@ImperialxWarlord (#2,637) @SkywalkerT65 @Icedaemon (#2,642) - I genuinely thank you for the constructive criticism, and for the overall support. I'm very much concerned about revising parts of the story/TL sometime in the future, and the weak links are by certain the passages I intend to overhaul. Skywalker is actually correct when he says that the wrap-up conclusion was rushed. Indeed it was very anticlimactic, and I think it is worthy of being better described and worked out. I'm thinking that some previous chapters must be retconned to at least present the Almohads before they actually intervene.
@ImperatorAlexander @Namayan - The ERE is by far more powerful and resourceful, if, barring the demographic advantage and the economic base, by their organization as a state, which the Outremer lacks, originated as it was from a largely feudal framework. This is bound to change, of course, because some degree of centralization will be necessary to rule over a territory encompassing most of the Levant and Egypt.
As for the posts after #2,641, readers raised very good points (@galileo-034 @Icedaemon @St. Just @ImperialxWarlord @Pergington @Gloss @X Oristos @Lascaris). I confess its not in my plans to see a full-fledged war between the Franks and the ERE for the time being. There will, however, be rough patches in their relationship, which, in time, might become increasingly more complicated. But in spite of their unruliness, the Levantine Franks are not an existential threat to the ERE, not even if they actually hold Egypt; on the contrary, they should be an useful asset, and the Byzantines are more than familiar with dealing with sudden changes of geopolitical status quo. As we previously discussed, the cultural and political divergences in the relations between Constantinople and the other European nations mean that an OTL Fourth Crusade scenario is very much out of the realm of possibility.
@Lascaris (#2,655) - Good question about the Sicilian succession. I'll be working this out later on, but I'm thinking of having the Hautevilles surviving as a dynasty in Sicily for a few generations more. Having them "out" of the HRE is an interesting possibility, because they remain a relevant actor in the Italian geopolitics.
@X Oristos (#2,657) - Thanks for the informative input too. I'm familiar with Laiou's book, but the second source you cited is new to me, I'll check it out, because its an interesting divergence.
@TickTock The Witch's Dead - 1. You are right about the Copts, they surely will be important middlemen to facilitate rule by the Catholic Franks;
2. Certainly they can do the same for the Shias as well. They are doing the same in Syria, after all, where there are localized Shiite communities which are sometimes propped up against the Sunnis. Overall, I think the Islamic denominations, in spite of the impossibility of conciliation, will be more amiable to one another in the event of a Crusader rule of Egypt, because the rulers are foreigners and infidels;
3. For this point, I think that X Oristos said it very well in the post below. The problem is getting to the Nile Delta, but once it is submitted, and then Cairo, the rest of Egypt is fairly more open to military occupation. It happened many times, since Antiquity, in fact, by invaders coming from Asia (the Arabs included!), and by the Fatimids themselves, when they came from Tunisia. The big problem, in-TL, will be taking Cairo, which, by now, became a formidable stronghold.
4. That's a very broad question. England so far is similar to OTL, but with the House of Normandy still in power, and they control Normandy proper, but the Angevin inheritance is butterflied away. France is also fairly similar, but with a more aggressive monarch compared to OTL Louis VII;
5. Complete or massive conversion of the Turkish peoples is unlikely. By the late 12th Century, the Turks were fairly integrated into the Islamic world, differently from, say, the previous century, and excepting more opportunistic social-climbers, they won't be much interested in forsaking their religion, especially considering that there are a plethora of Turkic-dominated polities in the Near East everywhere else. On the contrary, the Islamic devotion will be another element of distinction of the now minority Turkish communities in eastern Anatolia.
@ImperatorAlexander @Namayan - The ERE is by far more powerful and resourceful, if, barring the demographic advantage and the economic base, by their organization as a state, which the Outremer lacks, originated as it was from a largely feudal framework. This is bound to change, of course, because some degree of centralization will be necessary to rule over a territory encompassing most of the Levant and Egypt.
As for the posts after #2,641, readers raised very good points (@galileo-034 @Icedaemon @St. Just @ImperialxWarlord @Pergington @Gloss @X Oristos @Lascaris). I confess its not in my plans to see a full-fledged war between the Franks and the ERE for the time being. There will, however, be rough patches in their relationship, which, in time, might become increasingly more complicated. But in spite of their unruliness, the Levantine Franks are not an existential threat to the ERE, not even if they actually hold Egypt; on the contrary, they should be an useful asset, and the Byzantines are more than familiar with dealing with sudden changes of geopolitical status quo. As we previously discussed, the cultural and political divergences in the relations between Constantinople and the other European nations mean that an OTL Fourth Crusade scenario is very much out of the realm of possibility.
@Lascaris (#2,655) - Good question about the Sicilian succession. I'll be working this out later on, but I'm thinking of having the Hautevilles surviving as a dynasty in Sicily for a few generations more. Having them "out" of the HRE is an interesting possibility, because they remain a relevant actor in the Italian geopolitics.
@X Oristos (#2,657) - Thanks for the informative input too. I'm familiar with Laiou's book, but the second source you cited is new to me, I'll check it out, because its an interesting divergence.
@TickTock The Witch's Dead - 1. You are right about the Copts, they surely will be important middlemen to facilitate rule by the Catholic Franks;
2. Certainly they can do the same for the Shias as well. They are doing the same in Syria, after all, where there are localized Shiite communities which are sometimes propped up against the Sunnis. Overall, I think the Islamic denominations, in spite of the impossibility of conciliation, will be more amiable to one another in the event of a Crusader rule of Egypt, because the rulers are foreigners and infidels;
3. For this point, I think that X Oristos said it very well in the post below. The problem is getting to the Nile Delta, but once it is submitted, and then Cairo, the rest of Egypt is fairly more open to military occupation. It happened many times, since Antiquity, in fact, by invaders coming from Asia (the Arabs included!), and by the Fatimids themselves, when they came from Tunisia. The big problem, in-TL, will be taking Cairo, which, by now, became a formidable stronghold.
4. That's a very broad question. England so far is similar to OTL, but with the House of Normandy still in power, and they control Normandy proper, but the Angevin inheritance is butterflied away. France is also fairly similar, but with a more aggressive monarch compared to OTL Louis VII;
5. Complete or massive conversion of the Turkish peoples is unlikely. By the late 12th Century, the Turks were fairly integrated into the Islamic world, differently from, say, the previous century, and excepting more opportunistic social-climbers, they won't be much interested in forsaking their religion, especially considering that there are a plethora of Turkic-dominated polities in the Near East everywhere else. On the contrary, the Islamic devotion will be another element of distinction of the now minority Turkish communities in eastern Anatolia.
).
