Regarding acculturation, is there aby change od development of a separate Gérsaumian, or Outremer language, if your like?
And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace
- Thread starter Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)
- Start date
jocay
Banned
Also interestingly enough, I was reading this book and it seemed to have implied that there was a large shift in naming trends in Europe from the Crusades. Prior to 1050, the vast majority of names were either Germanic or Latinate but the crusades made naming kids after saints, even those who weren't that known in the western Mediterranean popular. George is one example of an eastern name becoming mainstreamed.
Last edited:
@St. Just - I actually intend to have some separate chapters detailing this alt-Reconquista (it was, after all, included in the concept of "Crusades", so it can serve as a spin-off of sorts, much like the Baltic ones), so I'm not thinking about many details right now. I see that yours suggestions are interesting, because paradoxically a fragmented Hispania allows for more interesting political relationships, and the preservation of a warmongering knightly class by constant infighting creates more manpower for their own expansionist projects, I suppose.
@SenatorChickpea - the idea of a failed Reconquista is interesting, but I am actively trying to avoid falling in the famous "pendulum cliche". In fact, I'm fascinated by the idea that the Christians could be even more successful than they were IOTL, actually expanding into the Maghreb. Anyway, this will be something to work out in the future. Something like what @Ridcully said.
@Praetor98 - advance into Mesopotamia will happen sooner than you think, but, again, their capacity of power projection there is small to produce long-lasting effects.
@Sceonn, @DanMcCollum and @jocay - indeed, we'll see a great deal of assimilation into "native" culture by the Crusaders, but I'm thinking of having a greater influence by the Byzantines than solely by the Arabs. ITTL, after all, the Byzantines, being on friendly terms with the Latins, will still be seen as an advanced and prestigious civilization (much like the Romans looked up to the ancient Greeks), instead of falling into the (not too common, actually) stereotype of a decandent and distant despotate (an early Sick Man of Europe, indeed?). I find plausible that we'll see an early pre-Renaissance revival of ancient Greek fascination, merged with the present Byzantine cultural developments, among Europeans as a whole, and especially among the Latin-Levantines. Of course, there are more similarities than differences: the Byzantines were the very first "Crusaders", in the sense of warriors dedicated to the faith, and Emperors such as Heraclius and Nikephoros will be fondly remembered as proto-Crusaders. The same will extend to the Armenians, but less impactful.
While the initial impact of Palestinian and Syrian cultures will be fairly small in the first decades, we can expect a gradual cultural and customary revolution in Levantine society once the Crusaders finally become entrenched in Egypt. In short, I envisage this long-lived Crusader State as one that amalgams the peculiar Catholic and feudal traditions with heavy Byzantine, Armenian and Arabic-Coptic influences. On the other hand, Turkish and Persian cultures will have negligible impact, due to the lack of visceral contact between the Levant with Mesopotamia and Persia.
@Some Bloke - I wouldn't say really modern yet... the politico-administrative structure is still predominantly feudal and agrarian, it is just that the Levantine society, being substantially more urbanized and commercial than that of 11th Century western Europe, demands some utilities to properly function. One cannot have a functioning monetary and commercial economy without a semblance of organized bureaucy, but make no mistake, it is still very much monopolized and merged into the peculiar organization of the Catholic Church to be likened to a modern bureaucratic apparatus, rudimentary as it might be.
Well, I confess I've never heard about this one Scottish crusader, but I'm always open to ideas about other individuals taking the Cross so that the Crusades become a truly multinational affair instead of the French-German-Italian axis upon which it came to be IOTL.
@Tomislav Addai - of course! It will be more a proto-Lingua Franca dialect than a whole language altogether, but it will certainly happen, and will be much closer to "Occitan" than French, considering the relative linguistic proximity between Provençal, Languedoc and Lombard Italian.
@SenatorChickpea - the idea of a failed Reconquista is interesting, but I am actively trying to avoid falling in the famous "pendulum cliche". In fact, I'm fascinated by the idea that the Christians could be even more successful than they were IOTL, actually expanding into the Maghreb. Anyway, this will be something to work out in the future. Something like what @Ridcully said.
