Combined Byz / Crusader conquest of Egypt works in 1186

I managed to find Bulliet's Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period chart for Egypt and Tunisia.

....

Muslim majority reached c. 900 A.D.

I don't quite understand this chart. What is the significance of the names "Egypt" and "Tunisia" in those positions? The heavy black curve is presumably the proportion of Moslems over time, but it shows the proportion reaching 95%, which isn't true in Egypt even today. How does the one line represent two countries?
 
Honestly a Crusade Egypt will be a multiethnic and multireligious place, and while the Copts will not be treated much better than the local Muslims, the comparison should be with how their former Muslim rulers treated them, if they're treated as second class citizens no matter what, they will likely simply accept status quo. Also as Crusader Egypt contact the Coptic states further "up" the Nile, we will likely see a improvement in how they treat the Copts in a attempt to push a reunification of the Churches. In general I expect a Coptic and Muslim peasantry, a Orthodox and Catholic burgher class and a Catholic nobility. We will likely see conversion among the lower classes for economic gain. Some Muslim may also convert back to become Copts as there's no longer legal and social benefits with being Muslims, in fact in majority Copt communities, we may see local the local Muslims killed, forced converted, enslaved or expelled by their Coptic neighbours.

Could a Crusader Egypt have incited the Copts to attack Muslims or perhaps force their Muslims neighbors to take on socially low / hated professions (e.g. tax collector, etc), as a distraction while the conquerors further consolidate their rule over Egypt?
 
Could a Crusader Egypt have incited the Copts to attack Muslims or perhaps force their Muslims neighbors to take on socially low / hated professions (e.g. tax collector, etc), as a distraction while the conquerors further consolidate their rule over Egypt?

As I posted above, what actually happened was the opposite: Coptic and Muslim Egyptians joined together under a united banner to drive out the foreign Catholic invaders.
 
While retaining Egypt and defending the holy land would be impossible with the amount of men available to the crusader states at the moment of conquest, the act of conquering Egypt could have some major effects.
1)A renewed interest in Crusading due to recent success could provide a small boost of volunteers
2)There was too much land in Egypt to be effectively administrated by the crusaders, so there's two ways they could resolve this:
a)give power to local Coptic leaders on the conditions that they raise local levies to support the crusaders in times of war
b)Give the land to relations in Europe who can take it on the condition they bring substantial levies and peasants to their new demense
3)They could have negotiated for men, ships, and supplies from the Italians in exchange for special trading privileges and enclaves within port cities. This would improve their logistical situation in the short term.

If the Crusaders are smart in the aftermath of the conquest they can create a powerful base from which to continue their efforts
 
The conquest of Egypt does one important thing in terms of manpower- it opens up the rich nile delta for parceling out to new crusaders, a not inconsiderable prize and one that would entice more of them to stay.
 

Marc

Donor
Some more granularity about Medieval Egypt.

There were a number of large and powerful Arab tribes that had settled up and down the Nile valley from about the 800's. In fact, in close historical time to the discussion, one of those powerhouse tribes, the Ja'al, had moved down to take over the lands south the First cataract, conquering Nubia et al. While their numbers were a bit reduced in the 12th century (the toughest two tribes were encouraged to go West and restore the truth faith), basically, they did run rural Egypt and successfully transformed it; the process of cultural Arabization that occurred throughout North Africa as wave of tribes moved west over the centuries past the initial Jihad. Likely, they would be giving serious grief to any infidel invaders.
(One of the key tells about how the country was changed was that in 1131 CE, the Coptic Pope declared that Arabic was to be one of the liturgical languages - which informs how Copts were being assimilated).
Most of an extensive and vibrant Jewish community had migrated some centuries past to the Maghreb and Spain - fortunate for them in this scenario, but bad for both real and imaginary rulers; they were high-value added folk, so to speak, for local economies.
The native population was heavily disease ridden - which may explain why they tended to remain below the carrying capacity of the land, i.e. less than what could be supported with little problem. Bilharzia, malaria, tuberculosis were endemic - the first being a particular condition to the Nile dependent population.
 
Last edited:
Top