WI Islam loses North Africa and the Near East

Eurofed

Banned
This is a spinoff thread of my last Middle Age TL scenario. Since it emerged from discussion that it caused changes of world-changing relevance to Islam, I thought that the issue deserved its own topic.

TL resume: the PoD in 1190-1197 concerns the survival of Frederick I Barbarossa to a successful completion of the Third Crusade and of his son Henry VI to a ripe old age. Over the 13th century, this causes the HRE plus Kingdom of Sicily to gradually become an hereditary centralized monarchy. That in turn pushes 13th-15th centuries Europe to be consolidated in a few large centralized monarchies: The Angevin Empire, spanning the British Isles and western France; Iberia, which includes Occitania, Corsica, and Sardinia; the HRE, which spans eastern France, Low Countries, Germany, Italy, western Poland and western Hungary, and holds the rest of Poland and Hungary as vassals ongoing assimilation; the revitalized ERE, which holds the Balkans and Anatolia and keeps Serbia and Moldavia-Wallachia as vassals; a Kalmar-like union. The Papacy is shrunken down to an ineffectual ceremonial shadow and the Catholic Church becomes much more decentralized, with national episcopates running the show in a subordinate position to the local monarchs. This in turn causes an healing of the Latin-Greek schism. The Golden Horde collapses much faster, with Muscowy expanding in northern and eastern Russia, north Caucasus, western Siberia, and most of Kazakhstan. Lithuania-equivalent expands in the Baltic lands, White Russia, Ukraine, and ex-Crimea Khanate.

This has immense effects on Islam, too. The European powers launch a series of new Crusades on a Muslim world weakened by the Mongol rampage, that are fully successful. Iberia conquers North Africa, the HRE conquers Egypt and Nubia, the ERE conquers Anatolia, Armenia, the Levant, and Mesopotamia. All of these lands are gradually but inexorably forcibly re-Christianized, in a manner much similar to OTL Reconquista, using surviving Christian populations in the Middle East as a power base. Islamic refugees escaping assimilation and repression of the inevitable revolts escape to the Sahel, the coast of East Africa, Arabia, and Persia.

Once the work of consolidation and assimilation on previous conquests is done, in the late 15th century, the HRE-ERE alliance, eager to gain complete control of theire respective trade routes to the Indian Ocean, renew their assault and invade western and eastern Arabia. Mecca and Medina are razed to the ground. Hejaz, Yemen, and Eastern Arabia are occupied. An Ecumenic Council gathers in Jerusalem to celebrate Christendom's great victory (somewhat premature, since Persia still stands, but true enough) on the "Mohammedan heresy" (Middle Age Europe had this funny idea that the Prophet was a Christian heresiarch, talk about cultural Eurocentrism).

What happens to Islam from that ? How does the religion weathers such massive blows ? All its heartlands but Persia are gone, the hajj is gone, besides Persia it has only left a shaky foothold on India and Indonesia, which may or may not hold, and a sizable bunch of refugees in the depths of subsaharian Africa. What changes would it drive ?

The main surviving stronghold of Islam is now Shiite Persia. Does this make Shiism the mainstream denomination, and what does it mean ? OTOH, there was an influx of Sunni refugees in Persia, although they may or may not change denomination.

Islamic hold on the Indian subcontinent is indirectly but certainly made much more shaky, with the loss of its geopolitical background, and increased European penetration in India and the Mughal empire is certainly butterflied away. Does it mean that the partial Islamization of India is going to be reversed ? Or paradoxically increased? Anyway, an end to the Hindhu-Islamic divide either way would significantly increase the ability of India to resist European conquest.

Likewise, is Islamization of Indonesia going to stand, or be arrested or reversed ?

A lot of Muslim refugees went to Sahel and East Africa. Can this allow an increased Islamization of Africa ?

What cultural changes would be wrought ? A jihad counterattack, although some abortive attempts are inevitable, is simply not possible, given the balance of forces. So after the kamikaze jihadists are spent, different responses are needed. What they would be ? Greater influence of Sufism ? And what about the now-impossible hajj ? Do substitute pigrimages to the tombs of saints become the norm ?

And last but not least, what all of this means to a Christian Europe that has wiped out the cultural divide created by Islamic expansion, and has all but triumphed on its centuries-old rival ?
 
