I'm not so sure, Coptic was probably less prevalent than the Coptic religion itself, so Arabic would have been pretty dominant.
But a end of Arab rule could lead to a resurgence of Coptic in Upper Egypt.
And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace
- Thread starter Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)
- Start date
But a end of Arab rule could lead to a resurgence of Coptic in Upper Egypt.
Regarding the discussion about the Copts, I confess I don't have a big picture of what might be the figures and percentages of their population. As @Gloss and @cmakk1012 said, even if we cannot estimate a convenient number or proportion, we can, on the other hand, safely assume that by the Middles Ages they formed a substantial minority, and had a sizeable population in Lower Egypt, with their monastic communities playing a large role in preserving a sort of an ethnoreligious esprit de corps among them. The collaboration of these monastic units, even if they have no intention of becoming effectively integrated into the Latins' politics, will likely be a starting point by the Crusader regime to enforce their rule and obtain internal peace.
In any event, we can be certain that religious divisions in Egyptian society will be deftly exploited by the Crusaders in the event they become the rulers of Egypt. The societal pyramid will effectively be inverted, with the Copts, heretofore shunned from administration, being "uplifted" to participate in the administrative and economic organization of the kingdom. Then, they will be keen to preserve the precarious balance between the Sunni "minority" - I mean, the Fatimid aristocracy was predominantly Shi'ite, but I find hard to believe that they might have actually suppressed the Sunni influence - and the already divided Shi'ite sects. This in turn, could even create some goodwill between the Crusaders, even if seen as "foreign occupiers", and the other Sunni polities from the Near East, notably in Baghdad. We can wonder if the Sunni Caliph would see the Crusaders in Egypt as a sort of (a bit) "lesser" evil in comparison to having a rival Islamic Caliphate centered in Cairo...
Now, I don't see the Crusaders, as fervent Catholics, deferring effective political control to the Copts in Egypt. In provincial level, for sure, but in a macroscopic perspective, the elite - the Monarch, the Dukes and most of the Counts - will be Latin, and they will effectively monopolize the wealthiest and most productive regions of Egypt, leaving the Copts to eat scraps. One time or another, a distinguished Coptic provincial leader might be "elevated" with a significant position or title, but these will likely be novelties, and, in the end, will only serve to reinforce the newly established status quo.
I must thank @Gloss for the paper you linked. I'll give a read today to have an idea about the situation. In time, we'll see these developments in the TL.
I also agree that there won't be likely expulsions or persecutions of Muslims in a Crusader Egypt. They had precedents of brutal violence during wartime, notably in OTL 1st Crusade, but, in time, as the KOJ consolidated, they did not make any conscientious effort to oppress the Islamic minorities, neither in Palestine, nor in Syria. I find hard that they would want to do it in Egypt, which would create immense instability and, perhaps worse to their interests, disrupt the societal, economic and demographic potentials of the region. The interference of the Crusaders in the daily life of an Egyptian Muslim, after the chaos of conquest subsides, will be directed to restrict any coup attempts, but as a rule, tolerant policies will be put forward with the intent of integrating these groups into the establishment.
The comparison with Iberia is perhaps not a perfect one, considering that the Reconquista took many centuries, and the variables of social, economic, cultural and religious nature were markedly different from those of a Crusader-conquered Egypt.
Finally, regarding language and conversions, it is indeed very likely that both the Coptic rite and the Coptic language itself will see a renaissance of sorts. A comparison can be draw with the sponsorship and support of the Crusaders to the Armenian minority in Palestine. Indeed, even Islamic rulers commonly favored minority groups (e.g. Jews under the Caliphates and under the Ottoman Empire), so the Crusaders won't be above such arrangements. Now, of course in a Crusader Egypt we'll see efforts of Europeans to convert the populations to Catholicism, likely under a tentative "policy" of bringing the Coptic Church into communion with the Roman Catholic ecclesiastic structure and theological ideology.
Specifically about language developments, I also think we can predict that as the Arab falls of grace, we'll see a possible revival of Greek as a prestige language of sorts in the Mediterranean area of Egypt (in some centuries, that is), with Latin remaining as the official language in Catholic administration and liturgy.
In any event, we can be certain that religious divisions in Egyptian society will be deftly exploited by the Crusaders in the event they become the rulers of Egypt. The societal pyramid will effectively be inverted, with the Copts, heretofore shunned from administration, being "uplifted" to participate in the administrative and economic organization of the kingdom. Then, they will be keen to preserve the precarious balance between the Sunni "minority" - I mean, the Fatimid aristocracy was predominantly Shi'ite, but I find hard to believe that they might have actually suppressed the Sunni influence - and the already divided Shi'ite sects. This in turn, could even create some goodwill between the Crusaders, even if seen as "foreign occupiers", and the other Sunni polities from the Near East, notably in Baghdad. We can wonder if the Sunni Caliph would see the Crusaders in Egypt as a sort of (a bit) "lesser" evil in comparison to having a rival Islamic Caliphate centered in Cairo...
Now, I don't see the Crusaders, as fervent Catholics, deferring effective political control to the Copts in Egypt. In provincial level, for sure, but in a macroscopic perspective, the elite - the Monarch, the Dukes and most of the Counts - will be Latin, and they will effectively monopolize the wealthiest and most productive regions of Egypt, leaving the Copts to eat scraps. One time or another, a distinguished Coptic provincial leader might be "elevated" with a significant position or title, but these will likely be novelties, and, in the end, will only serve to reinforce the newly established status quo.
I must thank @Gloss for the paper you linked. I'll give a read today to have an idea about the situation. In time, we'll see these developments in the TL.
I also agree that there won't be likely expulsions or persecutions of Muslims in a Crusader Egypt. They had precedents of brutal violence during wartime, notably in OTL 1st Crusade, but, in time, as the KOJ consolidated, they did not make any conscientious effort to oppress the Islamic minorities, neither in Palestine, nor in Syria. I find hard that they would want to do it in Egypt, which would create immense instability and, perhaps worse to their interests, disrupt the societal, economic and demographic potentials of the region. The interference of the Crusaders in the daily life of an Egyptian Muslim, after the chaos of conquest subsides, will be directed to restrict any coup attempts, but as a rule, tolerant policies will be put forward with the intent of integrating these groups into the establishment.
