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

[ImperialxWarlord]

Let the title creep in the Holy Land begin? Guess it won’t be belong before we see the Prince become King, if only to assert authority over these French dukes.

Hopefully John II will be able to keep the Crusaders focused on Armenia and the Euphrates frontier. Although I suspect he won’t mind too much if they embark on a doomed expedition into Mesopotamia after they serve the Empire’s purposes.

I think he would mind. The crusaders have proven to be useful tools ITTL, at the very least they serve as a sponge for Muslim attacks.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Crusader-brand sponges? I don't think they'll sell well...

...but in all seriousness, I feel like the Crusaders are due for a lesson in hubris. One does not simply go through that bridge too far and aim for the Abbasid Capital, not until you get your crap straight first.

Besides, I don't think the world is ready for a Frankish Persian Empire...

 

[Triune Kingdom]

I know that this is very far away in the future, but one thing that will be interesting to see is how introduction of Gunpowder is going to influence and change Kingdom of Jerusalem. Will they end up as something of a Counterpart of the Gunpowder Empires of OTL, or will their gunpowder development become more akin to what happened in Europe?

In general will we see any centralization in the future, and just how will that impact the politics, economy and military of the Crusader States?

Lastly, is there any noticeable difference in organization and equipment of "local" Crusader troops when compared to their "visiting" counterparts from Europe?

 

[Babyrage]

Following in the footsteps of Alexander...audacious or insane?

Let’s say everything goes according to plan. The Romans and Crusaders seize Armenia and Northern Mesopotamia. Then what?
The Romans disperse to garrison the new conquests, leaving the blindly arrogant French in command. It’s be tough to convince the more level headed commanders to follow them anyway.

 

[trajen777]

So a raid or conquest. Considering the terrains, they will have to define how they counter the mounted archers. The obvious is Turks, merc, and raising their own forces of mounted archers. Longbow and crossbow mounted but fighting on foot is also good alternatives. But whatever they do they need a Mobil missle force to hold the captured areas.that and many chains of fortresses and towers

 

[Icedaemon]

Seems to me that the Basileus and the seasoned crusader lords are quite fed up with Phillip after the arrogant moves made in Homs. Most likely, most of the Roman army will return home after Armenia has been retaken and the lords of Outremer are unlikely to go much east of Mosul in force. Most likely, they will merrily wave and cheer as the French march into an unfamiliar desert region full of enemies and where the only reliable path of logistical succor (or even food) is on the rivers the enemy controls. I expect the French army to die unsupported halfway down the Euphrates.

The question in my min is, will such a strike at the very heart of Islam lead to the Turks and the caliph putting aside their differences properly and amassing an even larger counterforce?

 

[[totally a legit person]]

Seems to me that the Basileus and the seasoned crusader lords are quite fed up with Phillip after the arrogant moves made in Homs. Most likely, most of the Roman army will return home after Armenia has been retaken and the lords of Outremer are unlikely to go much east of Mosul in force. Most likely, they will merrily wave and cheer as the French march into an unfamiliar desert region full of enemies and where the only reliable path of logistical succor (or even food) is on the rivers the enemy controls. I expect the French army to die unsupported halfway down the Euphrates.

The question in my min is, will such a strike at the very heart of Islam lead to the Turks and the caliph putting aside their differences properly and amassing an even larger counterforce?

wow, now if that was true at all, that would be quite intriguing, especially since it would most likely end badly for the crusaders, on the account of no support from France, or well the king France, maybe no dukes if a civil war or regency happens, since both or equally good for dukes and their power moves. But, perhaps after this, we could get some crusaders from Poland, or another equally unique place as far or farther that would be great for another "miracle" to happen.

 

[galileo-034]

When Alexios II comes in though, it all depends on whether he has more children. When he died in 1142 he had one daughter (Maria) who later married Axouch's son, but with him returning to his wife more often and living, there is nothing to suggest he wouldn't have had a son as well, who then would have been made co-emperor and that would be that.

It's more of a narrative tool. Odds have it Alexios could very well have had a son if he had lived longer, but from a narrative pov, the "bad" luck of Komnenoi dynasts to produce sons before they died is something that fits in the way of keeping low level butterfly as one reader can feel it going (Manuel's only legitimate son was a child when his father died, and only Andronikos the brother and Andronikos the cousin had surviving male offspring), also given this is not an avowed objective of the TL (which one is centered on the Latin states and their long term survival).

- Tzelepes grew up while his father wandered between courts in exile between 1130-38, with most of them being Islamic courts, and then he only goes over to the Danishmendids and Islam at the siege of Niksar when he was specifically disrespected by John (ordered to give up his horse to a Latin). If there is no exile and with Anatolia being reconquered, this has to be fully butterflied away really, though naturally the exile could still happen and it not be:

- The circumstances of Isaac's betrayal of John are also hazily defined by any source, but considering it happens when Isaac had been running the show in Constantinople from 1118-30 while John campaigned, and then in 1130 was confronted with John's adult sons and a court fully bonded around John from shared war stories, it seems only then did he consider plotting against his brother - had he been that keen on the throne before then he easily could have picked a more opportune moment (anytime John was fighting the Venetians, Hungarians, Serbs, Turks and the Trebizond rebellion at the same time really - all of which has of course been butterflied away already). With the empire much larger, there are almost certainly honours, rewards and responsibilities a plenty for John to keep Isaac on side, perhaps reinstating a Megas Domestikos for both East and West rather than Axouch being both, plus with the reconquest of Anatolia and the theoretical suzerainty over Jerusalem, John's position would have been even more secure as has been described. As such, this has also been butterflied away, as has probably any internal threat to John this generation. If the betrayal does still happen, then of course we may still have the later betrayal of Tzelepes, though being Islamic friendly would not necessarily have led to going over to them - John seems quite happy to have had the Islamic Mas'ud of Konya as a client briefly, and Shaizar also agreed to give taxes and had a Roman garrison despite remaining under its Muslim emir, so John seems to have been open to the idea of having Muslim clients rulers (just as he had Latin, Armenian and Syriacs at court, and had sterling write ups from a few Jews saying the empire was great to them in letters, and indeed we have the Romany settling in Byzantium in this period and taking on a fair bit of Roman culture, so John's empire OTL was surprisingly tolerant as long as you were loyal to the emperor - heretics like the Bogomils being the big exception as in being an Orthodox heretic you also betrayed the emperor, but being a schismatic christian, Jew or Muslim appears ok as long as you acclaimed the emperor as in charge and in the schismatic Christian case, implied that you were wiling to resolve your differences with the Church).