Last edited:
As someone who has studied this period of Spain's history a lot, I'll point out that there was very little conversion in the Reconquista prior to Isabella allowing the inquisition. There was some, but that more Jews than anything else. For the most part, even after the Crusades began, the rulers of Iberia split their subjects into groups based on religion (and sometimes into further groups based on ethnicity). While Muslims could and did take Christian wives, their children were more often Muslim than not. Even in Al-Andalus marriage of Christian men to Muslim women wasn't common though it did happen. You'll have better luck with concubinage to Christian elites. Anyhow the point is, generally as long as they could, most Muslims simply left the Christian ruled areas depopulating them by a lot once the major conversions happened under the Cordoba Caliphate (prior to that I have two separate sources that indicate Al-Andalus was only about 30% Muslim!).

As long as their are significant Muslim powers remaining you're not going to get a lot of conversion from Muslim-to-Christian. That means neighboring Muslim states are going to have a lot of people relative to the Christian populations if they are presented with forced conversion because people will flee right away. In Outremer of our timeline that didn't happen but what you had was a Frankish elite ruling over a mixed countryside. There were simply not enough Franks to pull off a Reconquista. But it's a complex situation--it was neither walled off co-habitation, nor intermingling.

The problem for Outremer was that once the Muslim powers got their shit together under Nuradin and Saladin, the Christians were hard pressed to have the native resources to fight them off even if they hadn't fought each other. So do with that information what you will.

As to your actual question, Shiites are not going to be the dominant faction because Shiites didn't really gain prominence as we think of it until Ismail. So you're looking at Sunni Persia. Islam is not going to collapse without Mecca and Medina. You should all make the Hajj if you can, but if you can't for whatever reason it's okay. Also are the Christians going to prohibit people going to look at ruins? That seems odd when they would be able to tax them.

Personally I think you'll see an Islam that is more humanistic.
 

Keenir

Banned
What happens to Islam from that ?

What cultural changes would be wrought ? A jihad counterattack, although some abortive attempts are inevitable, is simply not possible, given the balance of forces. So after the kamikaze jihadists are spent, different responses are needed.

why is a jihad counterattack inevitable? you've just strengthened the hand of the Assassins tenfold! their enemies are all dead, and now they only need to worry about the Mongols - if them.
 

Eurofed

Banned
As long as their are significant Muslim powers remaining you're not going to get a lot of conversion from Muslim-to-Christian. That means neighboring Muslim states are going to have a lot of people relative to the Christian populations if they are presented with forced conversion because people will flee right away.

That's pretty much what I expected too. A lot of refugees fleeing forced conversion.

The problem for Outremer was that once the Muslim powers got their shit together under Nuradin and Saladin, the Christians were hard pressed to have the native resources to fight them off even if they hadn't fought each other. So do with that information what you will.

However, ITTL the Crusaders have a much stronger power base back home in their larger, sturdier empires, and they hit the Muslim world again with the new Crusades later than you imply, in its post-Mongol state of weakness. I don't think that a second Saladin figure is going to be enough to stem the tide, even if he shows up.

As to your actual question, Shiites are not going to be the dominant faction because Shiites didn't really gain prominence as we think of it until Ismail. So you're looking at Sunni Persia.

Oh, right. I was oblivious of it. :eek:

Personally I think you'll see an Islam that is more humanistic.

Interesting, please care to elaborate on the point.

why is a jihad counterattack inevitable? you've just strengthened the hand of the Assassins tenfold! their enemies are all dead, and now they only need to worry about the Mongols - if them.

Alamut fell long before the new Crusades overrun North Africa and the Near East, and even more so when they expand into Arabia. The Assassins were gone for a long time. Sorry, no. Not to mention that this seems a rather inflated idea of the Assassins' power.
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
However, ITTL the Crusaders have a much stronger power base back home in their larger, sturdier empires, and they hit the Muslim world again with the new Crusades later than you imply, in its post-Mongol state of weakness. I don't think that a second Saladin figure is going to be enough to stem the tide, even if he shows up.

um, why would the Europeans bother launching crusades?

you know what's involved in centralizing? getting rid of regional redundancy - usually in a lethal manner. that and they're often tied to regional uprisings.

so no, your Europeans are going to be busy at home for a long while, and aren't going to be launching crusades (why would they launch crusades when every nation has his own church? it can't be to save the Byzantines, and it can't be because Rome inspires everyone)


Alamut fell long before the new Crusades overrun North Africa and the Near East, and even more so when they expand into Arabia. The Assassins were gone for a long time. Sorry, no. Not to mention that this seems a rather inflated idea of the Assassins' power.

