapsing Byzantine empire or collapsing Ilkhanate could even escape to the Crusader states.

 

[raharris1973]

Iberians would have no need to seek Asia when Crusaders state control western end of Silk Road.

Why so sure?

Not sure why Crusaders controlling the western end of the Silk Road removes the need to seek Asia - cutting out the middle men is still worthwhile -

Yeah-

Portuguese and Castilians saying - "The tariffs are too damn high"

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Yeah-

Portuguese and Castilians saying - "The tariffs are too damn high"

Probably relevant that when Vasco da Gama returned from his visit to India, the King of Portugal crowed about getting one over the *Venetians*, not the Ottomans or Mamelukes.

 

[JohnBull]

They'd be seen as Europeans, as much as other Catholic nations on the Mediterranean basin. Same religion, close culture/language, similar physical appearance. Even OTL Israel is seen as "European/Western/White".

 

[lynxpt]

Surviving Crusader states would have other implication like what about the Ottomans? Will the Ottomans still have their empire and simply have conquered the crusader states, but those stayed Christian enough to rebel and establish a Christian dominated Levant, or do the Ottoman simply vassalize the Christian Levant like they did with Georgia and Romania, or have the Ottoman failed to expand at all? All those raise different question both for the culture of Europe (which was heavily effected by century long wars with the Ottomans) but also by how Levant is.

But let’s go with scenario one, the Levant stay under Crusader rule until the 16th century, where it overrun by the Ottomans. The 16th Century Levant is fully Christians, the Muslim population having being converted, expelled and massacred by the late 14th century. The 16th century Levantines are overwhelming Catholic Semitic speakers [1], through some Orthodox population still exists in the region. Under Ottoman rule a Muslim elite arise and Jews and Greeks replace the Italians in the cities of the Levant. But mostly the rural population stay Catholic.

We hit 1800 and the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt, the Levantine Christian stay under Ottoman rule, but are heavily inspired by new European ideas and when Muhammed Ali’s revolt against the Ottoman happens, the Levantine also rise up and and the Great powers of Europe decides to establish a independent Levantine state made up of Israel/Palestine, Western Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian coast, Hatay, “Lesser Armenia” and Cyprus. Some European Prince is elected king of Jerusalem.

As for how it will seem, it will simply be seen like the Balkans of the Middle East. Of course, the existence of such a state will likely result in the influx of a lot religious (Christian) weirdos from Europe, through it will likely also see a lot of Jews also migrate to the state.

[1] The local language having being heavily influenced by Italian and Greek and use the Latin alphabet.

I don't think the Crusader states would have been able to convert, expel or massacre all Muslims.
The Crusader states, because of their precarious position, had to be relatively religiously tolerant, to not upset either the local population or the Muslim neighbors.

 

[Jürgen]

I don't think the Crusader states would have been able to convert, expel or massacre all Muslims.
The Crusader states, because of their precarious position, had to be relatively religiously tolerant, to not upset either the local population or the Muslim neighbors.

The Crusader states was relative short lived entities, which followed the pattern of Christian conquest in Iberia and Italy; which was first tolerance, then semi-voluntary conversion and at last either forced conversion, exile or the sword. The Crusader states only reached phase one.

 

[Mildtryth]

The Crusader states was relative short lived entities, which followed the pattern of Christian conquest in Iberia and Italy; which was first tolerance, then semi-voluntary conversion and at last either forced conversion, exile or the sword. The Crusader states only reached phase one.

Still, considering that Latin Christians were never anything more than a minority, it would take a long time to make it to any phase past that, and plus, there's also the non-Latin Christians and the Jews to take into account.

And moreover, in Spain, the final expulsion in particular wrecked the economy of the regions where the Muslims made up a large chunk of the peasantry (Aragon and Valencia, namely), but Spain was in a relatively secure position to do that. In contrast, the Crusader states would be surrounded by hostile states, far away from any substantial, timely help and wouldn't be able to afford to slip like that.

 

[lynxpt]

The Crusader states was relative short lived entities, which followed the pattern of Christian conquest in Iberia and Italy; which was first tolerance, then semi-voluntary conversion and at last either forced conversion, exile or the sword. The Crusader states only reached phase one.

Still, considering that Latin Christians were never anything more than a minority, it would take a long time to make it to any phase past that, and plus, there's also the non-Latin Christians and the Jews to take into account.

