Would Crusader states have been any more viable in North Africa than the Levant?

If so, why so?

It may seem like an odd question. It is an odd question.

But, this is inspired by a reemergence of discussion of the idea of a medieval North African Crusade, which comes up every few years on the board.

Supply lines wouldn't be nearly as much of a total bitch to deal with, and the available forces would likely double or triple to carry this out with.

Also, the North African Muslim states were even less united as the ones in the Levant and did not have the luxury of the Mamluks or Turks to back them. The closest thing to centralized authority on a larger scale would be the Ummayyads in Spain, who if we are being honest, would likely be getting blitzed at the same time or just very much unable, or more likely, unwilling, to help.

The most successful one could probably take place carving out a state near Tunis in modern day Tunisia. From there, it gets more difficult the farther east or west you go, but really, not that difficult.

Voted "No", but the most accurate would be "roughly the same ideally, but that wouldn't happen".

Crusaders get interested in Africa mostly because they seen it as a way to screw Egypt and the pressure it represented on Latin States in the Levant. Without these, the motivation to carve out states in Africa would be extremely reduced (giving it wasn't especially big to begin with).
It's true that the proximity of Italian city-states and the dismembrement of traditional Islamic maritime hegemons would make supply more the easier.

But apart from the usual expeditions (as the Mahdian Crusade in the XIVth) that were about crushing a rival and make a point, you simply didn't have much motivation to conquer the coast, and even less going in the hinterland.

I would, furthermore, not one to underestimate the possibilities of North African states. If something, they were more able to form large confederations or hegemonies than what existed in the Middle-East.
Fatimids are probably the pinnacle of the medieval Arabo-Berber state in Africa, but previous and next states in Ifriqiya weren't exactly crumbling either.
Without mentioning the Almoravid or the Almohads, kingdom as Zirids were strong enough that Italo-Normans had to wait a severe crisis before being able to take on coastal Tunisia (that they lost really quickly when Almohads took Ifriqiya),or Hafsids that only bowed to Ottomans eventually.

The max I could see would be a maintained coastal Latin presence on some regions (western Maghreb, à la Portugal) or in Tunisia, but it would be temporary and too small and heavily dependent on reinforcement to be nothing but expendable outposts of neighbouring Mediterranean Latin kingdoms.

I've voted yes, because once established - I think such states would be more viable.

The difficulties are establishing who would rule the new states, and motivation. Now admittedly, this wasn't an issue with invading the Levant, the crusaders agreed on a king, and there was the prestige of ruling the holy land. The Pope will need to make a big noise to encourage N.African crusading - mentioning pilgrims, relics, and bigging up Carthage as rightfully Catholic land could certainly help - you aren't going to do much more than @LSCatilina suggests without that motivation.

NOTE : Everything after this point is splashed with optimism.

If you do however .... a North African crusade would lead to either one very large kingdom, or two smaller ones (my preference). It'll take a while to establish any lasting power, but with some Papal subsidies, and a Holy Order or two (i.e. The Knights of Tangiers, and the Knights of Carthage) to back them up - they could rebuild, and start converting (as best they could) reasonably quickly. We're just concerned now with how receptive the rulers would be to Berberization or Magrebization and how effective conversions would be, otherwise we risk a barely less precarious Jerusalem. I'd expect a Berbo-Iberian merger culture to be the result of the melting pot. Though sadly, it'll make next to no difference to pirating in the med as the Barbary pirates haven't emerged yet.

If successful, the Kingdom of Mauretania would be a shoe-in for competing with Portugal and Spain for new world colonies (butterflies winning), and certainly help benefit europe discover the wonders of inflation due to access to both West African gold, and new World gold!

The Kingdom of Carthage/Tunis would likely be the home of the most eager crusaders, as it is nearest the next (ATL) logical target - Cyrenaica/Cyrene. A tiny prize that would most likely become a Holy Order (you couldn't exactly form a Kingdom, it isn't exactly bursting with wealth, and as such isn't that tempting) - which makes any potential Levantine crusades, or Egyptian crusades outstandingly practical, as there are now two coastal routes - Cyrene, and Byzantium.