The comparison with Iberia is perhaps not a perfect one, considering that the Reconquista took many centuries, and the variables of social, economic, cultural and religious nature were markedly different from those of a Crusader-conquered Egypt.
Finally, regarding language and conversions, it is indeed very likely that both the Coptic rite and the Coptic language itself will see a renaissance of sorts. A comparison can be draw with the sponsorship and support of the Crusaders to the Armenian minority in Palestine. Indeed, even Islamic rulers commonly favored minority groups (e.g. Jews under the Caliphates and under the Ottoman Empire), so the Crusaders won't be above such arrangements. Now, of course in a Crusader Egypt we'll see efforts of Europeans to convert the populations to Catholicism, likely under a tentative "policy" of bringing the Coptic Church into communion with the Roman Catholic ecclesiastic structure and theological ideology.
Specifically about language developments, I also think we can predict that as the Arab falls of grace, we'll see a possible revival of Greek as a prestige language of sorts in the Mediterranean area of Egypt (in some centuries, that is), with Latin remaining as the official language in Catholic administration and liturgy.
Last edited:
That's probable. I've been thinking of ways to keep Edessa existing as an independent entity, but considering that the storyline I've been writing adopts as a premise the formation of a strong Islamic entity nearby (the Emirate of Mosul), this greatly reduces the odds of Edessa surviving well beyond OTL. It would be implausible at best for a dynasty centered in Mosul, one whose legitimacy derives from the Jihadist rhetoric to leave Edessa in peace. It will be the very first target.
In the end, it is likely that Edessa might survive only as a rump state (without the city of Edessa itself, as it is well beyond the Euphrates river) in a sort of tacit vassalage towards Constantinople, until Jerusalem can actually spare reinforcements to assist them.
In any case, since we don't have ITTL a "Principality of Antioch" to bring our attentions to the situation in northern Syria, the role Edessa will be playing in the TL won't be very significant.
I imagine the Copts would get more prominent position in Upper Egypt, possibly as middlemen between the Crusaders and the Mediterranean world and the Miaphysite Nubians and Ethiopians.
Makuria might expand up to Luxor even and fill the void that would be created by an expansion of the Crusaders into the Delta and might rebrand itself as a Coptic-Nubian state.
Makuria might expand up to Luxor even and fill the void that would be created by an expansion of the Crusaders into the Delta and might rebrand itself as a Coptic-Nubian state.
Do the Byzantine control Caesarea,Iconium or Sebastea? If so, they might put pressure on the area at this point.
I just saw that this is back and loved the past few chapters. Glad you're back and this is active again - and that things seem to have settled down for you. Honestly, I've been in the same boat this past semester with my own timeline, and can totally understand how it goes. Hope all is well!
Dan
Dan
I share your thoughts about the Copts as "middlemen" between Europe and the African cultures. That's an interesting development we'll likely see. About Makuria, that's a great idea too. Most certainly they will play a role in a future partition of the Fatimid territory, but in the long run I don't believe they might secure conquests far to the north. I see that the Crusaders, once established in a base in the Delta region, will likely want to secure the whole Nile valley until at least Aswan. Only then will they be willing to put diplomacy first.
Do you have any other ideas about this Coptic-Nubian state you suggested? I'm interested to hear.
Iconium and Caesarea are already reintegrated into the imperial administration, while Sebasteia is occupied by "Byzantine" forces, but remains mostly an advanced militarized outpost rather than a genuine provincial capital. We have to remember that the Komnenoi in their early period were very short on manpower and the effective restoration of the imperial government in the frontier regions of Asia will be rather slow. But to actually go and help a falling County of Edessa will be another issue altogether. Of course, a sensible Emperor will provide resources and even money to keep Edessa alive fighting their proxy war against the Turks, but, even so, Constantinople won't be ready to make their advances into the region until they can consolidate the interior of Asia Minor. For the time being, the Taurus range will serve as a de facto (if not de jure) border of the Empire.
That's most certainly what we'll see. Not only in Tiberias, but I suppose that both Lebanon and Palestine would attract an influx of Armenian immigrants in the event of Edessa's decline, considering that some of the more "orthodox" (irony not intended) of their elements won't be happy to be submitted to "Byzantine" overlordship in the Duchy of Cilicia. In my opinion, it seems certain that the reinvigoration of the Byzantine Empire butterflies away the foundation of an independent Armenian kingdom. Now, the Armenians will survive as a semi-autonomous province, under an Armenian duke, for some time, but I don't believe Constantinople would tolerate actual sovereignty whatsoever.
Yes, it is likely that the Armenians in Cilicia will remain the most useful of Edessa's (few) allies. In the early 12th Century, however, the resources and manpower of Cilician Armenia were considerably limited, and this reduces their possibility of projecting power, even much if this puts them at odds with the Seljuks. The fragmented Turkish beyliks are one issue, but the Seljuks, even in decline, remain a formidable creature. I suppose that even as Edessa becomes assaulted by the Emirate of Mosul, Cilicia won't get as far as vassalizing Edessa - especially because this would create complications with the Latins, because the Archbishop in theory is also the suzerain over the County of Edessa, it being a Crusader State and simultaneously with Constantinople - but only providing material support and military assistance.
Thanks, Dan! Good to be back and happy to see you guys are still interested. This new year is a very promising one, and now I believe that I can finally put some mind in this TL of ours.
I'm fairly sure the Makurians would occupy at least Aswan considering their frontier territory was just 250 km upstream, 3-4 times less than the potentially Crusader controlled Delta, plus the potential allies the Copts would see in the Makurians against a potentially overbearing Crusader rule. Aswan is really not that far north, neither is Luxor, especially with Coptic support and Crusaders overextending in terms of resources too, as the Delta is the most Muslim territory and subject to raids from Bedouins or Lybians. The potential border can be anywhere between Qena and modern Lake Nasser but I feel like the Makurians would secure at least part of the territory short to mid term.
