Crusader Egypt

[Faeelin]

Egypt was attacked a lot by Crusaders, notably by Almaric of Jerusalem but also in the 5th crusade. Say it falls between 1150 and 1250, and the Crusaders retain control of it.

How does the Kingdom develop?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Egypt was attacked a lot by Crusaders, notably by Almaric of Jerusalem but also in the 5th crusade. Say it falls between 1150 and 1250, and the Crusaders retain control of it.

How does the Kingdom develop?

It develops feudally and weakly until it is utterly smashed by the Mongols a few years later, after which it reverts to the Mamelukes and is duly scooped up by the Ottomans around when it happened historically (still need time to digest Byzantine polity).

[Faeelin]

It develops feudally and weakly until it is utterly smashed by the Mongols a few years later, after which it reverts to the Mamelukes and is duly scooped up by the Ottomans around when it happened historically (still need time to digest Byzantine polity).

Note that the mongols didn't smash the remnants of outremer, but allied with it.

I think you really hate fuedalism. You consistently think that it will be wiped out, whereas nations like spain show that it's not the case.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Note that the mongols didn't smash the remnants of outremer, but allied with it.

I think you really hate fuedalism. You consistently think that it will be wiped out, whereas nations like spain show that it's not the case.

No, I don't hate feudalism, I just don't think feudal regimes ruling over muslim majorities are the best candidates for successfully defending against the Ottoman Empire at its height.

Anyway, the timing is not so good for Crusader Egypt - you have in rapid succession: Mongols, Plague, Ottomans. Would the Eastern Christians and Muslims interpret the Plague as Divine disfavor with Catholic rulers?

[Faeelin]

No, I don't hate feudalism, I just don't think feudal regimes ruling over muslim majorities are the best candidates for successfully defending against the Ottoman Empire at its height.

Anyway, the timing is not so good for Crusader Egypt - you have in rapid succession: Mongols, Plague, Ottomans. Would the Eastern Christians and Muslims interpret the Plague as Divine disfavor with Catholic rulers?

Almost certainly. But if Egypt's fallen, their only hope of salvation lies with the Mongols, correct?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Almost certainly. But if Egypt's fallen, their only hope of salvation lies with the Mongols, correct?

... the Muslims and E. Christians? I would probably say the Mongols would ravage everything and leave, the coastal forts being too much bother. Whether or not Latin power would be broken is hard to predict, and I don't know if a Mongol army could even actually reach Egypt, the Sinai not being a terribly good route for a huge horse army.

If the Crusaders were able to hold onto Egypt somehow (and presumably Palestine and parts of Syria), I would think liberation would have to wait for the Ottomans.

[Faeelin]

Over two hundred years, I wonder... how much of a christian population there'd be.

Also, how this messes with trade patterns. Does some one get the idea of stationing galleys in the red sea? And what happens to ethiopia?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I don't know what would happen with trade; I assume Indian trade would still come through Egypt.

Christianity is interesting. I suspect this will make little difference, as the vast majority was already Islamic. Latin rule will not likely win over any Orthodox converts, and Muslims will not convert. Perhaps there would be a slightly higher percentage of Christians, and a very small Catholic minority.

I haven't a clue what Ethiopia would do; I'm guessing they will declare themselves autocephalous if the Patriarchate of Alexandria is abolished or otherwise compromised.

[basileus]

Crusader Egypt in 1218-1261 is part of my monster timeline.
I conceive it a fiefdom of the Templar Order, conquered by the 5th Crusade led by emperor Frederick II of Swabia and Philippe II Auguste of France, and later crushed by Hulagu Khan after the Battle of Ain Jalud and the destruction of Alexandria.

[DominusNovus]

I suspect this will make little difference, as the vast majority was already Islamic.
Wasn't there still a very large coptic population (large enough that any islamic majority wasn't overwhelmingly vast)?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Wasn't there still a very large coptic population (large enough that any islamic majority wasn't overwhelmingly vast)?

No, not my the 13th c. By then the Coptic population was no more than 10%.

