And All Nations Shall Gather To It - A Crusades TL

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Rdffigueira, Mar 3, 2017.

Loading...
  1. jocay Ambiguously Brown

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2018
    Location:
    New York
    Yes Egypt belongs to Makouria.
     
  2. Raiyleigh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2019
    The Crusaders would be overstretched at this point (slower integration), repetitive vicious rebellions are more than likely to happen with it being more densely populated than the Levant/Palestine. The need for Italian or Byzantine help keeping the rebellions down and keeping the other powers away during this time period. The Crusaders if they follow the method that was used in the Levant then Egypt will be divided into states anyway with different rulers, with French and Norman or different participating Crusaders getting a slice of Egypt.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2019
  3. Ridcully Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Peasant rebellions are not going to be any real threat in this era and I don’t see why a region that contains much more christians than the Levant will be more prone to rebellion just because it is urbanized? The crusaders would have an almost total monopoly of force over the peasants and the urban rabble.

    Also I don’t see what other power would be any real threat to crusader Egypt? He Mesopotamian Muslims will certainly be able to threaten Syria and the Levant, but Egypt? The Byzantines still only have a shaky grasp on eastern Anatolia let alone trying to threaten Egypt.

    As for integration, tbh this sounds more like an EU4 mechanic than real life, sure they will likely try to get the copts onside but I don’t get why this would prevent them from dominating the entirety of Egypt as once the power of the Fatimids is broken there is no one who can possible challenge them if they decide to take all of Egypt.

    Sorry if I am being a bit abrupt, I’m trying to sneakily post while at work.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2019
  4. Raiyleigh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2019
    It depends on how much of Egypt has been Arabized/Islamification already for rebellious/revolt attitude. Crusader's policy towards the Coptics/Neostarians could vary. Integrating among the locals (conversing them to Catholicism), the culture/language etc and how much immigration from Europe will there be. Manpower will be more difficult to attain for certain, heavily reliant on local manpower which is a double edge sword. Crusader Egypt will be reliant on aid from the Italian states for awhile while CE tries to pick themselves up.

    Crusaders could make problems for themselves by making bad decisions (possible infighting among themselves), just like they did in OTL and in this TL. Yemen can grow into being a threat to CE trade in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden and back the rebellions, and a possible threat from Cyrenaica. Eastern Anatolia could possibly be secured by the time for the Crusade for Egypt or could have the Mongols pummel both Crusaders/Byzantine and Egypt stays Fatimd or Islamic a while longer while both recover.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2019
  5. JamesFox Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    One thing I wonder if if Crusaders take Egypt, will they try to penetrate the Sahara? At least one trans-Saharan slave route (the brutal '40 days road') terminates in Egypt.
     
  6. jocay Ambiguously Brown

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2018
    Location:
    New York
    They would have to contend with the Sayfawas running the Kanem Empire. And participating in the trans-Saharan slave trade would open the door for a Christian Mamelukes-esque group.
     
  7. Wolttaire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2018
    no they will not try to conquer the sahara the desert tribes are king there and the only ones who know how to get through
     
  8. Skallagrim Not the one from YouTube. Different other fellow.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    If Egypt is held by the Crusaders, the more sensible goal (not so much for them as for European powers facing the Med) is to extend the Reconquista into North Africa, in which case all practical effort will be on the areas closer to the coast. As discussed already, it would additionally be interesting to Iberian powers in particular to go down Africa's Atlantic coast as well. Anything inland will be far too much trouble to try and hold down.
     
  9. Wolttaire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2018
    africa altatnic coast is no better still inhostiablte desert with nothing worth it there no reason for them conquer it
     
  10. Skallagrim Not the one from YouTube. Different other fellow.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    How quaint, then, that they ultimately did do it in OTL. I daresay prestige is a motive in itself. The "mission" of reconquest (in the name of Christendom) being extended to not just Iberia but anything that was part of the Roman Empire is also a motive in itself. More practically, the destruction of greater Islamic powers in the region may lead to troublesome piracy by Islamic statelets in North Africa (compare modern Somalia; that kind of situation used to be the rule in any region where clear authority didn't extend to prevent it). Initial anti-piracy campaigns will only have ffects as long as you're around to enforce your will. After that, the problem comes back. Solution: conquer the place. Garrison the cities. assume exclusive control over all serious ports. (And expel all Muslims from said cities; repoulate them with your own subjects.)

