And All Nations Shall Gather To It - A Crusades TL

It seems that while Crusader State has managed to establish itself somewhat, and is certainly in no danger of being swept into the sea by resurgent Muslim nations any time in the near future, is still dependant upon foreign assistance. I mean, from what has been written, they still depend upon Byzantines and occasional "Crusader" forces from Europe for military manpower, since their own manpower pool is still relatively limited, lacking loyal/Christian/Catholic population to be used in both times of peace and war. They need to push for greater immigration of Catholics to the area, to create a better balance to the Muslim and Ortodox population in the area. Although, it will be interesting to see just how economy of the area develops, especially once they conquer Egypt as well, putting them firmly in control of majority of trade Eastwards.
Indeed. And there is going to have to be efforts to convert parts of the local populace as well. The easiest route, of course, is to try to convert the local Christian population, or to bring those Christian churches that exist in the Crusader domain under the umbrella of Rome (as mentioned in my post above). I suspect there will also be a number of formerly Muslim converts who will enter the fold over time - certainly not a huge surge of them, but a steady trickle (likely local elites first, I would think). The latter is especially true the Crusaders don't attach too much of a stigma to the recently converted and if conversion is seen as a way to advance one's career and/or place in society.

I'm just shooting from the hip, but I suspect that you will see a stratified society emerging for first two generations of so with European crusaders (and their decedents) on top. Then you'd have the converted locals beneath them (obviously augmented by the personal wealth an status of the convert), then steadfast non-Catholic Christians and finally Muslims. Just due to the fact of the population imbalance, I highly doubt you're going to see too brazen of persecutions of the Muslims, and some level of persecution being used to possibly entice local Christians to join the Catholic Church. Over time, of course, the difference between Crusader decedents and converts is going to be minimized due to intermarriage and the like - certainly by the third and fourth generations whatever stigma is attached will likely begin to minimize, though a certain amount of soft snobbery could still be in place.

However, I'm not really taking into consideration the possibility of waves of European emigration, save for Crusaders themselves. The journey is going to be fairly cost prohibitive, I would think, for a peasant to just up and leave for the Holy Land to stake his claim. Those in the nobility, or the lower nobility, might find the move easier and I could certainly see them third or fourth sons making the move. Perhaps the Church offers to help pay for the transportation of immigrants, as well as annulling any feudal obligations peasants have to stay on their Lord's land, if an immigrant cannot pay their own way?

This does, of course, bring up another question, however: how much available land is there in the not-Kingdom of Jerusalem? Its all well and good for immigrants to come there, but if there is no land for them to work, or other ways to sustain themselves, then them showing up on the doorstep might cause more problems in the long run. Laws could be passed, of course, which strip the Muslim population of their land, but that's going to cause a helluva lot of issues.

In any case, the Church is definitely going to be making efforts to convert the locals and, if done right, this could create a base of support for the Crusader state (as well as having some very interesting impacts upon the culture, language and customs that develop in Jerusalem). And if Jerusalem works out a successful program to integrate the locals and create a functioning state, then that can be important (with alterations of course) to Egypt when it eventually falls to the Cross.

Dan

P.S. Random thought. I've mentioned the possibility of the local Christian populations (at least some of them) entering into communion with Rome while maintaining their own Rites. However, I wonder if any of them may see it as beneficial to enter into communion with Constantinople instead. After all, the one group that the Crusaders would certainly not persecute are Orthodox Christians who look to Byzantium for protection: at this stage, the Crusaders still need the Empire too much. It would be a good way to snub Rome, while still maintaining some level of autonomy and protection. However, Constantinople remains closer and there is a longer history of distrust there, while Rome itself is far away (though it's representative is far closer). Hmmmmm
 
To bounce off Dan, I do wonder what a stable and presumably long-lasting Crusader Kingdom will do for naming trends. In both the Frankish Levant and Europe, names of Germanic origin accounted for the majority of the names recorded prior to the mid 12th century or at least according to this book I read, Naming Patterns in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. These gave way to an ascendance in Latinate and Christian (specifically saint)-themed names. The five top names of course belonged to prominent Christian saints: John, Peter, James, Philip and Thomas. Interestingly enough these names prior to the Crusades were rare in western Europe, specifically outside of Italy, and were well known among eastern Christians, indicating influence from the locals. There also was a tendency amongst the locals to adopt names that were amenable to Frankish ears. One such OTL example was the case of the Arrabits. Their patriarch was named Musa or Muisse and he was a servant to Hugh of Ibelin. He had a son named George who in turn had four children: Henry, Peter, John and Mary. The choice of Henry for the eldest grandchild indicated a desire for the family to climb up the social ladder.
 