Even if there were more opportunities, given John's lack of willingness to placate his brother IOTL, I don't see why he would much more here. The Anatolian provinces are still under reconstruction and more militarized than other core provinces, so may be out of reach of more civilian minded administrators as Isaac could be I suspect.
But that's me seeing the OTL lack of it more based on will than on available (or lack of) opportunities (like in if John II really had wanted to placate his brother, he would have found something), so I can be well wrong here. But saying this, I agree that the plot and exile of John II's brother Isaac need to happen for Tzelepes to betray in the first place.
Then, if that exile happens, it remains to see where Isaac and his son John would go to. Would he go further away up to the Levant for a powerful protector, and which one (are the Latins and their tributaries of Homs and Damascus who are dependent on John II reliable, should he go instead for a Muslim ruler such as Buri in Mosul)? Or the opposite way in Hungary or in Italy? I mind the proximity to Constantinople and the Empire could have a role in the choice too.
Anyway, I wouldn't exclude Tzelepes defection as there is no impossibility per se and the right context, chosen by the author, could make it happen ITTL too.

[ Honnestly, I argue essentially from the ATL "Fate" school of thought, if one such exists or could be termed as such, that because you changes the circumstances, that doesn't mean it won't happen (or said like this, the butterfly wings won't necessarily cause a storm because of inertia). I made my arguments it's not impossible, yet it's not unavoidable so in the end, it's very much the author's choice of a narrative ]

First they would restore the defunct County of Edessa, and, as per the wishes of their patron and benefactor, the Basileus, would revive the Kingdom of Armenia from the decadent rump emirates that feasted on its corpse.

Finally, once they had secured Edessa and Armenia, they would undertake the most dauntless of the holy expeditions, one that had only been achieved once in human history, by the great King Alexander: the conquest of Babylon; that is, Baghdad.

Two ways then: down the Euphrates or down the Tigris.
Both routes require a solid logistical apparatus and a buildup of riverine fleet to support it.

• The Euphrates route is feasible as soon the region of Edessa is secured. The end here is to secure the supply base to be established here and ensure communications with the crusader army going downriver to Baghdad, essentially like Julian II's campaign of 363. Plus, that route has the advantage of allowing to cut the road to Tadmor/Palmyra by capturing the terminus of the caravan route in Iraq, effectively isolating the oasis, temporarily at least.
• The Tigris route on the other hand will only be feasible once Armenia has been secured. After exiting the Armenian plateaux, the crusaders would not only get to follow the river, but they have a strike opportunity at the heart of Buri's realm, with Mosul close in. Then following downriver, provided a good riverine support, control of the river could allow the army to effectively interpose themselves between any relief force east of the Tigris, perhaps Seljuq relief from Persia, and Baghdad.

 

[Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)]

Alright, good morning everyone, let's see the posts before Chapter 51:

@[totally a legit person] - Please, friend, do feel free to present your suggestions. I liked everyone of them in the previous post, rabbit hole or not. I hadn't considered the possibility of an independent Normandy, but it is an interesting one. To be fair, I only wanted an independent Aquitaine/Occitania to explore divergences concerning a continued Mediterranean socioeconomic predominance in the general European situation, because, IOTL, the axis of economic relevance gradually "went up" to the Northern Europe.

The Iberian powers will most certainly be heavily transformed by the contact with a revived "Occitania".

And good insights about Burgundy, it has been somewhat neglected here so far, but I'll be thinking of some things to explore concerning it.

Well, it might be the end of indipendence for Edessa, but for Baldwin and his successors there might be still a future career in the Empire if would play they cards well. And I guess a period of duress for the Latins after the triumph of Damascus would be necessary. At least they would hold well. So, Homs is expected to be the new contended area between Crusaders and the Islamic coalition now...

The sword of Islam may have reaped the booty of swift plunder, but I bet a good fortress and staging point would've been of more use against the Christian armies. Wonder if Homs will end up in Christian hands after all is said and done...

Indeed, you both predicted something that we saw happen exactly in the latest chapter. I suppose that, in hindsight, we could consider the annexation of Homs would be inevitable, considering that sooner or later the Crusaders would want to terminate this one last remnant of Islamic regime in Syria.

Didn’t John II launch a campaign around this time IOTL? I’m guessing that with full crusader cooperation (and the fact that the campaign IOTL was seeking to conquer cities that had already been conquered here) that John will have a much better time than IOTL. It’s a damn shame that Edessa suffered such a cruel fate, at least part of it will live on in the empire.

To be fair, I had genuinely considered the possibility of a longer lasting County of Edessa in ITTL, but, when I saw the direction I was going with the Second Crusade, I realized it wouldn't make much sense. Edessa was not only the most distant of the Crusader States, it was actually the weakest one, with a poor manpower base and geographically isolated. Even now that Byzantium, by its own effort, happened to "border" it, its survival was completely dependent on the passiveness of the Muslims, and, ITTL, they were driven into action after Damascus fell. In my head, it worked as well as a domino effect.

I didn't fully realize until this TL, that the survival of the Roman Empire would have been dependent from the Crusader survival. But I also wonder, once neutralized the Sunni threats (Turks, Iraqi and Egyptians), maybe passed the Mongol wave (always if they would even arrive... probably yes because if in the 1220's there would be news of a rich Roman Empire and a rich Kingdom of Jerusalem, they may be interested to seize them, especially if in a century from the current age of the TL, Baghdad would be reached by Christian armies and well plunder it)... Well, they may turn against each other. Just image a Latin conquered Egypt, if would ever be in the cards... Don't you think an ambitious Basileus would try to unite the Eastern Roman Empire for good?

I suppose one ambitious Emperor might attempt to restore the ERE to its old borders, but, overall, it would be an unecessary and counterproductive effort. The Byzantines, for all the criticism they warranted IOTL, proved to be fairly adaptive to the circumstances, throughout the whole of their history, from the fall of the WRE to the Fourth Crusade. We saw historically Manuel's attempts of restablishing their provinces in southern Italy, and projects to take Egypt together with the Crusaders, but, overall, those did more harm than good. Basically what @Skallagrim and @TyranicusMaximus say in the later posts.

