And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace

[Icedaemon]

I think that the Almohad victory Alexandria would have benefited from being described in more detail. How did they breach the walls? What siege engines did they use? Did they transport the components all the way from Cyrenaica or further, or build them locally? If the latter, of what, Alexandria is after all quite a ways west of the fertile parts of the Nile valley? What sort of a numerical advantage did they have to take the city by storm, even with a breach?

Personally, I fail to see how crusader states in the Holy land and Egypt (and I would think that in the long term, it is at least two separate states) which are nominally vassals of the ERE does not meet the criteria of 'more successful and long-lasting Crusader states', but that might be me.

 

[St. Just]

A Crusader Egypt-Levant with access to all that trade revenue -- and with it, Italian navies more than capable of neutralizing the Romans' most distinct military advantage -- would probably put a better fight against a Roman Selim Yavuz than the Mamluks did. The Crusaders will also have less actionable military frontiers once Egypt is taken -- compare that to the Romans, who have an entire cast of *Balkan, Sicilian, Cuman/Tatar and internal Armenian enemies to possibly contend with all the time.

Not to mention the possibility of another Turkic conqueror pulling an Alp Arslan (or at the very least expelling the Romans from Armenia). And, as has been debated ceaselessly ITT, the Mongols (although even the loose butterfly effect ITTL should probably butterfly the Mongol invasions of IOTL. Genghis had numerous points early on that could have stopped him before he began, and I could see a Mongolic expansion more akin to the numerous Turkic warlords as opposed to the hordes of doom.)

 

[galileo-034]

The Crusaders will also have less actionable military frontiers once Egypt is taken -- compare that to the Romans, who have an entire cast of *Balkan, Sicilian, Cuman/Tatar and internal Armenian enemies to possibly contend with all the time.

I don't see how it's relevant. In the analogy I make, that's as much the case of the Ottomans as it is of the Byzantines then. And comparatively, they would be having even stronger position than the Turks started with.

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

A Crusader Egypt-Levant with access to all that trade revenue -- and with it, Italian navies more than capable of neutralizing the Romans' most distinct military advantage -- would probably put a better fight against a Roman Selim Yavuz than the Mamluks did. The Crusaders will also have less actionable military frontiers once Egypt is taken -- compare that to the Romans, who have an entire cast of *Balkan, Sicilian, Cuman/Tatar and internal Armenian enemies to possibly contend with all the time.

Not to mention the possibility of another Turkic conqueror pulling an Alp Arslan (or at the very least expelling the Romans from Armenia). And, as has been debated ceaselessly ITT, the Mongols (although even the loose butterfly effect ITTL should probably butterfly the Mongol invasions of IOTL. Genghis had numerous points early on that could have stopped him before he began, and I could see a Mongolic expansion more akin to the numerous Turkic warlords as opposed to the hordes of doom.)

That all sounds good in theory but controlling that area and allying with such powerful merchant states doesn’t mean they’ll be superior to the Eastern Romans. The crusaders are gonna be spread thin and will have numerous other enemies. And with the Italian navies not based in their lands it’ll be hard to coordinate. And it’s not like there’s rivalries amongst those cities, so some might join the crusaders while others will join the empire.

I doubt someone could pull an Alp Arslan. The preceding events that allowed the Turks to beat the Romans at manzikert and conquer Anatolia so easily aren’t something that are likely to be reproduced. It took decades of mismanagement, dissolving a large army, a comically disastrous battle, and years of civil war for the Turks to be able to do that. Nor are there any nomadic groups in the area. The Turks have settled in now. The Muslim states are in disarray. And if the Mongols emulate their real world wars here by the time they get to the Empire they’ll be at their limits and won’t be settling there.

 

[Pergington]

I think the more interesting trend we’re seeing with the ERE is its pivoting attention towards the West now that it’s Eastern borders are basically secured and unable to expand much farther. Manuel andJohn already began this with contacting the Pope and asking for aid against the Sicilians. It would some hefty butterflies for Europe if the ERE starts coming back into the grand European theatre.

 

[Gloss]

In this story of Egypt ending up a crusader polity though, I would notice an analogy with OTL for the very long run. The Mamluk Sultanate did control the entire Levant from Egypt to northern Syria through Palestine, and this didn't prevent their fall to the Ottomans later. I say that because obviously, the Byzantines are basically occupying the same position the Ottomans were, and perhaps a stronger one since they wouldn't have the Latin rump states to deal with in the Aegean (Rhodes, Crete, ...) or in Cyprus.

