Crusader Alexandria

Yet another idea inspired by a Paradox LP- what if the Europeans managed to capture and hold Alexandria and its environs as a Crusader State, but not the rest of Egypt?
 

Germaniac

Donor
That would be an extremely small state going up against a resentful arab world. Don't expect it to last long
 

Typo

Banned
It depends, if the crusaders use it as a step-stone to conquer Egypt, then there's a good chance of Islam been very screwed, as the Muslim world would almost be cut in half. A latin kingdom in Egypt was essential for the long-term viability of the crusader states.
 
I've thought of something like this, where the Crusaders manage to stay in Egypt, through a deal with the Fatamid Caliph. The Crusaders allow the Caliph to continue to rule the Islamic inhabitants of Egypt from Cairo (ala the Patriarch of Constantinople), while a Latin takes the place of his Grand Vizier. Alexandria is a Latin-controlled and ruled city, where the Latin Viceroy rules Egypt from and with the Italian merchant cities who assisted in the campaign getting major concessions. Throw in some tax and social incentives that reward conversion and maybe an expedition to seize Aden at the other end of the Red Sea and I think you could have a large native Catholic minority start to develop.

I think that only the Normans would be able to do something like this. They have been in contact with Muslims for centuries, are used to working with them, and would probably be willing to make a deal like this in order to control the wealth of Egypt. If the Normans have control of Egypt, they could leverage it to cement the already-existing alliance with the Italian city-states against their common enemies, the Pope and Emperor.

By continuing to prop up the Fatamid Caliph, the Latins would be able to keep the Fatamid's Shi'a Islam, and possibly keep the Fatamid's religious elite allied with the Latin regime in order to avoid being forced to submit to a foreign Sunni ruler.
 
Alexandria

I thought that Alexandria was already in very serious decline by the time of the crusades. It was no longer the chief port or trading center in Egypt, having long been supplanted by Damietta. I'm not sure of a crusader held Alexandria would have made much difference.
 
I've thought of something like this, where the Crusaders manage to stay in Egypt, through a deal with the Fatamid Caliph. The Crusaders allow the Caliph to continue to rule the Islamic inhabitants of Egypt from Cairo (ala the Patriarch of Constantinople), while a Latin takes the place of his Grand Vizier. Alexandria is a Latin-controlled and ruled city, where the Latin Viceroy rules Egypt from and with the Italian merchant cities who assisted in the campaign getting major concessions. Throw in some tax and social incentives that reward conversion and maybe an expedition to seize Aden at the other end of the Red Sea and I think you could have a large native Catholic minority start to develop.

I think that only the Normans would be able to do something like this. They have been in contact with Muslims for centuries, are used to working with them, and would probably be willing to make a deal like this in order to control the wealth of Egypt. If the Normans have control of Egypt, they could leverage it to cement the already-existing alliance with the Italian city-states against their common enemies, the Pope and Emperor.

By continuing to prop up the Fatamid Caliph, the Latins would be able to keep the Fatamid's Shi'a Islam, and possibly keep the Fatamid's religious elite allied with the Latin regime in order to avoid being forced to submit to a foreign Sunni ruler.

Aside from the sizable Catholic minority, this idea is actually doable. However, I doubt the ability of the Crusaders to work so well with a Muslim power. I mean, their track record in the Levant is substandard to say the least.
 
Aside from the sizable Catholic minority, this idea is actually doable.

I was thinking of the Latins banning Muslims from most occupations and the ownership of land, and severely restricting what goods they were allowed to trade. So if you were a Muslim merchant prior the Latin conquest, or a landowner, its convert or go bankrupt. The reason this policy would be put into effect is to sidestep the Italian cities demands that they have a trade monopoly. By limiting trade to Christians only, and granting cities concessions and some goods-specific monopoly, the Latin regime could still have more than one city trade within its borders.

However, I doubt the ability of the Crusaders to work so well with a Muslim power. I mean, their track record in the Levant is substandard to say the least.
The scenario that I was thinking about was the Byzantine-Jerusalem alliance against Egypt goes better. Damietta is seized in 1169 and used as a base for further attacks against Egypt. In 1169, during the power struggle between Shirkuh and Shawar for the Vizier's position, Shawar kidnaps the Caliph al-Adid and escapes to Christian-held Damietta. Shawar and Al-Adid search for support for a return to power, visiting Acre and Constantinople before heading west. In 1172 Shawar and Adid meet with William II of Sicily, who has been planning on an expedition to the East. In 1174 sends a relief force of some 50,000 men to Damietta, where Saladin is engaged in a 2 year long seige. With these troops the Normans are able to relieve the seige and take control of the city.

