I say that demand to go west will probably depend on the mercantile dominance of the Italians, byzantines, and levantines. If they are well divided, and its a market full of opportunity, there will be little demand. If any group is dominant, or they form an oligarchy of sorts, people will want to go west to avoid the mercantile dominance of others.
And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace
- Thread starter Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)
- Start date
Whether the Levant and the rest of the East are Christian or not, western powers aren't going to be content to have the "East" be middlemen. They're going to want their own access. For my mind I see no reason why the Americas* should be discovered significantly earlier (other than it almost being a medieval TL cliche,) but I also see no reason why that would be delayed significantly either. It's possible that a Muslim power in Spain or North Africa could survive and do it first but as long as the European powers rise to a similar extent they'll probably still win the colonial race.
hmm. Assuming the Byzantines remain relevant and aren't left in a post 1204-like state then could they (as other posters have said) want their own trade route see to reigniting the Don/Volga trade route into the Caspian sea which I believe at this time the Oxus river had a branch that flowed into the Caspian that dried up in the 18th century so they can trade with Transoxiana and possibly the Mongol empire if it ever springs up which could also open an avenue for eastern goods though it would really only be Precious metals/East Asian goods when the majority of desired products were Indian or Indonesian spices.
Actually if the Mongols haven't invaded yet then that means the old Varangian river trade routes from the eastern Baltic to the Black sea should still be open; if so then Northern European goods (Amber, Sable furs, and cheap walrus/Narwhal ivory) could then be peddled East.
Actually if the Mongols haven't invaded yet then that means the old Varangian river trade routes from the eastern Baltic to the Black sea should still be open; if so then Northern European goods (Amber, Sable furs, and cheap walrus/Narwhal ivory) could then be peddled East.
Honestly, the prospect of the Italian trade states involving themselves more prominently in global maritime exploration is one of the more interesting long-term possibilities in this timeline. North Africa is only a hop, skip, and jump from the Straits and all that lay beyond them, and Egypt offers boundless trade opportunity in the East. Given their involvement in Crusader Egypt is assured, any possibility that the desire for better trade routes leads to a reopening of the Canal of the Pharaohs?
Last edited:
Well, first of all, I'd like to take the opportunity to announce that I've updated the OP to include a FAQ approaching in broad strokes many of the discussions that appear with bigger frequency in these 100 and going number of thread pages, from the Mongols to the Great Discoveries, among others. Of course, it is more devised to help new readers and newcomers to the discussions, but, if you are interested, do check it out. Suggestions on the format are welcome.
Now, for the latest posts:
@A_simple_pilgrim - fully agreed.
@TyranicusMaximus - good points, too, but I'm of the opinion that an earlier discovery and prolonged contact, depending on the predefining divergences of the TL, is plausible indeed. In any case, if the strings are played this way, I'd be more interested in exploring the consequences rather than the causes, I admit.
@EmperorOfTheNorthSea - that's a very interesting suggestion, and, I think, a new one here. I don't think anyone forwarded any point related to this. This could spell, in the long run, a very distinct reality to northeastern Europe and Central Asia in the expansion of global commerce and geopolitics. While you pointed out the fact that the Mongols disrupted the ancient commercial patterns of the Volga and the Caspian, it is odd to think that once the Pax Mongolica is put into effect the Byzantine Empire, being the conduit of the commerce between Europe and Asia, and between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, can actually benefit from the reinvigoration of the northern paths of the Silk Road and the fluvial routes of Russia. But this is also speculation on my part.
@Sphenodon - Agreed, it would be even more interesting indeed. While I don't see the Italian Republics making a perfect substitute for the likes of the Spanish, Portuguese or Dutch colonial empires, I believe they could have play a more significant role than IOTL in exploiting the Mediterranean-Indian commercial venues (in this, they would substitute the Mamluks and the Ottoman Empire). About the Canal of the Pharaohs, as @Icedaemon said just below you, in the long run, it should be beneficial, but it would demand a massive resource and manpower effort, and a constant service to guarantee its permanent usage, which, I believe, sometimes escapes from the possibilities of a largely feudal politico-administrative structure. In any case, I'm sure that they would make an effort to maintain and preserve the usual land routes of transshipment between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
Now, for the latest posts:
@A_simple_pilgrim - fully agreed.