Now, it is almost certain that the very first opponent of Crusader expansionism will actually be the Byzantine Empire, especially once the Franks go into rather "sensitive" flash-point areas, most notably Egypt, as you mentioned. On the other hand, it is also easy to see how Byzantines and Latins, even after Egypt, can reach a mutually agreeable accommodation, especially if we see some immediate Islamic threat in Mesopotamia.

I have some doubts on these prospects.

The Mongols are probably still coming in some form, although that depends on how you treat the butterflies. With a POD as early as this TL's (1099) you can easily maintain that the brith of Temüjin (1162) is butterflied. 163 years is enough to affect the destiny of individual trade caravans etc. -- which would all cause minor buuterflies, causing all sorts of people to be in slightly different places at slightly different times in their day-to-day lives (even if the general arc of their lives remains similar). This means that even if the guy's parents get together, a different sperm fertilises a different egg, probably at a different date. Thus: different kid. Given how unique Genghis Khan was, this then basically means a "no Genghis Khan" scenario. One may argue that the time was right for someone to unite the Mongols (and I'd agree: Genghis Khan had rivals who sought to do the same thing he did), but I think few of them could have done it on his unprecedented scale. So: you get massive raids into Persia, but not a Khanate that comes to reach Baghdad and even beyond.

Naturally, @Rdffigueira can also deliberately go a but more conservative on the butterflies, and keep distant events largely or entirely unchanged until a demonstrable causal change would result in changes. Then you keep Genghis Khan. But even then, I have my doubts about the abilities of the Khanate to by really effective against the Byzantines and the Crusaders. Against such a foe, those two would be united. The Khanate was already operating near its limit of effective action when it reached Baghdad in OTL. That it could so effectively crush Baghdad has more to do with several underlying factors. For starters, once you already have Persia knocked out, Baghdad is far more vulnerable. For another thing, Baghdad itself is not in a very good position for a defence against such a foe. And finally, the Abbasid Caliphate -- though eagerly reforming at the time -- had not yet had the time needed to really finish any of those reforms. The state was weakened. If the attack had come 50 years later, things would have been a bit different...

Similarly, the Mongols had great results when penetrating into eastern Anatolia, because they found a mess of warring statelets. Against a united Byzantine Empire (quite possibly with a united, bulked-up Armenia to its east, if I'm predicting the TL correctly), things would not be that easy. And the Byzantines, Armenians and Latins could all co-ordinate their efforts. What are the Mongols going to due? Grueling mountain warfare against well-prepared, well-entrenched foes who have some strategic depth? Or a grueling attack on Jerusalem straight across the Syrian desert? Neither sounds like the set-up for a brilliant success.

And in OTL, the Mongols offered peace and alliance with the Crusaders against the Muslims. That may come up here as well, since Crusaders in in a stronger position will be able to profitably exploit such an alliance in order to increase their own holdings. And by the time the Muslims have been thoroughly dealt with... well, if they could, the Mongols would then turn on the Christians, but my guess is that by then, the Mongols will be in the early stages of fracture/collapse already. New offensives won't be in the cards.

The idea that Baghdad will be reached by the Crusaders is also iffy to me. I doubt they'll get that far. Such a campaign would be more costly than can be justified. But then, I, a decided proponent of the "secure western Syria, then secure Egypt, then go all-out on a North African Reconquista" strategy for these ATL Crusades. Reconquer the old Roman borders, and make Islam a purely eastern religion. That would be my goal, in the Crusader position.

Finally, the notion of the Byzantines trying to re-unite the old ERE's holdings: forget it. Okay, a moron on the throne may try. But it wouldn't work. The Byzantines are between the Catholic Crusaders and the Catholics of Europe. An attempt to conquer the former would cause a two-front war wit the other. And the Byzantines would lose that war. It would be terrible for all involved, but they'd lose in the end. A sensible ruler knows that. Better to exploit good relations and make a smart play for profitable trade concessions all over the place. Byzantine emporia in Egypt, baby!

Excellent post, thank you very much!!

Well, on the Mongols subject, to cut to the chase: Genghis Khan will happen exactly as IOTL. As you pointed in the third paragraph, my point here is to work with more conservative butterflies, and not "chaos theory" causality. This frees me of the burden of having to explain plausible circumstances that produced the conclusion X, all while replicating historical events unaffected by the POD is easier and, from one perspective, more interesting, because it permits us to see how the "real life" events will interact with the counterfactual ones.

You raise an interesting point, from what I gather, about the exaggeration of the Mongol invincibility, when you mention that they might not fare well against a Byzantine/Crusade coalition. A fair argument, and one with which I agree. However, I once again bid that we await to discuss the implications of such events to latter moments, as they are well further down the TL.

One thing I can anticipate is that I am less interested in exploring the military and political expansion of the Mongols than I am with assessing the concept of the "Pax Mongolica". What I mean is: the Mongol expansion will be very similar to OTL (albeit not exactly the same), and this is an unchanged premise, but the consequences of the Mongol establishment in Asia will produce very significant divergences down the line.

while I agree with a large part of this I not so sure on the last. I don't think it be a 2 front war at all because of ultimatly it just some state across the ocean and why get into a massive war to protect a sea across the sea especially if you have your own stuff to do and wars to prosecute. So if the Byzantines do delcare war on the crusaders I don't see as realistic to suddenly except all of christodem to jump in arms for the crusaders especially if it between fellow christians. There are no formal alliance and the main reason crusades happen is out of religious zeal and as church influence start to wain there become less reason and has attention start to move to focus on other areas with leveant being seen as Christian hands.

Agreed. Besides, a war involving Byzantium and the Crusader State won't necessarily be a full-fledged total war of destruction/conquest; it could very well be a minor affair to solve one dispute before both parties come to good sense. Even if some Byzantine Emperor comes to defeat the Franks in the battlefield, he'll know that their positioning in the Levant is more convenient to the Empire than their absence, or even worse, than incurring in the inconveniences of a direct imperial administration.

it will possibly be much more than that, the cultures of the "barbarians" would be assimilated and then be used to defeat Hungary and not only reverse its growth and outside influenced, but with the talent of the Komenoi turn it into an effective "client-state" or an "forced alliance" to protect the northern flank.

