Could the Crusader Kingdoms/States Survived

[el t]

Crusader States

But an instable crusader state in Egypt is still better than a stable Muslim state there. Taking Egypt out as a hostile power is the best way to guarantee long-term surviving of the crusader states. And if the crusaders hold onto Sinai, Egypt is pretty secure from outside as well.

Another important bonus for holding Egypt: this should open a secure seaway to India. The return on Indian trade could be enough to literally buy safety for the Egyptian crusaders.

Interesting scenario. I imagine that the Venetians and the Genoese would be constantly quarrelling over trading rights.

 

[Blackfox5]

But an instable crusader state in Egypt is still better than a stable Muslim state there.

Exactly. The Crusaders don't need to control Egypt's wealth. They just need to make sure someone can't use it against them.

 

[Faeelin]

Exactly. The Crusaders don't need to control Egypt's wealth. They just need to make sure someone can't use it against them.

I'm not sure how this will save them from an Anatolian sultanate...

 

[King Gorilla]

I'm not sure how this will save them from an Anatolian sultanate...

The Iranian plateau could probably manage something as well.

 

[Valdemar II]

I'm not sure how this will save them from an Anatolian sultanate...

It may not, but I don't think it's necessary or possible for them to avoid being conquered. If they survive until 1500 it will give them time to create a common Christian identity from which the state can later be resurrected from, and if it dominate the country side it's going to be hard to get rid off. The Balkan states may have disappeared and their descendants had little in common with them, but there existed a population which allowed Bulgaria and Serbia to be reborn.

 

[Uxi]

Needs Byzantium to retain enough strength and focus to reopen the land route across Asia Minor, but not so strong enough that they keep going for Antioch (at least w/o Aleppo being taken by the Normans in it's place), much less a Byzan-wank. Imperative to have the Crusades of 1101 succeed to get more colonists and humbler western soldiery to the Levant at an earlier time, too.

 

[archaeogeek]

Needs Byzantium to retain enough strength and focus to reopen the land route across Asia Minor, but not so strong enough that they keep going for Antioch (at least w/o Aleppo being taken by the Normans in it's place), much less a Byzan-wank. Imperative to have the Crusades of 1101 succeed to get more colonists and humbler western soldiery to the Levant at an earlier time, too.

Not so sure; Byzantium was often a liability.

 

[Coolguy88]

I often wonder if contact between the Courts of Frankish Syria/Palestine and that of the christian empire of Ethiopia could have shifted the fate of Outremer. It seems plausible to me to think the ethiopians would have had reason to ally with the crusaders.

Also the Fatimids could have seen it more fit to come under the rule of Christians rather then that of a Caliph who, according to them, had a false claim as Muhammads successor.

 

[el t]

Crusader States

I think taking Egypt is paramount.
Only the weakness of the later Fatimid Caliphs allowed the crusaders to conquer the holy land in the first place. Both the Crusaders and the Syrian Muslims saw this and tried to take Egypt. When the Muslims won the race the downfall of the crusader states begun.

I agree. If Egypt is taken then there is the issue of how to treat the Copts as well as the local Muslim population.

 

[Tyr]

I agree. If Egypt is taken then there is the issue of how to treat the Copts as well as the local Muslim population.

Which is quite unlikely without some very clever, non-too-religious folk in charge.
Traditionally in many ways the tendancy has been for people to be harsher on 'wrong' christians than outright heathens.


Egypt is the key though.
I had a TL once with a 15th century crusade taking Egypt and the Holy Land- Jerusalem falls again within the century, Egypt though olds on, it doesn't have the wide border to be wary of like Jerusalem does.

 

[Riain]

I once read that the Crusader states were easier taxing than the surrounding Islamic states, Byzantium as well as Europe. Perhaps, along with a little toleration of minorities Outremer could become a tax haven, enterprising Christians from near and far could escape to Outremer for economic reasons, to keep more of their produce for themselves.

