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

[galileo-034]

The first strength of the Byzantines is rather their diplomacy I'd say.
They weren't the kind to launch military campaigns without having laid the ground diplomatically and put odds in their favor, except in cases they didn't have the choice.
Here, they do have the choice.
Plus, unlike the Shah of Khwarezm, they would never kill the Great Khan's envoys. We all know what a terrible mistake many rulers made of killing them, for the Mongols were very susceptible when it came to the rules of hospitality.
That said, I wouldn't say for certain Jerusalem won't have someone like Reynald of Chatillon to commit such a blunder out of arrogance. Such would force the Byzantines to an uncomfortable choice, either assist its Jerusalemite ally and risk devastation of Anatolia by the Mongols potentially erasing all gains made during the 12th century, and sitting aside, breaking the longstanding alliance between them.

 

[Icedaemon]

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!

Now I am wondering who you mean. The Mongols did not to the best of my knowledge totally exterminate whole populations. The russians basically culturally if not ethnically replaced or turned the vast majority of the populace of their lands, do you mean them? Or is this tied somehow to what Spain got up to in the new world OTL?

 

[[totally a legit person]]

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.

Sorry for that, I got preoccupied with one of my very close family members dying, I won't do this again, hopefully, if the world isn't too cruel again. Well, I could try, now I have some ideas and one, in particular, and we have both shared the Arabic one but I thought of it more in-depth than you it seems, well the first idea is a "Hungarian northern expansionism". Oh and do please co-opt whatever you like, and remove or change what you don't like, and please add on as you go, I wish to see how far you can take it.

You see if you have a war over Hungary and Constantinople over Hungarian expansionism in Serbia or Croatia, which causes a war that they lose in spades, which neuters their ambitions south-wards. so instead they focus north-wards, in which there is a very "weak" country to the north, Poland, but they either lose or the pope intervenes, you can choose. they are to allow the biggest, and holiest polish pilgrimage of their history, to Jerusalem, and come with them, so they don't take Poland, at least for now. but after the Polish past through their lands (or later), they set their sights on the Holy "Roman" Empire and their aging Emperor. But someone steps up to defend them, the kingdom of Bavaria, and their rulers, the Welfs, in this "crisis" a man arises and beats the Magyars back. Just like their ancestors, the "barbaric and uncivilized" Magyars back from their invasion, and might gain some fame, and other positive things.

There is also the Arabian uniting under the newly minted Fatimid successor state, Yeman, after many migrated it became very rich strong, and powerful. Just Powerful enough to take Mecha and Medina, becoming even richer and even more powerful, than they conquered the southern coast of Arabia. Which made them even richer and more powerful, with the trade and pilgrimages, it created a navy strong enough to destroy the Red Sea's pirates. To secure the Red Sea's trade even further, they invaded from the northern coast of the horn of Africa to the border to Egypt, but they then settled for simply them becoming vassals. And after a coalition of Arabian tribes tries to conquer Oman, Oman asks for the Yeman to intervene, and they do. on the condition of becoming apart of Yeman, they then attack and turn the whole of central Arabia into vassals, after a series of wars. Directly after the Mongols came through, and then collapsed, they conquered Mesopotamia and Persia, in what was dubbed the "second Arab conquest". They Threatened the Crusaders, Roman, and Georgian survival in Asia, and it was all done by a series of great leaders, who you can detail yourself if you want.

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

Is conquering Egypt even feasible?

 

[Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)]

And now, to answer the posts after Chapter 51, let's see:

Oh my... This was totally unexpected.Prepare the popcorn!

Lots of popcorn. And some soda. You wouldn't want to be thirsty.

While I'm no fan of the Abbasid Caliphs I eagerly await the Crusaders falling victim to their own hubris.

Indeed! Can they even get there? Let's see.

Welp it gonna be fun while it lasted butttt here my prediction. It seem the king of France is gonna be a constant source of trouble in the crusades and I suspect that Armenia will become a vassal state with some of it incorporated into Rome. Edessa gonna be a source of trouble between the Roman because you know the romans are annexing as much of that as they can to a point. I suspect that the Roman will help to a degree in the campaign for Babylon but they will not go the whole way and the crusaders will ultimately fail in constant of Babylon but establish many crusaders states in northern meospamtia
The crusade I think will also began to farcture around the point of the invasion of Babylon

Phillip is not exactly the most tactful of the kings you'll see in this TL. I'm doing this on purpose, of course, we don't know a lot about him, so I'm working with the "haughty monarch" stereotype, and this goes as well as you can imagine.