@TyranicusMaximus - good points, too, but I'm of the opinion that an earlier discovery and prolonged contact, depending on the predefining divergences of the TL, is plausible indeed. In any case, if the strings are played this way, I'd be more interested in exploring the consequences rather than the causes, I admit.
@EmperorOfTheNorthSea - that's a very interesting suggestion, and, I think, a new one here. I don't think anyone forwarded any point related to this. This could spell, in the long run, a very distinct reality to northeastern Europe and Central Asia in the expansion of global commerce and geopolitics. While you pointed out the fact that the Mongols disrupted the ancient commercial patterns of the Volga and the Caspian, it is odd to think that once the Pax Mongolica is put into effect the Byzantine Empire, being the conduit of the commerce between Europe and Asia, and between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, can actually benefit from the reinvigoration of the northern paths of the Silk Road and the fluvial routes of Russia. But this is also speculation on my part.
@Sphenodon - Agreed, it would be even more interesting indeed. While I don't see the Italian Republics making a perfect substitute for the likes of the Spanish, Portuguese or Dutch colonial empires, I believe they could have play a more significant role than IOTL in exploiting the Mediterranean-Indian commercial venues (in this, they would substitute the Mamluks and the Ottoman Empire). About the Canal of the Pharaohs, as @Icedaemon said just below you, in the long run, it should be beneficial, but it would demand a massive resource and manpower effort, and a constant service to guarantee its permanent usage, which, I believe, sometimes escapes from the possibilities of a largely feudal politico-administrative structure. In any case, I'm sure that they would make an effort to maintain and preserve the usual land routes of transshipment between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
The Incas and the Aztecs were not the only American civilizations that the Europeans could encounter. At the time of Columbus, there were cities on the rivers of the Amazon rain forest, most notably the Tapajós River, and large tracts of the forest were cleared for farming via Amazon dark earth that they create themselves.
The Muslim control of access to India and beyond in the Middle East wasn't the only main reason for the European shift to the west, especially after the fall of Constantinople. Another reason is those Italian republics, especially Venice, gaining exclusive control of access to the Middle Eastern markets, charging exorbitant prices on non-Italian merchants to trade there. When Venice managed to get the Ottoman Empire to give it an almost exclusive trade deal, Genoa had to look elsewhere and western monarchs encouraged that. This is why so many of the earliest explorers for Portugal and Spain turn out to be Genoese upon a closer look.@avernite - well, you raised good points regarding the navigations around Africa and to the Americas, I have to concede on thisIn any case, I'm still strong in the belief that the simple fact that there is an accessible and reliable route to the Far East through Egypt, and that the Italian Republics will likely establish a dominant position in these markets - mind you, not necessarily an exclusive one, that thwarts other mercantile powers from accessing it, such as the Iberians, or anyone -, this will remove one of the main incentives of the European powers of the Great Discoveries era of attempting to circumnavigate the globe. This would probably delay the discovery of the Americas, but, as you pointed out, it might actually accelerate the process of the circumnavigation of the African continent.
Genoa and Venice had a fierce, and often antagonistic, rivalry reaching back centuries.
When it was announced that the Portuguese found a way to India around Africa and proved it, Venice panicked and thought of making a deal with the Mamluks of Egypt to redig the Canal of the Pharaohs. That plan was mooted by the Ottoman conquest of Egypt.