@DanMcCollum you do have a point about the cost being one of the main obstacles to large scale migration to the Kingdom of Jerusalem by lower classes. Maybe something along the lines of Companies which pool their resources to travel there, similar to Pilgrim Companies, could be one way for people to get there, even if in relatively limited numbers. Another way is to have some form of early indentured servitude put in place, where people pay off the costs of their journey by working for a certain period of time, like what we saw in Americas and elsewhere in Early Modern Period.
 
To bounce off Dan, I do wonder what a stable and presumably long-lasting Crusader Kingdom will do for naming trends. In both the Frankish Levant and Europe, names of Germanic origin accounted for the majority of the names recorded prior to the mid 12th century or at least according to this book I read, Naming Patterns in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. These gave way to an ascendance in Latinate and Christian (specifically saint)-themed names. The five top names of course belonged to prominent Christian saints: John, Peter, James, Philip and Thomas. Interestingly enough these names prior to the Crusades were rare in western Europe, specifically outside of Italy, and were well known among eastern Christians, indicating influence from the locals. There also was a tendency amongst the locals to adopt names that were amenable to Frankish ears. One such OTL example was the case of the Arrabits. Their patriarch was named Musa or Muisse and he was a servant to Hugh of Ibelin. He had a son named George who in turn had four children: Henry, Peter, John and Mary. The choice of Henry for the eldest grandchild indicated a desire for the family to climb up the social ladder.
And, in turn, bouncing off you: the thought of Eastern influence on aspects of Crusader religious life is also very interesting. I need to do more reading on the medieval Church (I'm starting a PhD which touches strongly on Church history, but mainly in the 19th and 20th centuries. So the Medieval Church isn't more forte - through as a scholar, and a Catholic, I should probably rectify that! :p ), but might we actually see Orthodox and other Eastern influence on the Jerusalem Church? I could see the potential for a new Jerusalem Rite to develop in this scenario - obviously with the acceptance of the Pope and Archbishop - which sees a merging of some of the Roman, Byzantine and other Eastern influences on the Mass and so forth.

Ooh! Just found the book "The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church" by Bernard Hamilton. I may have to check that out!
 
To bounce off Dan, I do wonder what a stable and presumably long-lasting Crusader Kingdom will do for naming trends. In both the Frankish Levant and Europe, names of Germanic origin accounted for the majority of the names recorded prior to the mid 12th century or at least according to this book I read, Naming Patterns in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. These gave way to an ascendance in Latinate and Christian (specifically saint)-themed names. The five top names of course belonged to prominent Christian saints: John, Peter, James, Philip and Thomas. Interestingly enough these names prior to the Crusades were rare in western Europe, specifically outside of Italy, and were well known among eastern Christians, indicating influence from the locals. There also was a tendency amongst the locals to adopt names that were amenable to Frankish ears. One such OTL example was the case of the Arrabits. Their patriarch was named Musa or Muisse and he was a servant to Hugh of Ibelin. He had a son named George who in turn had four children: Henry, Peter, John and Mary. The choice of Henry for the eldest grandchild indicated a desire for the family to climb up the social ladder.
First off, I would love to be able to get a hand on that book. Secondly, to bounce off you again, I wonder how language will develop in the Crusader Kingdom myself. Latin was the official and ceremonial language of the Kingdom throughout its history, which was in line with a number of European Kingdoms during the Medieval Era (Hungary, France and the various Iberian Catholic Kingdoms come to mind here.) but due to the fact that most of the Crusaders came from the areas of modern France (even if the more high-profile crusaders were widespread throughout Europe.) French was the more common language spoken (specifically Old French, but considering the KoJ's OTL timeframe lasted within the era of Old/Medieval French, it probably wouldn't be fair to just write it off as this.) with Italian and possibly German also be seen among the Crusaders. This comes on top of the local population, where you would still have Levantine Arabs speak Arabic, the local Greek population speaking Greek and the local Aramaic speaking peoples in the region (this was before various Aramaic languages and dialects went extinct)

In a way, I can see the local French becoming infused with the languages of the region, effectively evolving into a separate language, in a similar manner to how English and Scots diverged from Middle English, even more so when and if Jerusalem survives long enough to see Latin be replaced with their local langue d'oïl (I'll call it Galiléen because it would basically be Levantine French really.)