Would the Romans really want to risk creating a truly imperial power? Last two times they did that the Arabs and Turks respectively took it from them. In fact the last emperor who was dead-set on expansion into the Middle East was Nikephoros II Phokas. At least with Alexios's recovery of Anatolia they had help and there were even people who remembered Constantinopolitan rule. Egypt hasn't known it for almost 500 years, Syria slightly longer. Furthermore if Egypt is ruled by Latin Christians then they'll likely have allies.

Historically speaking the Romans couldn't handle the Latin powers and while there's not nearly as much bad blood as historically, trying to seize Egypt and the Levant is a surefire way to do just that.

Indeed, any attempt by the Byzantine Empire to destroy the Crusader State, even if it doesn't invites an alternate-Fourth Crusade, would certainly be a shot in one's own foot, and one action the Byzantines won't be keen on doing.

Will Church influence start to wane? I don't just see that happening on short notice. Maybe in the long term, but not "[shortly] after the Mongols", which is the broad time-frame under discussion. If you are suggesting some Byzantine neo-Imperialism centuries down the line, sure. That could certainly happen. But that's just guesswork at this stage, because of the butterflies...

If an Orthodox power seeks to take control of a lot of hard-won Catholic lands at any point in pre-modern times, then that will be grounds for a Crusade, and damn big one. For religious reasons (losing Jerusalem without a fight would be unthinkable), but also for economic and strategic ones. If you do take Egypt, and are busy re-taking North Africa, do you want that "Empire of Christendom"-ideal to be shattered by some interloper? I think not. Especially not since they'd be aiming at Egypt (which is still pretty vital to Indian ocean trade and therefore economically valuable).

Agreed too.

I think a key question is going to be the balance of naval power. At this time, and from the story, it seems the Byzantines and Italians are on fairly even footing; OTL however, it wasn't very far from the Venetians and Normans freely sailing anywhere that wasn't the Aegean against Byzantine opposition (and of course, eventually even the Aegean wasn't safe).

If a similar balance of naval power develops, Syria and especially Egypt will be well beyond the Byzantine ability to hold, even if they may seize it for a time a local ambitious governor could easily just declare independence, in fact if not always in name.

Similarly no Catholic power could hold Egypt, but then they're not looking to hold Egypt themselves - just the vague 'Catholic Europe' holding it will be their (actually possible) target.

I concur. It is a topic, in fact, I want to explore in later chapters, the idea of a Byzantine/Italian condominium in the Mediterranean, and how this impacts in the attempted conquests of Egypt.

I really wonder what happens when the Mongols come crashing in.

Blobbing and border gore, for sure. Islam as a whole will suffer a terrible blow, which will make the fall of the Levant seem like a walk in the park.

Followed by The Khan Awakens, The Last Norman and The Rise of Christendom. On a more serious note, I do expect some form of confrontation between the Latin East/West and Byzantium somewhere down the road, once that the Sunni powers have been marginalized. Perhaps in the years leading to the alt-Mongols there will be a war?

It will be the subject of the fifth Act. Just wait for it

I don't think that there will or can be a Mongolian Empire. Considering how absolutely ASB Genghis truly was and that there hasn't been someone like him ever before or after. You could though have a great turkish warlord who unites the Turkish tribes and becomes a Seljuk 2.0. Any horse nomadic super confederation is a treat to the settled societies during this era.

As @Skallagrim says above, we can work with many possibilities, it all depends on what I call the "butterfly regime". You can have, for example: (1) absolute chaos theory or random causality - that is, different fecundations leading to different persons, different battles producing different wars, different social and economic developments, and so forth | (2) direct causation, with accumulation - the POD initially affects only a relevant period and area, and gradually accumulates as time passes: the world becomes increasingly different, and, eventually, we reach a sort of ATL Singularity, when the alternate world is alien to us | (3) direct causation, but with very restricted butterflies - the POD only affects a defined period and area, but its changes won't be too significant to the rest of the world. There are many other possibilities (and, as many novelists do, you can simply ignore butterflies altogether).

ITTL, I'm working with Number 2 above. This explains why events in Europe and in the Near East are already liable to change, but not those in Sub-Saharan Africa, in the Americas and in Far Asia, for example.

yeah, I could see conflict over southern Italy and the Balkans, but that won't cause the conflict to happen just tension it will condense until Egypt when they could splinter off, if it happens before the Mongol invasion and restart of the alliance over again, if after then they won't unite until Arabia is united under Yemen, or Omen, or both. Oh and don't forget the roman menace, attack of the Christians, revenge of Muslims, and a Christian hope

An Arabic union in reaction to the Crusader expansionism is another concept I'm interesting in exploring, although I've yet to work out the details.

well, I would've agreed with you if only Rdffigueira didn't say that he was basically going to create the biggest butterfly genocide ever that I've heard (which isn't that much).

Ironically enough, the "biggest butterfly genocide" would happen, if we butterfly away the appearance of what has been argued to be one of the most genocidal expansionist empires. Now that's a treat!

Because alternate history is more interesting when you compare the changes you have made to the straight line of history. If your story is about how the middle east during the middle ages would have turned out if the crusades had been more successful then one of the questions that raises is how that kingdom would cope with the Mongols. If instead you just go well for reasons outside the narrative that never happened and the greatest threat to these kingdoms just never arose, that's narratively unsatisfying.

I agree completely. This, in a nutshell, is the direction I'm trying to take the TL one.

I am not saying that a nomadic horse Archer threat shouldn't be there, what I am saying is that it shouldn't be Mongolian or Genghis Khan. There was never another conquest dynasty other then Qing who became one of the great legitimate Chinese Dynasties. Mongolians weren't even a majority on the steppe that was Turks... More realistic to have a great Turkish nomad Khan who will most likely be as brutal as the Mongolian not just as though against his enemies.