Basileus, I have doubts that a Mongol army would be able to cross the Sinai. An army large enough to take Egypt would have to be substantial, and each Mongol warrior had 10 horses - let's say 30,000 men are required, that makes 300,000 horses. Ouch. I suspect later armies would be able to walk along the highway of horse bones.

[basileus]

No, not my the 13th c. By then the Coptic population was no more than 10%.

Basileus, I have doubts that a Mongol army would be able to cross the Sinai. An army large enough to take Egypt would have to be substantial, and each Mongol warrior had 10 horses - let's say 30,000 men are required, that makes 300,000 horses. Ouch. I suspect later armies would be able to walk along the highway of horse bones.

If they could cross the Gobi to crush China, they could also cross Sinai.

[Norman]

I believe that it is possible to establish a permanent Crusader presence but you have to form common cause with the Copts and Ethiopians.

Perhaps have early Crusaders invade at a time when Egypt is torn by some sort of internal Islamic dispute and the rest of Islam is focused on Asia Minor (around 1100). The Crusaders come in, and immediately make contact with the Copts and Ethiopians, who supply forces and some support to the Crusaders.

The Christians first attempt to forceably convert large numbers of Muslims, killing and banishing many who will not convert, but eventually hit upon the same strategy used by the muslims, economic. They tax believers in Islam, which gradually drives many in the merchant class to become Christian.

Within a generation (say the percentage of Christians in Egyptian population risaes to more than 60%, with access to the Red Sea making this Crusader Kingdom both increasingly rich, sopisticated, and increasingly independent of Rome.

Rome attempts to threaten excommunication if the Crusaders do not return to the fold, but instead the Crusaders turn to a doctrine that is a Coptic / Catholic mix, reestablishing the Patriarch of Alexandria. As a result, by 1300 three significant centers of Christian thought have developed, Rome, Constantanople, and Alexandria.

Islamic forces from the Mid East (Syria and Arabia), attempt to reatake Egypt, but as soon as they turn their attention toward Egypt, a Turkish / Byzantine coalition hit them from behind, dividing their lands between them.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

So many Christians converted to Islam not due to economic incentives but because they were Monophysites, and found more common ground with Islam than with their Catholic/Orthodox oppressors. Catholic persecution will not win Islamic converts, IMHO, and the number acheivable in a generation would seem to me to be slim.

[Faeelin]

So many Christians converted to Islam not due to economic incentives but because they were Monophysites, and found more common ground with Islam than with their Catholic/Orthodox oppressors. Catholic persecution will not win Islamic converts, IMHO, and the number acheivable in a generation would seem to me to be slim.

Spain was hardly monophysite (although I can't speak for Sicily).

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

If they could cross the Gobi to crush China, they could also cross Sinai.
The Gobi is mostly grassland quite amenable to horses; the Mongols did not cross sand dunes to get to China. In the Sinai there is no other option. Losses would be heavy, and any Mongol army crossing would arrive in a greatly weakened state.

[basileus]

Spain was hardly monophysite (although I can't speak for Sicily).

Sicily too wasn't certainly Monophysite.
It's not a case that Spain and Sicily were reconquered and fully re-Christianized; the point is that both in Sicily and in Al-Andalus the Muslims were probably never the majority of population (but I admit I can make a bad mistake on this point, I'm not sure)

[Faeelin]

Sicily too wasn't certainly Monophysite.
It's not a case that Spain and Sicily were reconquered and fully re-Christianized; the point is that both in Sicily and in Al-Andalus the Muslims were probably never the majority of population (but I admit I can make a bad mistake on this point, I'm not sure)

They were in Spain for a while, into the 12th century.

[Xen]

Perhaps the fourth crusade attacks Egypt instead of Constantinople? Would that allow the Byzantine Empire to last longer or were they doomed anyway?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

They were in Spain for a while, into the 12th century.


In Sicily Muslims were never in a majority, and in Spain, the Christians all fled North and left the Muslim lands depopulated; as they reconquered, the Muslims were either massacred or ejected; there was very little conversion in either case.