    This also means that whichever caravan comes out of the Sahara can only ever trade with you. No islamic coastal state(let)s in between, as middle men who take their cut. Traders deal with you, on your terms, or they don't trade at all. Controlling the Med's entire coastline is awesome like that. Ask the Romans about it. They'll tell you.
     
  11. Wolttaire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2018
    Wait I think we may have confusion here are you talking about morocco Atlantic coast or the Western Sahara Atlantic coast?
     
  12. Skallagrim Not the one from YouTube. Different other fellow.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    I think that when talking about Spanish ventures on the atlintic coast of Africa, we are realistically looking at the Moroccan coast. Western Sahara isn't going to be conquered on account of the fact that it can't sustain piracy at any level. At most, you'll see some outposts / supply stations along the way south if any venture against the Mali Empire is carried out. And once you get to those parts -- assuming successful military campaigns at some point -- controlling the coast directly will again prove to be more attractive than the alternative.

    Basically, if someone said to me "devise a grand strategy of conquest in North Africa that best serves the interests of the Christian powers", then these are the areas I would mark:

    Goals.png

    And besides that, I would obviously seek to ally with all Christian powers in North-East Africa, and to basically ensure that the Nile and everything east of it is controlled by Christian rules of some sort. But direct control is much less crucial there, just as long as one has control over access to the Red Sea on both sides.
     
  13. jocay Ambiguously Brown

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2018
    Location:
    New York
    In the coming centuries, there's the chance of Christianity spreading to the parts of West Africa not yet touched by Islam. I'd like to see European missionaries likely from Portugal or Spain evangelizing the gospel to the coastal Nigerian kingdoms of Benin and Nri. With the precedence of a successful Crusades, I can see the Afro-Atlantic slave trade taking a religious aspect to it. Christian kingdoms in the coast would be incentivized to commit holy war against their animistic and Islamic neighbors and sell war captives to European merchants.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2019
  14. Icedaemon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    A reconquest of (parts of) North Africa might be the solution to the ERE getting Alexandria but nothing more of significance from Egypt - if rather than only directly controlling a single city (the crusader state of Egypt would likely still be a nominal vassal, like Jerusalem) Alexandria would be the easternmost major site in Roman Africa, with the western parts starting at Cyrenaica at minimum.
     
  15. Sceonn Peace at a Bargain Price

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2014
    The Empire of Mali at least will survive seeing that TTL Morocco will be preoccupied if even under Muslim rule.
     
  16. Wolttaire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2018
    Yah morroco not why they collapse otl
     
  17. Soverihn Proud Tribalist

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Location:
    Cibao Wilayet, Caliphate of Quisqueya
    A Reconquest of North Africa would not go well. Logistics are going to be utter hell and the migration of the Banu Halil and other tribal confederations would be able to withstand whatever the crusaders tried.

    Remember, the Levant is (kinda) small, dense, urban, and full of major trade routes to justify the investment. The Maghreb is none of those things. It was long considered the backwater of the Muslim world for a reason.

    Even Tunisia is a stretch imo since boxing in say, the Almoravids or whatever Berber dynasty gives them a rallying point rather than another fracturing point.
     
  18. cmakk1012 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Well, Sicily briefly took coastal Tunisia IOTL. If they were more successful ITTL, I could see a lengthy occupation of parts of the coast as a possibility, something like Venice’s empire in the Adriatic.
     
  19. jocay Ambiguously Brown

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2018
    Location:
    New York
    I expect the gains that come out of a North African Crusade to be limited. Maybe Djerba, the Kerkennah Islands and Cyrenaica as a start.
     