By the way, I'm not sure about the Reconquista managing to complete its goal in Iberia so quickly and so early. IOTL, the Reconquista was an extremely difficult back-and-forth slog. Al-Andalus fragmenting into the Taifa states made it much easier, which was why the Andalusians desperately appealed to the Almoravids and Almohads to come save them even though those empires were religiously fundamentalist and thus antithesis to the Andalusians' comparatively liberal and urbane culture. For a Reconquista to be that successful, the following needs to happen: (1) the Christian kingdoms would need to unite, which is difficult when we consider the disparate ambitions among the Christian nobility and royalty as well as Andalusian efforts to fan the internecine flames (they knew a Christian union or alliance wouldn't be in their interest); (2) Al-Andalus falls apart into feuding taifa states; (3) no chance of a powerful Maghrebi state existing and coming to their rescue; (4) the Maghrebi peoples are seriously distracted away from the Iberian Peninsula--since they were more numerous than the Andalusians, they were a main source of mercenaries and slave-soldiers for Al-Andalus. Perhaps your hint of a future Christian invasion of North Africa could provide that, but IOTL, King Roger II of Sicily attempted that and maintaining it was an up-mountain struggle.
I'm also not sure about the Rhomaion Empire lasting much longer even with the great reversal of fortunes they got ITTL. The intense and constant court intrigues make the Empire quite vulnerable to decline. You'd need a series of strong Emperors and even then, strong Emperors tend to focus on holding the throne against backstabby courtiers and nobles. It was rare for strong Emperors to feel confident enough to launch military adventures without worrying about a jealous rival or another powerful family reaching for the throne (Basil II, Alexios I and Manuel I were fortunate in this regard but they still worried).
I'd even go so far as to say that Rhomaion culture is a major barrier to having a strong and stable government. A successful coup or revolt to take the throne was considered sanctioned by God while a failed coup or revolt was considered rebellion against God. Plus, the position of Emperor was not hereditary, which was a serious problem, a problem that Emperors tried to solve by making someone their co-emperor. Still, the death of each Emperor meant the possibility of a coup or civil war occurring, which is extremely stressful for any empire. It's almost a miracle that the Rhomaion Empire managed to last as long as it did.
I'm also wondering whether the Mongol invasions would still occur ITTL or their effects would be mitigated by butterflies. The Rhomaions and Crusader States would have to deal with them if or when they come.
In French case at least, I hardly see how ITTL, given that you intend on a more dynamic feudal landscape for France and a delayed centralization around the Capetian crown. IOTL, gallicanism I think was very much tied to the emergence of a strong monarchy that would often find itself at odds with the papacy.
@Revalus - thanks for the detailed input! I don't remember seeing you around in the thread discussions before, so, be welcome if you are mayhaps a newcomer. You raised interesting points regarding the relations between the Italian Republics and the Ottomans, and how this pushed the Iberian monarchies into the transatlantic voyages, as other posters mentioned just above. Have in mind, however (and as aforementioned many times) that the realities of the Mediterranean commerce in the 14th C. onwards, in-TL, will already be significantly different once we reach the alt-15th C., and thus I can't really say how the comparisons to OTL will be perfectly applicable.
About the Reconquista, it too will happen differently, and the conflict between the Christian monarchies and the post-Taifa era polities, as well as with the Berber Caliphates (Almoravids and Almohads) will be delved into big detail. Suffice to say, for the time being, that the events won't be exactly the same as those of OTL. Also, remember that by the time of the POD, al-Andalus was already broken apart.
Moreover, I agree with yours points about the Byzantine Empire, and the fact that its history of successive dynastic wars and civil conflicts betrays the inherent instabilities and incoherence of the political system. And it is not the purpose of this TL, as also mentioned many times before, to explore the circumstances of a perpetual Byzantine Empire. On the contrary, my point of focus is and will always be the Crusader States (including, eventually, those of the Baltic or the Nordic ones, among others). If the day comes for us to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the history, it will happen. In any case, I liked your assessment on the matter.
About the Mongols, I'll kindly ask for you to check the newly inserted FAQ on the OP, my friend. And thanks for the comment
@galileo-034 - I agree, of course. The mention about French Gallicanism was just an historical reference to use, mutatis mutandis, as a comparison. It is not my intention to see it happening exactly like it did historically. In any case, if we do get there, I'll be interested in seeing a more detailed discussion on the matter.