As for the Byzantines, by the 4th Crusade they were doomed. However, no 4th Crusade could possibly have resulted in a different, less violent fate for Constantinople and its libraries, which would have changed the development of the world beyond recognition. It is little known that the Library of Alexandria was the magazine rack at 7-11 compared to those of Constantinople before the 4th Crusade burned it all.

[MerryPrankster]

"and Muslims will not convert"

Why not?

"and found more common ground with Islam than with their Catholic/Orthodox oppressors"

I was under the impression that Monophysites believed Jesus was God, but did not have a "human nature" (although still being incarnate in a human body--it's splitting hairs). The Arian creed was more similar to Islam, but I think it was largely followed in the Germanic tribes, not in the Near East (though the founder, Arius, was Egyptian).

[Faeelin]

In Sicily Muslims were never in a majority, and in Spain, the Christians all fled North and left the Muslim lands depopulated; as they reconquered, the Muslims were either massacred or ejected; there was very little conversion in either case.



What's your source for this? I have several books I can reccomend that deal with the conversion of al-andalus.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

"and Muslims will not convert"

Why not?

"and found more common ground with Islam than with their Catholic/Orthodox oppressors"

I was under the impression that Monophysites believed Jesus was God, but did not have a "human nature" (although still being incarnate in a human body--it's splitting hairs). The Arian creed was more similar to Islam, but I think it was largely followed in the Germanic tribes, not in the Near East (though the founder, Arius, was Egyptian).

Mohammed created a political organization that was entirely centered around him. He was a political and military leader and he was the source of Revelation. When there were political or social conflicts, not only would they center on Mohammed, but sometimes through Revelation be mediated by Allah himself.

In Monophysite Christianity, the divine and human natures of Jesus were unified. This was in contrast to the orthodox definition that Jesus had two natures, one completely human and the other completely divine, and that they were not simultaneously present.

Besides that, the Muslims allowed the Monophysites to live, wheras the Byzantines mercilessly persecuted them.

And, back in the 7th c, religion was far more fluid than it was in the 13th c. By then, Islam and Christianity were thoroughly embeded in the polities they dominated.

[Constantinople]

*superbump* The fourth crusade going to egypt would make for a very different world.
Why do you feel that the empire was doomed before the 4th crusade?

[DuQuense]

If the Fourth Crusade does go to Eygpt as originally Planned. and suceedes in taking Eygpt, ?Would there be a Fifth Crusade:confused: aimed at Jerusalem?

[rcduggan]

And, back in the 7th c, religion was far more fluid than it was in the 13th c. By then, Islam and Christianity were thoroughly embeded in the polities they dominated.

but later than that (15th+ centuries) there were many converts in the Balkans (Bosniaks and Albanians), under the Ottoman Empire. so what if the crusader Egypt adopted similar policies to the Ottomans regarding religion, favoring Catholics and not Muslims... might this get some converts, even if it takes hundreds of years?

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

In Monophysite Christianity, the divine and human natures of Jesus were unified. This was in contrast to the orthodox definition that Jesus had two natures, one completely human and the other completely divine, and that they were not simultaneously present.

Actually "Monophysite" means Jesus had one "nature". I gather that whether that one nature was wholly divine (which some held and is to my mind heretical) or mixed human and divine (which I gather is what the modern Coptic church holds - and so their ancestors probably did, and which is, IMO, heretical only if you are a Greek idiot who the hubris to pen God in a box!).

Duophysite (the Orthodox/Catholic position) is that Jesus has two natures, just as you said, but I would say, and I believe most of the Church Fathers said, that they WERE simultaneously present.

There was and is huge amounts of damage done to Christianity by idiots who presumed that they knew God better than He does, and who thought (or think!) that just because someone uses different words to describe God that they are heretical.

(I don't think I got too carried away here, I really wanted to write a lot more - but decided it wouldn't be helpful)



Besides that, the Muslims allowed the Monophysites to live, wheras the Byzantines mercilessly persecuted them.


Very true, very true. Really stupid on the part of the Byzantines, but there you are.

[Matthais Corvinus]

If the fourth Crusade doesn't destroy Constantinople and does land in Egypt, why would it do any better than any of the various other Crusades which Egypt dispatched?