Edit: The mixed state can only really happen with a larger Coptic element, I think that Coptic could be revived(or reinvegorated) as a liturgical language side by side with Nubian, I'm not sure what more could happen but I would look into IOTL Makurian decline and see what could go differently, the butterflies though would go a bit beyond this TLs scope.
Wait, don't the Byzantines control Cilicia and Antioch?
Good points you raised. I'll have this in mind when we finally get there. I confess I don't have a good deal of knowledge about African peoples, and my idea of Makuria is a sketchy one at best. Now, obviously once Egypt is brought into the Crusader State, we'll see Makuria, Alodia and likely the Abyssinian kingdoms play a much larger role, meaning they will tend to become integrated into the macroscopic affairs of the Christian geopolitics.
Regarding the boldened phrase, what I meant with the Taurus range as a border was from the perspective of the Byzantine presence in eastern Anatolia. It indeed holds Cilicia and Antioch, which were beyond the Taurus, of course, but considering an eastward path, the Byzantine power projection is more limited.
If the future Kingdom of Egypt does somehow religiously reconcile with the Copts I would expect these efforts to extend to the Makurians and Ethiopians as well.
I would also expect, a long ways down the line, that much like the Muslim dynasties of Egypt the Christian kingdom would eventually look to the south as a possible avenue of expansion.
YAY Its back.
A couple of notes on Egypt and the broader region.
The fact that the Archbishop of Jerusalem is just that, an Archbishop, and the fact that the antagonism between East and West is consequently less, there are several things rising from this that I can see.
Firstly, the Miaphysite conflict in the Islamic Orient was decided decisively in favour of the Miaphysites against the Melkites, due to the support of the Islamic Rulers for the Miaphysites, this however, was largely conducted prior to the East-West Schism. This means that to the mind of the Monks, and Bishops, with Monks being the main partisans as pointed out above the Orthodox and Catholics are basically in the same heretical boat. Thus, if there is to be a reconciliation between the Catholic Hierarchy and the Miaphysite it would be conducted largely in conjunction with a reconciliation with the Orthodox. This is furthered by several other points, firstly the Crusaders in this timeline are more accommodating to the local Christians, as seen with Archbishop, rather than Patriarch, of Jerusalem, and general policies of religious tolerance. These combine into the fact that the OTL policy of carving off churches, as seen with the 6 Patriarchs of Antioch: Syriac Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Greek Catholic, Maronite, and Latin; is unlikely to happen IRL, rather I think the crusaders would interact with the Church as a whole, and setup a parallel Bishop of Alexandria, subordinate to the Archbishop of Jerusalem, to minister for the Latin Elite. This is also because if they start incorporating the Copts, the Byzantines are going to get uppity, as it stands bad precedent for in Jerusalem and for the Melkites in Egypt. Thus the solution I think is that the Crusaders would adopt a Caesaropapist position, where by the Secular Ruler/Duke of Egypt/Prince of Jerusalem, would "approve" the election of the Patriarch, mainly by removing Patriarchs not amenable to the Crusaders.
However, I would wonder about the feasibility of Crusader control over Egypt considering the fact that IRL the Islamic Conquests were actually relatively slow, the Maghreb taking almost 100 years, and in the former Byzantine and Persian Empires large scale religious tolerance being the name of the game. By comparison the Crusaders have a far harder task, in that they arent fighting crippled empires, supply lines that theoretically start in Europe, and are surrounded, rather than starting from a secure central location. Now this isnt to say its impossible, just that I think Crusader control would have to be similar to in how the Ottomans operated in Historical Armenia, namely through vassal rulers, so possibly an Italian run Alexandria, operating as a Free city, with the various city states having representation, Cairo being a Duchy, and the rest being Coptic Counts/Emirs. This is due to the fact that I dont think they have the manpower long term to fully control Egypt, remember this is an Egypt that has had almost no major outside Wars, or even civil wars, and so will be very populous, which leads to a necessity of having to hand over far more control to natives, than in relatively sparse Palestine, and because to the pious Egypt is just less important, leaving the merchants and those more interested in money. The Result of this would be an Egypt existing as a patchwork of Latin fiefdoms, Italian merchant enclaves, Coptic lordships, possibly Miaphysite Lord-Bishoprics, and maybe some local Muslim Emirates.
On the case of Coptic-Nubian Polities, I would think the Nubians would be very accommodating to Coptic as it would be a prestige language, what with most literature and classics being transferred up the Nile in Coptic. I would also proffer that contrary to the above, Nubian Rulers would be far more integrated in their control, partially because they would be of the same religion, but also because they have far more manpower. This also then feeds into why I dont think the Crusaders would push for integration of the Churches, because the Nubians would be at the doorstep, and far more attractive to whatever newly empowered Coptic Minority, due to them being of the same church. The more long term issue is that the Nubians would likely exist as a region to harbour dissident Monks and Bishops, that have been expelled from Egypt, which the Crusaders would likely find annoying, the issue being they would be unlikely to be able to move their armies south, without provoking unrest.
A couple of notes on Egypt and the broader region.
The fact that the Archbishop of Jerusalem is just that, an Archbishop, and the fact that the antagonism between East and West is consequently less, there are several things rising from this that I can see.
Firstly, the Miaphysite conflict in the Islamic Orient was decided decisively in favour of the Miaphysites against the Melkites, due to the support of the Islamic Rulers for the Miaphysites, this however, was largely conducted prior to the East-West Schism. This means that to the mind of the Monks, and Bishops, with Monks being the main partisans as pointed out above the Orthodox and Catholics are basically in the same heretical boat. Thus, if there is to be a reconciliation between the Catholic Hierarchy and the Miaphysite it would be conducted largely in conjunction with a reconciliation with the Orthodox. This is furthered by several other points, firstly the Crusaders in this timeline are more accommodating to the local Christians, as seen with Archbishop, rather than Patriarch, of Jerusalem, and general policies of religious tolerance. These combine into the fact that the OTL policy of carving off churches, as seen with the 6 Patriarchs of Antioch: Syriac Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Greek Catholic, Maronite, and Latin; is unlikely to happen IRL, rather I think the crusaders would interact with the Church as a whole, and setup a parallel Bishop of Alexandria, subordinate to the Archbishop of Jerusalem, to minister for the Latin Elite. This is also because if they start incorporating the Copts, the Byzantines are going to get uppity, as it stands bad precedent for in Jerusalem and for the Melkites in Egypt. Thus the solution I think is that the Crusaders would adopt a Caesaropapist position, where by the Secular Ruler/Duke of Egypt/Prince of Jerusalem, would "approve" the election of the Patriarch, mainly by removing Patriarchs not amenable to the Crusaders.