@Praetor98 - advance into Mesopotamia will happen sooner than you think, but, again, their capacity of power projection there is small to produce long-lasting effects.
@Sceonn, @DanMcCollum and @jocay - indeed, we'll see a great deal of assimilation into "native" culture by the Crusaders, but I'm thinking of having a greater influence by the Byzantines than solely by the Arabs. ITTL, after all, the Byzantines, being on friendly terms with the Latins, will still be seen as an advanced and prestigious civilization (much like the Romans looked up to the ancient Greeks), instead of falling into the (not too common, actually) stereotype of a decandent and distant despotate (an early Sick Man of Europe, indeed?). I find plausible that we'll see an early pre-Renaissance revival of ancient Greek fascination, merged with the present Byzantine cultural developments, among Europeans as a whole, and especially among the Latin-Levantines. Of course, there are more similarities than differences: the Byzantines were the very first "Crusaders", in the sense of warriors dedicated to the faith, and Emperors such as Heraclius and Nikephoros will be fondly remembered as proto-Crusaders. The same will extend to the Armenians, but less impactful.
While the initial impact of Palestinian and Syrian cultures will be fairly small in the first decades, we can expect a gradual cultural and customary revolution in Levantine society once the Crusaders finally become entrenched in Egypt. In short, I envisage this long-lived Crusader State as one that amalgams the peculiar Catholic and feudal traditions with heavy Byzantine, Armenian and Arabic-Coptic influences. On the other hand, Turkish and Persian cultures will have negligible impact, due to the lack of visceral contact between the Levant with Mesopotamia and Persia.
@Some Bloke - I wouldn't say really modern yet... the politico-administrative structure is still predominantly feudal and agrarian, it is just that the Levantine society, being substantially more urbanized and commercial than that of 11th Century western Europe, demands some utilities to properly function. One cannot have a functioning monetary and commercial economy without a semblance of organized bureaucy, but make no mistake, it is still very much monopolized and merged into the peculiar organization of the Catholic Church to be likened to a modern bureaucratic apparatus, rudimentary as it might be.
Well, I confess I've never heard about this one Scottish crusader, but I'm always open to ideas about other individuals taking the Cross so that the Crusades become a truly multinational affair instead of the French-German-Italian axis upon which it came to be IOTL.
@Tomislav Addai - of course! It will be more a proto-Lingua Franca dialect than a whole language altogether, but it will certainly happen, and will be much closer to "Occitan" than French, considering the relative linguistic proximity between Provençal, Languedoc and Lombard Italian.
Ha! Mission to civilize, in progress.
The Rhomanoi did not manage to export their culture to the Bolghars and the other slavic groups, mind you. They accepted the religion eventually, but not much else.
Now if you wanted to go way out after Egypt is firmly in the hands of Crusaders and a successful, perhaps quicker Reconquista....
The Maghreb will be cut off from other Muslim land and will probably inherit some wealth/leadership/etc fleeing Egypt.
In time, could they establish trade routes to the Middle East by sailing around Africa? Essentially they would swap places with Portugal in this situation. Henry the Navigator has less reasons to send expeditions south and the Maghreb has motivation to avoid the middlemen in Egypt, Anatolia, and the Levant.
This could lead to Islam spreading to Southern Africa and potentially discovery of Brazil.
Let the butterflies abound.
The Maghreb will be cut off from other Muslim land and will probably inherit some wealth/leadership/etc fleeing Egypt.
In time, could they establish trade routes to the Middle East by sailing around Africa? Essentially they would swap places with Portugal in this situation. Henry the Navigator has less reasons to send expeditions south and the Maghreb has motivation to avoid the middlemen in Egypt, Anatolia, and the Levant.
This could lead to Islam spreading to Southern Africa and potentially discovery of Brazil.
Let the butterflies abound.
