@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.
And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace
- Thread starter Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)
- Start date
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!
), 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!
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:
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
there an entire chpater on the large amount of europpean migration to the holy land or colonzation really https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...it-a-crusades-tl.411251/page-51#post-18218076
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 presenceAnd, 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!
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!
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
since the Northern Italian dialects are often classified as "Gallo-Italic" Noblesse Oblige's name for the dialect really couldn't be more perfect
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?
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/fo...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.
Pro monarchist
Banned
How United are the crusader states because in OTL they tried to undermind each other not to mention internal divisions
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.
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).
![[totally a legit person]](/forum/data/avatars/m/134/134906.jpg?1617940240){kind=avatar}
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:
Enough about Protestants. What if a group such as the Bogomils, Waldensians and Paulicians have early access to the printing press? Or the anti-feudal Tondrakians? Lots of potential.
It depends. The printing press is all well and good, but if there isn't the popular literacy there to read these works, then they will fall on deaf ears. You need to see the creation of the Universities to really help generate the levels of literacy needed to help the printing press catch on (and, for that matter, you also need the literacy rate to get high enough so that there is a demand for books, which helped spur on the printing press as well). And to get the universities, you need high urbanization and the resulting call for more clergy and lawyers to minister to the needs of those urban populations. Without that, even if the printing press is developed and some young radical starts printing missives against corruption in the Church, the invention and the writer are likely to either get ignored, or to only reach a very small segment of the population and - as a result - have little to no influence.
Sometimes I think people (and I'm not saying you're one of them! I mean no insult) view technologies like the printing press as akin to tech in a game of Civ: generate the proper amount of technology points, choose the tech and *boom* now you can build libraries. In fact, printing technology didn't really work like that. It was more a case of technology being developed to meet a growing need, rather than the inverse: an, honestly, there were other systems in place that also met that same need. Prior to the printing press, there was a nice business in what can best to described as mass-production scriptorums, where individuals would simply copy out the same page of a work. If you have 100 scribes (who didn't even need to be heavily literate) and each produces a single page a day, and a manuscript was 100 pages, you could produce 100 copies in a single day. There was also full plate printing (where each page of a manuscript was carved onto a plate and then mass produced). If anything, I think it would actually be easier to delay the invention of the printing press and movable type than to actually speed it up. (interesting side bit: Guttenberg didn't just invent movable type. He also had to create a new kind of ink that stuck to the lead blocks: standard ink of that era ran right off. So, even i movable type is invented, but the person in question isn't all that good at experimenting with inks, you likely see the invention not catching on until much later).