However, I would wonder about the feasibility of Crusader control over Egypt considering the fact that IRL the Islamic Conquests were actually relatively slow, the Maghreb taking almost 100 years, and in the former Byzantine and Persian Empires large scale religious tolerance being the name of the game. By comparison the Crusaders have a far harder task, in that they arent fighting crippled empires, supply lines that theoretically start in Europe, and are surrounded, rather than starting from a secure central location. Now this isnt to say its impossible, just that I think Crusader control would have to be similar to in how the Ottomans operated in Historical Armenia, namely through vassal rulers, so possibly an Italian run Alexandria, operating as a Free city, with the various city states having representation, Cairo being a Duchy, and the rest being Coptic Counts/Emirs. This is due to the fact that I dont think they have the manpower long term to fully control Egypt, remember this is an Egypt that has had almost no major outside Wars, or even civil wars, and so will be very populous, which leads to a necessity of having to hand over far more control to natives, than in relatively sparse Palestine, and because to the pious Egypt is just less important, leaving the merchants and those more interested in money. The Result of this would be an Egypt existing as a patchwork of Latin fiefdoms, Italian merchant enclaves, Coptic lordships, possibly Miaphysite Lord-Bishoprics, and maybe some local Muslim Emirates.
On the case of Coptic-Nubian Polities, I would think the Nubians would be very accommodating to Coptic as it would be a prestige language, what with most literature and classics being transferred up the Nile in Coptic. I would also proffer that contrary to the above, Nubian Rulers would be far more integrated in their control, partially because they would be of the same religion, but also because they have far more manpower. This also then feeds into why I dont think the Crusaders would push for integration of the Churches, because the Nubians would be at the doorstep, and far more attractive to whatever newly empowered Coptic Minority, due to them being of the same church. The more long term issue is that the Nubians would likely exist as a region to harbour dissident Monks and Bishops, that have been expelled from Egypt, which the Crusaders would likely find annoying, the issue being they would be unlikely to be able to move their armies south, without provoking unrest.
40. A Garden of Oranges (1130)
Here we go with a small, but significant chapter, that serves to conclude the "Third Act" of the storyline, focused on the final wars of the Crusaders to secure their dominion in Palestine.
The next entry will be an interesting interlude dedicated to explore a question that is extremely important (and often discussed in topics related to the Crusades, not only those in the Middle East, but also the Baltic ones) to assess this alternate-KOJ, that is the gradual and meticulous "colonization" of these parts of western Asia by European immigrants.
Then, after this interlude, we'll have an "out-of-character" non-storyline post, in which I'll make a (very) brief recap of the most relevant events of the TL for new readers, something I consider necessary to at least sum up things after my long absence in this Forum. In the same post, I'll put and explain some ideas I have for the medium to long-term developments of this AH scenario, not only in regards to the alt-KOJ itself, but also some plans I have for Europe, thus I hope to address some questions that are usually asked around.
_________________________________________
Non-contemporary painting (c. 1400 A.D.) depicting the city of Tripoli (Ṭarābulus al-Sham), not to be confused with the namesake city located in Libya (Ṭarābulus al-Gharb).
In the very turn of the Christian millennium, the invading Franji forged with iron and blood a nation in the heart of the Holy Land. Reinforced by various waves of souls dedicated both to pilgrimage and to war, they vanquished the Turcoman despots of the Levant and even humiliated the brave armies of the Shi’ite Caliph of Cairo. Moved by piety and faith, and greed and lust, these barbarians, now entrenched in Palestine, even retaliated by voraciously consuming the defenseless and splintered principalities of the Near East, with such an awesome and inexplicable vigor that in barely a generation, they became sovereigns of most of the lands between the Negev in the south and Lake Homs in the north, and the Mediterranean in the west, and the expanses beyond the Jordan in the east.
The ports of the Phoenician coast, which had greatly prospered under the regime of the Caliphal dynasties, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and, later, the Fatimids, anguished with the collapse of the Egyptian dominion in the Levant. The rapacity and violence of the Turkish invaders from Persia had drained their treasures, as each year witnessed a succession of extortive tributes, while the catastrophic mayhem resultant from their dynastic quarrels after the death of the Great Sultan disrupted commercial venues. Even so, it it’s a testament to the industriousness and passion of these peoples of Lebanon the fact that when they were assailed by the Crusader armies, their cities were still prosperous and advanced. Now, the Latins, these mighty conquerors, had also become the lords of Phoenicia, and its fortune and wealth would serve the purpose of fostering their ultimate purpose of recreating the “Earthly Kingdom of God”, as they envisaged.
In the end, only Tripoli had remained, long after Sidon, Tyre, Beirut and Tortosa perished, albeit as an unhappy and ever vigilant enclave surrounded by the tireless Franji. Raymond of Toulouse, during the First Crusade, as the column of the faithful traversed the ancient Roman road along the Palestinian coast in to reach Jerusalem, had been enraptured by the marvelous skyline of Tripoli, and by the curious smell of citric fruits drifting along the wind. The regions around it, as well as the non-edified spaces inside the city were all dedicated to the cultivation of oranges, a luxurious fruit most prized in Europe, which had been introduced to the Arabs in Spain and in Sicily after they became the masters of these kingdoms. St. Giles [Raymond] had desired the wealth of Tripoli, and would have certainly attacked it before any of the other Phoenician cities, should he have lived longer, to become its sovereign. On the other hand, Bohemond, looking to the east, to Damascus, contented himself with an annual tribute from this emporium, while Robert, too invested in the war in Syria that would claim his life, never turned against Tripoli. Now, Prince Richard of Jerusalem, likely counseled by his Norman colleagues, who, having tasted the riches of Lebanon, greatly envied the wealth and sophistication of this ancient emporium. Besides, there was a constant fear of a Fatimid retaliation by the sea, and leaving an “unguarded” foreign harbor to allow for a transport of Egyptian troops directly inside Lebanon was unconceivable. No… Tripoli had to be incorporated into the Principality of Jerusalem.
