The Great North African Crusade TL

Status
Not open for further replies.

Leo Caesius

Banned
Years of Pasta e Fagioli

I've been wondering for a while now how we could develop a timeline wherein the centers of culture and power remain in the Mediterranean, while northern Europe languishes. This looks to be one of them. What kind of political structures would arise in a crusader-dominated North Africa? Can we expect some Sicilian count to crown himself Emperor of the Newly Reconstituted Western Roman Empire?
 
Matt Quinn said:
Carlton,

If there are fewer "hard-core warrior types" in the Crusader armies (your comments about their geographic origins), I'd expect the war to be longer and bloodier. I've sketched the campaigns a bit (the opening attack will be in Sicily); perhaps that'll be the Crusader equivalent of Operation Torch, where the bugs get worked out and perhaps the leaders see a need to import a butt-load of Norman warriors to give the army some backbone.

Fewer 'warrior virtues' does not equate military weakness. In fact I'm fairly convinced that the majority of the Crusader armies were fairly useless at doing anything other than spread devastation and terror. The deciding moments in the First crusade are usually the ones when people with military leadership skills come to the fore. We don't know this, of course (the chronicles were all written by nobles and their servants), but I wouldn't be surprised if the French infantry and Italian marines had played as big a role as the vaunted knights. At least, an Italian-run crusade would have the first clue about supply management, siegecraft, and combined and amphibious operations.

That, I think, would be the clincher (and may well have been during the OTL crusades) - breaking the Islamic rule of the sea. With its increasing wealth and sophisticated organisation and access to German iron, Alpine silver and Illyrian, French and Lombard timber, Italy could become the focus of this sea power. First taking Sicily and Sardinia, then the Balearics and Malta, the city states of Genoa, Venice, Pisa and Amalfi can become your spearpoint of Christian aggressiveness. They would, naturally enough, need extra manpower and get themselves Norman and German knights, Alpine crossbowmen and even their recently conquered Muslim archers, but the whole endeavour stays under their control (a North African crusade would need to be maritime, so they naturally call the shots. If you don't like it, WALK home!).

If you want to use Italy as your point of origin, the resulting power structure is liable to look more like medieval Italy - cities (either run as Republics, though naturally only second-generation Christians of honest birth have the vote - or by well-born rulers), each surrounded by its 'contado' and tied to each other by a network of alliances. Of course, they could also be run by governors from the mother cities (the way Venice ran its Empire), but that strikes me as unlikely in the long run. The territory is just too big.

Crikes, in a centuery or so the entire upper class of the Western Med will be speaking some weird kind of Arabic-influenced Italian (located somewhere between Lombard and Tuscan)! Poor Holy Roman Emperors! (or maybe not? If Italy is so much of a player, they might just choose not to meddle and look to Poland or France instead. Definitely bad news for France, though - I just don't see the Italianate community looking on calmly while the king turns the Occitan south into a wasteland. Heh, for all we know, most of the Rhone valley could end up Genoese...


Good point about the Crusaders speaking the proper languages and having more cultural experience. That might cancel out their lack of military experience due to the fact that they won't bother the locals as much (I read "an Arabic account of the Crusades" where a Frankish knight kept physically re-aligning a Muslim who was praying towards Mecca b/c in his experience, people prayed sitting in another direction).

Usama Ibn Munqidh is always good for a laugh. But yes, the Muslims would find much more quickly that these infidels were people you could do business with. I don't know what whoever ends up ruling Egypt will make of it (we certainly aren't going to get the Ayyubids or Mamluks), but a big rival power next door might just be what the Christian powers need to keep them on their toes and from each other's throats. Could 'The Red Sea' become the military mirage that 'Jerusalem' was for the later crusaders ATL?)

Oooh, I *really* like this.

Effendi Giovan le Balester, second junior Gonfalonier of Sfax, commander of the Berber horse, honorary citizen of Amalfi, lay knight of the Order of St Augustine, all red-faced, pacing an underground fountain courtyard of marble, vocally chewing out an Anglo-Norman mercenary knight in the foulest street Arabic imaginable while a white-bearded qadi looks on in quiet satisfaction...

more
 
Leo Caesius said:
I've been wondering for a while now how we could develop a timeline wherein the centers of culture and power remain in the Mediterranean, while northern Europe languishes. This looks to be one of them. What kind of political structures would arise in a crusader-dominated North Africa? Can we expect some Sicilian count to crown himself Emperor of the Newly Reconstituted Western Roman Empire?

