And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace
- Thread starter Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)
- Start date
To be more precise, I didn't meant exactly an all out conflict, but basically that due to the unavoidably fractured nature of Egypt that a Latin conquest will result in (), the control of Egypt riches will be a struggle and a game of influence, and at this game, the Byzantines are way, way stronger (and have longer, centuries long experience as well) than Jerusalem and the Italian maritime republics, so if the Italo-Latins can't get their way diplomatically, the military way is the only way left (and here, I thinking of proxy conflicts between respective client states).
I'm well aware that Egypt's conquest is a foregone conclusion, I'm just thinking that whatever political settlement there is after the conquest, I'm pretty sure of two things, first it won't be annexed to Jerusalem and second, it will be anything but united and centralized and end up as a bunch of client states spanning the Nile valley from Nubia down to the delta, not to mention the oases in the western desert (Siwa, Fayum...) under the influence of one or another Italian maritime republic or Rhomaion with Latin sovereignty nominal at best.
I'm well aware that Egypt's conquest is a foregone conclusion, I'm just thinking that whatever political settlement there is after the conquest, I'm pretty sure of two things, first it won't be annexed to Jerusalem and second, it will be anything but united and centralized and end up as a bunch of client states spanning the Nile valley from Nubia down to the delta, not to mention the oases in the western desert (Siwa, Fayum...) under the influence of one or another Italian maritime republic or Rhomaion with Latin sovereignty nominal at best.
Once you remove Damascus (and Homs incidentally since there is no reason to keep it independent without Damascus to bother with), and especially Egypt from the equation, Jerusalem will no longer have a vital need of Rhomaion support as there would be only left the Syrian-Mesopotamian border left to worry about, one that Jerusalem could very well think and be actually capable to defend on its own.
Much case has been made about Italian settlers, but what of German and French ones? Are they so few that they aren't mentionned next to the Italians?
jocay
Banned
Any chance that some of those Bosnian slaves end up in Caesarea? :3 Interestingly enough it was 19th century Bosnian immigrants escaping religious violence in the Balkans who built modern-day Caesarea and have many descendants amongst the Palestinian population. On the other end, how are the local Christians and Muslims reacting to the influx of European migrants?
Yeah, basically what @Cryostorm explained. To be fair, "religious tourism" played a significant role in Medieval European societies. Veneration of relics, iconography, masses, famous priests, and such, were not uncommon, with the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela being a very interesting and relevant example, even today. Before the Crusades, we have interesting examples, such as Alfred the Great and Cnut going to Rome in pilgrimage, the Normans in Italy going to the sanctuary of St. Michael in Foggia, and so forth.
In any event, as he pointed out, there are some important divergences in relation to OTL that explain why this process is being sped up: (1) the relatively safer path to the Outremer, with a more consolidated "Byzantium" and a sole "Crusader State"; (2) the fact that the Crusaders secured Ascalon MUCH sooner than IOTL (c. 1150s), and was a haven for bandits and raiders that attacked the roads linking Jaffa and Acre to Jerusalem, which in turn inspired the creation of the Templar Order; (3) the increasingly convenient maritime paths due to the growing Italian cities and their better relations with Constantinople.
Thanks!! I intend to have a lot of interludes to address many stuff that really don't fit in the narrative-based storyline, from economy, cultural trivia, societal developments and other interesting details.
That's a very interesting and important "detail", indeed. I guess it is somewhat forgotten, especially if compared to the route to Santiago de Compostela, but it is nevertheless one that I've read about a long time ago and couldn't simply ignore.
Your considerations are precise, my friend. We'll very much likely see these sorts of patterns, including the fate of Homs and Damascus, and the relations towards the ERE. I liked the idea of seeing proxy conflicts between spheres of influence, and, overall we might have some sort of "Great Game" in the eastern Mediterranean. However, I do tend to suppose that, when the day comes for a war between the Latins and the Romans, Constantinople will be very wary of "isolating" itself from western Christendom, so to speak; that is, they will go to great lengths to legitimize their own position, so as to avoid further debacles with the Papacy, the HRE, the Italian republics and other Latin monarchies, while the Crusaders, on the other hand, even if counting with Papal support, won't be so quick to alienate Constantinople. Your prediction about a possible "Cold War" between them, to dispute the fate of the Near East and (likely) North Africa is very sensible.
I focused on the Italians just to compare with OTL, in which we saw the French playing a considerably larger role in the Outremer (with all the dynastic houses being installed by French nobles, and such, like the Angevines and the Lusignans), while Italy, in spite of its economic and populational relevance, had a comparatively minor impact (until the Fourth Crusade, at least, which saw a large role played by Venice and Montferrat). The previous entry focused on Italians just to show this divergence in comparison to OTL, but this obviously doesn't means that we won't be seeing peoples from other regions of Europe. The whole Francophone region (France proper, Brittany, Flanders and Burgundy) are a given, and we'll usually see French nobles and monarchs on Crusade. The Germans too, and there has been a lot of mentions about the regions of southern Germany (Swabia and Bavaria) and especially the Rhineland, which was experiencing a rapid process of urbanization in the period.