About the Reconquista, it too will happen differently, and the conflict between the Christian monarchies and the post-Taifa era polities, as well as with the Berber Caliphates (Almoravids and Almohads) will be delved into big detail. Suffice to say, for the time being, that the events won't be exactly the same as those of OTL. Also, remember that by the time of the POD, al-Andalus was already broken apart.
Moreover, I agree with yours points about the Byzantine Empire, and the fact that its history of successive dynastic wars and civil conflicts betrays the inherent instabilities and incoherence of the political system. And it is not the purpose of this TL, as also mentioned many times before, to explore the circumstances of a perpetual Byzantine Empire. On the contrary, my point of focus is and will always be the Crusader States (including, eventually, those of the Baltic or the Nordic ones, among others). If the day comes for us to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the history, it will happen. In any case, I liked your assessment on the matter.
About the Mongols, I'll kindly ask for you to check the newly inserted FAQ on the OP, my friend. And thanks for the comment
@galileo-034 - I agree, of course. The mention about French Gallicanism was just an historical reference to use, mutatis mutandis, as a comparison. It is not my intention to see it happening exactly like it did historically. In any case, if we do get there, I'll be interested in seeing a more detailed discussion on the matter.
Interesting thread, I've just caught up.
Just because it's coming up in the last few pages: I think English, and maybe Breton colonisation in North America is plausible as an expansion and extension of the fishermen going to the Grand Banks and occasionally - if I remember right - spending some time on Newfoundland before going home.
There'll be less of a push for it though if there's no example of immense Spanish success in conquest and looting.
Just because it's coming up in the last few pages: I think English, and maybe Breton colonisation in North America is plausible as an expansion and extension of the fishermen going to the Grand Banks and occasionally - if I remember right - spending some time on Newfoundland before going home.
There'll be less of a push for it though if there's no example of immense Spanish success in conquest and looting.
The Basques were also known to fish the great banks.
a successful basque-speaking colony in North America is a alt-history dream for me
a successful basque-speaking colony in North America is a alt-history dream for me
There's actually ruins of a Basque whaling base that was found in North America. The dating, however, puts it at just a few years after Columbus.
Newcomer here! Finished like 5 minutes ago from catching up with this TL, and i must say it's very well made, with the writing style synchronising surprisingly well with the content turning the bigger chapters into compact and interesting groups of information (i.e not tiring text-walls). Now i'll be entering discussion
Something i would like to point out is that, once Egypt is conquered by the crusaders, we could very well see the italian republics going to the Indian Ocean to do trade, as they certainly won't be pleased by having to work with muslim middlemen, what could result in italian port-city colonies in the egyptian Red Sea and european forays into the East, what would be completely awesome to see by itself.
Pre-Columbian Amazon Basin was pretty densely populated btw, throughout the entire Basin could be probably as much as 100 million people at most, and half that at least, what would turn the region as the american counterpart to India. Although it must be left clear that the region wasn't homogenous, having three main influences plus foreign influences on the Basin's frontier (like Peru).
You can avoid this by somehow (because you have to solve the problem of the Arno) maintaining Pisa as a viable competitor, the downfall of pisan influence resulted in a dualism that really put the eastern trade routes to be dominated by one or other, if ya have the three (or if somehow possible, even more) competitors in the eastern trade, the OTL push for new trade routes that resulted from venetian monopoly (that was what effectively happened after genoese complete decline in the aftermath of the War of Chioggia) won't be there, other than that case i agree that western exploration probably won't be significantly altered from OTL. Another thing i would like to point out is that genoese-venetian rivalry was nearly always there, before Meloria, the venetians usually allied with Pisa against Genoa, and if you maintain Pisa as a viable player, the scales might be too much over Genoa (resulting in them being pisa'd) and then the dualism turns into Pisa-Venice, dualism that can turn both into the Genoa-Venice OTL rivalry or an effective oligarchy between the two, both ensuing in the push for new trade routes.The Muslim control of access to India and beyond in the Middle East wasn't the only main reason for the European shift to the west, especially after the fall of Constantinople. Another reason is those Italian republics, especially Venice, gaining exclusive control of access to the Middle Eastern markets, charging exorbitant prices on non-Italian merchants to trade there. When Venice managed to get the Ottoman Empire to give it an almost exclusive trade deal, Genoa had to look elsewhere and western monarchs encouraged that. This is why so many of the earliest explorers for Portugal and Spain turn out to be Genoese upon a closer look.
