Or go along the coast to Damietta and then onto Cairo. Alexandria would require an amphibious operation to take, while an advance along the coast and then up the Nile from Damiette can be supported by the navy all the way and with a clear and secure line of communication to Palestine.
And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace
- Thread starter Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)
- Start date
![[totally a legit person]](/forum/data/avatars/m/134/134906.jpg?1617940240){kind=avatar}
Were you replying to me, because I was replying to a possible division of Egypt between the Rhomanoi and Latins after success, I don't see why they would even consider an attack through Alexandria, it can't be supported by land, and it's also not situated on the Nile, so they'd be forced to march through a dessert, it'd be a logistical nightmare?
OTL Alexandria was a major trade hub during the Crusades, its importance lasting till it got hit by an earthquake in 1323 and then sacked in 1326. So assuming its importance is similar to OTL then taking it would be of economic benefit even if the main attack is via say Rosetta. This is assuming a canal to the Nile was not built earlier ITTL ( historically it does appear to have one at various times before the current OTL one was built in 1807 ) .
Yes, I know, but I seriously doubt why someone would use it as the main route of an invasion into Egypt, unless I'm missing something I don't see why they would use it that way.
It gives you money/information/ more control of the coastal trade routes , it removes same from the foe. Its not the main route to the interior but its a major logistical base to bring/stockpile supplies to Egypt before moving via a smaller port on the Nile itself ( hence the mention of Rosetta, which is probably still too small to more than stage ) inland.
I'm not debating that it'd be worth it if they were to take before moving down the Nile to Cairo, simply that I don't think that it would be the where the main thrust would base itself, I really don't see why you're arguing with me on this, I don't believe I said anything meriting a response.
Also I wonder if the Byzantines will do any secret dealings with the Kingdom of Makuria to the south of Egypt Assuming that the Latins get the lion's share of Egypt, that the Latins won't have TOO much of Egypt. Maybe Latins and Byzantines will attempt to lobby to bring the kingdom to either fold.
Assuming if Russia forms like OTL I wonder what relations it'll have with Rhomania.
Well, if we take OTL's relationship, and make it last a whole lot longer, we might see that Russia would be culturally and religiously dominated by the Rhomanoi, alongside a mutually beneficial trade between the two, I could see the Varangian guard become dominated by Russian mercenaries. I wouldn't think it'd be too hard to have the Russians see the Rhomanoi as their suzerain with how much sway they'd hold, as OTL Russia was so influenced by them that they would call themselves the Third Rome.
Edit: grammar.
Last edited:
I think Jerusalem and Byzantines will have to strike a deal. Constantinople must recognize it's going to be difficult for them to control Egypt due to the geographical distances involved. Making it into a client state will also not satisfy Jerusalem into putting 100% effort/risking most of their army for an offensive.
On the other hand, Jerusalem can't take all of Egypt without giving something back or else Byzantines won't be interested in the offensive and they lose a critical ally.
Thus I suggest Jerusalem cedes a large chunk of Syria to the Byzantines (say everything north of Sidon and Damascus). That puts Saidnaya (the second most important pilgrimage sight in the region after Jerusalem) in the hands of the Byzantines. The Byzantines also get Alexandria (historically part of the Pentarchy) so that they have some influence and sway over Egypt (particularly the landowning nobles there whose loyalties will be split between Constantinople and Jerusalem). Strictly speaking they are sworn to BOTH Jerusalem AND Constantinople after all, and de jure the Roman emperor is their highest sovereign. This allows the landowning nobles to retain a degree of autonomy playing both Jerusalem and Constantinople against each other. These nobles will be comprised 50% Greeks and 50% Latins.
The rest of Egypt is officially annexed to Jerusalem, which is after all still a client/vassal state to Constantinople. All this ties Jerusalem more closely to Constantinople because now they have an expanded realm with more room for Constantinople to pull levers of influence and they will be more decentralized (with less authority for Jerusalem overall).
Last edited:
You should read the FAQ mate, it's in the OP. The topics of Egypt and the Mongols are both discussed there.
Makes me wonder if either royal family from Russia or Rhomania will inherit the throne of the other thus uniting the two empires.
Awesome power move by emperor Manuel there. Given his current dominance over the crusader state, the new archbishop already so clearly showing his biases and the Duke of Galilee needing money to ransom his son, if the crusade against Egypt is successful here, I can see the Rhomanoi taking a major chunk of Egypt for themselves. Perhaps the Nile itself will be the border between direct Roman vassals and crusader-held lands, with the bulk of the delta also in Greek hands?
The argument that it's too far from Constantinople does not make that much sense to me - if the Rhomans have a decent navy and no ongoing conflict with a major naval power capable of contesting their presence in the eastern Med, they should have a pretty decent link to Egypt. They controlled it for a long time back in the day, after all.
The argument that it's too far from Constantinople does not make that much sense to me - if the Rhomans have a decent navy and no ongoing conflict with a major naval power capable of contesting their presence in the eastern Med, they should have a pretty decent link to Egypt. They controlled it for a long time back in the day, after all.
Apologies if this has been asked before.
But what realistically is the crusader states potential for growth?
I don't imagine it controlling any of modern day Iran, Yemen or Oman.
But could it reach places like Basra in Iraq and parts of Tunisia? Maybe even Mecca and Medina or is that a bridge too far?
But what realistically is the crusader states potential for growth?
I don't imagine it controlling any of modern day Iran, Yemen or Oman.
But could it reach places like Basra in Iraq and parts of Tunisia? Maybe even Mecca and Medina or is that a bridge too far?
If Egypt stays loyal, which I think is quite doable, then the Middle East is pretty likely, unless the Christians squabble too much. I don't know the religious demographics though.
Well what I was imagining was that if the crusaders were successful in taking Egypt, the manpower losses in battles and then pacifying the region would be very large and probably prevent another campaign for a while. Admittedly my concept of the crusader army is as OTL where they only had enough soldiers to fight one or two large campaigns.
The other barrier in mind was the Arabian desert which will limit supply lines in the era. In that regard using the Euphrates and Tigris to maintain supplies and allow an army to reach Bosra seemed a better idea in my mind then going into the desert.
I then thought there would be long stretches of peace in between as well as the influence of the Byzantium, Makaria/Ethiopia, Italian states and the Papacy to prevent the crusaders becoming too powerful to pose a rival to any of them in the future but still keep them strong to fight the Muslims. Edit: I forgot to add in crusader infighting as a factor.
Mecca and Medina I think are a stretch militarily, but they are both prominent ideological and religious targets that a particularly zealous leader might try for.
I think that makes sense. The cost of taking Egypt and holding it might be high, but if Copts are supported, well then half of Egypt would likely be more supportive. Wait a while to build up, then use Egyptian grain to supply armies an you might be able to take the coast and cities like the two you mentioned.
The other place I thought of invading earlier was that the island of Qeshm could become in TTL what Rhodes, Cyprus and Malta all were for the Knights in OTL given its strategic location. But that would require Bosra.