In the Balkans and the Pontic and Transcaucasian steppes, they would be similarly be in the same spot the Byzantines were in, with the noticeable difference that, being a Christian empire, there wouldn't be any grand war with religious/crusadist undertones as in "that king of hungary better settle with the Basileus rather than bother us who have more pressing matters to deal with, says the Holy Roman Emperor".
And in its relation to the Crusader state, the Byzantines have that big advantage they have a much more powerful and efficient state apparatus, especially if the HRE type comparison and the Coptic shadow state in Egypt that have been made stand.
And when the crusading flame is well extinguished in Europe as it had later been, who is going to mount a serious challenge if the Basileus rolls over the Levantines like the Ottomans rolled over the Mamluks? Well, probably the Italian maritime republics, but that's another story I guess...

Those type of analogies are completely irrelevant because they assume that somehow all technological and geopolitical trends go all the same direction, using OTL history with a sample size of 1 to make such arguments seems ridiculous to me, especially given we can easily just look at the history of Byzantine in the preceding centuries to see that this supposed Anatolian dominance doesn't exist whatsoever

That all sounds good in theory but controlling that area and allying with such powerful merchant states doesn’t mean they’ll be superior to the Eastern Romans. The crusaders are gonna be spread thin and will have numerous other enemies.

Enemies such as? On their south they have Christian Makuria, the Arabians might be a problem but it's doubful, Iraq and Iran also border the Byzantines and any expansion there threatens the Byzantines too. On the West I'd imagine the Normans would keep the Tunisians and Lybians forces occupied for a while.

And with the Italian navies not based in their lands it’ll be hard to coordinate. And it’s not like there’s rivalries amongst those cities, so some might join the crusaders while others will join the empire.

Didn't stop OTL Western Christians from holding onto the Aegean for decades against an ascendant Ottoman power and here they hold Egypt and the Levant which together have a population upwards of 10 million.

I doubt someone could pull an Alp Arslan. The preceding events that allowed the Turks to beat the Romans at manzikert and conquer Anatolia so easily aren’t something that are likely to be reproduced. It took decades of mismanagement, dissolving a large army, a comically disastrous battle, and years of civil war for the Turks to be able to do that.

Which happened multiple times in Byzantine histories.

 

[Gloss]

and even considering the famed fertility of Egypt's farmland it's extremely doubtful that sufficient numbers of Catholic European immigration will occur to give Crusader Egypt a class of them large enough to singlehandedly dominate the region.

I imagine they will make 5-10% of the population, similar to what the Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt did or to what the Arabs seems to have had(although I'm doubtful here)
Whether that's enough to dominate the region seems a trivial question, if that was a barrier the Arabs would have never ruled long over any territory in North Africa after their initial conquest..

The Copts are Miaphysite heretics and still a minority of the country's population, but they are still coreligionists and vastly more populous than Catholics (or Greeks) in Egypt.

In Upper Egypt sure but in the Delta I imagine Europeans and Levantines would become a bigger share eventually, given the concentration of Italian traders in the coastal cities there and also the general geography and the likely fact there were less Copts in the Delta.

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

Enemies such as? On their south they have Christian Makuria, the Arabians might be a problem but it's doubful, Iraq and Iran also border the Byzantines and any expansion there threatens the Byzantines too. On the West I'd imagine the Normans would keep the Tunisians and Lybians forces occupied for a while.


Didn't stop OTL Western Christians from holding onto the Aegean for decades against an ascendant Ottoman power and here they hold Egypt and the Levant which together have a population upwards of 10 million.


Which happened multiple times in Byzantine histories.

Just because Makuria is Christian doesn’t mean there cant be hostilities. Afterall a shared faith hasn’t stopped the numerous wars between the Christian realms. And they aren’t been the same sect. While things in the Muslim world are unstable now eventually things will calm down and there’ll be threats from both the east and the west. The Normans aren’t in a state to deal with North Africa, not after they got their asses handed to them by Manuel. Most importantly, internally. The heart of the crusader realm is separated from Egypt by a desert, and as noted in a prior chapter the fatamids destroyed settlements to make an invasion harder. Plus the latin ruling class would be spread thin trying to rule over Egypt.

