Just found the TL and I like it. Well done. Do continue with the good work.

Thanks for the support, my friend :)

The plan for the Crusaders, if they have anything to do with grand strategy, is they ought to be gunning for Mesopotamia, and Euphrates and Tigris river valley. That's a quick way to the markets of India if ever there was one.

In theory, yes. But in practice, going the Crusaders going beyond Syria without immediate and direct supply chains from Asia Minor create a logistical nightmare. In the Levant, whatever resources and goods they might need (considering the region is poor to "live off the land") can be transported by sea, and by now they control most of the Levantine ports. Mesopotamia/Al-Jazira is another creature altogether. The geographic situation creates a funnel or corridor forcing the invaders to go by the upper Euphrates, and this severely restricts their maneuvering. On the other hand, the arid expanses, very different from the rugged topography of Palestine, favors the battle tactics of light cavalry such as those of the Turks, jeopardizing an invasion from the west.

Besides, their more immediate concerns are not the Indian markets, but rather Syria and Egypt, which will secure for the time being their presence in Palestine.

In time we'll see some joint "Byzantine"/Crusader operations in Mesopotamia, but there won't be a lasting Christian presence there beyond the Euphrates.

How vulnerable are the Armenian Beyliks to a Byzantine resurgence or internal rebellion?
Will there be a Crusader state in Tunisia?

For the time being, as the "Byzantine" Empire takes its time to consolidate the reconquered provinces of Asia Minor, west of the Taurus Mountains, Armenia continues fractured and its chieftains, both Muslim and Christian alike, remain in a precarious balance. The Seljuk domination has all but dissolved in the region, and we can see a constellation of various dynasties and minor warlords.

Tunisia is another matter altogether. I intend to deal with Africa later in the TL, for the time being its not really a concern. If it falls to any Christian power, it will be likely be similar in scope and development as the Crusader dominion in the Outremer, probably with a ruling feudal regime (Norman Sicily is the best candidate) with localized Italian commercial interests (Pisans, Venetians, etc) holding the urban territories. Tunis itself will much likely be refashioned to mirror a city of the Mezzogiorno, and its port-districts should be awarded to whatever maritime republic that helps them to take the island.

You could always use the EMF/HIP map since it has much finer detail in terms of provinces.

Indeed! I considered using SWMH mod map (it is similar to HIP, as far as I know), a very detailed one. The problem is that after playing so much of vanilla, I've usually remember from the top of my head the names of the provinces, so I found it easier to do it with a non-modded map. But don't worry, I'll get there.
 
Managed to read all this TL, subscribed from now on. Happy times for both the Eastern Empire and Outremer TTL seemed to come, Anatolia liberata for the first, more stable foundation for the second, while Syria is pulverized, Iraq is staying quietly, and the only threat for now being Egypt. I guess for such expansion of the Byzantines and the Crusaders, Muslim Armenia look a more than fair sacrifice. Hopefully the Euphrates will become soon or later the definitive border between Christianity and Islam. Naturally, more than Damascus is Aqaba which would be the potential fuse of a greater showdown between those two worlds...

Aqaba, by itself, at the time was just a minor port, but you are correct about its strategic significance, being the entry to the Red Sea and such. Again, it seems a small piece of the cake the Crusaders actually want, which is the whole of lower Egypt. Once the Fatimids fall, by whatever means, the Latins might take control over the best part of the Red Sea coast.

Your prediction about the Euphrates as a border between religions and cultures is an interesting one. I'll have this in mind. For the time being, as mentioned in the post above, the "Byzantine" Empire doesn't really have that many of resources spare to undertake a complete reconquest of Armenia. But in a couple generations, who knows?

I think, though, that this anarchy gives us free reins to explore how would an even MORE successful Kingdom of Georgia in the sunset of the Seljuk empire, considering that IOTL they actually annexed a big part of Armenia.

Wouldnt a more successful middle eastern campaign make the pope interested in launching crusades into North Africa. Making the Mediterran a Christian lake?