Last edited:
If the Moroccans expand they are far more likely to go southward through the desert to the Sahel (as they briefly managed OTL) -- the economic incentives for the incredibly high risk of colonization are greatly lessened if you have constant trade and occasional military contact with the very rich Trans-Saharan gold trade. The Iberians were well and truly cut off, and Portugal in particular had both the time and the money to get started on colonization early with Henry the Navigator. If the Moroccans have to deal with even OTL's level of wars with the Iberians, then they aren't even likely to have the attention or money to spend on the South Atlantic.
I'd expect a delayed start to exploration, but Italian middlemen were just as wealthy OTL as they will be here -- which still locks Iberia and more importantly Northern Europe out of direct participation in some markets. Another fun ATL piece could be Novgorod -- Afanasy Nikitin went towards India in the 1450s after all...
I'd expect a delayed start to exploration, but Italian middlemen were just as wealthy OTL as they will be here -- which still locks Iberia and more importantly Northern Europe out of direct participation in some markets. Another fun ATL piece could be Novgorod -- Afanasy Nikitin went towards India in the 1450s after all...
Considering the proximity of Western Africa's gold trade, I agree with @St. Just that there wouldn't be too much of an economic incentive to try to explore. The big thing that I can see pushing them to explore is if a Christian realm in Egypt decides to try to cut off pilgrims to the Hajj instead of taking their money and letting them pass through (When Mansa Musa made the Hajj, he spent so much gold it crashed the economies of the countries he passed through). That would definitely motivate pious Muslims to try to explore going around Africa to fulfill their religious duties.
jocay
Banned
If North and West African Muslims are circumnavigating Africa to fulfill their religious duties and avoid any import taxes imposed by the Christian states in the east, we would further monopolize Arab-Swahili commercial and military hegemony. Ports of call would dot along both sides of Africa. We could have newly proselytized Khoisan peoples for example coalesce over the next few centuries into kingdoms and empires, declaring war on the relatively pagan Bantu arrivals for religious (and economic reasons), mounting raids deep into the interior and bringing droves of captured slaves to the ports to exchange for Asian and Middle Eastern goods.
Also any Christian kingdom in Egypt would need to expand into Nubia and deal with anyone fleeing from the north using the region as a place to launch raids from. They would likely out of necessity need the cooperation of local powers such as Makuria to help them crush any burgeoning threat.
Also any Christian kingdom in Egypt would need to expand into Nubia and deal with anyone fleeing from the north using the region as a place to launch raids from. They would likely out of necessity need the cooperation of local powers such as Makuria to help them crush any burgeoning threat.
Last edited:
I think Muslims would definitely head to the Kanem kingdom and through the Fezzan Oases, once the dust settles and an easier path of expansion opens up. I believe they still have an affinity to nomads and pastoralists, so would be primed to accept those migrating to safer pastures.
The new dynasty in kanem is determined to grow fast, strong, off the trans-saharan trade routes and I think they'd love a muslim world focusing more on the south if the north if too hard a nut to crack.
The new dynasty in kanem is determined to grow fast, strong, off the trans-saharan trade routes and I think they'd love a muslim world focusing more on the south if the north if too hard a nut to crack.
I'm really confused why a number of posters have suddenly jumped on this "stronger Maghreb" bandwagon when the OP has openly stated that he's actually interested in a more successful Reconquista where the Christians get down into OTL Morocco.
My guess is that even though the 'pendulum theory' is lambasted wildly, it is still favoured by many people's subconcious, if not no other reason that the 'winning' side should have rivals and foes going forwards to keep the story interesting.