You are correct about the Byzantines. They will only go so far before saying "well, this is good, but let's stop by now". This, in turn, might produce a fracturing, as you said. What we can't guess, right now, is exactly when this happens.

Personally, I'm not sure if Philip II gets out of this one alive. I could see him as one of the biggest campaigners for a Babylon adventure, only to fall in battle once they arrive - which would serve him right. This, of course, leads to political back biting among the other members of the Second Crusade who pull back to the Crusader States. Since Armenia was line and Syria is secure, it still counts as a win, but the Second Crusade is generally remembered as the Crusaders getting over confident and cocky, and this leading to it's less than stellar pwrformance.

Overall, the Second Crusade will be seen as a success (comparatively to OTL, at least), despite the later setbacks it will come to suffer. The initial objetive was Damascus, and it was annexed very early on. As for Armenia, the truth is that the Crusaders don't really care about it too much - Christian ideology notwithstanding -, but they know very well the value of preserving a strategic in-depth defense in Mesopotamia to keep the Seljuks at bay. This alone might warrant a concerted effort.

Hubris is never a good idea. This is glory-seeking, not a sound long-term strategy. (Meanwhile, the Byzantines are getting everything they could wish out of this. Good for them.) It would be much better to secure Palmyra and Bosra, then restore Edessa and Armenia as planned, give Mosul a kicking from which it it will never recover, and let that be the end of the matter. Forget about Baghdad. Then just consolidate thoroughly, and when you're secure, make a play for Egypt.

Yes, an expedition into Lower Mesopotamia is a feverish dream of a rabid dog rather than a conscientious and meticulous campaign of conquest. A large raiding expedition, at most, and one that will be easily satisfied once they avenge Edessa, by whatever means necessary.

It seems that the Crusaders indeed forgot about Palmyra... a more sensible target, indeed.

Well, if the French will fall, their prestige and influence in the Levant will be damaged, something the Latins already present won't be totally unhappy for it. But at the same time, safety in the East may justify such support. Then of course the dream of new lands and domain of the Middle East and the twilight of Islam will surely play a huge role. Anyway, all depends by the degree of a potential defeat. At the worse, if would ravage part of Iraq, so is not it wouldn't be an useless feat. Philip will risk much. But for the crusaders, it would be taking a breath. Securing the rest of Syria would be worth the cost of this war.

Exactly this.

The absolute best-case scenario for this campaign is a roman Armenia and Edesa, many French crusader-states in northern Mesopotamia, a destroyed Baghdad, and Mosul, and hopefully not losing their entire army to starvation, plague, heatstroke, and skirmishes. The Absolute worst-case scenario is a failure for the whole campaign, whilst destroying their armies in the desert due to famine, plague, heatstroke, and complete with desertion, and maybe an early black death if they are (un)lucky enough. But, whatever does happen to their army, they will not capture ancient Babylonia and Baghdad no matter what misbegotten fortune happens to their enemy's armies they will not. unless you are an absolute paramount of historical and literary skills, in which case please prove me wrong I, and many others (I presume) like interesting things happening with a reason behind it, I think you could pull it off. of course, the "Mongols" will just swoop right in there if you do that, and just cause an almost civilization-destroying campaign to happen which unites Christendom and Islam in a war of their own preservation.

LOL, I loved the boldened part of the post. Don't give me the fricking ideas! I am, of course, trying to work within the realm of plausibility, so the likelihood of them actually capturing or even worse, securing Baghdad, is very low. That is not to say they might not try.

Even if they fail to take Baghdad the damage they do to its armies and fortresses will give the crusaders some breathing room. And boy oh boy the Romans are really gobbling up territory. Like some goddamn hungry hungry hippos.

Yes, the campaign might be considered a success by achieving some tactical victories, even if it from a strategic POV doesn't yields long-lasting results.

And for the Byzantines, they are technically recovering their territories, so...

Wow, that was early! Well, if it's to stock on the upcoming drought... On another note I think I have said enough about the fact that there's no point in going west for the Crusaders. Most of Syria will fall back right on the Moslems lap. So what will convince the Defenders of the Holy Sepulcher to stop chasing the West? And if not, could this start a period of long decline, or even worse, an eventual collapse?

