Crusader Egypt

[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 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]

Egypt

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 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 ?