And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace

[cmakk1012]

A very interesting possibility that I actually had failed to consider. My intention would be for the Crusaders to have the whole of Fatimid Egypt, so as to guarantee its survival, but I think that a continued relationship between the Catholic Franks and a neighboring polity of Egyptian Copts presents some fascinating possibilities.

Huh, why would the Crusaders allow a heretical state to come into existence if they could just attack and conquer it instead?

Could it be a loose vassal state instead? Like suppose a Coptic uprising happens in Upper Egypt as the Crusaders are invading the Delta, and then in order to secure victory the two groups ally. The Coptic state would be militarily weaker than the Crusader Kingdom of Egypt, but the Crusaders would probably not consider it worth the hassle to invade a Christian state (it’ll need to be a more tolerant guy in charge I guess) so they have them swear fealty instead?

 

[Derekc2]

I personally doubt that the Franks will bother with a southern Egyptian Coptic state. They don't gain a really powerful ally like how working with the ERE gives them one and they likely gain more by controlling Upper Egypt anyway. Plus it ensures that any potential state in southern Egypt doesn't turn on them with the crusaders simply ruling it.

Also they (Coptic Christians) would be considered heretics by the catholic Europeans for being Miaphysites which would translate to a Crusader into "Deus Vult". Especially as they can easily get away with it against the Coptic Christians.

So the Crusaders conquering all of Fatimid Egypt would make more sense I feel.

 

[Ridcully]

I would be interested in seeing more about how the crusaders manage the non-catholic Christians in their states. If the objective of the timeline is crusader states surviving and flourishing, then perhaps we might see a sort of hierarchy, Catholics on top, then non catholic Christians with Muslims at the bottom. This also has the potential for some interesting niches like Shi'ite being above Sunni in the hierarchy and stuff like that.

This would allow the crusaders to reliable leverage the manpower of non catholic Christians in order to keep the Muslims subjugated and to bulk out their armies, without compromising their religious principles. They may even try to copy the Muslim practice of Jizya in order to extract more money from their Muslim populations while providing them with incentive to convert.

Perhaps they might also allow certain legal privileges to non catholic Christians over the Muslims as a way of getting them onside as well.

 

[Avrorrange]

So is the Archbishop more powerful than otl?

 

[cmakk1012]

I would be interested in seeing more about how the crusaders manage the non-catholic Christians in their states. If the objective of the timeline is crusader states surviving and flourishing, then perhaps we might see a sort of hierarchy, Catholics on top, then non catholic Christians with Muslims at the bottom. This also has the potential for some interesting niches like Shi'ite being above Sunni in the hierarchy and stuff like that.

This would allow the crusaders to reliable leverage the manpower of non catholic Christians in order to keep the Muslims subjugated and to bulk out their armies, without compromising their religious principles. They may even try to copy the Muslim practice of Jizya in order to extract more money from their Muslim populations while providing them with incentive to convert.

Perhaps they might also allow certain legal privileges to non catholic Christians over the Muslims as a way of getting them onside as well.

Oh man, this sounds so plausible, but depressingly reminiscient of colonial hierarchies that I just hope it isn’t ever formalized. That sort of thing just leads to long term resentment and rebellion indefinitely.

 

[fluttersky]

Huh, why would the Crusaders allow a heretical state to come into existence if they could just attack and conquer it instead?

Could it be a loose vassal state instead? Like suppose a Coptic uprising happens in Upper Egypt as the Crusaders are invading the Delta, and then in order to secure victory the two groups ally. The Coptic state would be militarily weaker than the Crusader Kingdom of Egypt, but the Crusaders would probably not consider it worth the hassle to invade a Christian state (it’ll need to be a more tolerant guy in charge I guess) so they have them swear fealty instead?

The Crusaders are fine with the existence of Cilician Armenia (main religion being the Armenian Orthodox Church) so I just assumed an independent Coptic state (main religion being the Coptic Orthodox Church) would be much the same.

But I suppose the difference is that Cilician Armenia already existed before the Crusades, whereas a Coptic state in Upper Egypt doesn't exist at the moment.

 

[Ridcully]

Oh man, this sounds so plausible, but depressingly reminiscient of colonial hierarchies that I just hope it isn’t ever formalized. That sort of thing just leads to long term resentment and rebellion indefinitely.