How long-term viable could these states be -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Africa#After_the_Arab_conquest

There seems to be evidence of Christian communities during the period of the potential crusades, and pilgrims could certainly be charged taxes - which would make Italy, Carthage, and potentially the Spains and Mauretania a good helping of income. Plus, without the religious animosity, Genoa could certainly help facilitate a vast increase in trade in the Western Med, which whilst there would be piracy, would help the fledgling states.

Plus, both states have good defences against any major threats - with the exception of nomadic Berbers, the nearest muslim states are in West Africa (if they have emerged yet), or across Libya and the Fezzan - which kept Ancient Carthage safe from Egypt for centuries - a new Carthage backed by chunks of Europe will be much more likely to be prepared for a muslim invasion across the desert - which is difficult by anybodies definition.

An interesting facet would be crusading Berbers, and Desert Crusaders - after learning in N.Africa, you could see troops less constrained to water as happened in OTL, and more lightly armoured, who would provide a crucial balance to the forces that were used in crusading IOTL, and being fluent in Arabic, could help make an ATL Jerusalem more stable, if the muslim world isn't strong enough to defend itself.

The last interesting thought, I apologise for being off topic - is that the success of the Catholics could lead to a very isolated Orthodox church, as I'd expect all the newly instated Patriarchs would be willing to kow-tow to the Pope in Rome a bit, at least in the short term - which could lead to the Romans being shamed into ending the Schism of Catholic terms.

As has been said, the motivation was lacking, but the situation on the ground would be considerably better than in Jerusalem. Logistics are quite good in the east (ala Sicily) and will be similarly good in the west should the Spanish take Cordoba as in OTL, and North Africa had considerable Christian minorities leftover from Byzantine rule by the tenth century, so they at the very least won't be any worse off than they were in Jerusalem in terms of native Christians. The Islamic states there were certainly no joke, but neither were they more powerful than the ones the crusaders defeated in Outremer IOTL.

Now, drumming up interest is the issue in the sense of a general drive throughout Europe like the OTL crusades is pretty much impossible, but a more successful and independent Kingdom of Two Sicilies (as opposed to the OTL one that was successively by the HRE, France, Aragon, and Spain) might take interest in Carthage, and a Spain that isn't bogged down by Italian and German interests may continue on past the Pillars of Hercules. Of course, whether these conquests are simply incorporated into the mother kingdom or manage to be formed as independent crusader states could be a stumbling block, but there are certainly ways to get it done.

I'd been mulling the idea about regarding motivation - and I had the following idea(s)

1) As the first crusades were Byzantine-inspired, why not have the Byzantines both for help in the East, as a crusade to reclaim the east as OTL - but also petition the various Russian/Slavic princes (as I've never heard of them in conversations about the Crusades I doubt it happened, though I can imagine a significant number could be persuaded to join), and perhaps seek more help from the Poles/Hungarians. My knowledge on whom came to the Crusades besides England/France/HRE is spotty.

2) Offer to either the Pope, or one of the Catholic states (probably the HRE), recognition as Vice Gerent of God in the West, on the condition that they prove their worth by conquering or creating the "Exarch of Carthage".

It wouldn't be recognition as them being the rightful WRE importantly, so the Romans still retain their claim - but the title/undisputed recognition as Vice Gerent of God in the West would be a prize that both the HRE, Pope (and even France and the Spains - dunno about England) could very well want. HRE and the Pope the most because it would significantly impact their personal feuds over authority. - Probably my worst idea to be honest.

If it worked, then you can see a crusade, and I'd imagine improved relations between the east and west, at least with the Vice Gerents - which is good for all parties, and may form the basis for further crusades. Plus there is more "Catholic West" than before - with all the potential benefits that entails.

3) Remind the Pope who helped the Arabs of Sicily - the Zirids, who, alongside with the Moorish states and other N.African polities, are the greatest threat to Catholic Europe. At this point they aren't doing too well.

Essentially proposing a plan to assist in N.African Crusades, in exchange for assistance in Egyptian and Levantine conquests using veteran Crusaders. Lots of sacred sites, and Christian souls to reclaim along the way. If they could petition for aid in the east, then I imagine a similar petition for the west could work.