The architect of Tripoli’s downfall was none other than Seneschal William of Sant’Angelo, who, as the Count of Ba’albek – called “Balbac” by the Franji – desired a port citadel for his family, like Tyre served for the Hautevilles, and was determined to see Tripoli in his hands before his passing.
Thus, it came to pass that, in the spring of 1130 A.D., the wizened and old Latin Prince of Jerusalem, Richard of Salerno, by then aged more than 70 years, arrived with an army of Normans, Frenchmen and Lombards before the gates of Tripoli, demanding the submission of the Qadi, a scion of the prestigious and beloved Banū ʿAmmār family, named Fakhr al-Mulk ʿAmmār.
In another course of events, Tripoli might have bravely resisted a siege, nourished by a vain hope that they could be rescued from the hand of fate by the timely arrival of an army from Persia or from Egypt. Yet, in these circumstances, the Qadi knew that it was but a matter of time before doom came to his family and the wrath of the Franji would force so many of his countrymen to depart for the heavens, and thus he, putting the interests of the city and of the people ahead of his own honor and dignity, prostrated before the Norman warlord and surrendered his homeland. Duke Richard, obfuscating his haughty demeanor and contempt for the perceived decadence of the Saracen race, genuinely recognized the valor of the proud Qadi, and received him in his tent with honors, ensuring that his family and the citizens of Tripoli would have peace.
Fakhr al-Mulk would, for the remainder of his life, live in Cairo, but, upon his death, his many sons would migrate to al-Andalus, and to this day one can find the manor house they had built in hills of Malaga, whereupon they would preserve a minimum of wealth by cultivating oranges, so that they could ever remember of their fallen homeland…
As expected, prized Tripoli was granted to the Sant’Angeli family as a fief, and William of Gargano moved his court there, with Balbac remaining as an important lordship inside his own demesne, under tenure of his younger sons. As was the way of the Normans of Italy, William permitted the Muslims, Greeks and Syriacs to withheld their own traditions, customs and courts, in an effort to preserve peace in a multiconfessional society. On the other hand, he granted many privileges to the Catholics, mostly Normans and Lombards, and invited many newcomers from Italy to establish colonies in the countryside and to bolster the fortifications to be built in the nearby mountains. In the span of decades, due to the influence of the Norman potentates of Tyre and Tripoli, western Lebanon would be populated by influxes of Italian arrivals, notably from Benevento and Catepanata [m. Foggia], as exemplified by the walled town of Arca [Arqa], which even nowadays houses a significant Italian-descended population.
The annexation of Tripoli, without the shedding of a single drop of blood, made the Latins the masters of the whole of the Mediterranean land between Syria and Egypt, and testified to the formidability and puissance of the Crusaders, in the chaotic power vacuum resultant from the Seljuk decline in the Near East. For the first time since the “reconquest” of Jerusalem to Christendom, the Crusaders, even if partially surrounded by hostile potentates, were politically, militarily and economically entrenched in the Holy Land, and poised for expansion, should their neighbors falter in their own defense.
Thus Fortune decreed that these intrepid pilgrims under arms, from their capital in Jerusalem, would even become the conquerors of the heartland of Syria and of Egypt.
_________________________________________
Notes and comments: The Arabs introduced some Asian crops in Andalusia and in Sicily, such as oranges and sugarcane, as recently as the 10th Century. This, in the time of the Crusades, fruits such as these were indeed expensive and luxurious (in the case of oranges, actually, they remained so until at least the 19th Century, as only the most wealthy could afford to construct private conservatories known as “orangeries” – one survives to this day in Versailles). In a future chapter, we’ll see a more detailed picture about agriculture, craftsmanship and industry in the Crusader-dominated Near East, but, for the time being, I believe these tidbits of information suffice to be inserted into the storyline-focused chapters.
IOTL, Tripoli emerged as a de facto independent County headed by the House of Toulouse. Eventually, it somewhat merged with the Principality of Antioch, as part of intermarriages between its dynasties, but, as a rule, they participated in the Jerusalemite politics in equal standing, and not lowly vassals. As addressed in other chapters and in some discussions we had in this thread, my intention was for to have all but a single “Crusade State”, and not many States, because it would be more plausible for it to survive as an unit than as multiple entities. This point must be stressed out, because, in spite of its comparative larger territorial base, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was actually poorer than the County of Tripoli and the Principality of Antioch, considering that these regions comprised the best agricultural lands and ports of the Mediterranean Near East. Then, having Jerusalem in direct control of Lebanon and a piece of Syria does wonders to increase its odds of survival; on the other hand, the various families ruling these regions will be in constant dispute and intrigue, as we are already seeing, generally among the Normans and Occitans.
The next entry will be an interesting interlude dedicated to explore a question that is extremely important (and often discussed in topics related to the Crusades, not only those in the Middle East, but also the Baltic ones) to assess this alternate-KOJ, that is the gradual and meticulous "colonization" of these parts of western Asia by European immigrants.
Then, after this interlude, we'll have an "out-of-character" non-storyline post, in which I'll make a (very) brief recap of the most relevant events of the TL for new readers, something I consider necessary to at least sum up things after my long absence in this Forum. In the same post, I'll put and explain some ideas I have for the medium to long-term developments of this AH scenario, not only in regards to the alt-KOJ itself, but also some plans I have for Europe, thus I hope to address some questions that are usually asked around.
_________________________________________
Non-contemporary painting (c. 1400 A.D.) depicting the city of Tripoli (Ṭarābulus al-Sham), not to be confused with the namesake city located in Libya (Ṭarābulus al-Gharb).
In the very turn of the Christian millennium, the invading Franji forged with iron and blood a nation in the heart of the Holy Land. Reinforced by various waves of souls dedicated both to pilgrimage and to war, they vanquished the Turcoman despots of the Levant and even humiliated the brave armies of the Shi’ite Caliph of Cairo. Moved by piety and faith, and greed and lust, these barbarians, now entrenched in Palestine, even retaliated by voraciously consuming the defenseless and splintered principalities of the Near East, with such an awesome and inexplicable vigor that in barely a generation, they became sovereigns of most of the lands between the Negev in the south and Lake Homs in the north, and the Mediterranean in the west, and the expanses beyond the Jordan in the east.