44. Ut Omnes Gentes Christorum (1137 A.D.)
Non-contemporary painting of Pope Anacletus II, the mentor of the *Second Crusade, which, in fact, commonly receives his name as "Anacletine Crusade"
The *Second Crusade was officially announced in 1137 A.D., but there is consensus that the circumstances that led to it were already underway even before Roger of Salerno came to head the Latin Principality of Jerusalem. The most accepted criteria to define the “principal” or “official” (numbered) Crusades, thus differentiating them from other religious wars, is the existence of an specific and directed Papal summon, even if the term was fated to become banalized in the next centuries. In the case of the Anacletine Crusade, it was convened by a Papal bull named “Ut omnes gentes Christorum” [“To all the Christian peoples”], with the peculiar format of a letter or manifesto addressing Christendom as a whole. Nowadays, it is common to point out at least three peculiarities of the *Second Crusade, thus recognized in its own historical context:
1. First the first time, it became accepted that the Pope had the authority to impose the participation in a Crusade as an obligation; in this case, this “involuntary Crusading” had an specific purpose: it aimed to impose a truce between two or more belligerent princes in a state of war. Indeed, as the scholastic doctrine develops, in this period, we see a reinterpretation of the Augustinian concept of “just war”, essentially equated to war against the “infidels”, and it becomes strongly intermingled with the fundamental premise of the Crusade, that is, a Church-sanctioned use of violence as a form of expiation. Since two princes at war were liable to commit a capital sin – even if one of the belligerent parties had a legitimate casus belli –, both of them would be required to perform penitence to expiate the sins committed during the conflict. Now, by the Pope’s decree, individuals at war could be forced to lay down arms and join together in a Crusade – the so-called Trucial Crusades, the conclusion being that the union against a common enemy would strengthen the fraternal spirit among Christians.
2. While the preaching of the Crusades by the delegations from Rome to the European royal courts emphasized the quasi-apocalyptic rhetoric that became popular in the late 10th Century, with retellings of the “tribulations” suffered by their Christian brothers in the Orient, the *Second Crusade was, in essence, a war of conquest, in such a way that it becomes markedly different from the first one, whose initial purpose was to assist Constantinople in the conflict against the Turcomans. Now, in trying to devise it under the framework of a “just and fair war”, some the pro-Crusadist partisans endeavored to paint the Anacletine Crusade as a defensive war, to protect the faithful guardians of the Holy Land. It is curious, however, that once we analyze the extremist rhetoric employed by the Papal ambassadors charged with spreading the word about the summon, we can perceive that it was regarded as a “just and fair war” not due to its defensive character, but simply by its nature as a holy expedition, regardless of its strategic purpose.
3. Unlike the First Crusade, which originally started with ample adhesion of the lower strata of European feudal society – the best example being the “Paupers’ Crusade”, headed by charismatic Peter the Hermit, and whose most distinguished members hailed from the lesser knightly or baronial nobility and lower-ranking church prelates – and then grew to include Counts and Dukes, the *Second Crusade was from the very beginning addressed to the crowned monarchs of Europe, the most evident example being the cases of King *Phillip II of France, as well as King *William III of England. It is clear that the Lateran intended for the expedition to be organized, planned and financed by the great princes of the various armed forces of the continent.
In more recent critical studies, we see arguments claiming that the initiative of the *Second Crusade was not due to Anacletus’ will, and that he actually did not considered launching another Crusade, in first place. According to these polemics, Anacletus II was convinced to do so at behest and insistence of Archbishop Gregory of Jerusalem and his partisans, supposedly in an effort to diminish the influence of the Norman rulers. At least three delegations were sent from Jerusalem to Rome in the span of a few years, with the intent of discussing the feasibility of convening an ecumenical synod (as per the agreement with John II Komnenos), as well as the possibility of organizing another collective of Crusader expeditions, this one with a much more direct and dedicated supervision from the Holy See. While the content of these deliberations between the Outremerine embassy and the Lateran are unknown to us, it is fair to conclude that Anacletus grew in enthusiasm, as he initiated talks with cardinals, abbots and bishops with the purpose of devising a grand strategy for a new Crusade, as early as 1135, just one year after Roger of Salerno became Prince in Jerusalem.
It seems, though, that Roger himself, echoing a sentiment of the principal Norman families of the Outremer, wanted to obtain military alliances among the western kingdoms, much like Bohemond before him. By the circumstances, we can be convinced that Roger intended to forge a long-lasting alliance between Jerusalem and Norman Sicily, and sought to convince the formidable Duke of Apulia and Count of Sicily, also named Roger, to join his campaigns in the Holy Land. With this movement, he would upset the balance of power among the noble families in the Orient definitely in favor of the Normans, perhaps to the point where they might even neutralize whatever influence the Provençals and the Lorrainers would have, and, abroad, they would certainly have the necessary manpower to undertake the ultimate conquest of Syria. We cannot know for sure what were the terms of this treaty of alliance, but it is probable that Roger of Salerno would use the promise of future grant of Syrian provinces as fiefs as a bargaining chip to attract the interest of the Sicilians and of the Lombards in Italy.