"inflated"?

they managed to kill their enemies for over a century, until they stung the Mongols. that's pretty good shooting.

btw, there were two major groups of Assassins - Alamut was only HQ for one of them.
 

Eurofed

Banned
um, why would the Europeans bother launching crusades?

A) The usual motivations, now pursued with the increased resources B) Gaining control of the trade routes with India C) Getting more land.

you know what's involved in centralizing? getting rid of regional redundancy - usually in a lethal manner. that and they're often tied to regional uprisings.

so no, your Europeans are going to be busy at home for a long while, and aren't going to be launching crusades

The TL scenario covers three centuries since the PoD. The European empires got the time to do the consolidation you mention, wage the new Crusades, and stabilize the new conquests, too.

(why would they launch crusades when every nation has his own church? it can't be to save the Byzantines, and it can't be because Rome inspires everyone)

It doesn't mean that because the Catholic Church shifted to an Anglican-Orthodox type structure (which includes healing the breach with the Orthodox Church), they become more tolerant of Islam, less expansionistic, or forgot the motivations why they started the Crusades before the change.

they managed to kill their enemies for over a century, until they stung the Mongols. that's pretty good shooting.

btw, there were two major groups of Assassins - Alamut was only HQ for one of them.

One branch or the other, they ceased to be a substantial force in Middle East politics after the 13th century, i.e. in the timespan when they new Crusades occur. Plus nothing bars the new Crusader empires from getting rid of their remnants by means similar to he ones that the Mongols used.
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
A) The usual motivations, now pursued with the increased resources B) Gaining control of the trade routes with India C) Getting more land.

so, not only are the Europeans centralized all their nations, but they're in an EU that has them acting like a single centralized continent.

which is odd because you axed the body best suited to do that at the time (Rome)


The TL scenario covers three centuries since the PoD. The European empires got the time to do the consolidation you mention, wage the new Crusades, and stabilize the new conquests, too.

well, since they're rolling sixes, you forgot to have them discover all the gold in Australia and Mexico, and invent a rocket to the moon.


It doesn't mean that because the Catholic Church shifted to an Anglican-Orthodox type structure (which includes healing the breach with the Orthodox Church), they become more tolerant of Islam, less expansionistic, or forgot the motivations why they started the Crusades before the change.

the motivations? like the Pope saying to go? or because there were Jews over there that hadn't been properly repressed and killed?
 

Typo

Banned
That in turn pushes 13th-15th centuries Europe to be consolidated in a few large centralized monarchies:
This is not plausible, period, there's a reason why the HRE weakened when Barborossa died, it was not fundamentally strong enough to survive without -exceptionally- strong Emperors. The entire social, economical, and political structure of the high middle ages was against centralization and would remain so until the Black Death, the Renaissance and the gradual buildup of a merchent middle class fundamentally changed all that. I'm sorry, but having one guy survive, no matter how great, isn't going to substitute for the Black Death and such.

The Papacy is shrunken down to an ineffectual ceremonial shadow and the Catholic Church becomes much more decentralized
That's gonna take quite a while to happen, but given a string of strong emperors maybe.

Iberia conquers North Africa and the coast of western Africa
Ok

HRE conquers Egypt, Nubia, and the Holy Land,
ummm, that's gonna be a lot more difficult than you think it is, and I doubt they'd be ruled directly from Rome or Aachan

All of these lands are gradually but inexorably forcibly re-Christianized, in a manner much similar to OTL Reconquista, using surviving Christian populations in the Middle East as a power base.
This is the really ASBish part.

The surviving Christian population (of which there is almost a plurality with Muslims during the early Crusades) are members of Syriac and Coptic Churches, or even Neostorian and Jacobins. They are very culturally (uses Syrian rather than Latin or Greek) and theologically (Monophysite) different then the western Churches (Centuries of attempts to reconcile those beliefs were a resounding failure). They are considered heretics (as bad or worse than Muslims really) by both Byzantine Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The difference between those sects is greater than between Orthodox and Catholics to the point that they might actually resemble Islam (which assimilated a lot of their beliefs) more than those. There is no way that Catholic Crusaders are going to accept their version of Christianity, which means that they are either going to have to rule them in the same way they ruled Muslims OTL, try to brutally convert them over to Catholism, which is not going to go well at all, or try to subtly convert them, which will mean there will be a plurality of Catholics only over the course of a few centuries

That's pretty much what I expected too. A lot of refugees fleeing forced conversion.
That's not gonna happen, most likely you see what happened with Christians under Islamic rule: they stay in place. Fleeing is an ecomonical luxury unaffordable by the vast majority of the population

Once the work of consolidation and assimilation on previous conquests is done, in the late 15th century, the HRE-ERE alliance, eager to gain complete control of theire respective trade routes to the Indian Ocean, renew their assault and invade western and eastern Arabia. Mecca and Medina are razed to the ground.
ummm, more likely they fight each other, Catholics and Orthodox didn't really get along well at all.

