Could Amalric have conqured Egypt?

Inspired by the "Crusader Egypt" thread. Amalric's campaign, I admit, is not one I know too many details of-but of all the Crusader invasions of Egypt, it came the closest to actually working, and occurred at a time when the Fatimid Caliphate was dying (and gave way to the Ayyubids IOTL), thus making Egypt weaker than it might have been otherwise.

So, this in mind, could Amalric's campaign have worked, and if it had, what sort of state might Amalric and his successors have built in their newly-won "Kingdom of Egypt"?
 
There are a couple of decent points where Amalric's invasions could have succeeded. The last major one was also his most successful, in 1168-9, when he captured Bilbeis and besieged Cairo following his betrayal by the vazir Shawar (who had switched sides in favor of Nur ad-Din's semi-renegade mercenary general Shirkuh). Tweak that siege to succeed and you pretty much hand Amalric the keys to Egypt. Sure, the KoJ isn't in control of the whole country or anything like that - but taking the city basically wipes out much of Shirkuh's base and makes him extremely vulnerable, and there are no other serious challengers.

As for speculating about what Amalric would actually do with Egypt, well, I honestly don't have a clue.
 
As for speculating about what Amalric would actually do with Egypt, well, I honestly don't have a clue.

Possibly personal union with Jerusalem, and power given to the Copts. Or, the crown is "auctioned" off to a European Prince who has enough gold and manpower to keep the kingdom secure.
 
Possibly personal union with Jerusalem, and power given to the Copts. Or, the crown is "auctioned" off to a European Prince who has enough gold and manpower to keep the kingdom secure.

Why would Amalric "auction" Egypt off when he could keep it himself? Its still a very rich country with plenty of resources Amalric could use. And why give power to the Copts? The OTL Kingdom of Jerusalem wasn't exactly nice to the Oriental Orthodox (which is what Copts are) within its borders-in fact, they acted like such dicks to them that some Oriental Orthodox contributed troops to Saladin to fight the crusaders.

Personally, I've always thought that crusaders would do something similar to what they did in the Levant-eliminate the local nobility and replace them. Egypt would become a country with a native underclass-majority Arabic-speaking Islamic in the north, majority Coptic in the south-and an upperclass made up of French, Italian, and German-speaking nobles living in estates all up and down the Nile (as Egypt has a lot more good farmland than Palestine, and Amalric probably won't want to abandon Jerusalem, I expect much of Egypt would simply be offered to any Catholic noblemen willing to come over-something that might prove attractive for third and fourth sons). Venice and Genoa would likely receive trading quarters in Alexandria, Cairo, and maybe some other places, and come to dominate international trade, and maybe even trade along the Nile as well (is it navigable for their galleys? honestly don't know)

It will probably be somewhat weaker than the Abbasids were, but put a good deal stronger than the OTL crusader states. There aren't any real Islamic powers close by, and I could see it lasting for several centuries, until some large Muslim state emerges in Anatolia, North Africa, or Persia/Iraq that could take it on. Heck, wasn't most of Sudan still run by Coptic Nubian states at this point? Its fun to imagine someone uniting them and doing in Crusader Egypt, though that's probably the least likely scenario.

Might have some interesting effects-Egypt will probably have a much larger Coptic minority, and maybe even a surviving Coptic language, since Latin rule will put Islamization and Arabization on hold while it lasts. Europe would have even more contact with Middle Eastern science and philosophy, and I can even see the Italians using Egypt as a base to trade with East Africa or India. Heck, it might be the fall of Egypt that causes TTL's Portuguese to try and go round Africa.

And the Fourth Crusade is likely butterflied, though the Latin Kingdom of Egypt, allied with some Italian states, could cause problems for Byzantium if it wanted to.
 
Egypt

Why would Amalric "auction" Egypt off when he could keep it himself? Its still a very rich country with plenty of resources Amalric could use. And why give power to the Copts? The OTL Kingdom of Jerusalem wasn't exactly nice to the Oriental Orthodox (which is what Copts are) within its borders-in fact, they acted like such dicks to them that some Oriental Orthodox contributed troops to Saladin to fight the crusaders.

Personally, I've always thought that crusaders would do something similar to what they did in the Levant-eliminate the local nobility and replace them. Egypt would become a country with a native underclass-majority Arabic-speaking Islamic in the north, majority Coptic in the south-and an upperclass made up of French, Italian, and German-speaking nobles living in estates all up and down the Nile (as Egypt has a lot more good farmland than Palestine, and Amalric probably won't want to abandon Jerusalem, I expect much of Egypt would simply be offered to any Catholic noblemen willing to come over-something that might prove attractive for third and fourth sons). Venice and Genoa would likely receive trading quarters in Alexandria, Cairo, and maybe some other places, and come to dominate international trade, and maybe even trade along the Nile as well (is it navigable for their galleys? honestly don't know)

It will probably be somewhat weaker than the Abbasids were, but put a good deal stronger than the OTL crusader states. There aren't any real Islamic powers close by, and I could see it lasting for several centuries, until some large Muslim state emerges in Anatolia, North Africa, or Persia/Iraq that could take it on. Heck, wasn't most of Sudan still run by Coptic Nubian states at this point? Its fun to imagine someone uniting them and doing in Crusader Egypt, though that's probably the least likely scenario.

Might have some interesting effects-Egypt will probably have a much larger Coptic minority, and maybe even a surviving Coptic language, since Latin rule will put Islamization and Arabization on hold while it lasts. Europe would have even more contact with Middle Eastern science and philosophy, and I can even see the Italians using Egypt as a base to trade with East Africa or India. Heck, it might be the fall of Egypt that causes TTL's Portuguese to try and go round Africa.

And the Fourth Crusade is likely butterflied, though the Latin Kingdom of Egypt, allied with some Italian states, could cause problems for Byzantium if it wanted to.
Interesting observations. Unfortunately I don't think that many western rulers saw the obvious advantages of an occupation and conquest of Egypt.
 
Interesting observations. Unfortunately I don't think that many western rulers saw the obvious advantages of an occupation and conquest of Egypt.

Well, the tried several times-Amalric, Fourth Crusade, Fifth Crusade, and I think a few others. They just happened to loose every time-Amalric, like I said, is the one that really, to my knowledge, came closest to winning.
 
Why would Amalric "auction" Egypt off when he could keep it himself? Its still a very rich country with plenty of resources Amalric could use. And why give power to the Copts? The OTL Kingdom of Jerusalem wasn't exactly nice to the Oriental Orthodox (which is what Copts are) within its borders-in fact, they acted like such dicks to them that some Oriental Orthodox contributed troops to Saladin to fight the crusaders.

Shortage of manpower. Amalric and kingdom of Jerusalem do not have exactly an abundance of knights, at short notice.

However, Amalric would not auction off Egypt the way Lionheart did with Cyprus. He would try to recruit disparate allies - Coptic collaborationists would get something, Venice and Genoa would get something, and third and fourth sons would be recruited from Europe to get landed estates.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Possibly personal union with Jerusalem, and power given to the Copts. Or, the crown is "auctioned" off to a European Prince who has enough gold and manpower to keep the kingdom secure.
Well, the Catholics never really treated eastern Christians as real Christians, so my guess is the Copts would get the "not real Christians" treatment.
 
Top