I'm not sure if I understood your post. The "West" you mention here is Western Europe?

A conquest of Baghdad seems almost just crazy with how just maintaining and supplying a Garrison were be. Just make sense to destroy the local infrastructure and burn the farmlands around. If they do take the city then loot and burn it down before the big Muslim counterattack arrives.

It is crazy... but is it crazy enough to WORK? You'll see in the next installment!

Doesn't Baghdad have fortifications to rival Constantinople?

Not only it is very well fortified, but it is situated deep into Mesopotamia, far from the Frankish lines of operation, and very well populated by people who had the Crusaders. This will be great.

I don't expect the Byzantines to fulfill their objectives in restoring the Kingdom of Armenia. Any Armenian state, even if restored by Constantinopolitan armies, will eventually have designs on Edessa and Cilicia down the line, even with the threat of Turkish and Caliphal armies breathing down their neck. Better to take the lion's share of greater Armenia and allot the leftovers to compliant vassals. Get revenge for Edessa, burn Mosul to the ground, grant the remaining towns and cities to King Philip's and Prince Roger's retainers but Baghdad. That's the lion's den and as numerous as the Christian armies are, they're not Alexander's Macedonians nor the Mongols. Taking Baghdad would be in essence like taking Constantinople and even if they did, it would be seen as a rallying cry that would motivate every Islamic power neighboring the Crusader State and Byzantium to attack.

I thought that they would give armenia to Cilicia, or keep it for themselves as brand spanking new imperial Rhoman teritory under the Basileus' control.

You both are very much correct. The Byzantines are not interested in a restored and united Armenia, but rather in a collection of Armenian provinces, which is something very different (and manageable).

And for Baghdad, taking it will most certainly be worse than not taking it.

Read: 'This author is a patient and diligent writer. Just not writing-about-the-HRE levels of patience and diligence'. Eh. Not sure about this. Saracen scimitars are a bit of a myth. The earliest sabres are from the steppe and didn't really become a major thing until the Turks overran the Black Sea domains. The middle weapon is a Turkish kilij from the high medieval period. The rest are fairly good examples of the swords used by Saracen soldiers (those who could afford a fine sword).

Thanks for the input about the scimitars. To be fair, it was just a generic mention, but I'll edit the post to replace with "sabers", I suppose it does fits better.

About the HRE, it needs a lot of fricking patience, but I do want to someday get to it in greater detail.

So the true purpose of the whole damn series of crusades is revealed. They're gunning for the Persian Gulf and a route to China.

I'd advise against presuming that there is any good sense in this wild adventure. It is less about obtaining access to the Persian Gulf and more like goes like: "Hey, where's the capital of Islam? Bagh... what? Nice, let's sack it."

The Montforts with Syrian land and theoretical legal equality to the Duke of Galilee? Nothing can go wrong! A Crusader sack of Baghdad would be dope -- beat the Mongols to the punch!

I'm glad you noticed the bit about the Montforts. This brings interesting divergences back in Europe. Without the (different) Simons in Occitania and in England, respectively, we can think about the possibility of having the Albigensian Crusade and the Baron's Revolt butterflied away - at least in the form with which we are more familiar.

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.

Excellent observation. This will be the subject of Act V, post Second Crusade.

And John... well, he might indeed have confused sentiments about a Baghdadi expedition. Being foremost a pragmatist, however, I think he'll go to great length to try to prevent it from happening, lest it might jeopardize their conquests in Armenia.

Well technically Baghdad was part of a Roman province for a short bit (Trajan's reign). So the Basileus is stillt technically letting them reconquer his land (though I'm not sure how many people at the time knew this).

There is truth in it... but Lower Mesopotamia was never a "core" province of the Roman - and never of the Byzantine Empire - so there is not much legitimacy to it. And, even worse, it is regarded as one of the principal centers of the largest Islamic denomination, so any sensible Byzantine Emperor will want to avoid putting the hand in this hornets' nest.

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...

Get your Crusader sponge here!! They are all in cross-format, ready to use!! 3 dinars each, you will not want to lose this deal!! With it you can wipe off any Saracen ruler from the Levant and keep your Holy Land PRISTINE as new!! Get yours now!!!