Mecca and Medina are razed to the ground
ummm, why?
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
so, not only are the Europeans centralized all their nations,

They are as centralized as the equivalent OTL Western monarchies, only on a somewhat bigger scale. The big difference here is the Hohenstaufen empire achieved the same level and pushed the Angevin Empre, Iberia-Occitania, and late ERE into similar success by its example and actions.

but they're in an EU that has them acting like a single centralized continent.

Not so. They just achieved an largely efficient division of their own turfs vs. the Muslim world: Iberia for North Africa and the western-southern African route, the HRE Egypt-Nubia-Levant and the Red Sea, the ERE Syria-Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf. Since they all have their share of valuable land and of the trade routes to Asia, they find it is more profitable to maintain an alliance against their common Islamic enemy (at least in the Middle East theater) than bicker among themselves. This does not mean that in Europe their interests do not occasionally conflict. E.g. a shorter and less destructive Hundred Years War type conflict occurred over a dynastic crisis in former France that led to the current partition. Invasion of Arabia is managed by the HRE-ERE alliance since they can achieve a division of spoils that benefits both parties, too: Hejaz and Yemen to HRE (better control of the Red Sea route), Bahrein and Oman to ERE (better control of the Persian Gulf route).

which is odd because you axed the body best suited to do that at the time (Rome)

Historically, the attempts of the Papacy to achieve theocratic control acted more as a factor of division than of union for Europe.

well, since they're rolling sixes, you forgot to have them discover all the gold in Australia and Mexico, and invent a rocket to the moon.

If Early Middle Age/Early Modern Islamic empires at their apex were able to conquer Iberia and the Balkans and almost did so for France and Central Europe in less than two centuries respectively, I find it wholly plausible that an alliance of Late Middle Age/Early Modern European empires that pools its resources efficiently for the task is able to conquer North Africa and the Near East over more than two centuries.

the motivations? like the Pope saying to go? or because there were Jews over there that hadn't been properly repressed and killed?

And the motivations for the Arab and Ottoman invasions were...:rolleyes:
 

Eurofed

Banned
This is not plausible, period, there's a reason why the HRE weakened when Barborossa died, it was not fundamentally strong enough to survive without -exceptionally- strong Emperors. The entire social, economical, and political structure of the high middle ages was against centralization and would remain so until the Black Death, the Renaissance and the gradual buildup of a merchent middle class fundamentally changed all that. I'm sorry, but having one guy survive, no matter how great, isn't going to substitute for the Black Death and such.

Survival of a couple Hohenstaufen Emperors at the right moment means that a string of very strong emperors is butterflied into being that spans the late 12th and the 13th centures, with no devastating Interregnums and sell-outs of imperial powers, keeping paticularist drives into check. Political stability fosters the gradual buildup of the merchant middle class that you mentioned. Then the Black Death happens, and the HRE is in an optimal position to share the same process of consolidation that England, France, Spain enjoyed. As for the Angevin Empire, Iberia-Occitania, and the reborn ERE, they are bigger than their OTL counterparts, but not radically more so.

That's gonna take quite a while to happen, but given a string of strong emperors maybe.

As well as the other Western monarchies alternating between their own efforts to limit Papal authority (think of the OTL Angevins' and Capetingians' rocky relationship with the Popes) and to seize control of it as a puppet. The latter stalemate each other, but have the effect of wrecking Papal authority further. Eventually the point of no return is reached and the Church stabilizes into an Anglican/Orthodox like decentralized structure.

ummm, that's gonna be a lot more difficult than you think it is

OTL Crusades almost succeded in Egypt and Levant with rather weaker European states back hme.

and I doubt they'd be ruled directly from Rome or Aachan

Hmm, viceroys ?

