AHC: Lengthy West European occupation of Palestine between 1300 and 1900 (not a Crusades wank)

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
n OTL West Europeans occupied portions of the Levant between 1099 and 1271, and then did not occupy territory there again for over the next 600 years with the exception of Napoleon's Egypt based campaign that lasted no more than 2 years certainly. West Europeans again occupied Palestine from 1917 to 1948.

Your challenge if you accept it is to have a West European (or more generally, a Christian European)occupation of Palestine during the intervening 6 centuries from 1300 to 1900. To qualify the occupation must last significantly longer than the Napoleonic incursion- it must last at least 25 years. Discuss-
 
The French government, seeing itself as the protector of Levantine Christians, decides to not cooperate with the Ottoman government and invades Lebanon with the intention of incorporating it into the Empire as an overseas department. The Maronite militias aid the French in subjugating the local Ottoman garrisons and Druze and are incorporated as colonial auxiliary forces that bring Lebanon to heel. The French have designs on seizing the rest of Ottoman Syria but British intervention prevents them from completely subjugating the Syrians to French rule. Napoleon incorporates the Ottoman eyalets of Acre and Tripoli and forms the overseas department of Lebanon. The eyalet of Gaza is expanded to include all remaining lands west of the Jordan and declared the second Kingdom of Jerusalem. Maximilian is considered a top candidate as the French do not involve themselves in Mexico. The remainder of Syria is made an autonomous Arab kingdom under Isma'il Pasha.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I like this - an alternate Second Empire policy as the PoD. Britain is unlikely to like this alternate French policy, but so long as France isn't also trying to be hegemonic on the mainland I could see Britain "countering" the French by seeking "balancing" gains for themselves, rather than by confronting the French head on. [Algeria sets a precedent. when France started conquering it, Britain worried about where it could lead strategically, but did not see that as a reason to get all confrontational or snippy with France. The same might apply in the Near East]
 
I like this - an alternate Second Empire policy as the PoD. Britain is unlikely to like this alternate French policy, but so long as France isn't also trying to be hegemonic on the mainland I could see Britain "countering" the French by seeking "balancing" gains for themselves, rather than by confronting the French head on. [Algeria sets a precedent. when France started conquering it, Britain worried about where it could lead strategically, but did not see that as a reason to get all confrontational or snippy with France. The same might apply in the Near East]

France could probably assuage the Brits by giving them a free hand in Cyprus. It equals a port and military base on the oh-so-important route to India. Maybe the Suez Canal's construction starts a little sooner with earlier European involvement in the Middle East?
 
Last edited:
Top