The Italians states iotl were more powerful and had the benefit of being dug in. Plus a long naval history in comparison to the ottomans. Here they don’t have those territories and the imperial navy is very strong, experienced, and has a monopoly on Greek fire. And as I said, they’re based out of Italy. Far away from the Levant. Having your main naval allies being weeks and weeks away isn’t great when dealing with the local naval superpower. As I said before there’s no guarantee they’d all be pro crusaders either.

Oh really! Multiple times? I don’t recall there being many other times like that in ERE history (outside of the Angeloids and the eve of the Arab conquests maybe) where things were so piss poor internally and coincided with a nomadic people knocking at the doors. What happened in 1071 was the perfect storm, it can’t be replicated. And even if things got that bad (super unlikely), theres no nomadic people on the move looking for a new land to rule. So no, there won’t be an Alp Arslan 2.0 here.

 

[X Oristos]

A Crusader Egypt-Levant with access to all that trade revenue -- and with it, Italian navies more than capable of neutralizing the Romans' most distinct military advantage -- would probably put a better fight against a Roman Selim Yavuz than the Mamluks did. The Crusaders will also have less actionable military frontiers once Egypt is taken -- compare that to the Romans, who have an entire cast of *Balkan, Sicilian, Cuman/Tatar and internal Armenian enemies to possibly contend with all the time.

I think it will depend on how Crusader Egypt will be politically developed.

The best case scenario will entail a strong centralized state that will have developed the administration to tap Egypt's wwealth for itself. At the same time, they would have developed an indigenous (Frankish) commercial class that will dominate the trade between the Mediterranean world and the Indian Ocean. Said state would trasnalte this commercial might to a strong naval power in the Mediterranean and in a very powerful army. At the same time, they build institutions where they are able to utilize a great percentage of Egypt's human wealth. Copts are able to advance in the state administration and reach positions of influence. This Crusader Kingdom is a Great Power.

The worst case scenario will entail a decentralized state where the nobles will carve out their own fiefdoms out of Egypt. A state of rich feudal lords but poor central authority. Commerce is left to the italian maritime republics where they establish their own quarters and entreports in the Delta and Red Sea. Most of the commercial wealth ends up in Venice, Genoa, Pisa and not in the coffers of the Crusader State. The Italian bicker and fight with each other as they did in OTL crusader Levant. Likewise, the Italians have not particular loyalty to the Crusader State. If for example the Venetians are the pre-eminent maritime republic in Egypt, the Genoans and Pisans would back a byzantine annexation if its means they get Venice's position. The Venetians themselves they are as loyal to the Crusaders as they were loyal to the Mamluks: in OTL they were good allies but they wouldn't destroy their commerce with the Ottomans for Mamluk's sake, nor bankrupt the Republic to fight Mamluk's naval wars. In society, when it comes to political integration of the Copts, they remain a originally loyal peasant base that are excluded from important position in the administration. The administration remains open only to the Frankish warrior class.

These are the best and worse case scenarios regarding how strong foundations the Crusader Kingdom might have. In any case, Egypt is very densely populated: there is no space for introducing settlers from Europe, just burghers in the cities and ports. It will all depend on institutions and the ability to incorporate populations in the administration.

 

[galileo-034]

I think the more interesting trend we’re seeing with the ERE is its pivoting attention towards the West now that it’s Eastern borders are basically secured and unable to expand much farther. Manuel andJohn already began this with contacting the Pope and asking for aid against the Sicilians. It would some hefty butterflies for Europe if the ERE starts coming back into the grand European theatre.

On the contrary. Expansion westwards is pretty much blocked by Hungary, HRE and the Italian polities, all of whom are established enough on the map not be simply annexed or subjugated like an Armenian princedome or a Turkish beylik. Relations are more likely to take the form of a game of influence through vassals and proxies. Thus so far, we have seen the Byzantines reaffirming their control of Croatian and Serbian principalities as vassals, making an alliance with Ancona to undermine Venice, and finally gain control of Bari, and with it I surmise most of Apulia; the big picture is de facto a Byzantine control of the Adriatic sea from the outskirts of Venice to the straits of Otranto.
But otherwise, that's a game whose confines will probably remain stable for the next few centuries at least unless in a totaly suprise scenario, the Byzantine pull off a surprise Justinian style reconquista of Sicily and North Africa and expand their reach into the Western Mediterranean basin.

Then, no matter how strong the naval power of the Byzantines is, they are not going to change the situation of Italian republics controlling much of the trade from the Levant into the West; that would require a massive outreach into Italy proper, and we last saw Manuel ambitions there restricted to keeping a foothold in Apulia.
Instead, the geography of commerce and polities across western Asia makes it so the only venue for the Byzantines remains east, namely, the trade with China.
The Italians may have captated the trade of spices with Indies through the Levant and later Egypt, but the trade with China, and Japan by extension, remains a further league away, at least until sailing technology and projection of naval power extends into Southeast Asia, and that's not to happen soon. The Byzantines meanwhile remain the most well placed to captate whatever trade still follow the ancient routes of the Silk Road from China. And there is not only the southern route, but also the northern route.
The southern route, through Khwarezm and Tabaristan can end up in the Levant by going south into Iraq through the Zagros mountains or west into Byzantine territory through Georgia and then Trabzon.
The northern route, through the Kazakh steppes around the northern end of the Caspian sea and then across the Volga, would end up in the ports of Tauride (Crimea), which remains under Byzantine control, even more than OTL if we don't have their authority there eaten away by the Italians the way it went.
Of course, the vitality and volume of this trade depends very much on the how stable the regions the road cross, from the Iranian plateaux to northern China. And which direction is picked or favored by local rulers. And in these matters, the Basileus has way more of a say than the barely established Levantine kingdom has currently.
Constantinople has had for centuries at this point in the TL a diplomatic presence across the region that gives them a more accute picture than the Latins will ever have (if any indication, the last post mention of the Latins obliviousness to Almohads controlling both North Africa and Southern Spain as compared with the lucidity of the Byzantines is good enough an example of such a situation).
Back in the 6th century, the Eastern Romans were already colluding with the Gokturks against the Sassanid, and in one of the most famous acts of industrial espionage of human history, monks brought back to Constantinople silkworms and the secret of the silk. And Chinese chronicles mention, according to the wiki, several embassies through the Tang and Song period, with the last one from Michael VII in the 1070s.
And with the Mongol conquests and the stability it would bring to the Silk Road, trade from China would boom, and if anyone is to well placed to captate it ITTL, it's the Byzantines, based on how both face one another in the first encounters.
So, to sum it up, east (and by extension, the Caspian-Pontic steppes from Ukraine to the Caucasus) will remain the most open (in relative terms of course) venue of expansion for Byzantine geopolitical fortunes because of the Silk Road.

Those type of analogies are completely irrelevant because they assume that somehow all technological and geopolitical trends go all the same direction, using OTL history with a sample size of 1 to make such arguments seems ridiculous to me, especially given we can easily just look at the history of Byzantine in the preceding centuries to see that this supposed Anatolian dominance doesn't exist whatsoever

That's misunderstanding the analogy and its scope. The scope is defined in relation to the afore discussed control of a geopolitical space, its resources and demography. And in that regard, my argument was that Latins controling Egypt, Palestine and Syria doesn't necessarily mean they will come more powerful than the Byzantines, pointing at the fact that with the Ottomans and Mamluks controlling two areas prospectively the same as the Levantines and the Byzantines would possibly come to control soon (it has been implied that Egypt will fall before the Mongols arrive on the scene in this TL, and in regard to Anatolia specifically, Byzantines are controlling it as of now in this TL, after destroying the last Islamic polities that held out in Armenian highlands during the Second Crusade), the same parameters apply and the result is not necessarily in the former's favor, regardless of the time considered (and by this I mean my analogy wasn't anything about how the Byzantines and Levantines will feature in relation to one another in the 16th century at the time the Ottomans actually conquered the Mamluk sultanate, or how happening at this time or another might affect differently the outcome).
And to add, as in maths, necessarily doesn't mean sufficient, so that in simple terms, I'm pointing out that these parameters don't define the outcome.
And when comparing these parameters and the outcome, it's to the exclusion of all others, including the geopolitical trends, since they are not relevant to the terms of the discussion, at least as I've understood it
I excluded geopolitical trends from the analogy because it does not feature in a comparison that is only about what is, but I mentioned some only to point out some key differences, and these are not part of the analogy or of the argument I made specifically on the inadequation between the situation and the result, but as part of a second, and markedly distinct, argument on why the Byzantines would after the conquest of Egypt still be stronger at this point than the Ottomans were themselves when they set out to conquer the Mamluk sultanate.

As for technological developments, which remains out of the scope of the analogy and are another discussion entirely, I would just say that unless we are explicitely heading into a medieval punk style or dystopic TL, or be explicitely told about alternate technological developments or hints of them to come, the tacit norm is to assume that it will follow the same pace as OTL. And so far in this TL, nothing has yet justified, for me at least, to think otherwise (not even the continued use of Greek fire by the Byzantines in this TL).

The worst case scenario will entail a decentralized state where the nobles will carve out their own fiefdoms out of Egypt. A state of rich feudal lords but poor central authority. Commerce is left to the italian maritime republics where they establish their own quarters and entreports in the Delta and Red Sea. Most of the commercial wealth ends up in Venice, Genoa, Pisa and not in the coffers of the Crusader State. The Italian bicker and fight with each other as they did in OTL crusader Levant. Likewise, the Italians have not particular loyalty to the Crusader State. If for example the Venetians are the pre-eminent maritime republic in Egypt, the Genoans and Pisans would back a byzantine annexation if its means they get Venice's position. The Venetians themselves they are as loyal to the Crusaders as they were loyal to the Mamluks: in OTL they were good allies but they wouldn't destroy their commerce with the Ottomans for Mamluk's sake, nor bankrupt the Republic to fight Mamluk's naval wars. In society, when it comes to political integration of the Copts, they remain a originally loyal peasant base that are excluded from important position in the administration. The administration remains open only to the Frankish warrior class.

Seems to me the most likely outcome. Rdffigueira said he saw Egypt remaining within the same polity as Jerusalem in a semblant of HRE type feudal monarchy spanning the Levant, and this description fits the bad outcome you put.

 

[X Oristos]

The Italians may have captated the trade of spices with Indies through the Levant and later Egypt, but the trade with China, and Japan by extension, remains a further league away, at least until sailing technology and projection of naval power extends into Southeast Asia, and that's not to happen soon. The Byzantines meanwhile remain the most well placed to captate whatever trade still follow the ancient routes of the Silk Road from China. And there is not only the southern route, but also the northern route.

I would like to add that a Crusader Egypt cannot monopolize the import of spices in the West. To do that they would need to capture and control the Hormuz Strait as well. This route remained competitive well into the modern age. After all, the Red Sea was notoriously dangerous due to pirates and more importantly the strong prevailing northern winds in its upper part. So the route Malabar-Hormuz-Basra remains.

I think the Italians and the Franks will encounter the problem that the West has faced from the roman era: before the industrial age there were precious few products to be exported to the East. We should remember what the zamorin of Calicut asked of the Portuguese: gold, silver, coral and scarlet cloth. After the Age of Discoveries, the most common western export to the East was... silver. Europe produces quite a bit of silver, but we are far away from the influx of New World silver. I think it might be an issue in the long-term and restrict the trade volume to manageable levels.

Relations are more likely to take the form of a game of influence through vassals and proxies. Thus so far, we have seen the Byzantines reaffirming their control of Croatian and Serbian principalities as vassals, making an alliance with Ancona to undermine Venice, and finally gain control of Bari, and with it I surmise most of Apulia

Exactly.
Moreover, Venice without its string of bases across the east Mediterranean in the post-1204 period won't be able to become a naval power as in OTL. Galley naval warfare demands bases above everything else. Venice will continue to be a major commercial power, but it would be almost impossible to reach her OTL military might.

The equilibrium of naval forces won't be anything similar to the OTL 13th-15th centuries, but rather something closer to the 16th century (minus the United Spain funded by Potosi silver).

 

[Lascaris]

and finally gain control of Bari, and with it I surmise most of Apulia; the big picture is de facto a Byzantine control of the Adriatic sea from the outskirts of Venice to the straits of Otranto.
But otherwise, that's a game whose confines will probably remain stable for the next few centuries at least unless in a totaly suprise scenario, the Byzantine pull off a surprise Justinian style reconquista of Sicily and North Africa and expand their reach into the Western Mediterranean basin.

I'm not entirely convinced here. Both Sicily and south Italy still have very significant Greek populations and the moment and the empire's hold on Bari will be a constant point of contention with the Norman kingdom. So it's a natural target for the empire between a friendly population on the ground and a geopolitical imperative to remove the Norman threat, which is still very much there, the fourth Norman invasion was in 1185 in OTL. And if Michael VIII could bankroll and trigger the Sicilian vespers a century down the line what can the TTL Comnenian empire be doing? And how does in react when the Normans inevitably try to recover Bari?