I am curious to know why eastern europe didn't get as involved in the Crusades, was it because the balts were still pagan at this point?

GdwnsnHo said:

I'd been mulling the idea about regarding motivation - and I had the following idea(s)

1) As the first crusades were Byzantine-inspired, why not have the Byzantines both for help in the East, as a crusade to reclaim the east as OTL - but also petition the various Russian/Slavic princes (as I've never heard of them in conversations about the Crusades I doubt it happened, though I can imagine a significant number could be persuaded to join), and perhaps seek more help from the Poles/Hungarians. My knowledge on whom came to the Crusades besides England/France/HRE is spotty.

2) Offer to either the Pope, or one of the Catholic states (probably the HRE), recognition as Vice Gerent of God in the West, on the condition that they prove their worth by conquering or creating the "Exarch of Carthage".

It wouldn't be recognition as them being the rightful WRE importantly, so the Romans still retain their claim - but the title/undisputed recognition as Vice Gerent of God in the West would be a prize that both the HRE, Pope (and even France and the Spains - dunno about England) could very well want. HRE and the Pope the most because it would significantly impact their personal feuds over authority. - Probably my worst idea to be honest.

If it worked, then you can see a crusade, and I'd imagine improved relations between the east and west, at least with the Vice Gerents - which is good for all parties, and may form the basis for further crusades. Plus there is more "Catholic West" than before - with all the potential benefits that entails.

3) Remind the Pope who helped the Arabs of Sicily - the Zirids, who, alongside with the Moorish states and other N.African polities, are the greatest threat to Catholic Europe. At this point they aren't doing too well.

Essentially proposing a plan to assist in N.African Crusades, in exchange for assistance in Egyptian and Levantine conquests using veteran Crusaders. Lots of sacred sites, and Christian souls to reclaim along the way. If they could petition for aid in the east, then I imagine a similar petition for the west could work.

I am curious to know why eastern europe didn't get as involved in the Crusades, was it because the balts were still pagan at this point?

Click to expand...

Orthodox Church doesn't believe in crusades or holy wars.They never quite understood the Latin's justifications for war.

darthfanta said:

Orthodox Church doesn't believe in crusades or holy wars.They never quite understood the Latin's justifications for war.

Click to expand...

But they asked for help... unless I've been drastically misinformed.

Fair enough that they wouldn't call it a crusade - but I'm sure they can see the geopolitical advantage in having a Christian med, even if it isn't entirely Roman - it just needs the Emperor to overcome his xenophobia (or his peoples) long enough. The Empire is still the most advanced state in Europe, it'd would certainly benefit from having a friendlier Med.

At the very least, launching their potential western enemies against their ever-present eastern enemies isn't a bad idea - especially if it diverts the focus of their eastern enemies to N.Africa.

I'd even think (and bare with me here) that a request for help, and a strategic suggestion at the same time could make the levantine conquests more sustainable. With spain being a massive target first, and then N.africa, it would take away some of the bigger players in England and France, but if even half the forces OTL went east, then they could (with crucial Roman assistance) conquer some of the levant - but being weaker, fall straight into the Roman Empire/vassals thereof - which could help reduce the problems OTL crusader states had by being part of a contiguous polity which directly benefits by retaining control of the region. A bit counter-intuitive, but unless the numbers disagree with me, I could see it happen.

Weren't parts of North Africa already taken by the Sicilian Normans? Besides, I don't think Africa/Tunis would be considered a Crusader state- Sicily isn't considered a Crusader state by most people.

Tripledot said:

Weren't parts of North Africa already taken by the Sicilian Normans? Besides, I don't think Africa/Tunis would be considered a Crusader state- Sicily isn't considered a Crusader state by most people.

Click to expand...

I imagine that Sicily is odd in that it was considered part of the Kingdom of Sicily (which includes S.Italy as well). So it was more "reconquest", similar to Castille in that regard, the land was seen as belonging to the crown, the fact the enemy was muslim is only going to attract crusaders, not make them the core force.

But more importantly, it wasn't part of any of the crusades. Jerusalem, Athens, Antioch, etc - are all considered Crusader states because they were set up as a result of the call to crusade.

The Normans were chased out by the Zirids rather swiftly once they resolved their internal issues (I think).