  20. PecuTheGreat Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    I do suggest that instead of the Crusaders taking Egypt as is often suggested in this thread, why not the Mongols ally with the Franks to take Egypt. The Crusader states managed to survive till the Mongol expansion even if much diminished and the Mongol general in charge during the battle of Ain Jalut was a Nestorian Christian and so was much of his Tribe(Naimians). Although he was left with just a force of about 10,000 and that was in responsible for their defeat to the Egyptians, they already had the vassalage of several Christian Kingdoms (Cillicia, Georgia and Antioch) while 2 of these won't be independent initially ITTL, the Mongols smashing into Anatolia would either destroy them or leave them independent or at least autonomous from the Romans and subject to Mongols Influence. A Monk probably Nestorian, Orthodox or maybe even Catholic being among a delegation sent to what is left of Jerusalem could inform the of their direct overlord (The Naiman General) being Christian and get their support with speculations that he is either Prester John or his Vanguard it would be better if this happens after the Egyptians camped outside Jerusalem so that they smash into the back or flanks of the Egyptian Army, saving the Mongol-Naiman force and allowing the Jerusalem high standing with the Mongols when they move to take Egypt and further expand across North Africa with Crusader, Ilkhanate and Naiman troops as the Ilkhan returns from Mongolia. Story of the Holy land, their relationship to the ruling families and relative stability from the civil wars between the Khanates could lead to an influx of Naimans from Mongolia but I don't know if the Ilkhanate would allow this, fearing consolidation against them and i also don't know if the Ilkhans would allow the the Naimans to mostly do their own thing or constantly request troops from them to fight their wars against the other Khanates but all in all this could allow for Crusaders to quickly join in taking North Africa as Naiman forces, preoccupied helping with the Ilkhanate would need extra and trustworthy troops that are preferably not entrenched in Mongol politics while the Crusaders would be happy with pledging allegiance to "Prester John". I do think Europe would for decades continue believing the Naimans have some relationship to Prester John as a letter for alliance to the Ilkhan from France talked badly of the "mohamadians" and an alliance possibly against the Saraceans even when the Ilkhans had converted to Islam. I also think the Naimans would be able to take part of Nubia as even though the Broken landscape and Hot Desert Climate would make this difficult, the Nubian states should be real weak by now but the climate still horrible for the Mongols won't go far. I expect this Naiman Horde to collapse much like the other Khanates and replaced by Franco-Naimans or Romano-Naimans. It is also entirely possible that due to the centralizing nature of the Nile River and influence from the Latins and Romans(whose capital and palaces would no doubt stun the Naimans) could adopt enough Roman and Latin influences as well as Berber cooperation so that their "collapse" would simply be them losing all non Egyptian holdings, with the Europeans and resurgent Islamic powers claiming North Africa, Jerusalem expanding into Syria and possibly Mesopotamia and a Resurgent Nubian Dynasty claiming lower Nubia.

    Lastly given how Nomadic peoples tend to integrate other Nomadic peoples in their Empires better than the settled peoples we could see the Naimans do much better in integrating and Converting the Berbers and maybe instead of a collapsing Naiman Horde we just see the Naimans replaced by a more competent Christian Berber-Naiman Dynasty that can play to the Naiman, Berber, Local Christian and Crusader interest in Egypt (I expect many Europeans would migrate to Egypt as it is conquered by ally of Jerusalem and the Naimans with only a relatively small force of about 10,000 would happily take in large numbers of Europeans)

    Edit;-I also do think this is one of the better scenarios a Coptic ascendancy as even though the Mongols were tolerant of all religions there are records of the Christian wives of Mongol leaders causing them to spare Christian lives so i would expect some general preference for Christians of all types in administration even if it is not institutionalized into law

    While i do not know much on Mongol history from the little i have read it seems the title of Khan became related to being a descendant of Genghis Khan in a similar way that the Islamic title of Caliph became attached to the relationship of a leader's bloodline to Mohammad. This may either mean that sooner or later a descendant of Genghis Khan from the Ilkhanate is installed as the leader of the Naiman Horde or fearing the legitimacy and potential successionist fuel that a legitimate Khan can give, the Ilkhans try to make sure that the Naimans are never ruled by a decendant of Genghis Khan.

    I do expect that as the Ilkhanate becomes Muslim and the Naimans move closer to Orthodoxy there would eventually be a falling out which i hope in some butterflies sort of way end up with Timurlane invading China like he wanted to do before he died
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
Loading...