Can someday the world be ready for a Frankish Persian Empire? I'd have to ask the mods to move to ASB Forums, of course.

 

[Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)]

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?

I'm not equipped to answer this right now. I'll indeed have to wait to see. The actual idea of the Crusader States (Outremer and Latin Egypt) as gunpowder empires is an interesting one.

Centralization will be an evident trend, considering that the alt-KOJ is much more bureaucratic than their feudal European counterparts. But it will not be a simple thing to do, as the feudal lords arguably have even more proportional power here than in Europe.

About the equipment, there is not visible differences, besides those already existing in Europe (Italians vs French, and so forth). Over time, we'll see a mishmash of Byzantine and also Turkish influences in military and civilian dress, but those will be fairly subtle; overall, the "appearance" of a regular Franco-Levantine citizen won't be too distinct from those of Europe.

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.

Exactly this. But at least any success in Armenia might be enough in the long-term.

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

By the 1140s, the Franks (and obviously, the Byzantines) are fairly acquainted with the Turkish tactics, so they'll be making their efforts to prepare against. The Byzantines can count on Pecheneg, Cuman and Turkish auxiliaries, while the Franks have their own share of light cavalry. Infantry for both sides is fairly equal in terms of equipment and resources, so they will be balance.

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 mine 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?

You presented a very good prediction. But I still believe the Byzantines wouldn't exactly cheer for a Crusader advance into Iraq - they would be strongly against it - and the Franks might not want to go much further without Byzantine support, after all. I say it exactly because of the point you raised in your last phrase: this will provoke retaliation by the Muslims of the likes they might not be seeing in many years. It is better to simply "contain" the Seljuks beyond the Euphrates than go this far.

snip

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.

Excellent post, as always, Galileo. I'll be thinking about the various possibilities regarding the Komnenoi succession, but, as you mentioned in the later part of your explanation, the TL is less focused on them than it is in the Crusader State.

For a Crusader expedition, the Euphrates one, at the time being, is the only one that is reasonably feasible. It is geographically closer and they still have the western parts of Edessa to depend upon. The Tigris is too far deep into hostile territory, and, as you mentioned, there won't be a solid logistical base to allow for supplies.

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.

Your assessment about France is also fascinating, and you present a very solid case against a possible independent "Kingdom of Aquitaine". Once again, there is a lot of ground to cover before we get there, so I really won't be making an effort, right now, to dispute your points. On the contrary, I believe you might concede me the possibility of revising some premises later on; perhaps indeed we won't be seeing.

When I brought up the idea of an independent Aquitaine, it is a very embryonic thought, I really did not think (yet) seriously about the details. For the time being, my only premise is: WI Eleanor's patrimony continued with the House of Poitiers instead of merging into the French Crown? Then, we can discuss new possibilities. In any case, it certainly won't happen before the 13th Century.

Now, I'm not really considering a Balkanized or HRE-like France, but rather a movement in which the Capetian centralization is much less successful than IOTL. It was far from inevitable, and took the likes of a Phillip II Augustus to happen as it did. If we see the vassals keeping their own shares of power, be them allies or not to the Crown, we can expect, in counterpoint, that the French monarchy remains a fairly weak one, but with oscilating political fortunes. I'm thinking less about the HRE and more about Poland-Lithuania, meaning that strong monarchs made the monarchy much stronger, but, in the long scheme of things, there was a trend for provincialism and aristocratic decentralization.

snip
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.

That's one of the long-running objetives I have with this TL, actually. By preserving a veneer of decentralized political structures in European monarchies, I believe we have grounds to see a longer-lasting Crusader Age. I mean this because, while the religious justification will always exist in the Christian ideology, the changing of social, economic and political structures that happened until the formation of the nation-states could be, in some ways, incompatible with the very concept of "Crusading" itself. Out of probabilities, a centralized state might be less interested in pursuing Crusade as a policy. Or, if it does, it will be more akin to an imperialist management than one we're seeing right now in the TL.

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.

It will unfold very much like that.

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.

Good points, again! I had not considered, yet, how a conquest of Baghdad could yield a cultural boon to the Crusaders, even more than economic ones... of course, they need to enter the city in first place.

 

[Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)]

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.

A Christianized Mongol Khanate is in the box of ideas. Bizarrely enough, it might produce a very different alt-Russia, one that becomes more based in the Pontic Steppe than in eastern Europe.