Either way, until then, and to get to where I am, I'm sure we'll be seeing French being learned by the locals to achieve upward societal mobility. This, along with conversion to Roman Catholicism and potential intermarrying could essentially and effectively secure this KoJ-in all but name.
 
Last edited:
Although a few centuries earlier than OTL, I wonder if there will be attempts by the Vatican (or the Archbishop of Jerusalem) to negotiate a reunion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Christian rites that now find themselves under Crusader dominion (or who may look to the Crusaders for protection, should persecutions against them begin in other lands). Basically, much like OTL's arrangement where the Church recognizes the Pope, theological differences are hammered out, but the local Rites are preserved.
With a powerful orthdox state aka the byznatiums that is never weaken and is resurging they had no reason like otl to purse anything like that and further latins and roman still esspically outside crusaders lands in the west do no like each other, the latins have been constantly harrying them for years and invading there is a ton of ill will and the patrictch does not want to give up ti power and the empeoar would never want them under a domaintion of a forgien entety
It seems that while Crusader State has managed to establish itself somewhat, and is certainly in no danger of being swept into the sea by resurgent Muslim nations any time in the near future, is still dependant upon foreign assistance. I mean, from what has been written, they still depend upon Byzantines and occasional "Crusader" forces from Europe for military manpower, since their own manpower pool is still relatively limited, lacking loyal/Christian/Catholic population to be used in both times of peace and war. They need to push for greater immigration of Catholics to the area, to create a better balance to the Muslim and Ortodox population in the area. Although, it will be interesting to see just how economy of the area develops, especially once they conquer Egypt as well, putting them firmly in control of majority of trade Eastwards.
@DanMcCollum you do have a point about the cost being one of the main obstacles to large scale migration to the Kingdom of Jerusalem by lower classes. Maybe something along the lines of Companies which pool their resources to travel there, similar to Pilgrim Companies, could be one way for people to get there, even if in relatively limited numbers. Another way is to have some form of early indentured servitude put in place, where people pay off the costs of their journey by working for a certain period of time, like what we saw in Americas and elsewhere in Early Modern Period.
there an entire chpater on the large amount of europpean migration to the holy land or colonzation really https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/and-all-nations-shall-gather-to-it-a-crusades-tl.411251/page-51#post-18218076
And, in turn, bouncing off you: the thought of Eastern influence on aspects of Crusader religious life is also very interesting. I need to do more reading on the medieval Church (I'm starting a PhD which touches strongly on Church history, but mainly in the 19th and 20th centuries. So the Medieval Church isn't more forte - through as a scholar, and a Catholic, I should probably rectify that! :p ), but might we actually see Orthodox and other Eastern influence on the Jerusalem Church? I could see the potential for a new Jerusalem Rite to develop in this scenario - obviously with the acceptance of the Pope and Archbishop - which sees a merging of some of the Roman, Byzantine and other Eastern influences on the Mass and so forth.

Ooh! Just found the book "The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church" by Bernard Hamilton. I may have to check that out!
Ehh seem would cause waining in crusading support and the fantical catholtic lords in the holy lands would not be up for it esspically with an increasing catholtic presence
 
Ehh seem would cause waining in crusading support and the fantical catholtic lords in the holy lands would not be up for it esspically with an increasing catholtic presence
A different Rite is not a different Church. A Liturgical Rite is, well, its a bunch of stuff: but it's basically the form of Mass which develops as well as other aspects to how the Church interacts with the life of its members.

