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.
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.
Yes, most likely. The (southern) Arabs, independently of the fortunes of the Levant, will most certainly continue their expansion across the maritime routes in eastern Africa and in the Indies, although colonization of Australia seems indeed a bit too much. An Islamic Madagascar is very well within the realm of plausibility. Perhaps even a splintered Swahili Caliphate, that would be interesting.
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.
Crusaders were not and never will be strong in horse archery, especially not against steppe nomads. They will depend on fortifications, in-depth defensive strategy and regular heavy cavalry. The same as always.
This is very good info. I've never seen someone get down to minute details such as average speed and ratio of the types of troops in the army. Very well done!
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.
Yeah, that's the gist of the situation. The Hungarian example will be the most useful to assess how the Crusaders would react to a possible Mongol invasion, especially considering that, by the time they do arrive, the Outremer will be much more heavily fortified than it is at the time of the TL right now.
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.
Nooo common, the Ilkhanate just has to convert to Nestorianism. There is no way around it.
Very possible, because I'm interested in exploring new divergences, but not something predetermined already. A conversion to Nestorianism would indeed be a very curious situation, because from day to night, one of the largest empires of the world would be adopting a Christian heresy that never gained much traction in the Mediterranean "homeland" of Christianity.
For the Ilkhanate, however, I see it as more probable that they would indeed convert to Islam or simply remain pagan until their demise.
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.
Very interesting! Never heard about this particular tactical formation (at least not with this specific name). Do you happen to have any sources or texts explaining it in greater detail? It would be good to have a better picture of it.
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.
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.
Alright, there's a lot of subjects here, so we'll go by parts:
1) Mesopotamia: fair points, but you'll see that the Armenian campaign will end before they go "downriver" to Lower Mesopotamia. In any case, the Euphrates is closer to their logistical bases in Syria, so I don't really see them going as far as the Tigris at the moment.
2) France: I don't have good reason to get rid of the Capetians in the timeframe we're right now, so I guess they'll stay and their development would be similar to OTL unless some divergence is noted. I agree about the premise of a slower centralization if we don't replicate the circumstances of the English Angevin inheritance in French mainland. We can expect, though, that the "hyper" vassal dynasties (Normandie, Poitiers, Blois, etc) will remain too, and this creates a more dynamic internal political scenario, as you said in a previous post.
3) Albigensians: great ideas! I have plans for Occitania as a whole, as we've often discussed already, because I see it would be fascinating to have a "regional" power in the Francophone sphere of the western Mediterranean to play the role that Aragon would play in the later 14th Century. Montpellier most certainly deserves a piece of this case, as does Toulouse, but I'll wait to lapidate these ideas once we get closer to it, especially because I need to research more about the Cathars.
4) Komnenoi marriages: gosh, man, I had never heard about the marriage between Montpellier and the Komnenoi, very, very interesting stuff here. From a purely strategic (military alliance) standpoint, it doesn't seems to make a lot of sense, but then, the Byzantines were well integrated into the geopolitics of Catholic Europe, so it doesn't surprises me.
We'll certainly see some intermarriage betwen Byzantine and Franco-Levantine nobility, sooner than you might think. In the case of Roger, specifically, I'm not sure if I did mention it previously, but he is married to Alberada, Bohemond's daughter (who is younger than him, even).
But if the Normans won't want a Komnenoi marriage (they would prefer a Sicilian one, I believe), there are plenty of other candidates, if John so desires.