Genoa and Venice had a fierce, and often antagonistic, rivalry reaching back centuries.
Venice actually tried to help the Mamluks in the fighting against Portugal, the venetians even trained the egyptian sailors fighting in the Battle of Diu and after the Ottoman conquest tried (and succeeded) to push Selim I into continuing the conflict with the portuguese, but these plans were destroyed at first by the not-conquest of Persia by Selim I and by the sudden death of himself.
IOTL the Reconquista nearly restarted all over after Granada managed to be independent, as the Marinids tried to cross over in Iberia, but they were defeated and any other attempts (that they wanted to) were silenced by the Late 14th Century instability in Morocco. IMO, Reconquista isn't really a given, especially as it depends equally in Iberia and in North Africa, as an powerful berber state always went to secure dominion over the muslim territories in the Peninsula. The thing about any christian dominion over North Africa is that by now, apart from the coastal urban centres, the majority of the region is composed by nomadic tribes that are ridiculously rebellious, and were pretty hard to control if you wasn't one of them, any christian attempt to secure North Africa outside the occasional italian port-city colony would be frustateously expensive and pretty non-rewarding, this if they manage to overcome all the hardships and in fact, do it.
Something i would like to point out is that, once Egypt is conquered by the crusaders, we could very well see the italian republics going to the Indian Ocean to do trade, as they certainly won't be pleased by having to work with muslim middlemen, what could result in italian port-city colonies in the egyptian Red Sea and european forays into the East, what would be completely awesome to see by itself.
ACT V - THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE AND EARTHLY KINGDOM OF GOD
ACT V - THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE AND THE EARTHLY KINGDOM OF GOD
Non-contemporary painting representing the dialogue between Basileus Alexios I Komnenos and the anonymous Frankish knight who sat on the throne (1097 A.D.)
Book X. Part X. (...) Thus they all assembled, Godfrey amongst them, and after the oath had been taken by all the Counts, a certain venturesome noble sat down on the Emperor's seat. The Emperor put up with him and said not a word, knowing of old the Latins' haughty nature. But Count Baldwin stepped forward and taking him by the hand raised him up, rebuked him severely, and said, "It was wrong of you to do such a thing here, and that too when you have promised fealty to the Emperor; for it is not customary for the Roman Emperors to allow their subjects to sit beside them on the throne, and those who become his Majesty's sworn bondmen must observe the customs of the country." He made no reply to Baldwin, but darted a fierce glance at the Emperor and muttered some words to himself in his own language, saying, "Look at this rustic that keeps his seat, while such valiant captains are standing round him." The movement of the Latin's lips did not escape the Emperor, who called one of the interpreters of the Latin tongue and asked the purport of his words. When he heard what the remark was, he said nothing to the Latin for some time, but kept the saying in his heart. As they were all taking leave of the Emperor, he called that haughty minded, audacious Latin, and inquired who he was and of what country and lineage. "I am a Frank of the purest nobility," he replied, "all that I know is that at the crossroads in the country whence I come there stands an old sanctuary, to which everyone who desires to fight in single combat goes ready accoutered for single combat, and there prays to God for help while he waits in expectation of the man who will dare to fight him. At those crossroads I too have often tarried, waiting and longing for an antagonist; but never has one appeared who dared to fight me." In reply to this the Emperor said, "If you did not find a fight when you sought for it then, now the time has come which will give you your fill of fighting. But I strongly advise you not to place yourself in the rear nor in the front of your line, but to stand in the centre of the 'hemilochitae,' for I have had a long experience of the Turkish method of fighting." It was not to this man only that he gave this advice, but to all the others he foretold the accidents likely to happen on their journey, and counselled them never to pursue the barbarians very far when God granted them a victory over them, for fear of being killed by falling into ambushes.