The surviving Christian population (of which there is almost a plurality with Muslims during the early Crusades) are members of Syriac and Coptic Churches, or even Neostorian and Jacobins. They are very culturally (uses Syrian rather than Latin or Greek) and theologically (Monophysite) different then the western Churches (Centuries of attempts to reconcile those beliefs were a resounding failure). They are considered heretics (as bad or worse than Muslims really) by both Byzantine Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The difference between those sects is greater than between Orthodox and Catholics to the point that they might actually resemble Islam (which assimilated a lot of their beliefs) more than those. There is no way that Catholic Crusaders are going to accept their version of Christianity, which means that they are either going to have to rule them in the same way they ruled Muslims OTL, try to brutally convert them over to Catholism, which is not going to go well at all, or try to subtly convert them, which will mean there will be a plurality of Catholics only over the course of a few centuries.

I was aware of the substantial theological differences, and I was puzzling the topic myself, really. Hmm, maybe a mix of approaches A and C, while B is left to the Muslims ?

That's not gonna happen, most likely you see what happened with Christians under Islamic rule: they stay in place. Fleeing is an ecomonical luxury unaffordable by the vast majority of the population.

So they accept forced conversion after a few failed rebellions ?

ummm, more likely they fight each other, Catholics and Orthodox didn't really get along well at all.

The fall of the Papacy and the shift of the Catholic Church to an Orthodox-like decentalized, episcopal structure takes out a lot of the venom and stumbling blocks in the Latin-Greek dispute, so attempts at healing the Great Schism, which failed IOTL, are successful ITTL.

ummm, why?

Why not ?
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
Survival of a couple strong Emperors at the right moment means that a string of strong emperors is butterflied into being that spans the late 12th and the 13th centures, with no devastating Interregnums and sell-outs of imperial powers, keeping paticularist drives into check.
The Emperor was 68 when he died, he wouldn't have lasted much longer afterwards anyway. This doesn't "butterfly" a series of strong emperors. It's not a matter of rolling a bunch of 6s, it's a matter of rolling a bunch of 100s if that makes sense. There is a reason why most HRE emperors are seen as weak: the forces of decentralization are too much to fight.
Political stability fosters the gradual buildup of the merchant middle class that you mentioned. Then the Black Death happens, and the HRE is in an optimal position to share the same process of consolidation that England, France, Spain enjoyed. As for the Angevin Empire, Iberia-Occitania, and the reborn ERE, they are bigger than their OTL counterparts, but not radically more so.
A process which will take centuries, your scenerio asks for a Europe whose political structure is at 1700s level if not at a nation-state level acting as colonizers in the 1200s-1300s.
OTL Crusades almost succeded in Egypt and Levant with rather weaker European states back hme.
It never "almost" successed in Egypt, and the Levant was contested territory
[quoteHmm, viceroys ? [/quote]More likely de-facto indepdence after a while
I was aware of the substantial theological differences, and I was puzzling the topic myself, really. Hmm, maybe a mix of approaches A and C, while B if left to the Muslims ?
Read up on the reverse of this happening with de-Christianization of the near-east and North Africa. The process is complicated and invovles factors ranging from how strongly entrenched religion is with the local population to the altitude of the conquerors. Catholics needs to assimilate and merge with local beliefs for this to work, just as Islam did, what comes out is going to look very different from European Christianity. This is going to invovle the Crusaders giving up their own beliefs for something profoundingly different: I can't see this happening for a long while, OTL crusaders kept being Catholic after all.
So they accept forced conversion after a few failed rebellions ?
No, long story short: centuries of pressure towards conversion, pushed to Jewish-esque second-class status, followed by periods of violent persecutions around the crusades time, then something roughly like the relationship between Jews and Christians in Europe, then culminated in brutal genocide against the last communities (see Armenian and Assyrian Genocide). A millenium and half long process, even in the 1300s Eastern Christianity might have had a plurality in the near east and was certainly as vibrant as Catholism. At no point did Christians as a whole "accept" forced conversion.
The fall of the Papacy and the shift of the Catholic Church to an Orthodox-like decentalized, episcopal structure takes out a lot of the venom and stumbling blocks in the Latin-Greek dispute, so attempts at healing the Great Schism, which failed IOTL, are successful ITTL.
I think you are ignoring a lot of inconvenient historical fact for a Christian wank :)
Why not ?
Because you know, people live there, and don't want to be slaughtered and have their homes burned, and the place is sacred to what would be a significant portion of subject population.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
The Emperor was 68 when he died, he wouldn't have lasted much longer afterwards anyway.