Thus, as the events unfolded, following this interpretation, one can infer that Gregory’s less than subtle and artful diplomacy with the Pope, and the fact that he actually gained Anacletus’ ears and heart to the point of securing the summon of a new Crusade, were part of a master-plan designated to strengthen the political authority and power of the Latin Patriarchate in Jerusalem, at the expense of weakening the Ducal power.
Non-contemporary painting depicting an army marching in Crusade
*****
The first notable individual to officially pledge to the cross was none other than Roger of Sicily himself. He had recently inherited the Duchy of Apulia from his cousin William II (1127), and unified all of the Norman dominions in southern Italy, from Salerno to Malta, and from Trapani to Termoli. This sudden expansion of his prestige and authority created uneasiness in the rest of Italy and in Germany. Pope Honorius II at the time was staunchly opposed to it, arguing that in the event of William’s death, the whole of Apulia would have to be “restored” to the Holy See. Truth must be said, even if Robert Guiscard, the first Duke of Apulia, had ruled this enormous piece of the peninsula by force of his own arms, his legitimacy derived from the Papal blessing. Nonetheless, Roger was unwilling to relinquish what he considered to be his dynastic right, even more after he had quenched the rebellions by contesting Norman noblemen. On the other hand, he needed the sanction of the Holy See, aware that a continued enmity of the Pope might provoke the Emperor in Germany to intervene in Italy.
Now, Anacletus’ elevation to the Chair of St. Peter provided an opportunity, and Roger procured by any means his goodwill, figuring the new Pope might be sensible to his claims. A vain expectation, because Anacletus, counseled by the same men that had been Honorius’ ministers, denied recognition, insisting on the argument that Benevento and Apulia pertained to the patrimony of the Holy See. It was all but evident that Roger, high-spirited and ambitious, desired nothing less than a kingly crown to embed his parvenu dynasty among the prestigious Houses of Europe. Thus, the call for a Crusade was a most interesting occasion, as it meant that he could strike a bargain with the Papacy: to take the cross in exchange for a royal crown.
It is said that in less than a month since Pope Anacletus signed and published the “Ut omnes gentes Christorum” bull, and before the delegates charged with travelling through Italy, Francia and Germany to spread the word and collect the signatures of the princes who would give their pledge, an envoy came from Palermo and announced that the Duke of Apulia had already adopted the cross and called his vassals to follow him in the most exalted pilgrimage. Not long thereafter, before spring ended, Roger of Sicily arrived himself in Rome, accompanied by his Castillian wife, Elvira, and his three sons, Roger, Tancred and Alfonso, as well as some notables of his dominions. In an effort to impress the Pope, it is said that Roger and his family came dressed in simple traveler clothes, and that he himself humbled before the Vicar of Christ, affirming that, before going to Jerusalem, he ought to visit the tomb of St. Peter first. Within the basilica, Roger pledged a sacred vow to bring a relic from the Holy Land to adorn Rome’s most marvelous temple. And, finally, to the Pope’s surprise, Roger announced that his company of pilgrims, numbering more than ten thousand souls, would depart in that very year, before the end of summer, as long as the winds were favorable.
If Duke Roger’s altruism was genuine or not, it is irrelevant, as he did cause an impression in the Pope, whose correspondences from the period acclaim his boldness and piety, and commend Roger as a dedicate champion of the Christian cause. On the other hand, we have a surviving document from an anonymous Italo-Norman officer that goes as far as claiming that the Holy See would have given Duke Roger the Papal standard (Gonfalone) to carry in the battlefields in the Orient, should not the customs of precedence demand it be given to a more distinguished prince, such as the King of Francia or the Holy Roman Emperor.