For instance, the OTL Byzantine Rite Catholics are in full communion with the Catholic Church. However their masses are done largely following the Greek Orthodox liturgy, priests (but not bishops) are allowed to marry, etc. In OTL, the Catholic Church has always contained a number of different Rites - though the Roman Rote became the dominant one during the Middle Ages, it was never the only one.

When I'm saying the development of a Jerusalem Rite, this is what I'm talking about. They are going to be at a crossroads with many other Christian communities around, some stronger, some weaker, and it's only natural that this would lead to some evolution in the local Catholic Church that would, at some point, be eventually codified.

It would actually be less likely that there would be no influence from other communities, evolution, or local developments than it would for this to happen, in my opinion.

And, as to absorbing other Christian communities - the name Catholic says it is: it seems itself as the One Church. It won't budge on theological matters, but as to the form of Mass and other things which doesn't deviate or undermine foundational doctrine? Historically, those are areas where the Church is capable of some compromise if it brings a group into communion with Rome (So, as an example: Rome would never compromise on an issue as important as the nature of the Trinity - that's a foundational doctrine. But they have shown themselves, even up to the modern day, to enter into communion with a Church which says its liturgy in, say, Aramiac and allows for married priests.=
 
If I come across a pdf or a large-enough Google preview (which is how I found it), I would gladly link you.

While surnames were uncommon in both Europe and the Levant, according to The Medieval Evolution of By-naming: Notions from the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem by Iris Shagrir, there was a tendency to use bynames (or epithets) to differentiate people with the same name. An example is the Ibelin family. John was such a popular name that it mandated the need for bynames to differentiate the different Johns; sometimes by title or by seniority. Often times, epithets were adopted to associate themselves with an important market, say a spice merchant calling himself "de Tripoli" to enhance his reputation. It would be the burgess class that would be the first to lead the trend followed by the nobility. Clergy was slow to change. These bynames would eventually evolve into surnames due to the necessity of creating a dynastic continuity and affirming ownership of land.

These bynames consisted of the following four categories:
Toponymic and ethnonymic (mostly derived from European places of origin but there were names inspired from local toponymic like de Ioppe or de Akkon)
Nicknames
Occupational and status-derived
Anthroponymic/Patronymic

As for the language, you said everything I planned on saying.

First off, I would love to be able to get a hand on that book. Secondly, to bounce off you again, I wonder how language will develop in the Crusader Kingdom myself. Latin was the official and ceremonial language of the Kingdom throughout its history, which was in line with a number of European Kingdoms during the Medieval Era (Hungary, France and the various Iberian Catholic Kingdoms come to mind here.) but due to the fact that most of the Crusaders came from the areas of modern France (even if the more high-profile crusaders were widespread throughout Europe.) French was the more common language spoken (specifically Old French, but considering the KoJ's OTL timeframe lasted within the era of Old/Medieval French, it probably wouldn't be fair to just write it off as this.) with Italian and possibly German also be seen among the Crusaders. This comes on top of the local population, where you would still have Levantine Arabs speak Arabic, the local Greek population speaking Greek and the local Aramaic speaking peoples in the region (this was before various Aramaic languages and dialects went extinct)

In a way, I can see the local French becoming infused with the languages of the region, effectively evolving into a separate language, in a similar manner to how English and Scots diverged from Middle English, even more so when and if Jerusalem survives long enough to see Latin be replaced with their local langue d'oïl (I'll call it Galiléen because it would basically be Levantine French really.)

Either way, until then, and to get to where I am, I'm sure we'll be seeing French being learned by the locals to achieve upward societal mobility. This, along with conversion to Roman Catholicism and potential intermarrying could essentially and effectively secure this KoJ-in all but name.
 
Last edited:
If I come across a pdf or a large-enough Google preview (which is how I found it), I would gladly link you.

While surnames were uncommon in both Europe and the Levant, according to The Medieval Evolution of By-naming: Notions from the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem by Iris Shagrir, there was a tendency to use bynames (or epithets) to differentiate people with the same name. An example is the Ibelin family. John was such a popular name that it mandated the need for bynames to differentiate the different Johns; sometimes by title or by seniority. Often times, epithets were adopted to associate themselves with an important market, say a spice merchant calling himself "de Tripoli" to enhance his reputation. It would be the burgess class that would be the first to lead the trend followed by the nobility. Clergy was slow to change. These bynames would eventually evolve into surnames due to the necessity of creating a dynastic continuity and affirming ownership of land.