I think that in order to have a Crusader Egypt, you have to start with having a strong Kingdom of Jerusalem. From a secure base in Syria/Palestine the Crusaders could take advantage of the failing dynasty in Egypt, whose name escapes me at the moment, which Saladin overthrew.

Let's say that the Crusaders manage to capture Damascus and Aleppo, securing Syria/Palestine, either in the First Crusade, or in an outrageously lucky Second Crusade. With control of this area the Crusaders finally have control of enough territory that their able to rely largely on the native Outremer nobility for military strength. Richard the Lionhearted decides that he still wants to go on Crusade, and with him the Kingdom of Jerusalem marshalls its forces and invades Egypt.

I think that the native Outremer nobility proved more adept at the diplomacy of the East. The Kingdom of Jerusalem's expeditions to Egypt in OTL were the only Crusader attacks on Egypt that didn't end in total catastrasphe, in fact they were successful tactically, but the Crusaders didnt have the strength to captialize on their successes.

Richard's military strength, combined with Outremer know-how, results in Egypt falling before the Crusaders. Baldwin V (different than OTL, but they seemed to like the name) takes possession of Egypt as a part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The vast and fertile Nile River Valley attracts thousands of knights from across Christiandom, eager to be landed, giving the Crusaders even more military strength. With possession of both Syria and Egypt the Crusaders are now in a position to survive in a long-term way. Also with the land wealth of Egypt and Syria, along with the massive trade pilgrams bring, and Jerusalem's (the Kingdom) position as the middle man between Eastern trade good and Europe, the Kingdom of Jerusalem becomes the richest in Christiandom. That wealth only increases with the opening of the Suez Canal in 1236 . . .

Last thought/note when was the Great Schism? Because I think Jerusalem would be a great place for a Pope to take up residence.

[Alratan]

The Great schism I think you mean lasted from 1378-1417, according to wiki.

If we assume that an alt-3rd Crusade takes Egypt, after a more successful 1st or 2nd Crusade, what would that mean for the rest of north Africa. Despite the diversion of significant manpower to Egypt and the Outremer, we could well also have seen renewed enthusiasm for adventure against the Almohad's possessions in both North Africa and Spain. The Angevin Empire itself may see another lease of life. Without Richard's imprisonment and ransom, and with the booty from looting Egypt in hand, the Empire's French possessions may have persisted for another couple of generations. Although I doubt this is sufficient to make this a stable polity, it could well damage attempts to make France a unitary state.

[Matthais Corvinus]

I think that North Africa/Muslim Spain might actually get a lot of pressure taken off of them in the event of this kind of Crusader success. The way I read OTL was that the main crusading concerns that were ongoing after the Outremer fell were on the Baltic Coast and in Spain. Both these crusades did better in the long-run because they were logistically much easier to get to, and they achieved frequent victories. The Outremer after the First Crusade didn't expand, it got destroyed. If there are victories in the Holy Land, rather than a string of defeats then the Outremer would look like a more promising locale for the aspiring landless knight. The chance for significant wealth would have been demonstrated by Richard's crusade, and the East only promised more. So I think that a more successful Crusade would draw men who otherwise would have gone to the Baltic or to Spain.

[el t]

This has come up before. The Crusaders as Roman Catholics would not have been very popular with the native Copts. And the Venetians and Genoese would have demanded commercial concessions. Add the large Muslim population and it is likely that the Crusaders would have been driven out in only one generation.

[Matthais Corvinus]

This has come up before. The Crusaders as Roman Catholics would not have been very popular with the native Copts. And the Venetians and Genoese would have demanded commercial concessions. Add the large Muslim population and it is likely that the Crusaders would have been driven out in only one generation.

The Genoese and Venetians may very well demand commercial concessions. But how this affects the settlement of landless knights in the Nile River Valley escapes me.

The Crusaders lacked popularity with pretty much everyone they came in contact with. However the fact remained that they were very good warriors, decent enough at administration to fight both each other and the Muslims for nearly a century before Jerusalem fell, and then maintain their coastal cities for another century. With the scenario presented I think all major external threats have been eliminated, so who is going to drive out the Crusaders?