Crusader States describe the characteristic of the state in that they were formed by the Crusades - if there was a North African crusade, then those states would be Crusader States IATL.

It seems that this would have a greater chance at victory but the crusades were more about holy cachet than actual gains.

Supply would be far easier and Christian Europe, especially southern Christian Europe, would be far stronger given the damage done over the centuries by Muslim raiding. Whole southern coastlines were depopulated in Spain and Italy by slavers. It has been estimated that the number of slaves taken by Muslim pirates from Europe (mainly sold to the ottoman Empire) was about 1/5th those enslaved by African princes and sold to European colonies.

Given that the disproportionate number of European slaves were taken from coastal areas, this had a great effect on the mediterranean economy as trade was severely affected.

Also, since most of the North African population was situated along the coast, it would be easy(ier) to hold it if Europeans controlled the sea. There was also a significant Christian and Jewish minority to aid this. Also, any slaves could be freed provided they converted to Christianity. This might give a pretty solid base to work with.

If the Spanish and HRE Habsburgs/(and their predecessors) cooperated with the Bourbons/Valois(/and their predecessors), North Africa north of the Atlas mountains could have conquered, forcibly converted or resettled with latin Europeans. Naturally, this would require more time, attention, resources and money than any European state had in ready supply.

GdwnsnHo said:

But they asked for help... unless I've been drastically misinformed.

.

Click to expand...

What they asked for was military help in reclaiming their lost territories. These forces would have been under the Byzantine Emperors control

What they got was a wave of armed immigrants grabbing those lands for themselves.

xerex said:

What they asked for was military help in reclaiming their lost territories. These forces would have been under the Byzantine Emperors control

What they got was a wave of armed immigrants grabbing those lands for themselves.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know that - they didn't get what they asked for - but it sparked the idea.

I think it would probably need fewer resources, but it would also gain a lot fewer resources so would probably fail worse.

What's the motivation behind latin states in N-Africa, other than pure territorial ambition?

Draeger said:

What's the motivation behind latin states in N-Africa, other than pure territorial ambition?

Click to expand...

Practically none. IOTL they went there in order to blockade Egypt from either grain supply (Tunisia) or to attack Egypt directly.
The only reason they would keep the coast (and mind that even Charles d'Anjou, that had a severe "let's grab random titles" disorder, didn't want to keep Tunis) would be to please of Italian city-states.

The problem being Italian city-states attacked North African coast to get rid of rivals and impose their commercial domination, not create new rivals with less possibilities to raid and attack.
And giving the only way to cross in enough numbers was to call G̶h̶o̶s̶t̶b̶u̶s̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ Italian navies...

Considering that even coastal Arabo-Berber states were constantly under the pressure of Berber tribes and confederacies, a Crusader state trying to hold the land all by himself would have a lifespawn about roughly 6 seconds.
As said above, while I could see a ponctual presence in North African coast, made from outposts and garrisons (think Spanish presence in the XVIth century), anything more would have looked pointless and expensive.

I can maybe see a Latin Kingdom of Africa (Tunis), most likely if one of the kings of Aragon decided to conquer south (post-Sicily). This probably wouldn't be an independent state, but rather owned by an existing king (i.e. 'King of Aragon, Valencia, Majorca and Africa').

Otherwise, I find Latin settlement in any permanent fashion along the N-African coast extremely unlikely.

Draeger said:

I can maybe see a Latin Kingdom of Africa (Tunis), most likely if one of the kings of Aragon decided to conquer south (post-Sicily). This probably wouldn't be an independent state, but rather owned by an existing king (i.e. 'King of Aragon, Valencia, Majorca and Africa').

Otherwise, I find Latin settlement in any permanent fashion along the N-African coast extremely unlikely.

Click to expand...

Remember the North African population was relatively low. That might make things easier. But once a Christian state is established, they would be harried constantly by neighboring Muslim states. It would be centuries of struggle. It would be all of North Africa or bust for the Christians.

I'm not sure what the answer is in the end.

Certainly it is correct that there was not equal motive to operate in Africa as in the Levant.

