A question about the Crusades

My interest in Crusader history has been sparked again by a debate with a friend in RL. My questions would be, Could the crusaders taken Egypt? Which commander would've been able to do it, Baldwin of Boulogne or could a different leader do it later. How long would the crusaders be able to realistically hold on to Egypt? And the last question would be if Egypt was taken how would it effect later actions and Crusades?
 
My interest in Crusader history has been sparked again by a debate with a friend in RL. My questions would be, Could the crusaders taken Egypt?
Yes, they had the occasion of doing such twice or three times. It would have been hard but not unlikely.

Fifth and Seventh crusade could have taken and held the Delta of Nile.

A non-devoided Fourth Crusade, that planned to attack Cairo, would be an interesting POD as well.

How long would the crusaders be able to realistically hold on to Egypt?
Relativly long. As they would probably use the same "promote the local christian" things, they would have been helped by the Copts that representated a large part of the population.

Also, not really worth of mention opponents in Ifriqiya and Maghrib, and probably friendly neighbours in Axum and Abyssinia.

The issue would be the unavoidable Muslim Egypt between the Delta and Nubia that would remain strong and could forge alliance with a Syrian/Mesopotamian power.

And the last question would be if Egypt was taken how would it effect later actions and Crusades?
A more lasting crusaders states in Palestine, and maybe a reconquest of Jerusalem.

One of the biggest issue was they were between a rock and an hard place, and that their only safety was to be a buffer-zone between Egypt and Syria. When Saladin united both, they were screwed.
 
Yes, they had the occasion of doing such twice or three times. It would have been hard but not unlikely.

Fifth and Seventh crusade could have taken and held the Delta of Nile.

A non-devoided Fourth Crusade, that planned to attack Cairo, would be an interesting POD as well.

I don't know, they were stopped at the first walled city they encountered every attempt, and while the Crusaders weren't really as hostile to local Christians as to local Muslims, they weren't exactly very smart about using that possible connection in Syria and Palestine when they did occupy it.

Finally, I think no one crusading kingdom can pull it off by themselves, this requires serious coordination between crusading powers.
 
I don't know, they were stopped at the first walled city they encountered every attempt
Damiatte wasn't a "walled city" then?

From memory, the fifth crusade failed because Pelagius wanted to be the only one to decide without having a worth of mention knowledge of the region or forces. Have him death, and crusaders would act more cautiously and keeping he support of italian cities

In fact, at this moment, the Sultan asked the crusader to give them Palestine if they accepted to give up the Delta. He wouldn't have proposed such if the Crusaders weren't able to take the region.

And during the seventh crusade, having managed to get Damiette and almost taken Mansurah , that would have been captured (as the battle was victorious) if d'Artois didn't acted stupid.

, and while the Crusaders weren't really as hostile to local Christians as to local Muslims, they weren't exactly very smart about using that possible connection in Syria and Palestine when they did occupy it.
Oriental Christian were quite fairly treated by crusaders, and that's quite obvious in the texts. They relied a lot on them for their local knowledge, and you have many known intermarriage between elites.

Finally, I think no one crusading kingdom can pull it off by themselves, this requires serious coordination between crusading powers.
It is probably because they lacked of coordination they conquered Palestine and Syrian coast?

The lack of coordination wasn't between the crusaders, but between crusaders AND Orient's Latins, each one wanting to have the decisional power. Generally, the crusader's prevalance was mainly due to the fact they represented the main reinforcement, but one the leader designated by the kings and the pope disappeared, the Oriental Latins were the de facto leaders.

There's many times where the Oriental Latins managed to use the crusaders for their own interests.

As conclusion : a conquest of the Delta would have been hard, and would require the leadership of Oriental Latin. That's still doable.
Support for Copts would have been useful, critically for the 4th and 7th crusade, as the situation was more tolerant for them during the 5th crusade.

A likely outcome would have been the reconquest of Delta, but in the same way than what happened in Syria-Palestine and probably in the same era.
 
Last edited:
The lack of coordination wasn't between the crusaders, but between crusaders AND Orient's Latins, each one wanting to have the decisional power. Generally, the crusader's prevalance was mainly due to the fact they represented the main reinforcement, but one the leader designated by the kings and the pope disappeared, the Oriental Latins were the de facto leaders.

There's many times where the Oriental Latins managed to use the crusaders for their own interests.

Ehh, fair enough. I wasn't making a distinction between the two groups when I said that though perhaps that explains the conflict better.
 
I pointed this out at another place, but in the event the Christians do take Egypt or the Delta (so everything up to Cairo, or not including Cairo?) it's possible their manpower needs combined with Egyptian wealth, might lead them to hire Makurian mercenaries. Coptic mercenaries policing Coptic populace is probably a better option to a limited extent, since IIRC the Muslims disarmed the Egyptian Copts in general.
 
I pointed this out at another place, but in the event the Christians do take Egypt or the Delta (so everything up to Cairo, or not including Cairo?)
Most probably without the Cairo (but maybe with Alexandria), that would have the same place than Damascus in Syria.

it's possible their manpower needs combined with Egyptian wealth, might lead them to hire Makurian mercenaries.
Maybe. I would see as well a possible alliance with Nubian Kingdoms that could, at least for a time, make a diversion against Islamic Egypt.