While I understand your point and agree to some point, I'd also have to argue that this too creates another layer of "burden of proof" regarding the plausibility of such a divergence, and, from a purely narrative literary standpoint, it also creates the problem of having a thinly veiled parallelism ("wait, so these Turks are like the Mongols, right?"), and this, to any reader who knows how things developed IOTL, create expectations that might be frustrated. Of course, we could have the opposite effect: we work with the idea of an alternate Turkic conqueror, as per your example, that becomes even more interesting to work with, contextually speaking, than simply replicating the Mongol conquests as IOTL.

As I've said again some times before, this is still a work in progress. I really don't want to sound like one of those artsy writers, but, in my heart, I believe that, to some point, the story does writes itself, and I try to devise how, in the realm of plausibility (according to OTL and to the premises established in the alt-TL itself), it would develop.

This has been suggested many times on the thread, and who would get the throne for Africa and Marocco, etc... but I've been interested in the demographics of all of this. I think it's safe to say that we won't be seeing any African Reich, but instead, the more westward the rump African Kingdoms are the more Spaniards and Portuguese will settle. It might be a stretch, but we might see the survival of the Mozarabic and Andalusi Arab. Furthermore, Lybia, ITTL "Africa" would be mainly settled by Italians. Egypt would still have a large number of Arabs, so more copts this time around?

Yes, I intend to explore this: the formation of Frankish-influenced Maghrebi entities.

The integration between Franks and Egyptian Copts, on the other hand, is almost a given tool, considering the Copts will be favored in a Frankish regime.

As far as I know the Steppe produced plenty of Warlords. Genghis Khan was the greatest, the Seljuks and Timurids were second tier (for the mid-east), and it falls off from there... but Genghis Khan to me was more the pinnacle of a trend, rather than something unique. And nothing in the story so far stops the trend, so there will still be a bunch of steppe conquerors and one of them will be the greatest one who affects Iran, China, and Russia, and many others will affect one of the three. Still, it could be that the greatest Mongol warlord only affects China, while the greatest Turkish one affects them all.

Genghis Khan is God tier. He is alone there. No other leader wether settled or nomadic is next to him. He is a strategic master mind, the biggest pull yourself upp from the bootstraps story ever. And is able to create a stable succession to his heir. He is also from one of the less populated people's. The great majority of the steppe People were Turks at this time. Seljuk, Attila, and Timurid were A class leaders. Not second tier. One doesn't create a nomadic steppe empire with anything less.

Agreed with both!

A pizza without Cheese isn't a pizza...It's just bread with tomato sauce. (Assuming the person in question isn't lactose intolerant in which case...non-lactose cheese?)

Pizza without cheese is not pizza, period. And God might save us from this abomination.

There's always Temujin's father Yesugei, the de facto leader of the Khamag Mongols. He was only 37 when he was assassinated. Had he not been poisoned by the Tatars according to The Secret History of the Mongols, it's likely he would've united the Mongol tribes under his authority. As an alternative (out of many), there's the Qara Khitai or Western Liao. It was a steppe empire of the Khitans that took the trappings of the Chinese imperial state and brought it to Central Asia. They followed a mixture of Buddhist and animist traditions though a noticeable minority were Nestorian Christians. It is because of them was China were referred to as Cathay by medieval Europeans.

Yeah, I've some in store for the Qara-Khitai. They will play a significant role later on. On the other hand, I also considered to have more successful Khwarazmians in the absence of a Mongol invasion. Just an idea, of course...

And I've not forgotten about Yesugei, but I'm not sure if he might have "pulled a Genghis" before his actual son. The circumstances were so contrived that it took very specific paths of causality.

Assuming this army is organized well enough and can make use of Roman logistics, they should be able to reach Mosul. There is no way for the crusaders to hold onto it, but after all this sacking and raiding, if they take Mosul they in all probability reduce it to a ruin in return and call it justice.

Mosul is indeed very well beyond their "we can keep it" reach, and to close for the Seljuqs to be a comfortable spot to sit on.

 

[galileo-034]

I wouldn't say the Mongols are doomed to fail against a joint Frankish-Byzantine coalition.

Even if the fragmented nature of Anatolia helped their expansion IOTL, a united empire never kept them at bay at first (the Jin, the Southern Song, the Khwarezmians ...).
Plus, for the Byzantines, Manzikert is not so far in time one can forget how the Turks wrestled Anatolia from Constantinople and brought the empire on its knees barely under a decade.
Plus, an interesting feature I find in the Mongols unlike many previous invading nomadic peoples is that they weren't just experienced in the ways of nomadic warfare.
Even though their style of warfare revolved around large use of cavalry and horse archers, who made wonders with their composite bows, they brought with them an experienced corps of siege engineers, courtesy from their conquest of northern China. Previously, the main weakness of nomadic invaders, even though they could have destroyed armies on the field, was their inability to put up serious sieges of fortified cities. Here, the Mongol engineers conducted sieges and stormed city after city from the highlands of Persia all the way to Damascus, with a ruthless efficiency, and the Khwarezmians who had so recently overtaken the Seljuqs and captured the whole of Persia were the first to pay the price of it.


Also, on France, I'm doubtfoul of Aquitanian independence.

Switching the fates of France and HRE is unlikely.
The Welf may rule supreme, but they would face the same obstacles the Hohenstauffen did IOTL. Centralize more than IOTL is certainly a possibility, but not to the extreme of a 2nd, Prussian led, Reich of the 19th century.
As well, decentralize France to that point is as much unlikely.

Until the 13rd century, the French monarchy was elective pro forma. The elective character was largely empty and the Capetian heir election was always a foregone conclusion. This goes with French kings making their heirs as co-kings, until the OTL Philip II did away with that and got rid of the elective character.
Else, the Capetian dynasty had several strengths that made it very resilient and going through centuries, where other European dynasties barely lasted.

On a dynastic point of view, the first is their longevity. Through various branches, they have lasted until today, and for about 8 centuries, they ruled over France. This allowed them to accumulate lands and power at each passing generation, so the royal demesne eventually encompassed most of the kingdom.
In feudal relations, they were incredibly adept at playing vassals against one another, and maintain the balance of power to their advantage, even in the first couple centuries of rule when they were on a relatively small territorial footing (speaking of the royal demesne). Of note, you should remember that Burgundy is held in appanage by a collateral branch of the dynasty, and through this appanage, the crown could get almost guaranteed support from Burgundy. Plus, they also played the people against their feudal overlords, granting charts to cities and overriding the lords' justice by allowing appeals to the king.