The ports of the Phoenician coast, which had greatly prospered under the regime of the Caliphal dynasties, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and, later, the Fatimids, anguished with the collapse of the Egyptian dominion in the Levant. The rapacity and violence of the Turkish invaders from Persia had drained their treasures, as each year witnessed a succession of extortive tributes, while the catastrophic mayhem resultant from their dynastic quarrels after the death of the Great Sultan disrupted commercial venues. Even so, it it’s a testament to the industriousness and passion of these peoples of Lebanon the fact that when they were assailed by the Crusader armies, their cities were still prosperous and advanced. Now, the Latins, these mighty conquerors, had also become the lords of Phoenicia, and its fortune and wealth would serve the purpose of fostering their ultimate purpose of recreating the “Earthly Kingdom of God”, as they envisaged.
In the end, only Tripoli had remained, long after Sidon, Tyre, Beirut and Tortosa perished, albeit as an unhappy and ever vigilant enclave surrounded by the tireless Franji. Raymond of Toulouse, during the First Crusade, as the column of the faithful traversed the ancient Roman road along the Palestinian coast in to reach Jerusalem, had been enraptured by the marvelous skyline of Tripoli, and by the curious smell of citric fruits drifting along the wind. The regions around it, as well as the non-edified spaces inside the city were all dedicated to the cultivation of oranges, a luxurious fruit most prized in Europe, which had been introduced to the Arabs in Spain and in Sicily after they became the masters of these kingdoms. St. Giles [Raymond] had desired the wealth of Tripoli, and would have certainly attacked it before any of the other Phoenician cities, should he have lived longer, to become its sovereign. On the other hand, Bohemond, looking to the east, to Damascus, contented himself with an annual tribute from this emporium, while Robert, too invested in the war in Syria that would claim his life, never turned against Tripoli. Now, Prince Richard of Jerusalem, likely counseled by his Norman colleagues, who, having tasted the riches of Lebanon, greatly envied the wealth and sophistication of this ancient emporium. Besides, there was a constant fear of a Fatimid retaliation by the sea, and leaving an “unguarded” foreign harbor to allow for a transport of Egyptian troops directly inside Lebanon was unconceivable. No… Tripoli had to be incorporated into the Principality of Jerusalem.
The architect of Tripoli’s downfall was none other than Seneschal William of Sant’Angelo, who, as the Count of Ba’albek – called “Balbac” by the Franji – desired a port citadel for his family, like Tyre served for the Hautevilles, and was determined to see Tripoli in his hands before his passing.
Thus, it came to pass that, in the spring of 1130 A.D., the wizened and old Latin Prince of Jerusalem, Richard of Salerno, by then aged more than 70 years, arrived with an army of Normans, Frenchmen and Lombards before the gates of Tripoli, demanding the submission of the Qadi, a scion of the prestigious and beloved Banū ʿAmmār family, named Fakhr al-Mulk ʿAmmār.
In another course of events, Tripoli might have bravely resisted a siege, nourished by a vain hope that they could be rescued from the hand of fate by the timely arrival of an army from Persia or from Egypt. Yet, in these circumstances, the Qadi knew that it was but a matter of time before doom came to his family and the wrath of the Franji would force so many of his countrymen to depart for the heavens, and thus he, putting the interests of the city and of the people ahead of his own honor and dignity, prostrated before the Norman warlord and surrendered his homeland. Duke Richard, obfuscating his haughty demeanor and contempt for the perceived decadence of the Saracen race, genuinely recognized the valor of the proud Qadi, and received him in his tent with honors, ensuring that his family and the citizens of Tripoli would have peace.
Fakhr al-Mulk would, for the remainder of his life, live in Cairo, but, upon his death, his many sons would migrate to al-Andalus, and to this day one can find the manor house they had built in hills of Malaga, whereupon they would preserve a minimum of wealth by cultivating oranges, so that they could ever remember of their fallen homeland…
*****
As expected, prized Tripoli was granted to the Sant’Angeli family as a fief, and William of Gargano moved his court there, with Balbac remaining as an important lordship inside his own demesne, under tenure of his younger sons. As was the way of the Normans of Italy, William permitted the Muslims, Greeks and Syriacs to withheld their own traditions, customs and courts, in an effort to preserve peace in a multiconfessional society. On the other hand, he granted many privileges to the Catholics, mostly Normans and Lombards, and invited many newcomers from Italy to establish colonies in the countryside and to bolster the fortifications to be built in the nearby mountains. In the span of decades, due to the influence of the Norman potentates of Tyre and Tripoli, western Lebanon would be populated by influxes of Italian arrivals, notably from Benevento and Catepanata [m. Foggia], as exemplified by the walled town of Arca [Arqa], which even nowadays houses a significant Italian-descended population.
The annexation of Tripoli, without the shedding of a single drop of blood, made the Latins the masters of the whole of the Mediterranean land between Syria and Egypt, and testified to the formidability and puissance of the Crusaders, in the chaotic power vacuum resultant from the Seljuk decline in the Near East. For the first time since the “reconquest” of Jerusalem to Christendom, the Crusaders, even if partially surrounded by hostile potentates, were politically, militarily and economically entrenched in the Holy Land, and poised for expansion, should their neighbors falter in their own defense.
Thus Fortune decreed that these intrepid pilgrims under arms, from their capital in Jerusalem, would even become the conquerors of the heartland of Syria and of Egypt.
_________________________________________
Notes and comments: The Arabs introduced some Asian crops in Andalusia and in Sicily, such as oranges and sugarcane, as recently as the 10th Century. This, in the time of the Crusades, fruits such as these were indeed expensive and luxurious (in the case of oranges, actually, they remained so until at least the 19th Century, as only the most wealthy could afford to construct private conservatories known as “orangeries” – one survives to this day in Versailles). In a future chapter, we’ll see a more detailed picture about agriculture, craftsmanship and industry in the Crusader-dominated Near East, but, for the time being, I believe these tidbits of information suffice to be inserted into the storyline-focused chapters.