Colonial hierarchies was exactly what I was thinking of actually, cause while they are immoral to us, they did work. I think that it would actually be better for the crusaders states if they were codified, to make it clear to the non catholic Christians that you are trying to leverage to your advantage onside fast and reliably.

But also remember its not quite as bad as it might sound, as you can convert, its not like a racial or ethnic hierarchy. Its not too dissimilar to what happened to Christians under Muslim states at the time, ie: being second class citizens, and the end goal would be the conversion of all non catholic Christians to Catholicism or at least reducing them as a proportion of the population to solidify and strengthen crusader rule.

Edit: Also I've just realized its really easy to justify the hierarchy if you want (as a crusader) just say "they aren't catholic but they recognize the divinity of Christ" this instantly justifies placing Muslims at the bottom and heretic Christians above them. And its not like its a huge leap to make.

 

[thestickfigure]

The Crusaders are fine with the existence of Cilician Armenia (main religion being the Armenian Orthodox Church) so I just assumed an independent Coptic state (main religion being the Coptic Orthodox Church) would be much the same.

But I suppose the difference is that Cilician Armenia already existed before the Crusades, whereas a Coptic state in Upper Egypt doesn't exist at the moment.

Speaking of Egypt falling, Mecca and Medina will most likely be in somewhat of a panic.

 

[Ridcully]

Speaking of Egypt falling, Mecca and Medina will most likely be in somewhat of a panic.

Are they really in any danger? Does possession of Egypt give you that sort of power projection into Arabia? Or do you just mean they will be panic by the fall of one of the most rich and powerful areas of the Islamic world to the crusaders?

 

[Avrorrange]

Are they really in any danger? Does possession of Egypt give you that sort of power projection into Arabia? Or do you just mean they will be panic by the fall of one of the most rich and powerful areas of the Islamic world to the crusaders?

Definitely yes.Look at how Reynald of Chatillon was able to threaten Mecca and Medina with the control of only one small Red Sea port.

 

[Derekc2]

They'd likely panic at first at least, thinking that the Crusaders would try and take Mecca and Medina next in their relentless onslaught of infidel barbarism. Now, they probably would eventually realize when that fails to happen that the Crusaders are a. likely at the very edge of their logistics in conquest and pulled the previous conquests in regions that were already weak internally and with help of other, more stable and powerful powers. And b. The Crusaders are most likely not even be interested in getting the entire muslim world roaring up in attacking them taking two cities in an incredibly hostile region to them that are not even strategically or religiously important to them even if they were able to pull it off.

So Mecca and Medina would likely panic for a while seeing the Crusaders pull off another seemingly impossible conquest and then realize that they are at the very end of their tether for a while and are not gunning for them next.

But we're still in the crusader phase of "surviving the first concerted reaction of the local Muslim powers" before any other objective of conquest for the Crusaders such Lebanon or Syria. So talking about Crusader targets after the secure all of their vital objectives for long term viability is a bit premature. of

 

[thestickfigure]

Are they really in any danger? Does possession of Egypt give you that sort of power projection into Arabia? Or do you just mean they will be panic by the fall of one of the most rich and powerful areas of the Islamic world to the crusaders?

They would be somewhat in shock because one of the centers of the islamic world fell to some western europeans. Although I doubt anyone in the right mind would try to waste money on taking an isolated city in a rocky area. I still think it's a little early for egypt talk though. There are more things for the crusaders to do in syria.

 

[Ridcully]

Definitely yes.Look at how Reynald of Chatillon was able to threaten Mecca and Medina with the control of only one small Red Sea port.

I honestly didn't know about that, very interesting.

They would be somewhat in shock because one of the centers of the islamic world fell to some western europeans. Although I doubt anyone in the right mind would try to waste money on taking an isolated city in a rocky area. I still think it's a little early for egypt talk though. There are more things for the crusaders to do in syria.

Maybe is a bit early, any ideas about what the most vital thing the crusaders have to do in Syria? Is it taking Damascus?

 

[Md139115]

They'd likely panic at first at least, thinking that the Crusaders would try and take Mecca and Medina next in their relentless onslaught infidel barbarism. Now, they probably would eventually realize when that fails to happen that the Crusaders are a. likely at the very edge of their logistics in conquest and pulled the previous conquests in regions that were already weak internally and with help of other, more stable and powerful powers. And b. The Crusaders are most likely not even be interested in getting the entire muslim world roaring up in attacking them taking two cities in an incredibly hostile region to them that are not even strategically or religiously important to them even if they were able to pull it off.