Henry VI was in his 30s when he died of disease. If he survives to take the throne in the mid-late 1190s, he may easily be as longeve as his father and son, meaning he reigns till the mid-late 1220s and early 1230s. His untimely death largely undid the remarkable degree of control over Germany, Italy, and Sicily he had achieved. If his father comes back from the Third Crusade a success, it is quite likely (if necessary throw in the untimely death butterfly of that Elector that opposed the plan) that his effort to make the HRE hereditary is a success. He live on and fosters Frederick II in his own mold, and the latter takes the throne with no interregnum and Welf civil war, in a much better position to fight and win the civil wars against the noble and city-state particularists in Germany and Italy and the Papacy.After his own longeve reign, he gives the throne to one of his own sons, which looked like decent monarch material. The Great Interregnum is butterflied away. We reach the turn of the century with a century and half of a strong central authority, and a century of hereditary succession. Imperial authority takes root. Political stability fosters the rise of the merchant middle classes, taht support Imperial authority. Then the Black Death happens and gives its push in the right direction.

This doesn't "butterfly" a series of strong emperors. It's not a matter of rolling a bunch of 6s, it's a matter of rolling a bunch of 100s if that makes sense. There is a reason why most HRE emperors are seen as weak: the forces of decentralization are too much to fight.

What made the monarchies of England, France, and Spain triumph can happen in the HRE as well, with the right events. You are make an arbitary claim that the HRE was the only polity where the same process was impossible. It was not so.

A process which will take centuries, your scenerio asks for a Europe whose political structure is at 1700s level if not at a nation-state level acting as colonizers in the 1200s-1300s.

If the Arabs could conquer Spain and the Ottomans the Balkans, they certainly were not at 1700s level. Europe and the Middle East were in each other geopolitical backyard. Global force projection capability was not necessary.

More likely de-facto indepdence after a while.

Those lands were the key to control of the Red Sea trade route. The EMpire wouldn't let them slip out so easily.

Read up on the reverse of this happening with de-Christianization of the near-east and North Africa. The process is complicated and invovles factors ranging from how strongly entrenched religion is with the local population to the altitude of the conquerors. Catholics needs to assimilate and merge with local beliefs for this to work, just as Islam did, what comes out is going to look very different from European Christianity. This is going to invovle the Crusaders giving up their own beliefs for something profoundingly different: I can't see this happening for a long while, OTL crusaders kept being Catholic after all.

Maybe but at least ongoing de-Christianization shall be arrested and reversed to hte level where local Christians are still at least a pluality . If (and I agree that it is a IF) the Crusaders are willing to foster and use the local Christians as a power base, it makes a strong difference.

I think you are ignoring a lot of inconvenient historical fact for a Christian wank :)

There is no wank. Historically the Papacy was the biggest stumbling block to achieve a Latin-Greek reconciliation. As it takes the other main differences, yeah, it is probably going to take the monarchs making some bullying to make the Council accept a compromise on the Flioque issue (there is theological ground fro that) but it can be done. The Orthodox are going to be much less distrusting of reconciliation with a Catholic Church where every national episcopate runs its own show under the supervision of the secular government, and the Council is the supreme authoritative body to make (rare) decisions for the whole Church, because that's the way their own Church works.

Because you know, people live there, and don't want to be slaughtered and have their homes burned,

Sieges get lost all the time, you know.

and the place is sacred to what would be a significant portion of subject population.

That's the point of destroying it.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, Barbarossa leading a successful crusade and the Hohenstauffen staying in power should make quite a difference. And consolidation happens until the 15th century, so there's quite some time. So, although the timeline is a bit of a Hohenstauffen-medieval-central-state-wank, it might be possible.

Now, obviously, conquering all of the middle east at the same time should make it more difficult. Nevertheless, we should remember that it has always been - and still is - a well known approach to diverge domestic unrest/young nobles/public interest into foreign lands. Doing that by crusades adds a bit of religous fanatism into the mix.

To summarize, I think late 15th century Europe dominated by large, rather centralized states and HRE still ruled by a Hohenstauffen might be possible, the very same Europe ruling North Africa and the middle East as well and, at the same time, having essentially broken the Catholic church into peaces is a bit much.

Nevertheless, to come back to the question, if, by whatever means (earlier PODs are always a good solution), history has happened as ITTL, then I'd say the European holdings would be heavily fortified, there'd still be a large Muslim population, and Thousands have died in uprisings and quelling these uprisings on both sides, Muslim and Frankish. And I really doubt if the conquered provinces are that profitable anymore.
 