Indeed, that's probably what will happen in this scenario. But I imagine that in some places, whatever European/Crusader presence there might be in North Africa will be restricted (at least initially) to the coastal Mediterranean fringe (in Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, if we get this far), and the Maghrebi interior regions (Fezzan, Djerid) and such will likely remain in the hands of a myriad of Muslim groups. If we see Tunisia and Libya fall, however, and then Egypt, this means that the whole of northeastern Africa will have good chances of remaining, for some centuries, in Christian power, and this will isolate the Berber peoples in Algeria and Morocco.

Have in mind, actually that even without direct Papal sponsorship, these kinds of expeditions will probably be undertaken ad hoc. IOTL, the Kingdom of Sicily invaded Tunisia, and the Genoese usually went to blows with the Islamic powers in North Africa, and then we had St. Louis of France invading the Maghreb, etc. ITTL, these movements might become more frequent and focused, especially if the Muslim powers fail to prevent the establishment of "beachhead" or secure base of the Christian from whence the Europeans can invade overland. The central part of North Africa seems to be a bigger target, than, say, the western part, where the powerful Almohad Caliphate has recently risen to unify the region, and will likely deflect any Crusader attacks. Algeria and Morocco probably will have to wait for a general consolidation of the Christian monarchies in Iberia, which might be the ones with the necessary power projection to invade northwestern Africa (as per OTL).
 
I'd imagine that if the Berbers are even just in the hinterlands that they'd probably slowly convert given their bad history with Arab governing if the Christian kingdoms that potentially come to exist there have any sense.
 
BIG GEORGIA also has the legitimacy of being ruled by the Bagratuni, a dynastic pedigree which only the Mamikonians or possibly an uber-Rupenids could come close to matching. As for Tunisia, I'd expect to go as you said -- the Siculo-Normans ruling as feudal lords, with significant Italian populations and republican involvement in the major ports. Cyrenaica and Syrte might be a chaotic border march/Muslim holdout for a while -- haven't had major ports in centuries, far from Egypt's core and far from Ifriqiya, close to the Sahara and the Berber/Tuareg tribes of the interior...
 
I'd imagine that if the Berbers are even just in the hinterlands that they'd probably slowly convert given their bad history with Arab governing if the Christian kingdoms that potentially come to exist there have any sense.

Hum, that's an interesting thought... but I had in mind that by the Middle Ages, the Islamic influence among the Berbers was so pervasive that any Christian conversion would be extremely slow (centuries-long, that is). I imagine that without strong Islamic polities in Mediterranean Africa, the nomadic peoples inhabiting the Maghreb and the Sahel will either see various splinter Islamic denominations, with new sects appearing due to the appearance of charismatic authorities, and a gradual syncretism with Christianity. I do think that Sahelian and West African polities (Mali, Songhai, etc) will tend to convert to Islam due to the influx of the Trans-Saharan trade. I have my doubts about the possibility of a toppling of the Sultanates in the Maghreb reversing these cultural transfers.

BIG GEORGIA also has the legitimacy of being ruled by the Bagratuni, a dynastic pedigree which only the Mamikonians or possibly an uber-Rupenids could come close to matching. As for Tunisia, I'd expect to go as you said -- the Siculo-Normans ruling as feudal lords, with significant Italian populations and republican involvement in the major ports. Cyrenaica and Syrte might be a chaotic border march/Muslim holdout for a while -- haven't had major ports in centuries, far from Egypt's core and far from Ifriqiya, close to the Sahara and the Berber/Tuareg tribes of the interior...

Yes, as always, very good points you raised. Perhaps we can even get to work a scenario in which a Crusader Egypt establishes some sort of hegemony over both Libya and Tunisia and Palestine, mirroring the early success of the Caliphate. But then, again, there is a lot of metaphorical ground for us to thread in the TL.

_____________________________________________

EDIT: I'm having some free time this week, and soon we'll have another entry posted in a few hours. I intend to wrap up the "Act III" in the next two installments, then we'll get to an important interlude, where I'll make a brief recap and discuss some important details before we advance.

For new (and old :p) readers, I updated the Timeline in the first post of this thread. If you get a bit lost in the reading (considering that chronologically some details do get a bit fuzzy), give it a read to refresh memory.
 