[Ran Exilis]

... the Muslims and E. Christians? I would probably say the Mongols would ravage everything and leave, the coastal forts being too much bother. Whether or not Latin power would be broken is hard to predict, and I don't know if a Mongol army could even actually reach Egypt, the Sinai not being a terribly good route for a huge horse army.

It's just a footnote, but crossing that desert might not be too much of a problem; IIRC a Mongol army could travel about a hundred miles a day (if not more), and if that's correct, then they should be able to cross the Sinai in one or two days if they follow the coast. (IIRC it is only about 220 kilometres from Gaza to Damietta, and the Mongols had an outpost in Gaza in OTL)

And along the coast, Mongol scouts and vassals (i.e. the Crusader states and Cilicia) could set up a few outposts/supply camps along the coast between Gaza and Damietta.

The Mongols would certainly need to adapt to the local circumstances, but I'm quite sure that they could do that.

..
As for the fortresses and breaking Latin power; going for the easy targets and not bothering with fortresses was mainly a tactic that the Mongols employed during reconnaissance raids, raids for the purpose of plundering, and the initial stages of an invasion.

After the countryside and weak targets were taken care of, the Mongols would send in a force to take care of large armies and/or heavily fortified cities.

But if the Mongols weren't interested in conquering an area or just felt that it was not the right time for conquest, then they just raided the countryside and avoided the confrontation with the enemy.

And Egypt was rich and definitely worth conquering, and the Mongols certainly intended to conquer Egypt in OTL - so it seems rather likely that the Mongols would make at least a serious attempt to conquer and hold on to Egypt.

Wether a Crusader state in Egypt would resist the Mongols in the first place is also a thing that remains to be seen; Cilicia and Antioch had sided with the Mongols, and a Crusader state in Egypt (which would very likely be weak and somewhat unstable, and quite propably involved in a lingering conflict with a remnant of the Ayyubid Sultanate of Egypt that survives in Upper Egypt, as I can't see the Crusaders take or hold on to all of Egypt) may just choose to submit to the Mongols, just to avoid a direct invasion.

And if the Crusader state in Egypt would be fighting a losing war againest the Ayyubid (or successor) state in Upper Egypt, then it is not unlikely that the Crusaders might just call in help from the Mongols...

If the Crusaders were able to hold onto Egypt somehow (and presumably Palestine and parts of Syria), I would think liberation would have to wait for the Ottomans.

This is more of a general note rather than a reply specifically to Abdul, but there are a few things that I feel are being overlooked in this debate: when discussing the effects of a Crusader state in Egypt during the period of the Mongol invasions, then the main point is not about what's there, but what isn't there - namebly the Mamluk sultanate.

For most of its history, the Il-Khanate was held in check by the Mamluks, and conflicts with other enemies (primarily the Golden Horde, but also the Chagatai Khanate and Qaidu Khan) prevented the Il-Khanate from focusing on the Mamluks.

Without the Mamluks, the Il-Khanate lacks one very powerful enemy, and consequently, that leaves a lot more resources for campaigning againest its other enemies, including not only rival Mongol khanates like the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate, but also rebels within the Il-Khanate, such as those stubborn Anatolian Turkish frontier principalities...

...and the main reason why these frontier principalities succeeded in breaking away from the remnants of the Rum Sultanate and Mongol rule IOTL, was that the Mongols had other concerns than enforcing their rule in Anatolia.

In a scenario without the Mamluks to worry about, the Mongols of the Il-Khanate are going to have a lot more time to worry about those rebellious frontier principalities in Anatolia and they'd be a lot stronger, as the Il-Khanate wouldn't be worn down by it's conflicts with the Mamluks.

And any change in the political situation among the frontier principalities in Anatolia at this point may very well result in the region being rather affected by butterflies, with a good chance that the Ottomans (or at least the Ottoman Empire) are butterflied away alltogether...

[el t]

I think it would have ended up somewhat like the Kingdom of Cyprus., where the French Lusignans persecuted the Greek Cypriots. A Roman Catholic royalty and nobility and Coptic and Muslim peasants would have existed in Egypt. Too much diversity for a long term occupation. There would have been frequent revolts.