When we speak of the balance of power in France, in this TL context, we have to account, if I don't forget:

• King: Directly controls the royal demesne, centrally positionned around Paris and Orléans
• Burgundy : Controlled by a collateral branch of the Capetians, aligned with the King.
• Champagne : Not yet reasons to defy the king, so they would side with him in any conflict with the English king or the duke of Aquitaine. It drew much prosperity from its Foires.
• Flanders : Caught between France and England, their economy depends much on English wool, but the Count and the local nobility relied on royal support against the bourgeois who were the most susceptible to align on English interests for business purposes. So, if the French King is at hands with England, the bourgeois will pick the English party and the nobility will pick the royal party.
• Normandy : Obviously, the foothold of the English King in France, yet the only one since they don't get either Anjou or Aquitaine ITTL. As has been said, their interests may be more centered around the Channel, in Flanders but also in Britanny. They could seem natural allies for Aquitaine against he Capetian crown, yet I mind they would need a serious interest in openly supporting a secession by the Aquitainian dukes while endangering their continental holdings. Without Aquitaine in personal union with England, they have less interest in supporting it. At best, I can see a common front against the king as a way of defending their local autonomy and privileges, like they did IOTL (and even though they were rebellious, they never formally broke off the ties of their continental holdings to the French kingdom).
• Anjou : Unlike IOTL, they seem well on way of becoming allies of the Crown. If Aquitaine and England align, catching it between them, then Anjou has better interests in siding with the King. There, the move made by Philip II to give Fulk's son a fief in Syria, and it's implications back in France for Anjou's succession could well be a prelude to that future alliance.
• Aquitaine : One of the big southern lords, who had come to their current extent after annexing the duchy of Gascony in the 11th century. Historically, until tied to the English crown, they remained loyal to the French crown and enjoyed their autonomy at a time the King barely bothered about what happened south of the Loire river (back in the 10th century, they supported the Carolinian dynasty against the Robertians who would be later called Capetians). I don't see why they would want formal independence in this context. The Angevin kings never broke off their continental holdings from the French realm, even when under Henry II and Richard I they controlled half the kingdom. At best, I see the Dukes rebelling to secure their feudal rights and privileges against royal encroachment, no differently from what the Angevins did all the time IOTL. Else, the only area of contention I see beyond feudal rights is the succession of Toulouse. A royal intervention here to forcibly mediate and settle the conflict could motivate the Aquitaine dukes to seek closer ties with England, but not outright to secede (the balance of forces is not yet in their favor, especially if the English likely don't feel ready to take on such a risky adventure). Also, whatever wealth Aquitaine may draw from Mediterranean trade, it is at the mercy of Toulouse and by extension, of the King, so it stands to lose much of an open break with the French crown, whereas IOTL had alternatives.
• Toulouse : The county extended from upper Garonne valley and the foots of Pyrenees and Auvergne hills to the plains of old Septimania. They had an ongoing feud with Aquitaine over the succession, the so called southern hundred years war. An outright conquest by Aquitaine is very unlikely, considering the Occitanian lords fiercely resisted conquest by either Aquitaine or the King for more than a century (up through the Albigensian crusades to precise), even more so considering a potential royal intervention. Following the old proverb "the enemy of my enemy", they would be among the most steadfast supporters of the Crown, still to them a faraway ruler compared to the proximity of Aquitaine.
• Brittany : Not so relevant as a reference since the duchy never really was a part of France, and that even back to the time of Charlemagne. Still, a player to be accounted for. As OTL, likely to align with England and later Aquitaine to preserve its independence, both against the French crown and against Anjou territorial appetite. ITTL, it doesn't have to cope with being surrounded by Angevin holdings so it has much more freedom of action.

All in all, the balance of power is not much friendly to Aquitaine.
When you think the Capetian monarchy survived worst odds through the Hundred Years War, you might see why I highly doubt of Aquitaine independence being either feasible or even wanted in the first place.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

An impressive case I must say @galileo-034 and while I do agree with you on those parts, especially on the case of decentralizing France & Aquitanian Independence, I feel there is still a case of stunting France's centralization for a time though.

However I feel like there were some minor lords where, although probably not as important in the overall scheme of balance in the French dominions, are probably considered for in some form or another (in total: Auvergne (which I think is aligned with Aquitaine), Bar, Blois, Boulogne, Vermandois (who is probably in the same boat as Burgundy in that it too is controlled by a Capetian collateral branch), Provence (which may or may not be an Imperial fief, I can't remember for the life of me) and Vendome.)

 

[galileo-034]

For the time being, everything east of the Rhone River was in the kingdom of Arles (or Two Burgundies if you prefer) whose crown was worn by Emperors since the 1030s, and that includes Provence.
Provence itself is divided in several parts, a marquisate and a county, held by Barcelona and Toulouse I believe (but I don't remember who owned which ^^).
Besides, Imperial authority over the Rhone Valley was long nominal (aside of Frederic II, I don't remember of an Emperor who seriously bothered about it). This lack of interest eventually led to the valley and Provence falling under French influence (purchase of Lyon, then Dauphiné, Provence at last...).

Else, I think France ITTL is still going an interesting way.
The thing I just realized is that by butterflying the angevin empire, keeping Anjou, Aquitaine, England-Normandy and Brittany apart, the medieval storyline of French feudal politics won't be reduced to a struggle between the Capetian monarchy and its ambitious English vassal, but stay more fluid, multisided and less monolithic.
EDIT: And with more players, we get to have a more dynamic game here.

 

[trajen777]

I wouldn't say the Mongols are doomed to fail against a joint Frankish-Byzantine coalition.

Even if the fragmented nature of Anatolia helped their expansion IOTL, a united empire never kept them at bay at first (the Jin, the Southern Song, the Khwarezmians ...).
Plus, for the Byzantines, Manzikert is not so far in time one can forget how the Turks wrestled Anatolia from Constantinople and brought the empire on its knees barely under a decade.
Plus, an interesting feature I find in the Mongols unlike many previous invading nomadic peoples is that they weren't just experienced in the ways of nomadic warfare.
Even though their style of warfare revolved around large use of cavalry and horse archers, who made wonders with their composite bows, they brought with them an experienced corps of siege engineers, courtesy from their conquest of northern China. Previously, the main weakness of nomadic invaders, even though they could have destroyed armies on the field, was their inability to put up serious sieges of fortified cities. Here, the Mongol engineers conducted sieges and stormed city after city from the highlands of Persia all the way to Damascus, with a ruthless efficiency, and the Khwarezmians who had so recently overtaken the Seljuqs and captured the whole of Persia were the first to pay the price of it.