Last edited:
Yes, as always, very good points you raised. Perhaps we can even get to work a scenario in which a Crusader Egypt establishes some sort of hegemony over both Libya and Tunisia and Palestine, mirroring the early success of the Caliphate. But then, again, there is a lot of metaphorical ground for us to thread in the TL.
Was Egypt still majority Coptic Christian at this point?
 
Great to see this back! Damn those Rhomania borders are looking good, John II is said to have been the greatest of the Komnenoi, if they’re able to restore the borders of Basil II’s Empire in his lifetime that’ll take so much pressure off the Crusaders, no northern threat and secure trade.
 
39. Baldwin of Boulogne becomes the Count of Tiberias (1126)
Tiberias 1.jpg

Tiberias 2.jpg

Non-contemporary paintings of 12th Century Tiberias, from western and eastern points of view, respectively. Since the golden days of the Umayyad Caliphate, the city had lost its prosperity and became mostly depopulated, with many of its buildings falling in disrepair, as it happened to many Palestinian communities. The establishment of the Crusader State marked the beginning of a new golden age for Galilee, which saw an influx of immigrants and began yet again to prosper due to its insertion in the Mediterranean commercial network.


In 1126, the ruling Count of Tiberias, Peter of Stenay, former Count of Astenois, died without male issue. He was a scion of the House of Dampierre, a Champagnois family whose estates sprawled through northeastern Francia, and was a distant relative of Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lotharingia, whom he had accompanied in the First Crusade. After the fall of Jerusalem, a certain Gunter, one Lorrainer knight of Godfrey’s household, captured Tiberias in the name of his liege. After Godfrey died, however, Adhemar of Le Puy refused to recognize a petty knight as the lord of such a holy and ancient city, and instead convinced the highborn lord Peter, known for his chivalry and piety, to remain in the Outremer and become its ruler. Thus, Peter ruled Tiberias for almost 30 years, having relinquished his property in Europe to his younger brother Rainald, the Count of Toul.

Now that Peter passed away, a dispute arose when his son-in-law, Lambert, the former Count of Montaigu, married to his elder daughter Marie, claimed the fief for himself, but was opposed by Sigemar, another of Godfrey’s many cousins, who had been created Castellan of Capernaum [Kfar Naḥūm] – the birth-place of Apostle St. Peter – on the grounds that he was the closest male relative in the Holy Land. When the parties proved irreconcilable, Lambert immediately fielded an army and besieged the citadel of Capernaum. However, some knights of his household, refusing to raise arms against Sigemar, a character well-respected for his bravery and honor, deserted his cause and went to Jerusalem to seek intervention from the Court.

Even before the matter was brought to the attention of the Archbishop in Jerusalem, Richard of Salerno discovered about the situation, and, from his manor in Nablus, he immediately mustered his knights and sergeants and hurried to Capernaum. By the time the Archbishop received the news about the altercation, Prince Richard had already obliged Lambert to put down arms and return to Tiberias. Now, both of the belligerents were summoned to the Holy City so that their claims might be judged.

It happened, though, that while Lambert and Sigemar awaited for judgment, a messenger came from the northern road, bringing news that Baldwin of Boulogne, the self-proclaimed Count of Edessa, was voyaging to Jerusalem with some of his vassals, both Lorrainers and Armenians. To everyone’s surprise, Baldwin claimed the vacant throne of Tiberias for himself, on the grounds that it had initially belonged to his elder brother Godfrey, before passing to the House of Dampierre. The claim was dubious at best, as the formal grant of Tiberias as a fief after Godfrey's death had evidently severed any belonging it might had towards the House of Boulogne. However, knowing that Baldwin was a stronger and more resourceful lord, who had gained a large following among the Armenians in these years in Edessa, both Archbishop Gerard and Prince Richard were very willing to turn a blind eye, if this meant that the Armies of the Realm might be reinforced by Baldwin's retinues and its coffers fattened by the treasure that he brought from the fallen kingdom of Armenia.

This serves to explain why the Court of Jerusalem, comprising three of the highest-ranking ecclesiastic authorities and two of the laymen nobles, ruled that, by the lack of male heirs from the House of Dampierre, the County of Tiberias had became vacant, and then it was granted to Baldwin of Boulogne, in recognition of his services to the exalted cause of Christ, thus creating him the Count of Tiberias, in accumulation with his fief of Edessa.