[Tyr]

No, not my the 13th c. By then the Coptic population was no more than 10%.

.

I think it was quite a bit more then that. They're about 12% today and they're supposed to have declined a lot.
They weren't as widespread as ill informed AHers would think in the search for something cool but they were definatly a very important large minority.


More interesting for me to consider is the christian kingdoms of east Africa and how their course will be changed here. Steady islamisation could really be ruined.

[DuQuense]

So ass,u,me:p that the Third Crusade [1190] takes Eygpt after Salidin's death in the Battles [I believe this would be a nessacary condition of sucess].
the Eygpt/Syria alliance collaspes in infighting.
The Crusaders settle down in Eygpt, attemping to keep order, and never get around to Jerusalem.

1204 the 4th Crusde is called, as Eygpt is in Crusader hands, there is not the need to build up a fleet for the invasion. The 4th crusaders take Genova, Pisa and Venice ships that are already sailing back and forth to Eygpt.
At the end of the Rainy season in 1205, the Crusader cross the Sinai and invade the Levant. The reestablish the Crusader Kingdoms.
They finally learned the lessons from the 1st & 2nd crusades and take all of Syria.

Over the next 75 years the crusades push west into Tripoli, and south to the African [Sudan] Christian Kingdoms
Then in the 1780's the Mongols Arrive, Note that Constantinople was not sacked, which Maaaaaaay make the ERE stronger.

?So do the Mongols go for the ERE to take the strongest out first?. ?Or do they try to pick off the weak Crusader kingdoms first.?

There is also no 5th Crusade, and no Kids Crusade ITTL, ?Any Idea how those people staying home affects Europe?

[HueyLong]

The Crusaders, while they certainly did offend the local Christians and the local Muslims, also did pretty well later in co-opting them to their rule (after the surge of zealotous peregrins). With the powerbase of Egypt, I think they could afford to continue the more tolerant trends there.

Abdul, I think you are way too resistant to Muslim conversion. What is it about that specific religion that prevents conversion? Nothing that I can see. If a tax is levied on the heads of non-Christians, the Muslim merchant class will seek to convert (even if its just in form). Their religion will take a backstep for the real world. The Muslim peasants though may just stubbornly refuse (having less of a pay-off for it anyways).

Someone mentioned the possibility of a Muslim sultanate still in Egypt. I don't believe this is possible. A division between Upper and Lower Egypt was only possible in an earlier era. Military technology was too far along for such a division.

How I see the state developing:

-Farms for landless knights along the Nile (Egypt was very rich, and the Crusader state would need to build a petty noble class from scratch)
-Land grants to the military and monastic orders
-A tax for non-Christians (Maybe a test like for Catholics in OTL- piss on an image of Muhammed, curse the name of Allah, something)
-Venetian or Genoan dominance of Alexandria and much of the Nile (although I expect this would only be temporary, conflicts between the Crusaders and their merchant carriers were pretty common and adding in a local merchant class)
-A new interest in the Red Sea trade (Maybe even a naval war centered on that sea?)
-Increased trade with Ethiopia (Prester John, anyone?)
-Nominal freedom for the Coptic Christians with moves towards conversion (Note that Syriac and E. Orthodox Christians were tolerated in the OTL Crusader states, they just weren't given the primary positions of power)

[Admiral Matt]

Abdul, I think you are way too resistant to Muslim conversion. What is it about that specific religion that prevents conversion? Nothing that I can see.

Under the original Islamic law, apostasy was punishable by death. Combined with the odd trickle of conversions and the religious tax, it was a very efficient method at forcing mass conversions (and keeping those people converted). That's assuming of course that the above strategies continue for centuries. No, Egypt is very unlikely to "go back."

[Wozza]

Hello, wasn't Egypt a sunni country ruled by Shias for a good couple of hundred years?

I fail to see why the Crusaders would be unable to exploit the considerable resources of Egypt for their own benefit, this is before the age of mass guerrila warfare. Westerners successfully ruled Muslim and East Christian lands in Greece, Asia Minor, Syria and Sicily

[Ridwan Asher]

Hello, wasn't Egypt a sunni country ruled by Shias for a good couple of hundred years?

