Crusader Egypt

Faeelin

Banned
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?
 
Hmmm.

Faeelin said:
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

Banned
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
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.
 
No,

Faeelin said:
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

Banned
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
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?
 
Do you mean...

Faeelin said:
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

Banned
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?
 
Trade, etc.

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.
 
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.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
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)?
 
No.

DominusNovus said:
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.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
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.
 
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.
 
Catholics & Muslims.

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

Banned
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
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).
 
basileus said:
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.
 
Faeelin said:
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

Banned
basileus said:
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

Banned
Perhaps the fourth crusade attacks Egypt instead of Constantinople? Would that allow the Byzantine Empire to last longer or were they doomed anyway?
 
Faeelin said:
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.
 
Top