Great update on the polities of the Middle East. Now I'm really curious to see where that crusade goes, my money is still on Damascus being the most likely target, but I think a case could be made for Egypt too.
And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace
- Thread starter Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)
- Start date
So, the Franks will rule Egypt (eventually, following the collapse of the Fatamids) for centuries. That certainly insinuates at least two - and something of the wording to me hints at even longer.
I'm going to be really interested in seeing what European style government is going to do to Egypt. Certainly, with a minimum of 200 years to play with, i could definitely see a reversal of some of the Arabization of the country. This is going to have major impacts going forward, obviously.
I'm going to be really interested in seeing what European style government is going to do to Egypt. Certainly, with a minimum of 200 years to play with, i could definitely see a reversal of some of the Arabization of the country. This is going to have major impacts going forward, obviously.
The question will be if Egypt will be under the authority of Jerusalem or become a separate Kingdom all together.
We know that the King Philip is going on campaign so it is not too big of a stretch to have him declare Egypt a separate kingdom with a relative as King.
We know that the King Philip is going on campaign so it is not too big of a stretch to have him declare Egypt a separate kingdom with a relative as King.
I doubt that in the longterm, Jerusalem would be able to rule over Egypt. More likely, the capital would move to the country on the Nile, should they stay united
A separate Kingdom/Principality/Duchy under the authority of Jerusalem (muck like Antioch or Cyprus) is the most logical choice....
Last edited:
As long as Jerusalem is held this is never going to be another capital but Jerusalem.
The Crusades through Arab eyes of Amin Maalouf is a very good book in that regard, so much in fact I read it at least twice.
Mongols may still come though.
I've read an interesting theory about the impact of a climatic change that created the conditions for their massive invasions. If there noone as a Temujin to unite the Mongol tribes, I think we are still going to see an important wave of migrating warriors.
I've read an interesting theory about the impact of a climatic change that created the conditions for their massive invasions. If there noone as a Temujin to unite the Mongol tribes, I think we are still going to see an important wave of migrating warriors.
I always heard the key to why Saladin succeeded was that he unified Syria and Egypt against the Crusaders. ITTL Syria will soon be largely under Crusader domination and Egypt currently in a nasty tailspin, so I can’t see any Muslim force from those regions challenging the Crusader states as Saladin did.
My money’s on Persia eventually getting its crap together—still under Turkic or possibly even Mongol rule—and then turning towards trying to reconquer al-Quds in the long run.
I will be very disappointed if in spite of the butterflies we still see a man named Temujin at the head of an identical Mongol Empire sweeping through the Mideast.
That being said, I agree that it’s likely that some kind of major migration/conquest wave happens, and one that likely demolishes the current Mideastern balance of power.
The problem is that Saladin's ascension depended entirely on the fact that he was a vassal of Nur ad-Din, Zengi's successor in Mosul and Aleppo. When Saladin's uncle Shirkuh went to Egypt, effectivelly becoming the de facto controlled of the Caliphate, he did it on his orders. Saladin's own rise to power, at least according to the Islamic sources, owed to the fact that he was feeble and seemingly unept to rule, and would be an easily-manipulated pushover. In the end, he reigned in Egypt at first in Nur ad-Din's name, and only after his death the façade was abandoned.
ITTL, considering that Zengi never became Atabeg of Mosul in first place, Nur ad-Din, his son, even if existing, will never become proeminent, and this completely butterflies away the later appearance of the Ayyubids. To show how indeed one simple divergence can transform completely the TL.
Indeed it is! Read it some months ago. He does sheds some light in points that we - used to read about the Crusades from the "Frankish" POV - find rather obscure.
I think I already mentioned it earlier, but I do intend for the Mongols to appear in schedule. One can easily argue that the "ripples" of causality provoked by the divergences of POD could not affect such a distant place as Mongolia and China, but I really don't want to delve in this argument. The fact remains that the Mongol invasions were one of the most significant and world-changing events of the Medieval Period, so I think it would be interesting to explore how these causalities would impact in the TL where the Crusaders are a bit more successful.
Of course, as you guys said, this doesn't means that the Mongol Invasions will be occurring exactly like OTL. They will not. In fact, I intend to play around with the way how they expanded IOTL, so that the diverging paths of the TL become even more interesting from a narrative and world-building standpoint.
I've honestly read about climat change being the cause of about every nomadic migration, I think we should be wary of going too much in that direction.
To return on the topic of TTL's Philip Il of France, we have very interesting developments.
By contrast to his religious younger brother and OTL future king Louis VII, Philippe was more instructed in matters of government and politics as the heir; the lack of experience from Louis proved to be of dire consequences.
One big difference I could see is Eleanor of Aquitaine's marriage being more successful with Philippe, taking Aquitaine into the royal demesne three centuries in advance, containing the growing continental power of the Plantagenets.
Another related matter to consider is Eleanor's claims on Toulouse that led both Louis VII and Henry II to invade. Here, I think of what impact a longer lasting marriage could have on royal authority in southern France. IOTL, that didn't really happen until after the Albigensian crusades, but here, a longer Eleanor marriage would probably mean Phillip II stays involved in the succession dispute over Toulouse a longer time, and perhaps imposes royal authority earlier.
By contrast to his religious younger brother and OTL future king Louis VII, Philippe was more instructed in matters of government and politics as the heir; the lack of experience from Louis proved to be of dire consequences.
One big difference I could see is Eleanor of Aquitaine's marriage being more successful with Philippe, taking Aquitaine into the royal demesne three centuries in advance, containing the growing continental power of the Plantagenets.
Another related matter to consider is Eleanor's claims on Toulouse that led both Louis VII and Henry II to invade. Here, I think of what impact a longer lasting marriage could have on royal authority in southern France. IOTL, that didn't really happen until after the Albigensian crusades, but here, a longer Eleanor marriage would probably mean Phillip II stays involved in the succession dispute over Toulouse a longer time, and perhaps imposes royal authority earlier.
That's a great idea. Mongols in India is something I had in mind, actually, but this suggestion has enormous potential, especially if we consider the religious and cultural diversity of the "Mongol" (Tartar) empire, this could spell a greater integration of non-Islamic Asian worldviews beyond the Sinosphere.
I must confess that I have some other plans for Aquitaine that don't involve it falling into the royal French domain. In fact, I've been thinking of having William X produce male offspring and avoiding Eleanor's inheritance altogether. The idea of a strong and fairly long-lasting House of Poitiers as a rival to the Capetians is fascinating IMO, and, considering the significant role the Poitevin noblemen played IOTL Crusades, I intended to explore a scenario different from our own. Of course, details are still up to debate.
And what you said about OTL Poitevin claim to Toulouse... well, that gives a big clue to where I want to go.
Regarding Phillip, son of Louis VI, that's a good point. There is a consensus in historiography that Louis VII was so inept by the fact that he had never been groomed to rule, and was likely intended for an ecclesiastic career. Now, Phillip will have his own character and persona, so we'll see how he's going to fare with the Crusaders.
Last edited: