Will the Crusaders make contact with Saint Thomas Christians in India? Because if the Kingdom of Jerusalem is going to be there for a while I assume there’s going to be some contact soon with them right?
Will the Crusaders make contact with Saint Thomas Christians in India? Because if the Kingdom of Jerusalem is going to be there for a while I assume there’s going to be some contact soon with them right?
I'd think the Jerusalemites would contact them after conquering Egypt since they would still be looking closer to home for now, which is conquering Egypt and ensuring Syria is a Crusader heartland.That brings up a really interesting point. If Jerusalem is going to have first-hand knowledge of the Thomasian Chistians they are going to have to have connections with Egypt that either go across the sea or across land. Now, across land means following the Silk Road (and passing through a number of hostile Turkic states) or by sea. The Sea is a bit problematic due to the fact that under normal times, Egypt would likely cut off the sea routes. But the state of Egypt right now is such that it would be hard for the government to exhert that much control over the sea - but I suspect that this means that piracy is a major issue: unless the Jerusalem navy is such that they have been able to take control over the sea routes.
If the latter? Oh, that changes a LOT and actually probably means that the ports of Jerusalem are going to become a major part of the spice trade with the West.
I'd think the Jerusalemites would contact them after conquering Egypt since they would still be looking closer to home for now, which is conquering Egypt and ensuring Syria is a Crusader heartland.
I think both would occur at the same time. Who wins long term is another story.If the Crusaders get Egypt could there be Muslims fleeing south and enforcing Islam on the Nubians or would some Christian Nubians ally with the Crusaders?
Yeah, the Crusaders could end up being the Hammer to the Ethiopian's Anvil.On the topic of African Christians, Ethiopians may be bolstered by the Egyptian Crusaders which would make things very interesting.
Something else to consider: It was just about this time, duing the 12th centuries that we first see evidence of the Legend of Prester John - a Christian Monarch which was thought to live, first, in India (and then in Central Asia and, later, in Africa). There is some evidence that an Indian Patriarch, and member of the Church of the East, traveled to Constantinople during this time while another traveled to Rome and met with Callixtus II. All of these accounts are second hand, of course, but it IS interesting because it establishes some possible precedent for the communities being aware of each other and making efforts to reach outWill the Crusaders make contact with Saint Thomas Christians in India? Because if the Kingdom of Jerusalem is going to be there for a while I assume there’s going to be some contact soon with them right?
Long term mesopotamia, Persia and Central Asia will be Islamic strongholds. The Maghreb will be subjugated at the early modern era, since they'd be separated from the Persians, the other strong Muslim power, by the Egyptians. Arabia should also stop being controlled by the Muslims during a period of Persian instability in the modern period. Most likely there'd be the first invasion, which has the Christians treat the Muslims well first, then after some time a restriction on the power of the Muslims and a destruction of the biggest Mosques in Mecca.With it looking increasingly likely that the Levant and Egypt will become into strongholds of Crusader rule, will modern perception of Islamic history be oriented around other Islamicate regions such as Persia or the Maghreb?
I doubt the separation from Persia by a Crusader Egypt would automatically spell the fall of the Maghreb. Throughout its history, the Maghreb has largely been administered autonomously by local polities. The Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid and even Ottoman Caliphates permitted the rulers of North Africa significant autonomy, at times teetering on independence, from their respective capitals. Local dynasties have emerged without having to rely on any sort of backing from larger Muslim powers.Long term mesopotamia, Persia and Central Asia will be Islamic strongholds. The Maghreb will be subjugated at the early modern era, since they'd be separated from the Persians, the other strong Muslim power, by the Egyptians. Arabia should also stop being controlled by the Muslims during a period of Persian instability in the modern period. Most likely there'd be the first invasion, which has the Christians treat the Muslims well first, then after some time a restriction on the power of the Muslims and a destruction of the biggest Mosques in Mecca.
I'd think that Persia ittl would see themselves as the bulwark of Islam as Islam would become more and more Persian.
In terms of Arabia, I sincerely doubt that any Christian polity would have much interest in the region. Especially considering an invasion of the Hejaz will perhaps unite the Islamic world in the fiercest opposition seen in history.
I don't see any way for the European kingdoms to conquer Yemen. Like, they don't have the naval technology or money to invade the territory without using Egypt as a staring point. They would have to go around Africa and to the christian kingdoms that's imposible at the moment. There's also the fact that they are not really big on commerce, they mostly rely on agriculture with the exception of the eastern Roman empire.I totally agree with this, with the possible (POSSIBLE!) exception of Yemen - if for no other reason than to seal up the Red Sea and further control the trade into the Indian Ocean. But I suspect that that would be a bridge too far, and not worth the effort whenestabishing non-hostile relations with a local state would bring many of the same benefits without having to actually occupy the region and all the headaches that that entails.