While Sigemar, dutiful and conscientious, accepted the verdict, and pledged allegiance to Baldwin (later becoming his chancellor), Lambert of Montaigu was infuriated by the outcome, but he lacked means to enforce his claim. Even so, he arrogantly demanded compensation, either in gold or in kind, before the Court of Jerusalem. When this too was refused – because the Court ruling did not recognize any rights to him whatsoever – he, maddened by his anger, challenged his rival Baldwin to a duel.

Sat atop his horse, in the courtyard of the Temple of Solomon, Lambert screamed Baldwin's name through the four winds, and offended him by every name possible, attracting a perplexed crowd to watch the bizarre situation. Then, Baldwin himself appeared at last, mounted in a grey horse, opening his way through the appalled citizens and simply stared at the proud Count of Montaigu, without saying a word. For some seconds, the place became completely silent. Then, Baldwin simply nodded and departed from Jerusalem with his retainers, following the road to Tiberias, leaving an infuriated Lambert among the Jerusalemite crowd. In the end, Lambert’s histrionic exasperation yielded no fruits, and he saw himself landless and without support in the Outremer, with but a couple Galilean villages to provide meager revenue, from whence he could barely pay for a banquet to his handful of retainers.

Frustrated by the humilitation, shortly thereafter Lambert returned to Europe with his wife Marie, re-assuming his position as the Count of Montaigu and Clermont, never to return to the Outremer.

*****​

The fate of Edessa itself was initially unclear. Even now that the Empire had more or less pacified the Anatolian frontier, and both the Rhōmaîoi and the Latins had established a firm presence in Syria, by subjugating Antioch and Aleppo, Edessa still remained in a tight spot, as the consolidation of the Emirate of Mosul under the Toghtekinids effectively closed the eastern frontier for expansion, and created a dangerous and tireless foe in Mesopotamia. While the city of Edessa was fortified and prosperous, Baldwin had long since reallocated the court to the fortress of Turbessel, in the western bank of the Euphrates, sometimes residing in the pleasurable garden-city of Samosata.

Baldwin’s cousin and vassal, also named Baldwin, but one from Rethel, would rule as steward for the remainder of his life, as Baldwin of Boulogne would reside mostly in Tiberias. Some even suggested that he might sell or cede the County of Edessa to another Frankish warlord or even to the Empire, but he would always deny it, affirming that he had sworn a sacred vow to God to protect the very first Crusader bastion founded in the Outremer. The truth, however, was that this Lorrainer lord was proud and superstitious; he believed that simply giving Edessa away would mean the loss of his honor and prestige, and, also, that he could not violate his sacred oaths towards the Armenian which had accepted him as rightful suzerain, lest Fortune might punish him for the transgression.

Baldwin’s non-Frankish retainers and followers were mostly of Armenian stock, with a handful of Turcopoles and Kurds, many of whom had started their careers as mercenaries among the Armenian petty fiefs. After Baldwin was created Count of Tiberias, some of them returned to Samosata, where they had been settled, in safer lands far from the chaotic Mesopotamian frontier, but others opted to remain in Palestine in his service. The country between the Sea of Galilee and the Golan Heights, which separates Palestine from Syria, was the most fertile region of Palestine, but there was not much land available to the newcomers. Much like the Egyptians and the Turks before them, the Franks did not interfere nor disrupted the traditional Levantine agrarian communities, and were content with allowing the Palestinians and Arabs with their crops and cattle as long as they complied to their feudal duties. Thus, Baldwin’s followers were rewarded for their service with revenue from these many Galilean parishes, usually in goods, but sometimes in money.

It is said that the Archbishop voiced to Baldwin his concerns about the safety of Edessa, considering it to be a stalwart bastion against the Islamic potentates of Mesopotamia, fearing that the presence of so many of the Count’s retainers in Tiberias might deplete the Euphrates of Latin troops. Count Baldwin reassured him that this was not the case, boldly proclaiming that Edessa would withstand a thousand sieges before falling to the infidel. He was wrong, obviously, but, by then, as he endeavored in his late years to refurbish the citadel of Tiberias into a tranquil palace, he did not seem honestly concerned about the ultimate fate of Edessa.