Recent historiography casts some doubts about Duke Roger’s intentions and his long-term agenda. It is clear that he desired the goodwill of the Lateran to further his monarchical ambitions, and, in this, he actually succeeded, as his participation in the Crusade would later be rewarded by Pope Anacletus with a royal crown. This remarkable event, that is, the Pope recognizing a royal claim, had not seen since the legitimization of the Árpad dynasty in Hungary and, more recently, since William the Conqueror invaded England and dethroned the last monarch of Wessex lineage with Papal support. These precedents would be used to great effect in later centuries, to be exploited by obstinate vassal lords in their wars against even their suzerains, a genuine subversion of the feudal order justified by the existence of a religious pretext.
*****
Traditional historiography divides the *Second Crusade in three distinct phases, usually divided according to the main armies that advanced to the Holy Land. Much like the First Crusade and the Crusade of the Faint-Hearted, we can identify at least three unrelated expeditionary columns that voyaged to the Holy Land with the intent of rendezvousing with the Latin princes in the Outremer:
- The Sicilian and Lombard Army – comprising the Italo-Norman host led by Duke Roger of Apulia and Calabria and his Norman and Lombard vassals, most notably Grimoald of Bari, one that had only recently rebelled against Roger, as well as the Norman lords of Capua, Robert II, and of Alife, Ranulf II. All of them had been rivals disputing Roger's claim to Apulia, but were then united by a Papal compact that forced them to join the Crusade. They voyaged directly by the sea, from the port of Messina, and were the first to arrive in the Outremer.
- The Flemish, English and Norman Armies – led by the formidable Theodoric of Alsace [Thierry d’Alsace], Count of Flanders, and his former rival, Baldwin IV of Hainaut, whose truce after a bloody succession war was amalgamated around the crusading purpose. Now, these lords of Lower Lotharingia were supposed to join the grand army then assembled by the King of France; however, the successive delays and logistical troubles exasperated the Flemish Count, whose knights and levies grew impatient and mutinous. It was then that he heard that the bastard brother of King *William III of England, Robert of Gloucester, was assembling an army of Englishmen and Normans in Caen, and joined their column. They departed across Europe various months ahead of the King of France, going by the way of Italy, crossing the Adriatic from Bari to Dyrrachion and from there to Constantinople. Due to the comparative small size of this army, the Basileus offered the Greek armada to ferry them across the eastern Mediterranean, and then they would disembark in Tripoli, arriving in the Outremer shortly after the Siculo-Normans and Lombards.
- The Host of Francia – led by the young *King Phillip II of France, it was a vast army comprising many of the great dukes of France, such as Hugh II of Burgundy, William X of Aquitaine and Gascony, Theobald II of Champagne and Fulk V of Anjou. The all natural difficulties of gathering and especially maintaining such a huge group of men-at-arms, and various non-combatants, in a feudal structure accustomed with small levies, coupled with the inaptitude of the King’s agents to organize a long overland expedition, caused successive months of delay. It is said that the animosity between the lords was so great that they almost convinced the King to either disband the expedition or to find a middle-term and go on Crusade to the neighboring realm of Hispania, where certainly the blood of the Moors would be as worthy as the blood of the Saracens to expiate their sins. The suggestions infuriated one of the King’s most famous and respected advisors, the abbot Bernard of Clairvaux, who acted as a representative of the Pope in France in matters concerning the Crusades. It is said that his vehement speech was so thorough and inflamed that even the great dukes were silenced. As it happened, the host was divided in three separate columns, and they departed from France in different days, but all followed the very same path – the same one chosen by the Count of Flanders and the royal prince of England –, with the Aquitanians, Gascons and Poitevins headed by their lord William X; the Angevins and Burgundians by Fulk V and Hugh II; and, finally, the largest division headed by the King himself, together with the remaining lords. These groups reunited already in Macedonia, near Thessalonica, having communicated in advance with the court of Constantinople, whose Emperor had not only furnished a significant logistical apparatus, but also vowed to join them in the Crusade.