Handwaving that away, and giving Europeans equal motivation to move in either direction, it seems to me that factors making the Levant more difficult than North Africa are these:

a) Further from western Europe logistically
b) Further from supervision of European kingdoms and much less chance of territorial union with West European states (It's harder to imagine incorporating Jerusalem or Tyre into France than say Tunis into Sicily or Morocco into Portugal.
c) Byzantine competition
d) Proximity of the Levant to Egypt (which leaves a demographically significant enemy base for the enemy, unless you take Egypt *first*)
e) Eurasian demography constantly throwing new waves of invaders against the western fringes of Asia. (IE, if the Arabs or Kurds don't get you, the Turks might, if the Turks don't get you, the Mongols might get you--they were certainly shove more Turkic peoples your way)

As far as availability of local Christians, it sounds from what folks are saying that it's a wash between North Africa and the Levant (I had thought maybe the Levant had alot more).

But North Africa's disadvantages (besides the obvious one of not having Jerusalem there) include:

a) Provides no special access to the spice trade and far less pilgrimage revenue -- possibly offset though by access to the gold and salt trades
b) No Byzantine support
c) I think the local polities in Africa are not really any weaker than the west Asian ones when the Crusaders entered the region.
d) Africa has its own mountain and desert environments that the Crusaders are not well adapted to.
e) North Africa produced some tough customers from the interior, like the Almohads and Almoravids (some posters mentioned Crusader light cavalry and learning desert warfare techniques could be an asset for them, but they might not adopt either)
f) no chance of *taking advantage* of invaders from the east, ie, the often popular "prester john" PoD of a Crusader-Nestorian Mongol alliance.

All in all, I think the demographic well of opposing warriors is deeper in Asia than Africa, but exhausting and overcoming the opposing forces in Africa would be a major investment that needs European invaders to "go big", and adapt to the local environment.

thoughts?

raharris1973 said:

I'm not sure what the answer is in the end.

Certainly it is correct that there was not equal motive to operate in Africa as in the Levant.

Handwaving that away, and giving Europeans equal motivation to move in either direction, it seems to me that factors making the Levant more difficult than North Africa are these:

a) Further from western Europe logistically
b) Further from supervision of European kingdoms and much less chance of territorial union with West European states (It's harder to imagine incorporating Jerusalem or Tyre into France than say Tunis into Sicily or Morocco into Portugal.
c) Byzantine competition
d) Proximity of the Levant to Egypt (which leaves a demographically significant enemy base for the enemy, unless you take Egypt *first*)
e) Eurasian demography constantly throwing new waves of invaders against the western fringes of Asia. (IE, if the Arabs or Kurds don't get you, the Turks might, if the Turks don't get you, the Mongols might get you--they were certainly shove more Turkic peoples your way)

As far as availability of local Christians, it sounds from what folks are saying that it's a wash between North Africa and the Levant (I had thought maybe the Levant had alot more).

But North Africa's disadvantages (besides the obvious one of not having Jerusalem there) include:

a) Provides no special access to the spice trade and far less pilgrimage revenue -- possibly offset though by access to the gold and salt trades
b) No Byzantine support
c) I think the local polities in Africa are not really any weaker than the west Asian ones when the Crusaders entered the region.
d) Africa has its own mountain and desert environments that the Crusaders are not well adapted to.
e) North Africa produced some tough customers from the interior, like the Almohads and Almoravids (some posters mentioned Crusader light cavalry and learning desert warfare techniques could be an asset for them, but they might not adopt either)
f) no chance of *taking advantage* of invaders from the east, ie, the often popular "prester john" PoD of a Crusader-Nestorian Mongol alliance.

All in all, I think the demographic well of opposing warriors is deeper in Asia than Africa, but exhausting and overcoming the opposing forces in Africa would be a major investment that needs European invaders to "go big", and adapt to the local environment.

thoughts?

Click to expand...

I like them, but I'd like to add a bit of an idea.

I'm making the assumption that the motivation happens too, but not-utter-worse-case scenario, I could see a crusader state (invariably Mahgrebi/Iberio-Mahgrebi) north of the atlas mts and west of the Oued Moulouya, essentially the greater part of modern Morocco - mainly because it wouldn't be difficult to fortify the mountains and the river to protect against the majority of raiders.