Interesting developments. Is there any chance of getting a map? Also, it would be quite interesting to see the demographic structure of the population
Interesting developments. Is there any chance of getting a map? Also, it would be quite interesting to see the demographic structure of the population
Seems weird the Muslims reacted so fast, I wonder if their quickness in reacting is potentially a bad thing for them in some ways.
I'm waiting to see where this goes.
Guess its time for Crusades II: Jihad Boogaloo...
This is if I understand correctly a coalition between islamic powers which each already outnumber the crusaders still present in the Levant by a considerable margin?
Welcome back -- great TL. Cant wait to read the next installment
Seems weird the Muslims reacted so fast, I wonder if their quickness in reacting is potentially a bad thing for them in some ways.
It has been 10 years.
Could you elaborate on that? I'm afraid that i don't see the similarities.Now that I think about it, this does seems a bit similar to the creation of Israel... but let's not delve into this matter
Created due to outside influences. Arabs not having that launch a war (with Palestine), lose and so on.Could you elaborate on that? I'm afraid that i don't see the similarities.
It is possible that any gains that are made, so long as they are limited, might perhaps spur the launch of another crusade, although it has only been a few years since the last one.Seems weird the Muslims reacted so fast, I wonder if their quickness in reacting is potentially a bad thing for them in some ways.
He was competent enough to not sink the boat,but his reign was fundamental to sinking the ERE.His reputation as a great ruler was propped up by excessive taxation which he spent on vanity projects,extravagant lifestyle and largess to the Crusader states.His relationship with the Kingdom of Jerusalem was a complete waste of money. He kept on lavishing money on the Jerusalemites and all he got was lip service from them.I guess the Church as a whole tried to impose this kind of regime, as early as the "Truce and Peace of God" movements, and the seating Pope did excommunicate the (Fourth) Crusaders after they sacked Zara. ITTL, of course, if Byzantium as a whole is seen in a more positive light in western Europe, we will likely avoid this sort of disastrous events.
I suppose you refer to Manuel's failed campaign against Sicily, or the campaign to take Egypt, but, as a whole, I think he was quite a capable and savvy emperor, and adopted a reasonable pro-Crusader policy during the Second Crusade. I also take that you mean that he would be butterflied away ITTL because he was John II's youngest son, and should have likely been preceded in succession rights by his brother Alexios, Andronikos or even Isaac (who was passed over directly to Manuel). If so, indeed we might be expecting that the current divergences affecting this second generation of Komnenoi emperors.
Yeah,but at the end of the day the crusader states are gonna need the ERE far more than the ERE needed them.They were a liability on the long term.Unless Egypt's taken,the crusader states can't really afford to antagonize the ERE.For the newly arriving crusaders,this would be a totally different matter of course.With the exception of the rulers of Antioch,the 'native' rulers of the Crusader states generally tried to avoid outright antagonizing the ERE.Those are very good observations. For the time being the Crusader-Byzantine alliance is more of a convenience and the realization of the Byzantines that for the first time in half a millenium, they might have found an useful (Christian) ally in Asia to deter the Muslims.
You raised an interesting point about Damascus. If the Byzantines do get that far, their (soft, still) hegemony will be consolidated, and the relations might sour from there onwards. All it takes is an Emperor with less diplomatic acumen, who thinks these Franks aren't anything more than subordinate vassals of Constantinople. If it happens, sh*t will hit the fan, indeed.
Yeah,but at the end of the day the crusader states are gonna need the ERE far more than the ERE needed them.They were a liability on the long term.Unless Egypt's taken,the crusader states can't really afford to antagonize the ERE.For the newly arriving crusaders,this would be a totally different matter of course.With the exception of the rulers of Antioch,the 'native' rulers of the Crusader states generally tried to avoid outright antagonizing the ERE.
That is true as well.The point is that whatever the true feelings of the Frankish lords may be,they cannot really outright antagonize the ERE because they needed the ERE’s cooperation and support on a lot of things.For example,even though the Jerusalemites distrusted the ERE IOTL,they went ahead with the joint invasion of Egypt following such a proposal by Manuel out of courtesy.They purposefully delayed the invasion so that the ERE would run out of supply and leave on their own accord.I really think that in order to ensure the survival of the Crusader states TTL Byzantium really can’t do that amazingly well. If they took Damascus and held it, it would only be a matter of time before they marched an army into Palestine. Byzantium needs to do well enough to defeat the Turks but not well enough to pose an existential threat.
He was competent enough to not sink the boat,but his reign was fundamental to sinking the ERE.His reputation as a great ruler was propped up by excessive taxation which he spent on vanity projects,extravagant lifestyle and largess to the Crusader states.His relationship with the Kingdom of Jerusalem was a complete was of money. He kept on lavishing money on the Jerusalemites and all he got was lip service from them. Yeah,but at the end of the day the crusader states are gonna need the ERE far more than the ERE needed them.They were a liability on the long term.Unless Egypt's taken,the crusader states can't really afford to antagonize the ERE.For the newly arriving crusaders,this would be a totally different matter of course.With the exception of the rulers of Antioch,the 'native' rulers of the Crusader states generally tried to avoid outright antagonizing the ERE.
I really think that in order to ensure the survival of the Crusader states TTL Byzantium really can’t do that amazingly well. If they took Damascus and held it, it would only be a matter of time before they marched an army into Palestine. Byzantium needs to do well enough to defeat the Turks but not well enough to pose an existential threat.
That is true as well.The point is that whatever the true feelings of the Frankish lords may be,they cannot really outright antagonize the ERE because they needed the ERE’s cooperation and support on a lot of things.For example,even though the Jerusalemites distrusted the ERE IOTL,they went ahead with the joint invasion of Egypt following such a proposal by Manuel out of courtesy.They purposefully delayed the invasion so that the ERE would run out of supply and leave on their own accord. At any rate,given the system the Komnenoi set up,I don’t think ERE success will last that long.There’s most likely gonna be another crisis some time in the future given the volatile nature of ERE politics.
I personally think there is a lot of room between a failing Byzantium in Anatolia or a too successful one, I mean it's not a given that if they secure Western Anatolia that inland Syria would fall that quickly.