IOTL, Tripoli emerged as a de facto independent County headed by the House of Toulouse. Eventually, it somewhat merged with the Principality of Antioch, as part of intermarriages between its dynasties, but, as a rule, they participated in the Jerusalemite politics in equal standing, and not lowly vassals. As addressed in other chapters and in some discussions we had in this thread, my intention was for to have all but a single “Crusade State”, and not many States, because it would be more plausible for it to survive as an unit than as multiple entities. This point must be stressed out, because, in spite of its comparative larger territorial base, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was actually poorer than the County of Tripoli and the Principality of Antioch, considering that these regions comprised the best agricultural lands and ports of the Mediterranean Near East. Then, having Jerusalem in direct control of Lebanon and a piece of Syria does wonders to increase its odds of survival; on the other hand, the various families ruling these regions will be in constant dispute and intrigue, as we are already seeing, generally among the Normans and Occitans.
Thanks for the detailed exposition, my friend. I see we indeed share some thoughts, and this brings very interesting points that we'll need to address in some detail later.
I do admit that I'm still learning more about the complicated and intricated theological distinctions between the various peoples of the eastern Mediterranean/Near East, and, indeed, I feel more enlightened by your assessment about the Melkites and Copts. I do want to defer a more in-depth discussion about the matter to some later posts; for the time being, I feel my knowledge about these specific details is faltering.
Regarding your second paragraph, you raised a good point, but I think we must have in mind that the Egyptian geography actually facilitates the establishment of a centralized (even if foreign) government controlling at least the most economically relevant provinces of the region (which is, without doubt, the Lower Egypt, including the Delta, as well as the Red Sea littoral). I was under the impression, actually, that both the Romans (in Antiquity) and the Arabs actually obtained Egypt very quickly - of course, we must have in mind the the circumstances were broadly different - but since Antiquity we can really see a pattern about the conquest of Egypt by powers coming from Asia (or Europe, anyway), that is, the military occupation of the mostly urbanized provinces, notably Alexandria and Cairo, allows for the creation of a powerful base from which a state can expand into the Nile valley all the way to the Upper Egypt. That is not to say that a Crusader conquest would be easy; it won't (and will likely involve an "international" effort, so to say).
You also have to consider that the late Fatimid period was one of steep decline. The country was broken by dynastic wars, rebellions, a destructive decade of famine (in the late 11th Century), which severely depopulated the agrarian regions, and religious conflict. This is a point that will be addressed in detail in the very first chapter of the Fourth Act of the story-line, and it simply cannot be neglected. IOTL, the KOJ actually had a good opportunity of seizing militarily (at least a part of it) Egypt from the Fatimids during the reign of King Amaury. Once the country fell to the Zengids and consolidated under the Ayyubids, the opportunity disappeared. ITTL, if we keep the other Islamic powers (notably from Syria and Persia) away, Egypt remains fairly isolated, as the rest of Maghreb has been mostly unified by the Almohads and they were concerned about Spain, while the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula had little power projection to undo the Crusader advances.
On the other hand, you presented a very good point about a possible modus operandi for a Crusader rule, one that will most certainly defer a lot of authority to "native" rulers, and, indeed, this will be a pattern we'll be seeing. The suggestion of Duchies in the Delta and the rest delegated to Coptic Counts/Emirs is very good, and is exactly what I have in mind. At least in the first century of Crusader domination, the Kingdom of Egypt will be certainly politically fractured. Also, inspired by your post, I'll be sure to look about the Ottoman system of government in Armenia to have a bigger picture.
Finally, very good points regarding the Coptic-Nubian entities. It is likely we'll see a "Coptification" of the Nubian elites, one that certainly changes the very geopolitical (and institutional) relevance of the Coptic community, from a marginalized minority to an influential ethnogroup in Crusader politics, much like the "Byzantines" and the Armenians. And, as to the relationship between the Crusaders in Egypt and the Nubians, it will probably be one of accomodation; the Latins won't be interested in launching expeditions so deep into the Nile Valley, while the Nubians will certainly be content after a generation of expansionism to the north, moreso now that they won't have such a hostile entity as an Islamic Caliphate northward them.
Last edited:
First I wanted to say thanks for the response. I concur with your points and would just like to expand abit
I mean the distinctions are massively complex and subtle, a group of Orthodox and Miaphysite theologians actually back in the 90s, agreed that there were no major differences of theology, the distinctions had been purely in language/translation. When we put this into context then we realise that the conflict soldified the way it did purely through dogmatism/partisanship, this helps to then frame the conflict. For further reason as to why the groups are unlikely to reconcile is that both sides have saints who condemned the other side, which is very awkward if you realise that both sides basically believe the same thing.
Firstly, I will say I had actually forgotten to consider the steep decline, which is a massive oversight on my part, and a very important point. However I think the issue of the large, relative to Palestine/Syria, population remains, and hence a need for more indirect rule. On the point of conquest, my idea there was more to illustrate that the Islamic Conquest wasnt smooth sailing, and whilst most conquests of Egypt have been quick, its also easy to lose control of Egypt, hence why you want to reach natural borders quickly, so as to need less defence. Its good to see though that you are alluding to outside forces for taking Egypt, my Italian Free City perhaps? I will expand more on the taking urbanised provinces, in the next part.
To expand on the modus operandi. I think the key thing that the Crusaders would do is this, secure the borders of Egypt with military garrisons, and then allow a greater degree of internal self rule. This would primarily mean that top and bottom of the Nile would be where most of the Latin powers are had, along with a Nile Navy, so as to project power up and down river. What this would look like depends how far the Nubians come, but I would guess assuming Aswan is taken, the Crusaders make a Count of Luxor, Duke of Egypt[Cairo], and Count of/Free City of Alexandria, and then the other major cities are turned over to intermediaries who sit inside a normal or possibly parallel feudal structure, or it might be some type of Byzantine inspired, fiefdom system where its technically not hereditary but really is. On the point of Aswan, OTL Makuria at its height controlled Luxor, so its possible that Sohag would be the replacement County.