Well, we know that Crusade Egypt will eventually become a thing - so that would remove the need to go around Africa. Also, you're forgetting about the port city of Aqaba (though, to be fair, I'm not entirely sure that this falls within the borders of Crusader Jerusalem at this point. Although, if it isn't, its location near the Jerusalem border and it's possession of a port woul make it a natural target for further expansion in the region. Even in OTL the city was conquered by Jerusalem in 1115 without too much effort). And, though there can be no question that Jerusalem's government and economy is largely focused on agriculture and land, one also cannot deny the close relations that the Prince of Jerusalem has with the Italian maritime powers - and Venice, Genoa and the like would salivate at the opportunity to have access to a port on the Red Sea and cut out some of the middle men in both the silk and spice trade. I would expect that a deal would be struck with the Prince to allow them to operate out of the port in exchange for paying royal duties to transport the goods though the Princedom and to Mediterranean ports. Assuming that they can find a way to mitigate piracy on the Red Sea (which is certainly going to be a problem with the anarchy in Egypt) this holds the possibility of becoming VERY lucrative for all the parties involved.I don't see any way for the European kingdoms to conquer Yemen. Like, they don't have the naval technology or money to invade the territory without using Egypt as a staring point. They would have to go around Africa and to the christian kingdoms that's imposible at the moment. There's also the fact that they are not really big on commerce, they mostly rely on agriculture with the exception of the eastern Roman empire.
West Africa may not fall to the Christians, but the coastal regions of the Mediterranean certainly will. Tunis was even taken by the HRE in our timeline, only to end up abandoned because of an Egyptian counterattack and France causing trouble on mainland Europe.
With a stronger Crusading Movement where Catholics of different nations unite to lead military expeditions on foreign heathen lands, the Crusaders could end up taking the coastal cities and just staying there.
Its funny, the Crusading Movement is the closest thing we got to adventurers of the fantasy works.
I wonder, when Europe discovers America, could there end up being Crusader Nations there too?
I made this educated guess because the Maghreb in otl when it fails to defend itself tends to look at the nearest Islamic power to defend itself. As Egypt will be conquered, Egypt is a no-go, and as Syria and the middle East won't help (Arabia won't be able to help either) so the Persians are the only ones who could help, and given the distances and hostile enemies, I don't think Persia can help. So when the Maghreb loses land ittl no one's going to help them, and various European powers which will field much bigger armies than the people in Maghreb will agitate for their land.I doubt the separation from Persia by a Crusader Egypt would automatically spell the fall of the Maghreb. Throughout its history, the Maghreb has largely been administered autonomously by local polities. The Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid and even Ottoman Caliphates permitted the rulers of North Africa significant autonomy, at times teetering on independence, from their respective capitals. Local dynasties have emerged without having to rely on any sort of backing from larger Muslim powers.
West Africa being reconquered by the Ethiopians is possible but it's not something that's certainly going to happen. Personally I'd like to see Ethiopia expanding to Kenya, Somalia and Eritrea, but it really depends on how good the kings of Ethiopia are ittl. Plus it's like really far into the future so idk.West Africa may not fall to the Christians, but the coastal regions of the Mediterranean certainly will. Tunis was even taken by the HRE in our timeline, only to end up abandoned because of an Egyptian counterattack and France causing trouble on mainland Europe.
If this occurs then most of the major cities of the Maghreb would most likely be in Christian control. Tunis/Carthage and Morocco would definitely be part of the crusader states (imagine a HRE claimant surviving in Tunis and creating a centralised country out of that. That'd be interesting). The Muslims would either be the poor serfs or they'd be raiding the cities. Long term people who are Muslim are going to be swamped by Christians in the long run.I do believe it's been confirmed that the Reconquesta will push across the Pillars of Heraclese in this timeline and into OTL Moracco and I believe that a Crusader Tunis is pretty much assured. This doesn't meant that all of North Africa will be Christian, of course - but there are going to be important Christian states in that region.
Do you think there would be Crusader Nations in the Americas? As in, the Crusading Movement spreading there too?would the exploration of America not be done by the conquistadors (who were soldiers that fought in the Reconquista and were looking for other lands to conquer for their crown) since they would be busy in Africa. I'd think it'd be plausible for the Scandinavians or the English to discover America ittl. Or the French. The natives would fare better ittl due to this I think, and I think the lands that ittl would be colonised is north America (I think their civilisations were collapsing while European diseases spread, so I think they're fucked, nomad tribes will fare much better with horses tho), Brazil and Argentina. I'd think an Inca empire with Argentina as it's second heartland would be very interesting.