 

[galileo-034]

I'm not entirely convinced here. Both Sicily and south Italy still have very significant Greek populations and the moment and the empire's hold on Bari will be a constant point of contention with the Norman kingdom. So it's a natural target for the empire between a friendly population on the ground and a geopolitical imperative to remove the Norman threat, which is still very much there, the fourth Norman invasion was in 1185 in OTL. And if Michael VIII could bankroll and trigger the Sicilian vespers a century down the line what can the TTL Comnenian empire be doing? And how does in react when the Normans inevitably try to recover Bari?

I'm not saying the contrary, and I just used the Adriatic as one of the confines of that game between the West and Constantinople. Another could be in Ukraine with Lithuanians, Poles and Hungarians...

That said, I'd love a Byzantine reconquista in southern Italy, but with the Welfs lurking in the North, and the perspective of the Byzantines bringing about the city states of the North to back the Welfs out of fear of them, I'm not very confident of Byzantine fortunes there. Perhaps they would have a window of opportunity when the Welfs would be distracted north against the Capetians. I mean that because, if the Normans are out, the Imperials are more than likely to fill in and try their luck in southern Italy like the Hohenstaufens did IOTL.

 

[Lascaris]

I'm not saying the contrary, and I just used the Adriatic as one of the confines of that game between the West and Constantinople. Another could be in Ukraine with Lithuanians, Poles and Hungarians...

That said, I'd love a Byzantine reconquista in southern Italy, but with the Welfs lurking in the North, and the perspective of the Byzantines bringing about the city states of the North to back the Welfs out of fear of them, I'm not very confident of Byzantine fortunes there. Perhaps they would have a window of opportunity when the Welfs would be distracted north against the Capetians. I mean that because, if the Normans are out, the Imperials are more than likely to fill in and try their luck in southern Italy like the Hohenstaufens did IOTL.

Arguably the Byzantines are in a collision course with the HRE... just like OTL. In OTL you had an somewhat odd set of circumstances stopping outright conflict. First Henry VI effectively blackmails the Angeloi not to invade, then prepares to invade anyway, then dies before he can do so. Then you get the fourth crusade and Hohenstaufens end up allied with the Lascarids... only for Manfred to switch sides with singular lack of success at Pelagonia.

Somehow I short of doubt the Comnenes will be backing down before any Welf aggression TTL. But the 64,000 hyperpyra questions are who William marries, whether he has children from said marriage and if not... who Constance marries. When Sicily is the dowry both Constantinople and the Welfs will be MOST interested in the bride....

 

[Quinkana]

@Quinkana - Much like how Sphenodon argued in #2,601, the Crusaders will certainly co-opt the Copts (this might be the best and the worst possible pun of this week) to their cause; they are Christians, they are culturally and linguistically native, they are an ex-oppressed minority. All of these will be factors that will be taken in consideration, because the Franks, even if somehow they can bring a sizable number of immigrants, will comprise a fairly small elite ruling over a vast population, and they will need natives with bureaucratic and economic expertise to keep the machinery of the state functioning perfectly. In fact, I agree wholly with Sphenodon's point that, in the long-run, a Crusader Egypt will mean a "shadow" Coptic kingdom under the Latinized surface, because they will function as the principal social strata that keeps the realm active as an administrative and economic entity, even if the political leadership is monopolized by Franks and Greeks.

Co-opt the Copts! Best pun evaa!

But seriously, that's the only way a Crusader Egypt can survive long term.

I just think the Mongols have to try invading some places no matter what, as the drought and subsequent wet years predating the Mongol invasions are 'pre-determined', which forces the Mongols to push outwards. Maybe tribal groups get displaced and attack the ERE and Ukraine/Russia, but something has to happen at about the same time as the Mongol invasions.

 

[X Oristos]

I would like to comment on two butterflies regarding Byzantium.

First of all, during the 12th century there was significant demographic expansion as well as increased urbanization. Angeliki Laiou in her book "Byzantine Economy" estimates the population at 19 million people during the final decade of the 12th century, the same as in 1025 despite the significant territorial contraction. Now the whole Asia Minor and the Armenian Highlands are back under roman control. There must be more than enough settlers to send east and make the eastern provinces productive again. And not having almost permanent ghazi raids in the fertile west Asia Minor, then this region is bound to be ahead both economically and demographically. Last but not least, the reconquered lands in the east must have produced a great number of imperial estates, further increasing the state income.