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.

Would you remember any of these mentions of Nubians in Christian poetry? It would be very helpful and might give some interesting ideas.

Now I am wondering who you mean. The Mongols did not to the best of my knowledge totally exterminate whole populations. The russians basically culturally if not ethnically replaced or turned the vast majority of the populace of their lands, do you mean them? Or is this tied somehow to what Spain got up to in the new world OTL?

Well, I was thinking about the more comprehensive (legal) concept of genocide, that is simply a systematic attempt to destroy an ethnic/religious/cultural group. The Mongols did not "totally exterminate whole populations", but arguably, the extent of their destructive actions and atrocities in their campaigns of conquest were well beyond the usual expectations of warfare at the period. Since we're on topic, their destruction of Baghdad comes as a remarkable example. Of course there is a great deal of exaggeration in the sources, we can't know for sure how many perished in each Mongol invasion, but there is a somewhat of a thin consensus that they were far worse than the nomadic empires that preceded them in the conquest of the Iranian, Arabian and Russian countries, comparing to the Turkic and to the Jurchen invaders (of the Liao dynasty). Their reputation was only rehabilitated by the rather significant period of the Pax Mongolica, as I see it.

But my original point was that it is fairly common to see them regarded as outright genocides, at least according to Islamic and Chinese POVs.

Sorry for that, I got preoccupied with one of my very close family members dying, I won't do this again, hopefully, if the world isn't too cruel again. Well, I could try, now I have some ideas and one, in particular, and we have both shared the Arabic one but I thought of it more in-depth than you it seems, well the first idea is a "Hungarian northern expansionism". Oh and do please co-opt whatever you like, and remove or change what you don't like, and please add on as you go, I wish to see how far you can take it.

You see if you have a war over Hungary and Constantinople over Hungarian expansionism in Serbia or Croatia, which causes a war that they lose in spades, which neuters their ambitions south-wards. so instead they focus north-wards, in which there is a very "weak" country to the north, Poland, but they either lose or the pope intervenes, you can choose. they are to allow the biggest, and holiest polish pilgrimage of their history, to Jerusalem, and come with them, so they don't take Poland, at least for now. but after the Polish past through their lands (or later), they set their sights on the Holy "Roman" Empire and their aging Emperor. But someone steps up to defend them, the kingdom of Bavaria, and their rulers, the Welfs, in this "crisis" a man arises and beats the Magyars back. Just like their ancestors, the "barbaric and uncivilized" Magyars back from their invasion, and might gain some fame, and other positive things.

There is also the Arabian uniting under the newly minted Fatimid successor state, Yeman, after many migrated it became very rich strong, and powerful. Just Powerful enough to take Mecha and Medina, becoming even richer and even more powerful, than they conquered the southern coast of Arabia. Which made them even richer and more powerful, with the trade and pilgrimages, it created a navy strong enough to destroy the Red Sea's pirates. To secure the Red Sea's trade even further, they invaded from the northern coast of the horn of Africa to the border to Egypt, but they then settled for simply them becoming vassals. And after a coalition of Arabian tribes tries to conquer Oman, Oman asks for the Yeman to intervene, and they do. on the condition of becoming apart of Yeman, they then attack and turn the whole of central Arabia into vassals, after a series of wars. Directly after the Mongols came through, and then collapsed, they conquered Mesopotamia and Persia, in what was dubbed the "second Arab conquest". They Threatened the Crusaders, Roman, and Georgian survival in Asia, and it was all done by a series of great leaders, who you can detail yourself if you want.

Well, I hope its everything alright in your family. My condolences, and, once again, thanks for the kindness.

I think once again we joined together in some ideas. I've considered, before, the possibility, of seeing a "Greater Yemen" arise as a regional power in Arabia after the demise of the Fatimids, and they would present another distinct threat to the Crusader establishment. It is most certainly something I intend to explore later on.

Is conquering Egypt even feasible?

It will have to be. It won't be as quick as it was with Lebanon or Syria, but, in the end, the survival of the Crusader State depends on securing Egypt, so this is a premise I've adopted, and one with which we'll work with.

 

[[totally a legit person]]

A Christianized Mongol Khanate is in the box of ideas. Bizarrely enough, it might produce a very different alt-Russia, one that becomes more based in the Pontic Steppe than in eastern Europe.