So Mecca and Medina would likely panic for a while seeing the Crusaders pull off another seemingly impossible conquest and then realize that they are at the very end of their tether for a while and are not gunning for them next.

But were are still in the crusader phase of "surviving the first concerted reaction of the local Muslim powers" before any other objective of conquest for the Crusaders such Lebanon or Syria. So talking about Crusader targets after the secure all of their vital objectives for long term viability is a bit premature.

They would be somewhat in shock because one of the centers of the islamic world fell to some western europeans. Although I doubt anyone in the right mind would try to waste money on taking an isolated city in a rocky area. I still think it's a little early for egypt talk though. There are more things for the crusaders to do in syria.

This is all true, but I am curious:

What happens if the Crusaders take Mecca and burn the city?

 

[Derekc2]

This is all true, but I am curious:

What happens if the Crusaders take Mecca and burn the city?

That would end really, really fucking badly for the crusaders I'd imagine as all the sudden calls of Jihad against the Franks and the desire to kick them out of the middle East would likely be clamored and honored by all the muslim faithful.

I mean, it'd be like a the Emirate of Sicily or Al-Andalus somehow occupied and burn down Rome, that would be so insanely provocative an action that catholic Europe would go and smash them with all the strength they could manage. It would be a terrible idea that would just make things worse for them. And if the crusaders did that to Mecca, it would go the exact same way for them.

At least that's how I'd imagine it'd go for the crusaders.

 

[Ridcully]

That would end really, really fucking badly for the crusaders I'd imagine as all the sudden calls of Jihad against the Franks and the desire to kick them out of the middle East would likely be clamored and honored by all the muslim faithful.

I mean, it'd be like a the Emirate of Sicily or Al-Andalus somehow occupied and burn down Rome, that would be so insanely provocative an action that catholic Europe would go and smash them with all the strength they could manage. It would be a terrible idea that would just make things worse for them.

At least that's how I'd imagine it'd go for the crusaders.

I would honestly be really interested in what such as scenario does to the Muslim faith. Maybe they go full end times apocalypse now? That would be a fascinating thing to explore.

 

[Derekc2]

I would honestly be really interested in what such as scenario does to the Muslim faith. Maybe they go full end times apocalypse now? That would be a fascinating thing to explore.

I can not imagine they would think it was the end times. They would just be really, really fucking pissed and ready to smash the heads of some Latin barbarians for pulling that stunt.

 

[Ridcully]

I'd doubt they would think it was the end times. They would just be really, really fucking pissed.

Maybe your right, i was thinking if it might be for them what the fall of the roman empire was like for Christians, that caused lots of end times now type thinking for them. But perhaps its not analogous.

 

[cmakk1012]

The Crusaders are fine with the existence of Cilician Armenia (main religion being the Armenian Orthodox Church) so I just assumed an independent Coptic state (main religion being the Coptic Orthodox Church) would be much the same.

But I suppose the difference is that Cilician Armenia already existed before the Crusades, whereas a Coptic state in Upper Egypt doesn't exist at the moment.

I was thinking of how it’d be perceived if the Crusaders actively created a heretical state, which is to say terribly. If was already formulating, however, and the Crusaders just vassalized/allied with it no one would bat an eye.

Colonial hierarchies was exactly what I was thinking of actually, cause while they are immoral to us, they did work. I think that it would actually be better for the crusaders states if they were codified, to make it clear to the non catholic Christians that you are trying to leverage to your advantage onside fast and reliably.

But also remember its not quite as bad as it might sound, as you can convert, its not like a racial or ethnic hierarchy. Its not too dissimilar to what happened to Christians under Muslim states at the time, ie: being second class citizens, and the end goal would be the conversion of all non catholic Christians to Catholicism or at least reducing them as a proportion of the population to solidify and strengthen crusader rule.

Yeah, I suppose it did work well for the Ottoman Empire. And it’s definitely not as bad as ethnic hierarchies—if any Christian regardless of language or background can be a knight or whatever it’s better than nothing.

 

[Avalon]

Maybe your right, i was thinking if it might be for them what the fall of the roman empire was like for Christians, that caused lots of end times now type thinking for them. But perhaps its not analogous.

Actually the destruction of the Kaaba is tied to the Islamic end times a lot more than time to Christianity. If taking Mecca the ideal thing for the crusaders to do is to hold the Kaaba hostage.