Book XI, part III. (...) Then that swollen-headed Latin, who had dared to sit on the imperial throne, was forgetful of the Emperor's advice, and fought in the front of Bohemund's army and in his stupidity ran ahead of the others. About forty of his men were killed in consequence, and he himself, seriously wounded, turned his back to the foe and made his way back to the middle of the army, thus proclaiming in deed, though he would not in words, the wisdom of the Emperor's advice.
Excerpts from Anna Komnena's "Alexiad"
**********
The First Crusade propitiated the very first encounter between the Franks and the Rhōmaîoi, who became brothers in faith and in arms, and whose covenant permitted Christianity to rise from the brink of ruin in the Orient, in its very birthplace.
Yet, their worldly ambition, vanity and pride made them to live by the sword, against Christ's warning to Saint Peter, and even times made them enemies among themselves, despising their fraternity much like the sinful Cain had done in the dawn of mankind.
Last edited:
Considering the patchwork of nationalities and groups within the Holy Land, it might be that their home country starts a war (e,g, "Normans vs Lombards" and because they see themselves as still tied to home then they see anyone else of the other identity as the enemy and thus fair game, especially as Jerusalem does not really have a Jerusalemite identity as such and with no strong external enemies to unite against then internal differences will come to the fore far quicker and uglier.
My personal bet is on something to do with Toulouse as I recall some noble wanting to push his wife's claim to Toulouse which would likely have carried on to their descendants (i honestly can not remember if toulouse has already been dealt with).
Edit: Just to add having looked through I found this line on the composition of the Kingdom in its early period and I would suspect more have been added as time went on:
"there were Toulousains, Aquitanians, Gascons, French, Normans, Lorrainers, Lombards, Italians, and Bavarians – ruling over an even more complex demographic composition – native Palestinians and Lebanese, Greeks, Syrians, Armenians, Arabs, Bedouins and Turcopoles – adept of such different faiths – Latin Christians, Greek liturgists, Miaphysites, Maronites, and Jews, as well as Sunnis and Shiites, and minorities such as the Samaritans and the Druze."
And the person interested in Toulouse was the Duke of Aquitaine and Gascony so not an inconsequential power.
Edit: Just to add having looked through I found this line on the composition of the Kingdom in its early period and I would suspect more have been added as time went on:
"there were Toulousains, Aquitanians, Gascons, French, Normans, Lorrainers, Lombards, Italians, and Bavarians – ruling over an even more complex demographic composition – native Palestinians and Lebanese, Greeks, Syrians, Armenians, Arabs, Bedouins and Turcopoles – adept of such different faiths – Latin Christians, Greek liturgists, Miaphysites, Maronites, and Jews, as well as Sunnis and Shiites, and minorities such as the Samaritans and the Druze."
And the person interested in Toulouse was the Duke of Aquitaine and Gascony so not an inconsequential power.
Last edited:
Me getting ready to read about the undoubtably messy and entertaining civil war(s):
How felicitous that the Crusaders will have brother wars right as the Seljuk statelets also have them and right as the Fatimids enter their period of terminal decline.
I suspect these wars will probably be between the Normans and everybody else, or the Normans and one other small faction against a Provencal primus-inter-pares coalition of nobles. Simon de Montfort will get to get up to shenanigans, and the Romans and Italians (including the Papacy) present compelling outside powers that can stick an oar into the mire...
I suspect these wars will probably be between the Normans and everybody else, or the Normans and one other small faction against a Provencal primus-inter-pares coalition of nobles. Simon de Montfort will get to get up to shenanigans, and the Romans and Italians (including the Papacy) present compelling outside powers that can stick an oar into the mire...