Would you remember any of these mentions of Nubians in Christian poetry? It would be very helpful and might give some interesting ideas.



Well, I was thinking about the more comprehensive (legal) concept of genocide, that is simply a systematic attempt to destroy an ethnic/religious/cultural group. The Mongols did not "totally exterminate whole populations", but arguably, the extent of their destructive actions and atrocities in their campaigns of conquest were well beyond the usual expectations of warfare at the period. Since we're on topic, their destruction of Baghdad comes as a remarkable example. Of course there is a great deal of exaggeration in the sources, we can't know for sure how many perished in each Mongol invasion, but there is a somewhat of a thin consensus that they were far worse than the nomadic empires that preceded them in the conquest of the Iranian, Arabian and Russian countries, comparing to the Turkic and to the Jurchen invaders (of the Liao dynasty). Their reputation was only rehabilitated by the rather significant period of the Pax Mongolica, as I see it.

But my original point was that it is fairly common to see them regarded as outright genocides, at least according to Islamic and Chinese POVs.



Well, I hope its everything alright in your family. My condolences, and, once again, thanks for the kindness.

I think once again we joined together in some ideas. I've considered, before, the possibility, of seeing a "Greater Yemen" arise as a regional power in Arabia after the demise of the Fatimids, and they would present another distinct threat to the Crusader establishment. It is most certainly something I intend to explore later on.



It will have to be. It won't be as quick as it was with Lebanon or Syria, but, in the end, the survival of the Crusader State depends on securing Egypt, so this is a premise I've adopted, and one with which we'll work with.

you know, after the Mongol invasion of Persia, the population had possibly gone from 2,500,000 to 250,000 so that's free real estate for the Arabs, after a couple of generations, it could be completely Arabized, so that's something.

 

[jocay]

As the Levant, Egypt and North Africa will be cut off from the Islamic world, Arab expansion is likely to take a more maritime aspect as well. Any empire or kingdom that emerges out of Yemen will almost certainly push into Eritrea, Somalia and the Swahili Coast. There might be an increased Arab presence in the Indian Ocean archipelagos and in Madagascar. MAYBE even establish colonies in Australia.

you know, after the Mongol invasion of Persia, the population had possibly gone from 2,500,000 to 250,000 so that's free real estate for the Arabs, after a couple of generations, it could be completely Arabized, so that's something.

 

[[totally a legit person]]

As the Levant, Egypt and North Africa will be cut off from the Islamic world, Arab expansion is likely to take a more maritime aspect as well. Any empire or kingdom that emerges out of Yemen will almost certainly push into Eritrea, Somalia and the Swahili Coast. There might be an increased Arab presence in the Indian Ocean archipelagos and in Madagascar.

yeah, even though this would be the case of the pendulum theory, it would be the most likely thing that will happen, although, maybe the golden horde will check their progress north, and force Iberia or someone else to find the Americas, changing a lot of things.

 

[Joriz Castillo]

When the Mongols come, the KoJ better start using horse archers like crazy. They'll need it when the time comes.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

When the Mongols come, the KoJ better start using horse archers like crazy. They'll need it when the time comes.

Except one does not simply adopt horse archer tactics to counter Mongol hordes.

I'm sure when the time comes, they'll find a way.

 

[Namayan]

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.

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)

Mongol Bow got a longer maximum and effective range than an English Warbow/Longbow due to its recurve/composite build.

The main weakness of Mongol Bow was that it was more sensitive to rain than a Longbow due to Mongol bow being a recurved composite bow, materials more sensitive to rain. So you will get more likely battles in Central Anatolia which is very dry compared to Black Sea Region of Anatolia which rains.

Feigned retreats have been known to Romans since ancient times. The ERE even have treatise for it. The main difference fighting the Mongols was the superior commander leading it, once the superior commanders die out, more organization, more disciplined than an ordinary Nomad army. Vs the ERE its about who has got the better commander. If Genghis and Subutai were around the battlefield, the Mongols got the advantage.

I dont even think the Crusaders are even a match at all not unless the Mongols regressed, superior commanders died out.

The common composition of the Mongol army were Mongol Horse archers and Heavy lancers 6:4 ratio. Their Heavy lancers are more similar to ERE Kataphractoi.