Coptic mercenaries policing Coptic populace is probably a better option to a limited extent, since IIRC the Muslims disarmed the Egyptian Copts in general.
Indeed. I tought about a non-armed rule with incorporation of some Copts in urban militias, but not as a current solution at least in a first move.
 
May be, POD is better organized Crusade of 1101?
If crusaders didn't divide on three parts and went to Jerusalem, may be, they can captured Egypt? And one more Latin kingdom may to appear? Or some more kingdoms.
 
May be, POD is better organized Crusade of 1101?
If crusaders didn't divide on three parts and went to Jerusalem, may be, they can captured Egypt? And one more Latin kingdom may to appear? Or some more kingdoms.

They divided themselves in three parts because they couldn't manage to feed the whole army once united. In order to have handelable logistics, they were forced to divide.

Also, looking at the battle of Ascalon and how it turned, no while they were victorious, no. They couldn't had took the Fatimid Caliphate that was N times more powerful.

Finally, their goal was Jerusalem. Point. There was no incitative to continue further.
 
They divided themselves in three parts because they couldn't manage to feed the whole army once united. In order to have handelable logistics, they were forced to divide.

Also, looking at the battle of Ascalon and how it turned, no while they were victorious, no. They couldn't had took the Fatimid Caliphate that was N times more powerful.

Finally, their goal was Jerusalem. Point. There was no incitative to continue further.


Well to what I understand Baldwin was a greedy little bastard which is why he went to Edessa. When he became king of Jerusalem he tried to expand and managed to make to the Sinai coast where he turned back because of an illness
 
^Baldwin was greedy, but the rank and file who actually went on Crusade did so to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Time and time again, decisions were made because even if the elites had a better plan, the rank and file were determined to get to Jerusalem or fixated on Jerusalem and anything that wasn't aimed at reaching or re-taking Jerusalem made them think about going home. If you actually LIVED in Outremer you had more far-seeing goals than that. After Ascalon the first crusade was also down to something like 10,000 men. Super-hard, dedicated relatively cooperative core, yes, but not enough to take Egypt.

I think the primary results of a "successful" 1101 (all three units get to the Crusader States) is that you'd have 1) a greater pool to entice more permanent settlers. Not many, but any improvement in that situation would be a plus. 2) The Crusaders continue to be seen as unstoppable instead of a beatable faction. 3) Success will usually mean better relations between the Crusader/Byzantine factions.
 
Well to what I understand Baldwin was a greedy little bastard which is why he went to Edessa.
That's...Well, a bit exagerrated.

Granted he was ambitious, a lot. But protecting Edessa (at this point an armenian principality) meant protecting the other crusader armies from an attack coming from there.

He was actually more able than his predecessor to handle the issues of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and develloped the coast in order to secure reinforcement and trade.

The fact he spent all the dotation of his second spouse was less a mark that he was greedy than he needed money to make the kingdom something able to withstand the Fatimid and Syrian attacks.

Of course the ways he used to gain power and wealth are really discutables if not franlky bad, but I don't have any memory of an head of state being totally virtuous and pure, critically when it come to founding this state.

I think the primary results of a "successful" 1101 (all three units get to the Crusader States) is that you'd have 1) a greater pool to entice more permanent settlers. Not many, but any improvement in that situation would be a plus. 2) The Crusaders continue to be seen as unstoppable instead of a beatable faction. 3) Success will usually mean better relations between the Crusader/Byzantine factions.

1) I'm not sure. To take the exemple of Guilhèm VIII of Aquitaine, this guy never went with the idea to stay. You'll have probably the same proportion of crusaders going home after some times than the Ist crusade itself.

That said, yes, any improvement is better, but it wouldn't change the situation that much in a first time when it come to settlement. On the other hand, a sucessful 1101 means a final desintegration of Turkish Anatolian states and more regular settlers and pilgrims following.

2)Well...Ascalon already showed that their weakness was less their tactics (that were actually good, but with easily usable gaps) than their uncapacity to occupy lands where they won battles.

3)The most debatable point. A desintegration of anatolian statelets means a more powerful Byzantium that doesn't stop to retaking the coast but also the core of Anatolia.
Soon, they would want to have a real suzerainity on Antioch, more earlier than OTL with probably more sucess and more deeply.
Maybe better Jerusalem/Byzantium relations, but crusaders aren't reducable to Jerusalem.

In fact, it could piss enough some wannabe crusaders in western Christianity that it could reduce some effects of getting rid of Turks.
 
Last edited:
One thing that would be a serious problem for a Crusader Egypt.

The Levant is relatively thinly settled (by natives). Egypt . . . isn't. Once you've conquered Lower Egypt, how do you hold it when many knights would just as soon return to Europe?

"We have money we can hire mercenaries" only works if you get money from the Egyptians, which requires at least some level of ability to impose authority instead of a handful of knights trying to say "No, really, we're in charge. Put down those pitchfor -ARGGGH!".

I suppose, judging by the Latin "Empire", you could work around this, but how you encourage knights to take Egyptian fiefs is a stumbling block to me. It's probably not impossible, but I'm lacking ideas on how it works.
 
Top