I have to agree with the other who say it isn't really plausible. Decentralization had huge amounts of inertia behind it, which means it will keep the Centralizers busy for a long time indeed. Communications weren't too solid then, so the Muslims could plausibly retake the Crusader states before the HRE knows they've even started a campaign.

There's also how the HRE, as you describe it, is deep into imperial overstretch, considering the technological level, trying to hold down the decentralizers at home and large and resentful muslim/coptic populations abroad.
 
A couple of clarifications to what I said in the last post about forced conversion and flight. The only way forced conversion is ever viable for the Franks (i.e. Europeans) is if there is a substantial Roman Christian population. I find that unlikely. It's not so much about taking land it's about ruling it. Once Jerusalem was captured, it became very difficult to get people to go to the Holy Land and SETTLE there. Mostly they were pilgrims. Some of those were drafted, others came to fight for a few years. But the Frankish problem was that few stayed and so they got a significant population base.

The early parts of the PoD are during the MWP--so what's the incentive to go live in Outremer... especially if Jerusalem is captured?

The thing here is that a lot of the time after the successful capture of Jerusalem in the First Crusade, stories of Outremer became widespread across Europe. But once the early 1100 expedition were destroyed by the Turks there was little desire to go there.

Basically the point remains, unless Jerusalem is actually lost the Euros are not going to be enthusiastic for more crusades.

Finally for the record: the other Assassin HQ is at Masiyaf like in Assassin's Creed though historians say it was actually a badly built castle.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I have to agree with the other who say it isn't really plausible. Decentralization had huge amounts of inertia behind it, which means it will keep the Centralizers busy for a long time indeed.

But the issue is how long is that "long time", because the inertia you talk about is going to wind down at some point, it was not infinite nor self-sustaining, and the more the TL advances in the Late Middle Age, the more the social forces that support centralization gain momentum. We must remember that effectively, the drive towards centralization starts with the kingdom of Barbarossa, late 12th century. How much time is enough "long time" ? One century ? 150 years ? Two centuries ? At some point, the decentralization pressure shall simply be spent, and the state's energies shall become increasingly free for foreign adventures. In all plausibility such a threshold becomes increasingly met during the course of the 14th century, and surely by the start of the 15h century.

I don't really think that the new Crusades would tax the newfound centralist cohesion of the European states overmuch if they are waged sometime during the timeframe of the Hundred Years War.

Communications weren't too solid then, so the Muslims could plausibly retake the Crusader states before the HRE knows they've even started a campaign.

There's also how the HRE, as you describe it, is deep into imperial overstretch, considering the technological level, trying to hold down the decentralizers at home and large and resentful muslim/coptic populations abroad.

Hmm, would it become more plausible if we switch the given borders somewhat, and make the HRE just own Egypt-Nubia, and give the Levant to the ERE ? After all, the only really valuable piece of land to won for the HRE would be Egypt, in order to control the Red Sea trade route. Holding all the Levant, in addition to Mesopotamia, would certainly be easier for the ERE, due to proximity. And Frankly I can't believe that keeping just the Egypt exclave, with their froce projection from Italy, would be all that onerous for the Late Middle Age HRE. As for the decentralizers, in the late 14th century or early 15th century, they have got two full centuries and more of centralzied government, they are largely forgotten dust.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
To be fair, Barbarossa leading a successful crusade and the Hohenstauffen staying in power should make quite a difference. And consolidation happens until the 15th century, so there's quite some time. So, although the timeline is a bit of a Hohenstauffen-medieval-central-state-wank, it might be possible.

Now, obviously, conquering all of the middle east at the same time should make it more difficult. Nevertheless, we should remember that it has always been - and still is - a well known approach to diverge domestic unrest/young nobles/public interest into foreign lands. Doing that by crusades adds a bit of religous fanatism into the mix.

To summarize, I think late 15th century Europe dominated by large, rather centralized states and HRE still ruled by a Hohenstauffen might be possible, the very same Europe ruling North Africa and the middle East as well and, at the same time, having essentially broken the Catholic church into peaces is a bit much.