I doubt it. We already have a Western Roman Emperor bouncing around, plus an Eastern one, that should be more than enough. Also, I'd expect the naval powers to be calling the shots.

But you realise that the earliest recorded term for pasta - 'tria' is a descendant of 'Itriyya' (which some would derive from 'tracta', though I doubt that). Definitely a pasta-friendly TL.
 
Wow, lots of good ideas percolating around here (especially the political organization of the Crusader regimes in North Africa and the role of the Italians in this hypothetical Crusade). Thanks a bunch!

My main scenario for the war was that the Crusaders would descend on the Fatimids by sea and hammer them, while the Abbasids (largely on their own) would surge into Egypt. I have them conquering Egypt while the Fatimids are preoccupied defending their Tunisian heartland from the Crusader attack; could the circa-1040 Abbasids pull that off?
 
Does anyone know about the circa-1040 military capabilities of the Abbasids and Fatimids? I PM'd John b/c he's an expert in Islamic matters, but he hasn't responded or commented on the TL yet.
 
During the XI century you have the almoravids in Morocco. They were a really impressive force that defeated all the islamic and christian kingdoms in Spain. Fortunatelly they did not try to consolidate their victories over the chrisitians...
In those years you have also Rodrigo DÃ*az de Vivar "el mio Cid" that conquered the kingdom of Valencia (creating a mixed christian-muslim state) and was the only one to defeat the almoravids.
 
The Almoravids were active during this time? Wow. Thanks for the info. They'll definitely factor into the Crusade itself somehow, though since the Fatimids were Shi'a, I wonder which side (if any) the Almoravids will pick.
 
They andalusian taifas kingdoms saw in them a potential ally that could help them resisting and even recovering the initiative against the northern infidels. However they saw also in them a huger danger as they were extremelly fanatic, and feared that they would kill all the local muslim authorities and force everybody to accept a harsher version of Islam (they were something similar to the Talibans).

Unfortunatelly for the andalusians they were so badly pressed by the christian kingdoms that they were forced to call them for help. Their best dreams came through as the almoravids defeated easily castillian king several times (threatening to take bake Toledo), but their worst nightmares also came to reality as they deposed the taifa kings and instaured a purer version of Islam. The only taifa king to survive was the king of Zaragoza allied with the christian king of Castille and "el Cid".
 
An idea on the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade -

Hey Matt & co,

Here's one thought I had on the Trans-Saharan slave trade into the African Crusader states.

It may decline in the early phases of conquest if the Crusaders don't set up quite as complex an economy, howeverm it probably won't disappear.

In this TL, I would think that somewhere in the 1300s something very much like the Black Plague will evolve and spread into the Mediterranean world.

The first implication of it as that by this point the Crusaders better have expanded well into the hinterland and converted lots of people who live away from the coast, because if they are stuck in urban enclaves, they will get hit hardest.

Secondly, assuming the Crusaders really consolidated their hold over the Maghrib, the labor scarcity caused by the plagues within might stimulate trade
in Africans to work in galleys, mines and fields, especially in southern Europe but quite possible in more northern areas hit hard by the plague.
 
The plague is something I did not take into account. Come to think of it, I didn't take the Mongols into account either. I don't think the scenario sets off enough "butterflies" to affect the Far East.

Will exposure to North African methods of fighting (light cav and the like) make the Europeans better able to resist the Mongols?

Thanks, RaHarris.

Did the Black Death get into North Africa in OTL? It probably will in TTL b/c of more trade with Europe. Crossing the Sahara might be difficult b/c the people might all die en route, but it might kill a lot of people in sub-Saharan Africa too.
 
Wait a sec...the POD is that the Seljuks are contained by the Ghazavids (sp?). This means there are a lot of expansionst Turkic peoples contained in Central Asia. That probably WOULD affect the Mongols in some way.

Do y'all have any ideas of how that might happen?

Also, I have some stuff planned in the East. Nestorian Turks will settle northern India, while Manichaean Turks will conquer China. How will the Mongols affect them? Do we have any experts in Central Asian affairs floating around here? Leo knows about the Manichaean Uighurs, so perhaps he can help.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Matt Quinn said:
Also, I have some stuff planned in the East. Nestorian Turks will settle northern India, while Manichaean Turks will conquer China. How will the Mongols affect them? Do we have any experts in Central Asian affairs floating around here? Leo knows about the Manichaean Uighurs, so perhaps he can help.
IIRC, the Kyrghyz knocked off the original Uyghurs, and the Mongols polished them off. Is the Mongol conquest of Asia still likely? Yes. However, if there is a stronger Nestorian or Manichaean presence in East Asia, the Mongols might adopt one or the other. I suspect Manichaeism is more likely, simply because the Manichees would allow them to keep their shamans.