The other butterfly is that the Normans have not raided Thebes and Corinth in 1147 and carried away the silk workers. Sicily had a silk industry since its islamic era. However, Sicily produced lower quality silk textiles. The workers captured in Corinth and Thebes used to produce more high-value textiles. After all it was expanding during the 12th century, along with internal and foreign markets.Byzantines silks were exported in both christian Europe and muslim Egypt and Levant (during the 12th century the ban on exporting the finest textiles had lapsed, presumably due an increase of production). It seems that the byzantine silk industry will be more dominating during the second half of the 12th century compared to OTL.

Source for the silk industry: "Silk in Western Byzantium before the 4th Crusade" by Jacoby.

Likewise, no 1147 sack of Corinth, means that the lucrative pottery and glass industry of Corinth remains intact at least until now (1170s). Fine 12th century byzantine pottery has been found in southern Italy and Occitania (Laiou,"Byzantine Economy"). Glass exports have been recorded to Egypt, Italy and Crimea.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I mildly interested to see what the impacts are on the Italian republics here. On one hand they've got a Christian NE Med at present and soon it seems, Egypt as well, which surely helps to some degree but on the other hand, they may end up with 2-3 large powers to deal with, and presumably the republics grow more powerful when powers are fragmented. In the short to medium term the Crusader state is quite fragmented and they are embedded, but at some point that likely consolidates to some degree and the sovereign exerts more power over the ports. Then Egypt will be fragmented / feudal but perhaps with less sea ports and I guess even a weak Egyptian Crusader state could exert some control over the Nile.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

1. The Copts could be more desperate to welcome any Crusader invasion at this point since the campaign against them by their Muslim rulers will be harsh. As for the Crusaders, depending if they're Catholic or Orthodox, they could tolerate the Copts even if they don't agree with them theologically. I see the Copts as basically a proxy governing force for the Crusaders.
2. Since Shias are small minority in Egypt could the Crusaders also use them as a proxy as well?
3. And finally I assume that the Crusaders are only going to hold the Nile Delta, right? Because it'll be difficult going through the rest of the Nile. Taking the rest of it will require more than one war.
4. Switching back to Europe, how are the politics of England and France different now?
5. Will the Rhomanians have more success in converting Turkic peoples in the east? And will the Rhomanians focus more on the Caucasus and the Middle East than in Europe?

 

[X Oristos]

1. And finally I assume that the Crusaders are only going to hold the Nile Delta, right? Because it'll be difficult going through the rest of the Nile. Taking the rest of it will require more than one war.

If somebody has conquered the Nile Delta, conquering the rest of Egypt is very easy.

When it comes to geography, Egypt has two defences: the Sinai Desert and the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. After an enemy army has controlled the Pelusiac branch, then other branches in the Delta can act as barriers. However, once the Delta is under enemy control, the Nile acts not as barrier but as a highway to invade south. Almost all the population is concentrated along a flat area a few kilometers wide across the river banks. Egypt south of Cairo has literally no obstacles for an invading army. This is also why in the millenia of egyptian history the country was united.

 

[Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)]

Hi friends, I'm back to answer some posts, starting with #2,602 (page 131):

@Damian0358 - So far, the situation in Hungary is more or less similar to OTL. Even if Stephen IV we avoid OTL Stephen IV's premature death, I figure that Manuel doesn't have the political will, this time, to depose Stephen III and enforce his uncle's elevation for a second time. Now, as for Béla, it is good that you mentioned him because it is with him that Hungary's TL will diverge more significantly. As you guessed, he'll probably have a much more hostile relation with Byzantium, having never been Manuel's heir apparent, and this can mean that Hungary might become the Empire's "ulcer", and the Croatian and Serbian nobles will be keen on exploiting their rivalry.
Also, I thank you for the very detailed PM you sent. I've already read it, but have yet to answer in detail. Sorry for the delay, as a matter of fact, this month has been hectic (but fortunately very productive)