The mobility of the Mongol army averages 100-160kms per day. During Princeps times, the Roman armies had to pass a loaded march of 35kms per day. A Turkish horseman can travel 100kms in one day, but cannot keep that up not unless Turcopoles got 4 spare horses each like the Mongols.

Mongol military doctrine, at least during their peak, is more similar to WW2 land warfare than their contemporaries in 1200s. Psy war, deception, intelligence gathering are all part of it before even fighting a battle.

Of course, all this wont happen in ATL if Genghis Khan did not organize them as such fashion as these doctrines, meritorcracy, ww2 mobilities are due to his organization.

 

[jocay]

The Hungarians in a skirmish leading to the battle of Mohi were effective in trapping a Mongol vanguard force crossing a bridge and slaughtering them to a man with a combination of crossbowmen peppering them followed by an charge of infantry. Of course the Mongols modified their plans and wiped out the Hungarian army soon after but this little anecdote proves that they're not unstoppable.

Fortify every single river crossing and bleed out the Mongols just enough until they give up or demand tribute from Jerusalem and Constantinople instead of complete subjugation.

 

[ALF0N53]

A bit of a fast forward scenario. What are the chances of a breakaway khanate converting to Christianity?

 

[[totally a legit person]]

A bit of a fast forward scenario. What are the chances of a breakaway khanate converting to Christianity?

The chances of it happening, are pretty damn high right now, considering everyone including the author Rdiffgueira is liking that specific idea right now, and they all have been for a relatively long time.

 

[Tomislav Addai]

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.

Nooo common, the Ilkhanate just has to convert to Nestorianism. There is no way around it.

 

[von Adler]

When it comes to the Mongol feigned retreat, the Seljuks and Arabs used someting similar to that against the Crusaders OTL - go in with horse archers or javelin cavalry and attack the Crusader heavy cavaly until it was baited into charging after the retreating missile cavalry and isolated from its infantry and missile support where it could be attacked from all sides by the infantry, heavy cavalry AND missile cavalry of the Seljuks or Arabs. Once the Crusader cavalry had been defeated in detail, a grim fate awaited the Crusader infantry and missile troops.

The Crusaders developed a unique marching formation to deal with this - the castle formation. The infantry would march in a square (akin to the Napoleonic infantry formation) with "towers" of missile troops at the corners and the cavalry protected in the middle of the open room of the infantry square. Seljuk or Arab horse archers or javeline cavalry trying to goad the Crusader cavalry would find a massive line of infantry supported by missile troops which often had longer range than the horse missile troops and that could flank them if they tried to attack the infantry line or the cavalry behind them.

While the Mongols have better bows and better command and control of their forces, they would probably find it hard to deal with this formation that refuses to let its cavalry out until it is certain that the enemy cavalry is charging and not feigning a retreat.

 

[galileo-034]

For a Crusader expedition, the Euphrates one, at the time being, is the only one that is reasonably feasible. It is geographically closer and they still have the western parts of Edessa to depend upon. The Tigris is too far deep into hostile territory, and, as you mentioned, there won't be a solid logistical base to allow for supplies.

I should have precised further political motivations for either one.
As the Euphrates route is feasible as soon as Edessa is secured, it's also the route that will be available very soon. And this is a problem, for the Basileus, as it draws the crusaders away from Armenian highlands which don't need to be secured for this route to be used.
Other advantages for this route to precise, any crusader army here would have its back against the desert, so doesn't have to worry about being surrounded; at any danger, provided riverine support is adapted and rearguard action is firm enough, the army can just cross the river to reach safety.
The Tigris route on the other hand plays more into the Byzantines' hands. If the basileus can convinces the Franks to go that way, at least he has a valid pretext to entice them into conquering Armenian highlands first.

Your assessment about France is also fascinating, and you present a very solid case against a possible independent "Kingdom of Aquitaine". Once again, there is a lot of ground to cover before we get there, so I really won't be making an effort, right now, to dispute your points. On the contrary, I believe you might concede me the possibility of revising some premises later on; perhaps indeed we won't be seeing.

When I brought up the idea of an independent Aquitaine, it is a very embryonic thought, I really did not think (yet) seriously about the details. For the time being, my only premise is: WI Eleanor's patrimony continued with the House of Poitiers instead of merging into the French Crown? Then, we can discuss new possibilities. In any case, it certainly won't happen before the 13th Century.

