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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Wouldn't this cripple Egyptian trade with Africa and India though? Mostly Muslims doing the trading there AFAIK.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.
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.In 1185, Henry I ascends another throne, becoming Henry I, King of Sicily, Egypt, and Jerusalem.
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.
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.Wouldn't this cripple Egyptian trade with Africa and India though? Mostly Muslims doing the trading there AFAIK.
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.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.