And were the Egyptian converted to Shia ?

[Wozza]

And were the Egyptian converted to Shia ?

Not to my knowledge, but it didn't stop the rulers from creating a powerful polity.

[HueyLong]

Apostasy equals death was accepted as fact by W. Christians of the time too. It is not an ironclad defense against conversion, or else there wouldn't even be that harsh provision.

[Ran Exilis]

And were the Egyptian converted to Shia ?

There could very well have been converts to the Shi'ism during the Fatimid period.

IIRC most Shi'ite communities in the Levant were formed during the Fatimid period, and the university of al-Azhar was originally a Shi'ite university, so there were most propably Shi'ites in Egypt as well during the Fatimid period.

However, Shi'ites have never been a majority in Egypt, and I don't think that they ever were a large minority either.

I think it was quite a bit more then that. They're about 12% today and they're supposed to have declined a lot.
They weren't as widespread as ill informed AHers would think in the search for something cool but they were definatly a very important large minority.

The rate at which Egypt was Islamized is a rather hotly debated subject, and scholarly opinions vary greatly on this.

And from what I've read, there are also quite a few gaps in the documentation on this, so we may never really know at what rate the Egyptian population was Islamized.

But the are nonetheless interesting clues and (occasionally conflicting) bits of evidence: there are scholars who claim, based mainly on fiscal sources, that about half the Egyptian population was Islamized during the first forty years of Muslim rule, and that the Copts were little more than 20% of the population of Egypt by the year 800.

But on the other hand, there are scholars who claim that the process of Islamization was much less rapid, and that Muslims did not become a majority in Egypt until the 10th century or even later.

I have also seen researchers who claim that the main wave of conversions to Islam in Egypt happened in the period between 900 and 1100, and that the Muslim population increased from about 25% in 900 to about 75% in 1100.

And there are still other researchers who claim that Muslims did not become a majority in Egypt until even later, such as in the 12th or even 13th century.

And there are some rather interesting clues that could indicate that the Coptic community remained fairly large in Egypt until at least the 12th century; in 985, al-Maqdisi, an Arab geographer, mentioned that there were many towns in Egypt where there were not enough Muslims to build a mosque for, and at the end of the 11th century, the number of bishoprics in Egypt remained stable at between 50 and 60 (for comparison: prior to the Muslim conquest, Egypt had just over 100 bishoprics, and IIRC the Coptic Church was suffering from several internal problems during this period, so it seems very likely to me that it was in no position to maintain an excess number of bishoprics).

Other noteworthy facts are that there was what is described as a Coptic cultural renaissance during the 12th and 13th century, and various original works as well as translations of older works into the Coptic language happened until the early 14th century.

The fact that Coptic culture still thrived during the 13th century could be a good indication that the Copts were still a large community (albeit propably a minority) in Egypt at this point.

Other factors that have to be kept in mind when debating the Islamisation of Egypt, are the fact that the process of Islamisation and Arabisation happened much faster in the Nile Delta, while Copts remained the majority in Upper Egypt for much longer (I've seen researchers claim that the Copts may have remained a majority in Upper Egypt until the 12th century, and maybe even afterwards).

The fact that the Nile Delta was Islamized much faster than Upper Egypt, was due to the fact that many of the Muslim Arabs who settled here gave up their nomadic lifestyle and started to practice agriculture. Because of this, these settlers adopted a lifestyle that was very similar to that of the local Copts, with as a result that there was much more contact between these sedentary Arabs and the local Copts than there was between the nomadic Arabs and the local Copts.

And these contacts between sedentary Arabs and Copts resulted in intermarriage and conversions.

And the Nile Delta was a more likely place for Arabs to settle, simply because it was closer, and there was the threat of the occasional Nubian raid or invasion in Upper Egypt.

Someone mentioned the possibility of a Muslim sultanate still in Egypt.

That would have been me.

I don't believe this is possible. A division between Upper and Lower Egypt was only possible in an earlier era. Military technology was too far along for such a division.