And moreover, in Spain, the final expulsion in particular wrecked the economy of the regions where the Muslims made up a large chunk of the peasantry (Aragon and Valencia, namely), but Spain was in a relatively secure position to do that. In contrast, the Crusader states would be surrounded by hostile states, far away from any substantial, timely help and wouldn't be able to afford to slip like that.

As @Mildtryth noted, the issue with the Crusader states is that they were in a much weaker position than Portugal, Spain and Sicily were, surrounded by hostile states, which means they had far less ability to convert people.
That raises the issue of whether surviving Crusader states are plausible at all. The County of Edessa surviving is Alien Space Bats. The Kingdom of Jerusalem surviving is really unlikely. The Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli surviving is possible but even that was unlikely.

 

[Andristan]

Another thing to consider, is the fact that the local muslims might be more likely to move to the Crusader states, due to the better treatment given to muslim peasants and landowners in OTL, remarked upon at the time by Ibn Jubayr in the 1100s. So we could see more muslims in surviving Crusader states not less, especially if they are not dominant in the region but have to be diplomatically agile to survive which could lead to the crusaders maintaining their more tolerant policies.

 

[lynxpt]

Surviving Crusader states would have other implication like what about the Ottomans? Will the Ottomans still have their empire and simply have conquered the crusader states, but those stayed Christian enough to rebel and establish a Christian dominated Levant, or do the Ottoman simply vassalize the Christian Levant like they did with Georgia and Romania, or have the Ottoman failed to expand at all? All those raise different question both for the culture of Europe (which was heavily effected by century long wars with the Ottomans) but also by how Levant is.

But let’s go with scenario one, the Levant stay under Crusader rule until the 16th century, where it overrun by the Ottomans. The 16th Century Levant is fully Christians, the Muslim population having being converted, expelled and massacred by the late 14th century. The 16th century Levantines are overwhelming Catholic Semitic speakers [1], through some Orthodox population still exists in the region. Under Ottoman rule a Muslim elite arise and Jews and Greeks replace the Italians in the cities of the Levant. But mostly the rural population stay Catholic.

We hit 1800 and the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt, the Levantine Christian stay under Ottoman rule, but are heavily inspired by new European ideas and when Muhammed Ali’s revolt against the Ottoman happens, the Levantine also rise up and and the Great powers of Europe decides to establish a independent Levantine state made up of Israel/Palestine, Western Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian coast, Hatay, “Lesser Armenia” and Cyprus. Some European Prince is elected king of Jerusalem.

As for how it will seem, it will simply be seen like the Balkans of the Middle East. Of course, the existence of such a state will likely result in the influx of a lot religious (Christian) weirdos from Europe, through it will likely also see a lot of Jews also migrate to the state.

[1] The local language having being heavily influenced by Italian and Greek and use the Latin alphabet.

I don't think the Crusader states would have been able to convert, expel or massacre all Muslims.
The Crusader states, because of their precarious position, had to be relatively religiously tolerant, to not upset either the local population or the Muslim neighbors.

The Crusader states was relative short lived entities, which followed the pattern of Christian conquest in Iberia and Italy; which was first tolerance, then semi-voluntary conversion and at last either forced conversion, exile or the sword. The Crusader states only reached phase one.

Surviving Crusader states, a very unlikely premise, would butterfly away the Ottoman Empire, wouldn't they? Even if not, if the Ottomans conquer the Levant, as they would know that many of the locals were descended from Muslims, might they try to force them to return to Islam?

 

[lynxpt]

Surviving Crusader states would have other implication like what about the Ottomans? Will the Ottomans still have their empire and simply have conquered the crusader states, but those stayed Christian enough to rebel and establish a Christian dominated Levant, or do the Ottoman simply vassalize the Christian Levant like they did with Georgia and Romania, or have the Ottoman failed to expand at all? All those raise different question both for the culture of Europe (which was heavily effected by century long wars with the Ottomans) but also by how Levant is.

The Ottomans did annex one of the Georgian principalities, the Principality of Samtskhe. It was pretty thoroughly Islamized. The Jaqelis converted to Islam and became Ottoman governors followed by most of the nobility. That meant the Georgian Orthodox Church no longer had patronage leading to the Georgian population to convert to Islam.