See my point to Aranfan. You need to remember that those processes would happen indifferent stages, first the consolidation of Europe under strong secular governments (and the decentralization of the Catholic Church is the opposite side of this process, so it may happen in parallel). Later the expansion in North Africa and the Near East. There is three centuries to have these processes happen, a lot of time, and only a fraction of that (surely no more than a couple centuries) would be necessary to accomplish centralization. Time and social momentum work on the side of the centralizers.

Nevertheless, to come back to the question, if, by whatever means (earlier PODs are always a good solution), history has happened as ITTL, then I'd say the European holdings would be heavily fortified, there'd still be a large Muslim population, and Thousands have died in uprisings and quelling these uprisings on both sides, Muslim and Frankish. And I really doubt if the conquered provinces are that profitable anymore.

A reasonable picture, I suppose. Please remember that the Europeans would conquer and hold those provinces also for their strategic value, controlling the trade routes to India and China.
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
Historically, the attempts of the Papacy to achieve theocratic control acted more as a factor of division than of union for Europe. [/quote[

when a Pope called for a crusade, Catholics from Ireland to Hungary answered his call.

if each nation has their own religious authority, you lose even that much unity.


If Early Middle Age/Early Modern Islamic empires at their apex were able to conquer Iberia and the Balkans and almost did so for France and Central Europe in less than two centuries respectively, I find it wholly plausible that an alliance of Late Middle Age/Early Modern European empires that pools its resources efficiently for the task is able to conquer North Africa and the Near East over more than two centuries.

ah, you're confusing the passion of the newly-converted with the weight of a steamroller (respectively).

And the motivations for the Arab and Ottoman invasions were...:rolleyes:

the Ottoman invasion of what? of the Balkans? that was both to support their client kings (against the client kings of the Hapsburgs), and to provide a counterbalance to keep the Arab parts of the Empire from being too influential.
 

Keenir

Banned
So they accept forced conversion after a few failed rebellions ?

look up conversos and Crypto-Jews....the honestly-converted won't be trusted by other Christians, and there will always be those who claim to convert and say the words so they won't be killed, yet haven't converted in their heart and mind.


The fall of the Papacy and the shift of the Catholic Church to an Orthodox-like decentalized, episcopal structure takes out a lot of the venom and stumbling blocks in the Latin-Greek dispute, so attempts at healing the Great Schism, which failed IOTL, are successful ITTL.

the Schism wasn't an argument over which See was most powerful...it was about doctrine. is Christ equal or slightly-subordinate (to/from) His Father, and a host of other issues.

What made the monarchies of England, France, and Spain triumph can happen in the HRE as well, with the right events. You are make an arbitary claim that the HRE was the only polity where the same process was impossible. It was not so.

in that era, England kept losing control of Wales and Scotland, while France and Spain had numerous uprisings every other year.

If the Arabs could conquer Spain and the Ottomans the Balkans, they certainly were not at 1700s level. Europe and the Middle East were in each other geopolitical backyard.

so is Russia, yet you didn't touch that area.


Maybe but at least ongoing de-Christianization shall be arrested and reversed to hte level where local Christians are still at least a pluality

and in most parts of the Muslim world, even into the 1700s, Christians were a plurality...they stopped being a diverse plurality in areas coming under Catholic control.

I agree that it is a IF) the Crusaders are willing to foster and use the local Christians as a power base, it makes a strong difference.

why would Crusaders tolerate heretics? it goes against what the Catholic Christians were doing to heretics in Europe.


There is no wank. Historically the Papacy was the biggest stumbling block to achieve a Latin-Greek reconciliation. As it takes the other main differences, yeah, it is probably going to take the monarchs making some bullying to make the Council accept a compromise on the Flioque issue (there is theological ground fro that) but it can be done. The Orthodox are going to be much less distrusting of reconciliation with a Catholic Church where every national episcopate runs its own show under the supervision of the secular government,

why would the Orthodox be happy about people who take orders from those who don't believe in God? I think they'd prefer Muslim rule over that.
 

Keenir

Banned
Hmm, would it become more plausible if we switch the given borders somewhat, and make the HRE just own Egypt-Nubia, and give the Levant to the ERE ? After all, the only really valuable piece of land to won for the HRE would be Egypt, in order to control the Red Sea trade route. Holding all the Levant, in addition to Mesopotamia, would certainly be easier for the ERE, due to proximity. And Frankly I can't believe that keeping just the Egypt exclave, with their froce projection from Italy, would be all that onerous for the Late Middle Age HRE.

forgotten about the Copts already?

or by the 15th century, has this HRE killed them all?
 
Top