Also, on France, I'm doubtfoul of Aquitanian independence.

Switching the fates of France and HRE is unlikely.
The Welf may rule supreme, but they would face the same obstacles the Hohenstauffen did IOTL. Centralize more than IOTL is certainly a possibility, but not to the extreme of a 2nd, Prussian led, Reich of the 19th century.
As well, decentralize France to that point is as much unlikely.

Until the 13rd century, the French monarchy was elective pro forma. The elective character was largely empty and the Capetian heir election was always a foregone conclusion. This goes with French kings making their heirs as co-kings, until the OTL Philip II did away with that and got rid of the elective character.
Else, the Capetian dynasty had several strengths that made it very resilient and going through centuries, where other European dynasties barely lasted.

On a dynastic point of view, the first is their longevity. Through various branches, they have lasted until today, and for about 8 centuries, they ruled over France. This allowed them to accumulate lands and power at each passing generation, so the royal demesne eventually encompassed most of the kingdom.
In feudal relations, they were incredibly adept at playing vassals against one another, and maintain the balance of power to their advantage, even in the first couple centuries of rule when they were on a relatively small territorial footing (speaking of the royal demesne). Of note, you should remember that Burgundy is held in appanage by a collateral branch of the dynasty, and through this appanage, the crown could get almost guaranteed support from Burgundy. Plus, they also played the people against their feudal overlords, granting charts to cities and overriding the lords' justice by allowing appeals to the king.

When we speak of the balance of power in France, in this TL context, we have to account, if I don't forget:

• King: Directly controls the royal demesne, centrally positionned around Paris and Orléans
• Burgundy : Controlled by a collateral branch of the Capetians, aligned with the King.
• Champagne : Not yet reasons to defy the king, so they would side with him in any conflict with the English king or the duke of Aquitaine. It drew much prosperity from its Foires.
• Flanders : Caught between France and England, their economy depends much on English wool, but the Count and the local nobility relied on royal support against the bourgeois who were the most susceptible to align on English interests for business purposes. So, if the French King is at hands with England, the bourgeois will pick the English party and the nobility will pick the royal party.
• Normandy : Obviously, the foothold of the English King in France, yet the only one since they don't get either Anjou or Aquitaine ITTL. As has been said, their interests may be more centered around the Channel, in Flanders but also in Britanny. They could seem natural allies for Aquitaine against he Capetian crown, yet I mind they would need a serious interest in openly supporting a secession by the Aquitainian dukes while endangering their continental holdings. Without Aquitaine in personal union with England, they have less interest in supporting it. At best, I can see a common front against the king as a way of defending their local autonomy and privileges, like they did IOTL (and even though they were rebellious, they never formally broke off the ties of their continental holdings to the French kingdom).
• Anjou : Unlike IOTL, they seem well on way of becoming allies of the Crown. If Aquitaine and England align, catching it between them, then Anjou has better interests in siding with the King. There, the move made by Philip II to give Fulk's son a fief here, and it's implications back in France for Anjou's succession could well be a prelude to that future alliance.
• Aquitaine : One of the big southern lords, who had come to their current extent after annexing the duchy of Gascony in the 11th century. Historically, until tied to the English crown, they remained loyal to the French crown and enjoyed their autonomy at a time the King barely bothered about what happened south of the Loire river (back in the 10th century, they supported the Carolinian dynasty against the Robertians who would be later called Capetians). I don't see why they would want formal independence in this context. The Angevin kings never broke off their continental holdings from the French realm, even when under Henry II and Richard I they controlled half the kingdom. At best, I see the Dukes rebelling to secure their feudal rights and privileges against royal encroachment, no differently from what the Angevins did all the time IOTL. Else, the only area of contention I see beyond feudal rights is the succession of Toulouse. A royal intervention here to forcibly mediate and settle the conflict could motivate the Aquitaine dukes to seek closer ties with England, but not outright to secede (the balance of forces is not yet in their favor, especially if the English likely don't feel ready to take on such a risky adventure). Also, whatever wealth Aquitaine may draw from Mediterranean trade, it is at the mercy of Toulouse and by extension, of the King, so it stands to lose much of an open break with the French crown, whereas IOTL had alternatives.
• Toulouse : The county extended from upper Garonne valley and the foots of Pyrenees and Auvergne hills to the plains of old Septimania. They had an ongoing feud with Aquitaine over the succession, the so called southern hundred years war. An outright conquest by Aquitaine is very unlikely, considering the Occitanian lords fiercely resisted conquest by either Aquitaine or the King for more than a century (up through the Albigensian crusades to precise), even more so considering a potential royal intervention. Following the old proverb "the enemy of my enemy", they would be among the most steadfast supporters of the Crown, still to them a faraway ruler compared to the proximity of Aquitaine.
• Brittany : Not so relevant as a reference since the duchy never really was a part of France, and that even back to the time of Charlemagne. Still, a player to be accounted for. As OTL, likely to align with England and layer Aquitaine to preserve its independence, both against the French crown and against Anjou territorial appetite. ITTL, it doesn't have to cope with being surrounded by Angevin holdings so it has much more freedom of action.

All in all, the balance of power is not much friendly to Aquitaine.
When you think the Capetian monarchy survived worst odds through the Hundred Years War, you might see why I highly doubt of Aquitaine independence being either feasible or even wanted in the first place.