Oh, I don't doubt that the Crusaders had the militairy technology to conquer Upper Egypt - but the main issue here is: did they have the resources to do so?

Egypt has a much larger population and a much higher population density than any other territories in the Levant that the Crusaders controlled, and even the Crusaders in the Levant were almost constantly short of manpower.

And would the Crusaders really have the resources and manpower to conquer and control all of Egypt?

And if I have to be honest, I don't think they did.

However, I could be mistaken in that...

[HueyLong]

Oh, I don't doubt that the Crusaders had the militairy technology to conquer Upper Egypt - but the main issue here is: did they have the resources to do so?

Egypt has a much larger population and a much higher population density than any other territories in the Levant that the Crusaders controlled, and even the Crusaders in the Levant were almost constantly short of manpower.

And would the Crusaders really have the resources and manpower to conquer and control all of Egypt?

And if I have to be honest, I don't think they did.

However, I could be mistaken in that...

You missed my point- I think that Egypt is an all-or-nothing conquest. No Muslim remnant state if the Crusaders take it.

Oh and as I understand it, almost every Egyptian polity had manpower problems.

[el t]

Who conquers Egypt in your scenario? The Latin King of Jerusalem? The king of France? An international army? I just don't think that a prolonged western presence would have been very viable in the 11th or 12th century. The Greek Ptolemies were able to control Egypt because they were already in the Near East. I tend to think of a revolt or a gradual reconquest. Remember what happened to Muslim Spain? At the height of it's power and prestige, it really seemed that their occupation would be permanent. Yet they were eventually driven out. A western ruler of Egypt would have to bring in new settlers by a naval route. They would be subject to piracy or ship wrecks of some other calamities..

[Matthais Corvinus]

So the Crusaders were not going to be able to survive in the very long-term. I think that the Outremer states would eventually be destroyed, either by reconquering Muslim states or internal unrest. I have a vision of Egypt and the Levant looking like the Balkans, or a really,really big Lebanon. Actually a really big Lebanon would be a very good analogue. A large Christian ruling class, an angry Muslim underclass, interested foreign countries willing to send arms and advisers. Throw in a little post-Yugoslavia style rewrite of history to reflect national goals, and we're good for a decade or three of civil war.

[The Sicilian]

I am working on something similar, in which the Normans conquer Egypt a few years before the 1st Crusade.

[HueyLong]

So the Crusaders were not going to be able to survive in the very long-term. I think that the Outremer states would eventually be destroyed, either by reconquering Muslim states or internal unrest. I have a vision of Egypt and the Levant looking like the Balkans, or a really,really big Lebanon. Actually a really big Lebanon would be a very good analogue. A large Christian ruling class, an angry Muslim underclass, interested foreign countries willing to send arms and advisers. Throw in a little post-Yugoslavia style rewrite of history to reflect national goals, and we're good for a decade or three of civil war.

Except that this was not modern day. It was long before the idea of popular resistance and way before the force multipliers needed for such a resistance. Long before war was even justified to most of the populace.

The Outremer states faced almost no popular resistance in OTL. There were state guided efforts from outside of their territory and that was basically it.

[Homer]

One thing about conversion: True, Mulsim nations until today punish conversion to another religion with the death penalty. However, christian states of that time naturally do not punish muslims converting to christianity with death. As soon as there is a latin ruling class promoting catholicism, there will be incentives for conversion, organized discrimination and repeated violent persecution of muslims - pretty much as the Jews were treated in Europe or the Moors in Spain. This will naturally result in conversions. Any Muslim Imam opposing that will face persecution himself.

This will surely lead to repeated rebellions of the Muslim population. However, question remains whether these rebellions would be successful. If they are not, such a rebellion will just lead to new European fighters arriving and many muslims dying - thus increasing numbers of Latins in Egypt.

Given the history of Egypt, its weakest part is the northeast. ITTL, the allied kingdom of Jerusalem is situated there. Second weakest part is the south. Which should be partitioned between Ethiopia and Egypt. Thus as soon as the crusaders control the Levante plus Egypt, their situation is IMO very secure?