A Manichaean Mongol empire would be a terrifying thing.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Were the Manicheans intolerant of other religions?
No, not outwardly. In fact, they often considered their religion to be a sort of trojan horse into other religions. They refered to Manichaeism as a kind of poisoned gift (now there's an uplifting theology for you). Manichaeism was a kind of religious virus - it would "infect" other religions and change them from within.

To start with, the religion was organized along the lines of a full-fledged secret society. There were code words, secret handshakes, and arcane hierarchies. The secrets of the religion were restricted to those who abstained from drink, sexual intercourse, and meat (the elect). The rest (the hearers) were permitted to marry and produce no more than one or two children. The creation of life was one of the most odious things for devout Manichaeans (almost as disturbing to them as the taking of life).

To give you a glimpse into the Manichaean worldview, consider the "grace" which the Manichaeans said before each meal; it went something like this:

I did not sow thee.
Cursed be he who planted thee!

I did not reap thee.
Cursed be he who reaped thee!

I did not prepare thee.
Cursed be he who prepared thee!
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
DominusNovus said:
So, what did the cook say?
The cook would have been one of the low-level "hearers." They always got stuck with jobs like that. The "elect" didn't prepare their own food.

Manichaeism would be something like a fraternity, if fraternities were into celibacy, no alcohol, and vegetarianism. Do you see why I think Manichaeans were spooky?
 
Leo Caesius said:
The creation of life was one of the most odious things for devout Manichaeans (almost as disturbing to them as the taking of life)

You mean they considered taking life disturbing, or did you mean as disturbing to them as the taking of life is to us? If the latter, I see your point about a manichean Mongol Empire being terrifying.
 
Leo,

Hmm...okay, the Mongols conquer the eastern Turks (Uighurs and the like) who are Manichaen. They become Manichees themselves, and expel the Kereits and other Nestorian-Christian tribes from the area. Those tribes hook up with the Seljuks and others, convert them, and migrate down through Afghanistan into northern India.

Meanwhile, the Manichaen Mongols conquer China. I don't know how far they'll get in the West; I don't know enough about North African military tactics and how their adoption might affect the ability of the Europeans (and maybe the Abbasid Caliphate too) to defeat Mongol moves westward.

Does that sound good?
 
Did the Manichean version of "grace", with its sort of ritual cursing of the food, reflect the belief that all material things are inherently evil, even though some of them (like food) might be necessary?
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
The Manichaeans believed that the world we live in exists on the threshold of the realms of light and darkness. Darkness became greedy and attempted to seize the light, taking part of the light into itself. This was the engine for its eventual destruction (at the end of time). All living creatures in the world (and this includes plants, particularly juicy fruits) contain a fragment of this light within them - we might call it a soul.

The Elect spend most of their time trying to harvest this light and bring it back with them to the realm of light ("heaven"). Any action that causes harm to a living being causes harm to the light, and so they are very loathe to harm a living being or even harvest a plant. Their idea was to keep the light in as intact a form as possible.

As a corollary, reproduction causes the light to become even further diluted in one's descendants. If you lead a virtuous life and die without progeny, you pass into heaven with all the light that you have accumulated during your lifetime. If you have children, the light within you becomes further trapped within human flesh. Consequently, the Manichaeans consider procreation to be one of the greatest sins.

They often made use of this metaphor in dealing with other religions. Their idea was to infiltrate other religions and influence them. Pope Leo the Great recognized that Catholicism in Rome itself had been infiltrated by Manichaean agents as early as the middle of the 5th century, and ordered Catholic priests to refuse communion to those who would only accept it in one kind (the Manichaeans giving themselves away by refusing to drink the communal wine). A timeline with a Manichaean power is bound to be full of cloak-and-dagger antics and other such skullduggery.

A Manichaean China (ruled by Manichaean Turks or Mongols) is definitely a possibility. Manichaeism is very compatible with East Asian religions, and the overlords would do their best to make it palatable to the masses. The one obvious change from the Mongols' program in OTL is that the Manichaeans would fill them with a evangelical zeal that they lacked in OTL, which might give them greater impetus to conquer the world and install a Manichaean world state. Who knows?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top