That's very interesting, I didn't know about the Bosnians. This curiosity will much likely warrant mentions, you can be sure about that
Local Christians and Muslims don't really have much of a say in the matter. Some friction and perhaps even revolts are bound to happen due to the conflicting interests, but, as a general rule of thumb, the established communities won't be universally affected by these influxes, as they will happen during the course of many decades. Also, the Latin immigrants will tend to focus geographically in coastal Palestine, in central Lebanon and Syria, so we'll see that these local Levantine communities won't necessarily be displaced by the new arrivals. Palestine, in particular, is a difficult region due to its mountainous and hilly geography, but, even so, it was relatively underpopulated before the arrival of the Crusaders due to its peripheral character as a province during the rule of the Caliphates, while Lebanon and Syria have considerably larger populations.
ACT IV - THE SECOND CRUSADE
ACT IV - THE SECOND CRUSADE
“Christian warriors, He who gave His life for you, today demands yours in return. These are combats worthy of you, combats in which it is glorious to conquer and advantageous to die. Illustrious knights, generous defenders of the Cross, remember the example of your fathers, who conquered Jerusalem, and whose names are inscribed in Heaven. Abandon then the things that perish, to gather unfading palms and conquer a Kingdom that has no end.”
(OTL) St. Bernard’s speech at Vèzelay
"The King of France accepts the Cross" - non-contemporary painting representing *King Phillip II, successor of Louis VI, joining the Second Crusade in 1137. He was the most prominent of this new holy expedition summoned by Pope Anacletus II, the largest one so far.
A teaser to get back on tracks. Next chapter comes later tomorrow, once I get back from work.
In the meantime, can you guess what this Crusade will be about?
In the meantime, can you guess what this Crusade will be about?
So he doesn't die a so stupid death I guess.
I don't know what Michel Pastoureau's theory is actually worth as I have difficulties taking it at face value, but I find interesting at least as an anecdot testamount to the time's importance: Pastoureau affirmed that in reaction to Philip's death from a pig, Louis VI picked the attributes of the Holy Virgin, blue color and the lys flower as his.
The thing is, I found, that Capetian heraldry, azur and lys flowers, was definitely established under Louis VII it seems.
Well, fair game about the goal, probably not kicking Muslims out of Spain or heathens out of the Baltic, but I'm sure it'll contain copious amounts of 'Deus Vult!!'
That said, spearheading the attack on al-Andalus would certainly be interesting, with its close proximity to France, but seeing as the Crusaders are still having manpower problems and al-Andalus isn't exactly a pilgrim destination of the importance of the Holy Land I doubt the second crusade isn't marching off to fight in Egypt.
The fall of Edessa as the OTL 2nd crusade (well, that was strongly hinted since the whole Tiberias affair) will be the trigger, and like the OTL second crusade, they'll end up besieging Damascus.
It hasn't been hidden that the crusaders tolerate its independence only because they don't have yet the strength to take it on their own, and there, they have a way better situation than the OTL siege of 1148 with all the route to the Holy Land in friendly hands, thanks to the control of Anatolia by the Rhomaion and the more extensive conquests in Lebanon.
The only question is whether or not Homs will survive this crusade or be subjugated just after Damascus.
Egypt. It easier to supply and more attractive for the Byzantines to help out with.
Drawing the catholic gaze downward to Egypt makes a lot of sense for them. Question is, can they?
Egypt is not an immediate threat to Jerusalem. It has been and is to remain quiet for quite a long time.
Damascus and central Syria make much more sense and logics than Egypt since there have been recent campaigns there (contrasting to no sustained effort yet seen beyond Gaza)
Damascus and central Syria make much more sense and logics than Egypt since there have been recent campaigns there (contrasting to no sustained effort yet seen beyond Gaza)
I mean, after you secure Damascus, the Orontes valley and (possibly) Aleppo, there lacks any major source of threat for the Levantine coast.
Skallagrim
Banned
What @Tomislav Addai writes is accurate. Egypt might be tempting to get economic gains, but that will not help you if you're spread thin and your strategic depth is paltry. The best thing to do is to secure the Levantine coastal holdings by driving further in-land. Damascus is the obvious target, and the wider goal should be (western) Syria altogether (a.k.a. the northern inland Levant, as @Gloss put it). Once you've got that, you're far more secure. After that, Egypt becomes a realistic target.
As far as truly long-term strategy is concerned, I'd say that Egypt is indeed the logical target after you get your core territory secured. The reason simply being that controlling egypt allows you to cut off (effective) trade between the (Islam) East and (also Islamic) North Africa. From that position, the most ambitious goal can then become: a Reconquista of not only Iberia, but all of North Africa. (By which I do not mean to say that this would be somehow easy, but rather that it would be the logical ambition, and could indeed happen -- in the long term -- if enough effort is dedicated to it.) This seems like a more realistic 'grand plan' than driving into Mesopotamia (which would be difficult to do and even more difficult to hold for the Crusaders), and also more sensible to a European mind (because a reconquista of North Africa would end Islamic piracy and restore the Mare Nostrum within the context of Christendom).
As far as truly long-term strategy is concerned, I'd say that Egypt is indeed the logical target after you get your core territory secured. The reason simply being that controlling egypt allows you to cut off (effective) trade between the (Islam) East and (also Islamic) North Africa. From that position, the most ambitious goal can then become: a Reconquista of not only Iberia, but all of North Africa. (By which I do not mean to say that this would be somehow easy, but rather that it would be the logical ambition, and could indeed happen -- in the long term -- if enough effort is dedicated to it.) This seems like a more realistic 'grand plan' than driving into Mesopotamia (which would be difficult to do and even more difficult to hold for the Crusaders), and also more sensible to a European mind (because a reconquista of North Africa would end Islamic piracy and restore the Mare Nostrum within the context of Christendom).