I would also say that the Nubians will likely content themselves to being a sort of Intermediary between the Crusaders and Eithopia/Africa, in the same vein, and that they are unlikely to really want to take all of Egypt, as they won't really have the strength for that, and defending from Eithopia will be more important, along with gratitude for abolishing of the Slave Raids etc. I would also suggest that the Elite whilst already quite well versed in Coptic, would probably start interacting with the Crusaders through Coptic Merchants, which would help with the new role of the Coptic Community. I would also suggest the Nubians will likely use their new found wealth to unify, likely with Makuria triumphing over Alodia, and then possibly beginning to fight with Eithopia, and or against Red Sea Pirates, if they try to gain access to India.
Anyway, godspeed for the next update.
I mean the distinctions are massively complex and subtle, a group of Orthodox and Miaphysite theologians actually back in the 90s, agreed that there were no major differences of theology, the distinctions had been purely in language/translation. When we put this into context then we realise that the conflict soldified the way it did purely through dogmatism/partisanship, this helps to then frame the conflict. For further reason as to why the groups are unlikely to reconcile is that both sides have saints who condemned the other side, which is very awkward if you realise that both sides basically believe the same thing.
Firstly, I will say I had actually forgotten to consider the steep decline, which is a massive oversight on my part, and a very important point. However I think the issue of the large, relative to Palestine/Syria, population remains, and hence a need for more indirect rule. On the point of conquest, my idea there was more to illustrate that the Islamic Conquest wasnt smooth sailing, and whilst most conquests of Egypt have been quick, its also easy to lose control of Egypt, hence why you want to reach natural borders quickly, so as to need less defence. Its good to see though that you are alluding to outside forces for taking Egypt, my Italian Free City perhaps? I will expand more on the taking urbanised provinces, in the next part.
To expand on the modus operandi. I think the key thing that the Crusaders would do is this, secure the borders of Egypt with military garrisons, and then allow a greater degree of internal self rule. This would primarily mean that top and bottom of the Nile would be where most of the Latin powers are had, along with a Nile Navy, so as to project power up and down river. What this would look like depends how far the Nubians come, but I would guess assuming Aswan is taken, the Crusaders make a Count of Luxor, Duke of Egypt[Cairo], and Count of/Free City of Alexandria, and then the other major cities are turned over to intermediaries who sit inside a normal or possibly parallel feudal structure, or it might be some type of Byzantine inspired, fiefdom system where its technically not hereditary but really is. On the point of Aswan, OTL Makuria at its height controlled Luxor, so its possible that Sohag would be the replacement County.
I would also say that the Nubians will likely content themselves to being a sort of Intermediary between the Crusaders and Eithopia/Africa, in the same vein, and that they are unlikely to really want to take all of Egypt, as they won't really have the strength for that, and defending from Eithopia will be more important, along with gratitude for abolishing of the Slave Raids etc. I would also suggest that the Elite whilst already quite well versed in Coptic, would probably start interacting with the Crusaders through Coptic Merchants, which would help with the new role of the Coptic Community. I would also suggest the Nubians will likely use their new found wealth to unify, likely with Makuria triumphing over Alodia, and then possibly beginning to fight with Eithopia, and or against Red Sea Pirates, if they try to gain access to India.
Anyway, godspeed for the next update.
Thanks for the inputs, Emps. Excellent and accurate observations. What drives me even more to perfect this TL is the members' collaboration, so I am very grateful for the support.
The sole point I did not actually address was the idea for a "Free City of Alexandria", because in my head I'm conceiving that a Christian "reconquest" of Egypt would see a joint Crusader and "Byzantine" effort. Constantinople might not see itself controlling the whole of Egypt, but the Crusaders, on the other hand, will be pushed to install some sort of "condominium" (... for the matter, it oddly parallels OTL 19th Century Sudan), and Alexandria will be the greatest prize to the Basileus. Then, again, the (far) better relations we are seeing between the Latins and the Byzantines, which most certainly butterflies away the massacre of 1182 actually presents an even more interesting opportunity for us to see Alexandria as some sort with a strong international flavor, as the Italians merchants will be welcome to some degree.
These times I wish we could "favorite" posts in the Forum so that I can read it later again. Anyway, those are things that we'll be discussing often.
The sole point I did not actually address was the idea for a "Free City of Alexandria", because in my head I'm conceiving that a Christian "reconquest" of Egypt would see a joint Crusader and "Byzantine" effort. Constantinople might not see itself controlling the whole of Egypt, but the Crusaders, on the other hand, will be pushed to install some sort of "condominium" (... for the matter, it oddly parallels OTL 19th Century Sudan), and Alexandria will be the greatest prize to the Basileus. Then, again, the (far) better relations we are seeing between the Latins and the Byzantines, which most certainly butterflies away the massacre of 1182 actually presents an even more interesting opportunity for us to see Alexandria as some sort with a strong international flavor, as the Italians merchants will be welcome to some degree.
These times I wish we could "favorite" posts in the Forum so that I can read it later again. Anyway, those are things that we'll be discussing often.
A surviving Crusader state, especially one that controls Egypt, greatly impacts the impetus for the very risjy gamble of exploration -- delaying it by decades or imo even centuries, given Italian Christian control if the spice routes as opposed to Muslims.
Without Italian help the Iberians wouldn't have been nearly as able to explore as they did; the impetus would instead lie with the polities of the North Sea, the very end of long Italian trade networks. And I doubt North America could spark wider interest like Mesoamerica did, so itd be pretty slowgoing. You'd need Timurexpy to outright wipe out the koj to give Mediterranean polities any real reason to invest money into sailing into unknown waters and before someone mentions ASB Moroccan colonialism they have reliable lucrative gold trade to exploit instead
Without Italian help the Iberians wouldn't have been nearly as able to explore as they did; the impetus would instead lie with the polities of the North Sea, the very end of long Italian trade networks. And I doubt North America could spark wider interest like Mesoamerica did, so itd be pretty slowgoing. You'd need Timurexpy to outright wipe out the koj to give Mediterranean polities any real reason to invest money into sailing into unknown waters and before someone mentions ASB Moroccan colonialism they have reliable lucrative gold trade to exploit instead