@Icedaemon @Darrenb209 - About the siege of Alexandria, I admit the event was worthy some more detail, but the gist is much like Darrenb209 said in post #2,604: it was a bloody grind-fest. It is true that the Almohads had the necessary siege expertise, but, in this case, they depended on the logistical support of the Fatimids, who are fighting in their home turf. With siege engines provided by the Egyptians, their combined manpower with the Almohad reinforcements was far more than enough to overwhelm the isolated Byzantines and Franks. Alexandria was the first to fall because of the fact that it was the strongest base of the Christian alliance, and because it was easier for the Almohads to commit to her siege, having come by the way of Tripolitania. They (correctly) predicted that Alexandria, if captured, would cause a domino effect against the position of the Christians there. However, I concede to the points raised, I agree that apparent ease and speed of how it happened stretched plausibility. It is a point that I'll be sure to revise in the future.

@Orisha91 (#2,605) - Great post! Thanks very much for the input, it was very informative. I have nothing to add, considering I need to research and study a lot more about the Sahelian and Sub-Saharan states to be able to discuss them in any detail whatsoever.

@Joriz Castillo - *cues in Manuel force-choking the Hungarians and Siculo-Normans in submission.* A small revenge, perhaps.

@galileo-034 (#2,608) - Great post, and interesting suggestion about the Welfs and Pisans. I have nothing more to add for the time being. While I have some sketchy ideas about a more consolidated HRE as a foil to Medieval France (and because I'm fascinated about the conflicts between the Emperors and the Popes), but I won't shoehorn it in the TL if I believe it strains acceptable degrees of plausibility. So, I must say I'm very appreciative of your contributions, because they are very very helpful.

About #2,610, great input too!! I agree that the scope of the war is to be a large one, but I see it happening indeed more as a long protracted struggle, that will very much likely be the first of various episodes of hegemonic rivalry between France and the HRE, similar to the Hundred Years' War or the later Valois-Habsburg wars, as you perfectly described in #2,615. My only question, however, is related to the actual power projection of the Capetians. Before Phillip Augustus, they seemed to be hard pressed to assert royal power in relation to the vassals. While this alternate Phillip is a capable monarch, he should have some constraints, and to get dukes such as Anjou, Aquitaine, Bourbon, etc, to get into the fight will demand negotiations and concessions. What do you think?

I agree that the main theater of the war will actually be in Burgundy, and especially because the Hohenstaufen will likely to jump in the pro-French bandwagon to weaken the Welfs. I did not know about the Bloisevin claim to the Kingdom of Arles, but now I'll be sure to give it more thought. You are very much correct about England as well, although I think they might have interest in remaining neutral in the actual war; in spite of the moral support they might give to the Blois, they don't have too actual stakes in the conflict.

And good catch about Barcelona in #2,611, I had forgotten indeed about their vassalage to France. I'll have this in mind too.

@DanMcCollum (#2,616) - Agreed entirely! Nothing to add at all.

@Quinkana @cmakk1012 - I think that out of sheer cultural inertia, Demotic script will continue to be generally used by the Copts, while I suppose that in the main centers of Crusader rule (e.g. Cairo, Damietta, etc) we might see a gradual transition to the Latin by the clergy that desire social and political ascension, but I think these will be very episodic and not necessarily long-lasting. The Papacy might indeed try to forward some changes in this regard, and that's something we could discuss later on.
As for Armenia, still not sure. They are politically too disintegrated for the time being, and I don't think a Mongol invasion would do any wonders to them.

@Orisha91 (#2,620) - Thanks for the paper you posted. Very interesting stuff.

As for the discussion about the Mongols and the Byzantines (@Darrenb209 @Lascaris @ImperialxWarlord @ByzantineMan @X Oristos @Faeelin)... well, I don't have anything to add right now. I'm excited to discuss in detail how things will develop, but it is very probable that the conflict will happen. If and when the Mongols do advance into Armenia/Mesopotamia/Syria and across the Pontic Steppe into the Danube area, regardless of the circumstances, they'll be in route of collision with the Empire. For the time being, its all this much I can say.

@AlexG - Thanks for the compliments! Indeed, agreed with all you said too. An earlier ending of the Reconquista is a given for my prospects of the TL, but how it will happen is something we must see in some better detail later on.

@Noblesse Oblige - Well, whatever are the circumstances of the appearance and the consolidation of the Mongols, and of the Mongol Empire, they are poised to play a large role in the narrative and in the in-universe, as much as IOTL, not only due to the military expansion, but also the establishment of the Pax Mongolica.