Very good points esp in Western Europe : however in the Anatolia a couple of points to consider :
1. Manzikert as we have seen was a battle lost because of the conspiracy led by the commander of the 2nd line not to support the first line (Ducas family). The battle as we have historically learned really had minimal losses to the Byz army (of the est 40,000 troops -- 20,000 were at the battle (10,000 were dispatched south and retreated instead of supporting the main force) and of these one wing did not come into action, the 2nd line did not come into action, and the center took most of the hit), with the resulting 10 year civil war causing the loss of most of Anatolia (and the focus on fighting repeated invasions of Pechings and Normans vs any focus on saving Anatolia). So if their continues to be a solid transition to competent rulers this should be minimized in a future war.
2. The Mongols would have fought similar to the Turks (but much more efficient and disciplined) so not a unique battle formation to the Byz or Crusaders.
3. Byz diplomacy
4. The Mongol army was an incredible efficient force the swept pretty much all before it. However if the Crusaders destroy Baghdad and either lay it waste of make it part of the Crusader states it will be much less of a wealthy target (same as the Aleppo area). So will this even be a strategic target for the Khans is a question. Or is India, SE Asia. Japan a more profitable target. The mongols considered the financial gain of where to go next and were convinced the targets of Baghdad, Damascus, Aleppo were great targets. In this case each (not sure what will happen with Baghdad now ) of these areas have been decimated so a much less important target. Each year that moves on will make a great concerted effort by the Great Khan less likely as power decentralizes.

As an aside will the loss of Baghdad make the steppe area more Christian ?

 

[trajen777]

My hope is that the invasion of Baghdad is a massive destructive raid. Massive profits for the Crusaders and a laying of waste to this area so that future armies cannot use as a base vs the Byz and Crusaders. With the profits from this to invade Egypt in the future

In this you have
1. Few short term enemies in the east (Dam conquered, Baghdad devastated, Mosul ??? )
2. Byz covering the northern Anatolia, Armenia front, Damascus covering the center.
3. So now you need the conquest of Egypt to build the financial bank of the Crusaders and take away the Arabs main resource center for future conflict.

 

[EmperorOfTheNorthSea]

Hmm. From what I can gleam from memory one of the biggest tactis the Mongols used was feigned retreats to either ambush or seperate the enemy cavalry from its infantry.

Could English/Welsh Longbowmen have any affect? Maybe Swiss pike formations?

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Hmm. From what I can gleam from memory one of the biggest tactis the Mongols used was feigned retreats to either ambush or seperate the enemy cavalry from its infantry.

Could English/Welsh Longbowmen have any affect? Maybe Swiss pike formations?

Horse archers have an effective range of about 20 yards because they can only draw bows with their arms. The standard tactic for horse archers against European mounted armsmen was to feign a charge, loose arrows at close range, and then retreat. Powerful foot archers, like longbowmen or crossbowmen, can easily outrange mounted archers but are vulnerable without spears to keep the horse archers from simply riding over. Considering the fact that the Mongol horses were usually unarmored, the huge advantage of longbows in rate of fire would outweigh the far superior power of crossbows.

The hard part is drawing the Mongols into close combat where the European knights and armsmen historically held an advantage during the OTL battles in Central Europe.

 

[galileo-034]

Well, the Russian and Pontic steppes weren't exactly an area of immense wealth, yet the Mongols swept them on their way to Europe. Only Ogodei's timely death spared Europe from suffering the fates of Hungary and Poland.

So, your argument is double edged. The stronger and wealthier Byzantines and Latins become, the more tempting a target they become. And a geopolitical vacuum between Persian highlands and northern Syria is also meaning no resistance to their advance there.

And I wouldn't "hope" for massive destruction. The Mongol sack of Baghdad was horrible enough in human losses but also in cultural terms. Like Constantinople in 1204, you have a city that still represents centuries of Abbassid legacy, it's libraries and its gardens... All that went up in flames.
I better hope that like they did in Homs and Gama, the more cold-headed French and Byzantine forces will see the value of avoiding too much unnecessary waste.
Loot yes, but take the wealth, and maybe for the French king and many lower nobles, shopping in the Caliph's library to bring back some books home.
I don't think that would have been unprecedented. And in a time the Crusades also meant an extraordinary exchange of knowledge between the greco-arab shere and western Europe, in mathematics and médecine for instance, Baghdad is also a great opportunity.

 

[galileo-034]

Also, speaking of Christian Mongols, since the Byzantines are still around and a powerful player in both Balkans and the Caucasus, I'd rather suggest that the Golden Horde converts to Christianity, perhaps of the Orthodox rite, under Constantinople influence like they did convert the Kievan Rus a few centuries earlier.

 

[jocay]

Not to mention once Egypt is conquered and subjugated by the Crusaders, there are now friendly Christian neighbors to the south in Nubia and Ethiopia to reach out to and cooperate against Muslims who might flee southward and use Nubia as a place to launch raids. I would like to see the Crusaders in Egypt influenced and taken aback by the absolute monarchism and subservience of the Church to the state.

Incidentally IOTL, there were supposedly numerous proposals to link up with the Nubians against the Mamluks of Egypt and Nubian characters were positively featured in crusader-themed poetry.

My hope is that the invasion of Baghdad is a massive destructive raid. Massive profits for the Crusaders and a laying of waste to this area so that future armies cannot use as a base vs the Byz and Crusaders. With the profits from this to invade Egypt in the future

In this you have
1. Few short term enemies in the east (Dam conquered, Baghdad devastated, Mosul ??? )
2. Byz covering the northern Anatolia, Armenia front, Damascus covering the center.
3. So now you need the conquest of Egypt to build the financial bank of the Crusaders and take away the Arabs main resource center for future conflict.

 

[trajen777]

Hmm. From what I can gleam from memory one of the biggest tactis the Mongols used was feigned retreats to either ambush or seperate the enemy cavalry from its infantry.

Could English/Welsh Longbowmen have any affect? Maybe Swiss pike formations?

Yep good example of this is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi

Longbowman or crossbow etc would be very effective. However the key issues that might negate this are

1. Long bowman etc would only be effective vs Mongol fixed battle formations. A key strength of the Mongols would be their incredible mobility and choose where the battle would take place.
2. In sieges the effective Mongol tactic is to grab large groups of captives and drive them before their armies to the walls so missile fire would destroy the civilians before the first arrow hit the Mongol troops.

That being said the effectiveness of the Byz (Mobil warriors them selves plus Turk mercs) -- good defenses (Taurus and anti Taurus mts), naval mobility (Anatolia), Greek fire, as well as all of the poor land available to the Mongols would have made it not a very attractive position to attack vs the rewards. (poor i mean -- Damascus, Aleppo, Baghdad and a recently recovered Anatolia - all recently fought over and devastated)