Now, I'm not really considering a Balkanized or HRE-like France, but rather a movement in which the Capetian centralization is much less successful than IOTL. It was far from inevitable, and took the likes of a Phillip II Augustus to happen as it did. If we see the vassals keeping their own shares of power, be them allies or not to the Crown, we can expect, in counterpoint, that the French monarchy remains a fairly weak one, but with oscilating political fortunes. I'm thinking less about the HRE and more about Poland-Lithuania, meaning that strong monarchs made the monarchy much stronger, but, in the long scheme of things, there was a trend for provincialism and aristocratic decentralization.

My bad if I misunderstood your original intent on Aquitaine, but it's good we set it clear now.
And it goes without proverbially saying it that I do concede ^^.

As for the centralization, I'd say you can make it way slower than less successfull.
The Polish-Lithuanian example is not very relevant here, and for quite big reasons.
As I said, the Kingdom of Franks (effectively, OTL, Philip II went from Rex Francorum to Rex Franciae) was not really anything near the elective monarchy that the Commonwealth was, and there were no such thing as liberum veto or sejm. Political decisioning, even embroiled amidst feudal conflicts, was much more effective and decisive.
Then, as the dynasty had an exceptional longevity and stability, compared to feudal lords and other European dynasties (only the Capetian to Valois and the Valois to Bourbon breaks to account for in over 8 centuries), it stood to expand at each passing generation, by marriage and acquisitions at the very least, reversion of appanages (the appanages were granted on the condition of being returned to the Crown in case of extinction of the direct male line) and ultimately, lands forfeited by felonous vassals and ones conquered. For sure, IOTL, the Capetians had great success at expanding through seizing forfeit lands from their English vassals.

So, ITTL, unless you get rid of the Capetian dynasty alltogether, you are only getting to slow down the centralization trend.
To mention, avoiding a conflict in the likes of the Hundred Years War and you will for sure delay that trend for a long time. The continued wars and the financial strain they put on France did much to transform the fiscal and military structures of France, decisively driving the center of power to the King's persona as we would see from Louis XI, the Spider King, onwards. Before that, the monarchy had been very reliant on great nobility, the Burgundians, the Armagnac, the Orléans, the dukes of Britanny, ...


To return on the subject of the Albigensian crusades that has been mentionned above while speaking of the Montforts, I'd say you're right to assume they are butterflied, but not for the reasons you said and believe I think.
IOTL, after the reign of Phillip II, the Angevin threat had been neutered as a result of John I's disastrous rule and Henry III's minority. ITTL, it's implied the status quo remains. England remains solidly anchored in Normandy and Aquitaine is still a powerful vassal. That means that, ITTL, the French King needs Toulouse as a firm ally against Aquitaine and therefore will probably shield it from any papal action, which means the Counts of Toulouse can do whatever they want about the Cathars, ie no Albigensian crusade to happen.
In turn, I'm a little excited by what this means in terms of cultural developments in the South.
Not only the Cathars can continue to practice and thrive in the lands of Occitan, but the overall cultural and religious tolerance practiced by Languedoc lords will stay. I mean that the imposition of royal authority IOTL meant the tolerance enjoyed by the Cathars and the Jews alike went away.
With the example of Montpellier in the 12th century, you can see what I mean.
Sitting as the entrance door of the French kingdom to Mediterranean trade and its cosmopolitan influences, as much Levantine (ties with Provence-Toulouse lords in Palestine and Syria), Byzantine (note here the OTL marriage of Eudokia Komnene to Guilhem VIII of Montpellier), or Islamic ones (especially the influences from Muslim Spain)...


Speaking of Komnene princesses to marry, any plan to marry Komnene princesses to Frankish rulers in the Levant yet ?
I believe I made the case there were quite a few Komnene princesses around, though I should have precised that diplomatically, it's rather an advantage for prospective marital alliances.
Is Prince-Duke-Count Roger married yet? I understood he was still young.

 

[UnaiB]

An interesting and plausible way to get an independent Aquitaine ITTL is for Petronilla of Aragon (heiress of the Kingdom of Aragon) to marry the fictional son of William X of Aquitaine of TTL instead of the Count of Barcelona Ramon Berenguer IV of OTL, making the Dukes of Aquitaine to be also kings of Aragon. IOTL the royal house of Aragon had close ties with the House of Poitiers, being Petronilla granddaughter of William IX of Aquitaine through her mother.