These bynames consisted of the following four categories:
Toponymic and ethnonymic (mostly derived from European places of origin but there were names inspired from local toponymic like de Ioppe or de Akkon)
Nicknames
Occupational and status-derived
Anthroponymic/Patronymic

As for the language, you said everything I planned on saying.
In relation to language, and this was emphasized in the chapter that @Wolttaire found and posted the link too - it's important to remember that many of the initial immigrants to the region seem to be coming from Venice and other Northern Italian states; and there are also substantial numbers from the Occitanian regions as well. One of the divergences of this TL is that the the northern French influence upon the Crusaders is still substantial, but more limited than in OTL. So we've got at least three major language groups moving to Jerusalem - French, Occitain and Italian (especially those speaking the northern Italian dialects/languages). So that's an interesting admixture of Romance speakers into the region. Hmmmm
 
I assume we’re going to see major European settlement in the Levant right? Will it be like the US where it becomes a melting pot and eventually adopts a distinct identity?
 
In relation to language, and this was emphasized in the chapter that @Wolttaire found and posted the link too - it's important to remember that many of the initial immigrants to the region seem to be coming from Venice and other Northern Italian states; and there are also substantial numbers from the Occitanian regions as well. One of the divergences of this TL is that the the northern French influence upon the Crusaders is still substantial, but more limited than in OTL. So we've got at least three major language groups moving to Jerusalem - French, Occitain and Italian (especially those speaking the northern Italian dialects/languages). So that's an interesting admixture of Romance speakers into the region. Hmmmm
Is it more of an even spread ITTL compared to OTL, or is Italian the more prevailing language among the three? I'll have to hunt down the chapter Wolttaire found then.
 
Is it more of an even spread ITTL compared to OTL, or is Italian the more prevailing language among the three? I'll have to hunt down the chapter Wolttaire found then.
Here's the link to that particular chapter: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/and-all-nations-shall-gather-to-it-a-crusades-tl.411251/page-51#post-18218076

And it almost sounds as if the immigration from Venice and the other Italian states is going to be pretty significant. However, this doesn't mean that all the settlers will be from those environs, just that Venice and the other stated agreed to provide so many settlers every year (I suppose they could recruit them from elsewhere and still live up to their end of the bargain). Still, it sounds as if, at least amongst the peasants as well as the more 'middle class', northern Italians are going to be pretty heavily represented. At least if I'm reading the chapter correctly.
 
The first part, I think he got around that ITTL by only having the one Crusader State (Latin Principality of Jerusalem). Internal divisions are still there though.
Would the divisions always remain "internal"? Far be it from me to assume anything about the future of Jerusalem but if there is an implied rift between Jerusalem and Rome (religiously) or rather Jerusalem and Constantinople (politically), what would prevent the Pope or Byzantine Emperor from supporting an upstart noble seeking to establish a kingdom for himself? In the distant future, of course.
 
Would the divisions always remain "internal"? Far be it from me to assume anything about the future of Jerusalem but if there is an implied rift between Jerusalem and Rome (religiously) or rather Jerusalem and Constantinople (politically), what would prevent the Pope or Byzantine Emperor from supporting an upstart noble seeking to establish a kingdom for himself? In the distant future, of course.
I think there wouldn't be a Protestant Reformation in this timeline, due to the stronger hold of Catholicism, so Christianity would be a tripolar system of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Crusaderism (I'm guessing the name, I'm unsure what it's going to be called).
 
I think there wouldn't be a Protestant Reformation in this timeline, due to the stronger hold of Catholicism, so Christianity would be a tripolar system of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Crusaderism (I'm guessing the name, I'm unsure what it's going to be called).
If the printing press is still invented there'll probably be some form of the protestant reformation happening in this timeline. Since there's been people exactly like Martin Luther who's theological ideology is quite similar, like Jan huss for a popular example, the only difference is the printing press was there to spread it. So with the ability to spread ideology rapidly through the printing press, any man who sees the church's corruption, and one who can read, and thus translate, the bible, could start it in this timeline.
 
Last edited:
Top