__________________________________________________
Notes and comments: Lots and lots of divergences mentioned in this chapter. They will be detailed in the course of the next chapters. But, just so you can see how the scope of the TL is diverging from our own:
1) Anacletus II IOLT was an Antipope, being elected by a part of the College of Cardinals in 1130, but disputed by Gregorio Papareschi, who was recognized as the legitimate Pope (Innocent II). ITTL, because “Gregorio” is already the Archbishop in Jerusalem, he doesn’t participates in the Papal Conclave of 1130, securing Anacletus as the undisputed candidate to the Chair of St. Peter.
2) Roger of Sicily has yet to become king. IOTL, he only was crowned such because he had supported Anacletus in his war against the disputing Pope Innocent II. ITTL, this does not happens, and butterflies, at least for some time, Roger’s royal elevation.
3) The current King of France would be Louis VII, son of King Louis VI “the Fat”. As it happens, Louis VI had an older son, named Phillip, who was made co-king with his father in 1129, but died unexpectedly in a freak accident in Paris (1131). This accident, in my opinion, could be easily avoided due to sheer probability, and thus I opted to have his survival as a divergence ITTL, whereupon he eventually succeeds his father in 1137.
4) William X of Aquitaine – father of Eleanor, future Queen of England – is another interesting case of an untimely death, as he died suddenly while making a pilgrimage to Santiago of Compostela. ITTL, not only will he survive (again, it seems the death could be easily avoided by different butterflies), but he has indeed produced a male heir to continue his dynasty, who will be the [fictitious] William XI.
5) In England, William Adelin lives and becomes King. Yet again, I believe the “White Ship” disaster could be avoided by different circumstances. This is a massive divergence, as it completely butterflies the Anarchy and the ascension of the Angevin monarchs (both Matilda and Stephen will become less relevant ITTL).
6) Fulk V of Anjou never becomes the King of Jerusalem, for obvious reasons.
BTW, I have zero knowledge of Latin, so, if the title is wrong, do tell me.
It would probably need to be quite a while after they'd secured themselves against their Muslim neighbors, so foreign retribution wouldn't be a major factor. Grenada fell to the Spanish in 1492, and it was more than 100 years before the Spaniards expelled the Moriscos in 1609. So you'd need a combination of a secure state and a fanatical Christian monarch to try to stop the pilgrims. Maybe just have oppressive tolls on pilgrims instead?
Wonder if Theodoric of Alsace, IOTL a multi-time crusader, will get some land in this next war and, like others, move to the Outremer permanently. Also funny to see that Gregory is managing to strengthen the church even without being the Pope. That being said, I think he might end up regretting this in terms of limiting the Normans -- with Sicilians AND English Normans AND Norman Normans all coming to the Holy Land, and their armies being more cohesive than the unwieldy French royal host...
Hmm. From the Wikipedia article, it does not seem that Philip would be a very wise king. Might he blunder himself into an early grave while William of Aquitaine wins great glories, thus giving him the political capital to declare him a king in his own right? Certainly he would find a natural ally in England, whose king would want to no longer pretend to be a vassal to France in any way. Perhaps Brittany would also break away, yet without there being an Angevin empire already under construction, the English would be more likely to remain allies rather than try and become the new suzerain by force.
Quick note: I think you've been listing William II as William III of England in this post. For instance, you state that Robert of Gloucester was William III's bastard half-brother. However, he was the son of William I, making him William II's half brother
Probably judt a typo, but I thought I'd be 'that guy' and bring it to your attention.
Great update, by the way!! I'm interested in the foreshadowing of the Pope using the granting of crowns to undermine to established Kings. Might we see the *Kingdom of Aquitaine established for William XI at some point in the future, or Provence becoming a Kingdom down thw road?
Probably judt a typo, but I thought I'd be 'that guy' and bring it to your attention.
Great update, by the way!! I'm interested in the foreshadowing of the Pope using the granting of crowns to undermine to established Kings. Might we see the *Kingdom of Aquitaine established for William XI at some point in the future, or Provence becoming a Kingdom down thw road?