_______________________________________

Notes and comments: This is an interesting divergence from OTL. Since Godfrey never became the ruler of Jerusalem, his brother Baldwin doesn't gets to become its first King. Nevertheless, Baldwin is too much of a fascinating historical character to be left behind in the story. Edessa will have its relevance, but Tiberias is more important in the grand scheme of Jerusalemite politics. Another point that must be stressed is that Baldwin IOTL did not have children, even after two marriages (Steven Runciman, if I recall correctly, suggests that he was homossexual, and only married out of convenience). ITTL, considering that he repudiates his Armenian wife Morphia sooner, he will marry in old age to another Frankish woman, and generate offspring, thus Jerusalem will remain with a significant Lorrainer/Picard family around.

Anyway, the chapter is not very eventful, but I found it interesting because it briefly illustrates the complicated feudal relationships, as well as the role of the judiciary in the solution of disputes, which serves to dispel the idea that in the Middle Ages, every problem was solved by blood.
 
No, that's false, by the time the Mamelukes enacted their persecution the Coptic was probably already around 20% of the population and according to some even 10%.

Considering Coptic Egyptians today make up about ten percent of the population the lower estimate seems very unlikely.

Besides, we are over a century before the Mamluk dynasty, so the percentage may be even slightly higher. Thirty percent, as an off the top of my head estimate?
 
Considering Coptic Egyptians today make up about ten percent of the population the lower estimate seems very unlikely.

Besides, we are over a century before the Mamluk dynasty, so the percentage may be even slightly higher. Thirty percent, as an off the top of my head estimate?
I know, I'm partial to the 20% figure, but the 10% figure is something coming from an academic paper:

http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-2_2006-OSullivan.pdf

I'd say right now 1/3 is a good figure, this could still mean a majority in Upper Egypt south of Cairo.
 
I know, I'm partial to the 20% figure, but the 10% figure is something coming from an academic paper:

http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-2_2006-OSullivan.pdf

I'd say right now 1/3 is a good figure, this could still mean a majority in Upper Egypt south of Cairo.
Also if anything re-christianization has the potential to be as fast as islamization was, afterall as far as we know during the Reconquista the Muslim community dwindled in most of Iberia and was minority everywhere where Christians ruled by the late 14th century(with the biggest minority being in parts of Andalusia, Murcia and Valencia), so it doesn't really matter, the demographics can change in matter of 1 or 2 centuries, which is all things considered pretty fast
 
I know, I'm partial to the 20% figure, but the 10% figure is something coming from an academic paper:

I mean, I’ll defer to academic expertise, but the Christian population stubbornly remaining at ten percent for seven hundred years seems a bit unlikely.

Also if anything re-christianization has the potential to be as fast as islamization was, afterall as far as we know during the Reconquista the Muslim community dwindled in most of Iberia and was minority everywhere where Christians ruled by the late 14th century(with the biggest minority being in parts of Andalusia, Murcia and Valencia), so it doesn't really matter, the demographics can change in matter of 1 or 2 centuries, which is all things considered pretty fast

That’s an excellent point, too. There may be some expulsions under later fanatical rulers, much like in Spain.

Anyway, great update! The antics of the Crusader lords are always entertaining.

Also, can’t wait for the inevitable, if likely temporary, fall of Edessa ;)
 
I mean, I’ll defer to academic expertise, but the Christian population stubbornly remaining at ten percent for seven hundred years seems a bit unlikely.



That’s an excellent point, too. There may be some expulsions under later fanatical rulers, much like in Spain.

Anyway, great update! The antics of the Crusader lords are always entertaining.

Also, can’t wait for the inevitable, if likely temporary, fall of Edessa ;)
Not sure about expulsions, it's too near other Islamic territory, there is probably always going to be Islamic communities in Egypt and the Levant as long as nothing catastrophic happens to Iraq and Arabia.
 
Lower Egypt being mostly Arabic Muslim, from Minya to Aswan mostly Coptic. The transition away from Coptic language happened in this period, thus the people amy still remember the language by this time.
Alexandria and Cairo will have significant Coptic , Jewish and possibly also Armenian and Greek communities.
 
Top