 

[archaeogeek]

I once read that the Crusader states were easier taxing than the surrounding Islamic states, Byzantium as well as Europe. Perhaps, along with a little toleration of minorities Outremer could become a tax haven, enterprising Christians from near and far could escape to Outremer for economic reasons, to keep more of their produce for themselves.

That would be hideously anachronistic.

 

[Jester]

While I don't think he stated it very well, taxation did have a definite effect in shaping societies prior to the modern period.

 

[MerryPrankster]

That would be hideously anachronistic.

Norman Sicily is a precedent for tolerance at the time.

 

[Susano]

That would be hideously anachronistic.

Mostly, yes. The crusader states used as "tax haven" by European powers? Yeah, how is that supposed to work in the middle ages, exactly? However, using lower tax rates to, so to say, buy the loyalty of the local population? Now, thats possible.

 

[Riain]

That would be hideously anachronistic.

Please explain? Serfs/slaves running away to towns to pursue a better life was common enough, why not have them run to Outremer. Or pilgrims could see for themselves that opportunities existed and stay oin Outremer. Either way I'm thinking of a gradual increase in the Christian population over 3 generations so that it is more able to combat the crisis of Saladin.

 

[archaeogeek]

Please explain? Serfs/slaves running away to towns to pursue a better life was common enough, why not have them run to Outremer. Or pilgrims could see for themselves that opportunities existed and stay oin Outremer. Either way I'm thinking of a gradual increase in the Christian population over 3 generations so that it is more able to combat the crisis of Saladin.

For one, because it had nothing to do with taxation but with freedom and feudal dues, which will remain no matter what the king says taxwise, for two because the powers Jerusalem is dependent on for survival are slave traders, for three because IOTL there were a lot of colonists who went and the vast majority decided to stop in Sicily anyway. And there's free towns nearby enough that running off to the outremer is not that tempting: this is the era of the communi in Italy.

There's finally the problem that there already IS a large christian population, only it's heretical and the franks mostly hate it.

Norman Sicily is a precedent for tolerance at the time.

I meant tax havens are hideously anachronistic.
Also Sicily wasn't built on the principle of freeing the holy sepulchre from the dark taint of the heathens or some such bullshit and it lost most of its tolerance as soon as the popes saw weakness.

 

[Uriel]

I'm not sure how this will save them from an Anatolian sultanate...

It doesn't, but the Ottoman Sultanat (or any power taking ist place) is threatend by the European Christians in the West and new waves of horse nomads in the North. It might be possible to create an alliance or take advantage of occasional distractions.

Taking Egypt is no instant win for the crusaders but not taking it is sure doom.

Also with Egypt taken the Maghrebine Emirates are isolated and sould be conquered or made tributary by Spain, France or Genua. this would further improve the crusaders position.

 

[Blackfox5]

I'm not sure how this will save them from an Anatolian sultanate...

Who says an Anatolian Sultanate would even be a threat? Before the arrival of the Mongols, the Georgians and Cilician Armenians were at the height of their power, plus there was Byzantium. The Seljuk Turks never provided a threat to the Crusader states on their own. It was the Zengids from Mosul and later the Ayyubids from Syria & Egypt. If Egypt is somehow neutralized, the Anatolians would also be checked by Armenia + Georgia + Byzantium.

In such a scenario, Muslim Syria would be under threat, and if the Crusaders ever took Aleppo and Damascus (BIG IFS), then the Seljuks would be the ones who would be almost isolated.

 

[Uxi]

With tensions over Antioch defused, Byzantine-Frankish cooperation taking Aleppo is very possible. That's a gigantic hurdle to overcome, though. Only possibility I can think of is Alexios coming after the Siege of Antioch. He doesn't arrive until Kerbogha is defeated anyway, so it really should be a small risk. If Alexios arrives, Bohemund can't try to take it unilaterally, though it's possible Alexios invests it with him with it anyway... Alexios can then return and try to keep the land route across Anatolia open.

Once Aleppo is taken, Shaizar is the next likely target. Dealing with Damascus before Aleppo and Shaizar is problematic, at best.