Also in 1174 Nur al-Din enters Egypt with his own army, intent on toppling Saladin and imposing his own rule on the country. Nur al-Din manages to kill Saladin, and then dies of fever. His army withdraws from Egypt, intent on sorting out al-Din's Syrian possessions, now wracked by the resulting succession crisis. The Normans are able to take Egypt behind the Caliph's banner, and in 1176 the Caliph is enthroned in Cairo. William II's works to secure his victory, appointing his younger brother Henry as the regent in Sicily while he travels East to organize his new territory.

In Egypt William attempts to rule through the old Fatimid bureaucracy, but the years of warfare had destroyed most of the old Egyptian state, and he is forced to build a new bureaucracy. The Viceroy has control of nearly all the land in Egypt, and through the generous allotment of money-fiefs is able to attract a talented court from Europe. Through this and through a tough set of new laws governing Muslim economic and social activity, which encourage many of the urban elite to convert or lose their status and wealth, Henry is able to consolidate Norman rule.

William's position as King of Egypt makes him the wealthiest and most powerful man in the Latin East. He arranges the marriage to Sibylla of Jerusalem to his younger brother Henry, securing Henry's right to ascend the throne as King Consort on Baldwin IV's death. William II returns to Sicily and sends his younger brother East as the new Viceroy of Egypt to marry Sibylla. William II's time in the East was unhealthy and in 1182 he dies, bringing Henry I back to Sicily with Sibylla.

In 1185, Henry I ascends another throne, becoming Henry I, King of Sicily, Egypt, and Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking of the Latins banning Muslims from most occupations and the ownership of land, and severely restricting what goods they were allowed to trade.
If the Fatimid Caliph still rules the Muslims in Egypt, I think he would have a thing or two to say about this. Probably several things, some of which possibly involving violence against the crusaders.
By limiting trade to Christians only, and granting cities concessions and some goods-specific monopoly, the Latin regime could still have more than one city trade within its borders.
Wouldn't this cripple Egyptian trade with Africa and India though? Mostly Muslims doing the trading there AFAIK.



In 1185, Henry I ascends another throne, becoming Henry I, King of Sicily, Egypt, and Jerusalem.
Now this all sounds definitely TL-worthy. I encourage you to write it. I would contemplate it myself were I not engaged in another project.
 
If the Fatimid Caliph still rules the Muslims in Egypt, I think he would have a thing or two to say about this. Probably several things, some of which possibly involving violence against the crusaders.

The Caliph is being used by the Normans as a legitimizing figure head. The Caliph can continue to propagate non-Sunni Islam with his scholars and Islamic mosques, and the Caliph's courts can handle certain non-secular matters, but the state is firmly in the hands of the Latins. The vast majority of Egyptians are peasant farmers, and they will still be paying the same taxes regardless of who officially owns the land.

Wouldn't this cripple Egyptian trade with Africa and India though? Mostly Muslims doing the trading there AFAIK.
I think that this policy would encourage major Muslim merchant families to convert to Latin Catholicism. Especially with the fact that they will be shut out of the administration of the country as well if they don't convert, the only way to socially or economically advance is going to be through conversion to Latin Catholicism.

Egypt will only fall with help from the Italian merchant cities, and once Egypt is fallen, the Italians are going to have the opportunity to sail direct from Egypt to India -- cutting out the Muslim middle-men who control the carrying trade land-routes from India to the Mediterranean. That kind of an opportunity is going to attract major investments from the Italian merchant cities, so I don't think the trade would suffer greatly.

The Normans wouldn't even need to sell a carrying monopoly, they could just capture Aden and charge taxes coming from the Arabian Sea into the Red Sea.

Now this all sounds definitely TL-worthy. I encourage you to write it. I would contemplate it myself were I not engaged in another project.
Add in a disintegrating Byzantine Empire (and thus the opportunity to secure communications to the East with the capture of Crete and Cyrus), and the opportunity to bring Antioch back into Jerusalem's orbit, and Henry I would have control of THREE Patriarchs (Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) along with the holiest sites and most profitable trade routes in Christiandom.

Henry is going to enjoy a level of religious and economic independence that few (if any) medieval monarchs ever did. With this independence, Henry could push the HRE out of Italy (the Italian cities are going to largely depend on Henry for their continued prosperity) and tell the Pope off, after all, the Pope is only the Bishop of Rome, Henry has the three orginial patriarchs and the holiest sites in Christiandom in his pocket.
 
Well, the Crusader Egypt idea is not all that new, I believe it was implemented the most in an actual TL in Faaelin's Prince of Peace. Though my idea for this thread was more of a Crusader-controlled northern Egypt than the whole region.
 
Top