Crusader states in Mesopotamia and Iran and Central Asia

ar-pharazon

Banned
So the crusades were targeted primarily in the levant-with some attempts made in Egypt and Tunisia.

What if crusader states had been established in Mesopotamia and Iran and perhaps even Transoxiana and other parts of Central Asia?

Could the crusader project have extended to these locations?

Could we see a crusader kingdom of Babylon for example?
 
Weren't the crusaders mainly interested in former Christian lands? The Iranian plateau and Transoxnia were never considered part of Christendom.
 
Well Edessa was in Mesopotamia but it didn't last too long.

If the Teutonic Order wasn't expelled from Hungary their state might be based around Ukraine, Crimea, and the Black Sea against the Cumans, but I don't see fighting on the steppe ending well for them.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
If the Kievan Rus were Catholic I could see Central Asia.

As for Mesopotamia-it could be done.

If the crusaders gained control of the Tigris and Euphrates.

Iran is the hardest but I think with luck and good conditions it could be pulled off.
 
So the crusades were targeted primarily in the levant-with some attempts made in Egypt and Tunisia.

What if crusader states had been established in Mesopotamia and Iran and perhaps even Transoxiana and other parts of Central Asia?
If the Kievan Rus were Catholic I could see Central Asia.
Some scholars argue that Kievan Rus participated in the Crusades OTL (though this isn’t really a mainstream opinion)

EDIT: fixed typo
 
Last edited:
Iran is the hardest but I think with luck and good conditions it could be pulled off.

This is ASB if we are talking about western Crusaders.

However, it's worth noting that parts of north-west Iran were ruled briefly by a Christian kingdom in this period: the kingdom of Georgia. It was not a Crusader state but it did have a golden age around the 11th/12th century.

Afaik they didn't get far into Iran but they did touch the Caspian sea in modern Azerbaijan. Some small border areas near Lake Urmia in the northwest may have been temporarily under Georgian rule, and a small area of Iran's border with Azerbaijan was a tributory/vassal state for a few years.
 
This is ASB if we are talking about western Crusaders.

However, it's worth noting that parts of north-west Iran were ruled briefly by a Christian kingdom in this period: the kingdom of Georgia. It was not a Crusader state but it did have a golden age around the 11th/12th century.

Afaik they didn't get far into Iran but they did touch the Caspian sea in modern Azerbaijan. Some small border areas near Lake Urmia in the northwest may have been temporarily under Georgian rule, and a small area of Iran's border with Azerbaijan was a tributory/vassal state for a few years.

So what if the georgians conscript frankish mercenaries from the crusader states and some of them pull off something like Roussel de Bailleul did. Some frankish noblemen establish their own principality in northern Iran at first as vassals of the king of Georgia and gaining more independence as Georgia's influence slowly fades. Of course they wouldn't last forever and eventually the persians themselves or the turks push them out of Iran.
 
So the crusades were targeted primarily in the levant-with some attempts made in Egypt and Tunisia.

What if crusader states had been established in Mesopotamia and Iran and perhaps even Transoxiana and other parts of Central Asia?

Could the crusader project have extended to these locations?

Could we see a crusader kingdom of Babylon for example?

You could, but it would be difficult. As a prerequisite, you'd probably need the crusaders to get Egypt as well as the Levant, since without the extra resources plus relative safety from one side (conquering Egypt from North Africa is doable, but much harder than conquering Palestine from Egypt) Outremer would barely be able to maintain itself, much less go on the offensive. If you have a crusader kingdom of Egypt + the Levant, they could end up conquering Mesopotamia if things go sufficiently well for them, but Iran is very unlikely, and Central Asia even more so.
 
You could, but it would be difficult. As a prerequisite, you'd probably need the crusaders to get Egypt as well as the Levant, since without the extra resources plus relative safety from one side (conquering Egypt from North Africa is doable, but much harder than conquering Palestine from Egypt) Outremer would barely be able to maintain itself, much less go on the offensive. If you have a crusader kingdom of Egypt + the Levant, they could end up conquering Mesopotamia if things go sufficiently well for them, but Iran is very unlikely, and Central Asia even more so.

I think it would require nothing less than divine intervention.

People forget that the Crusaders' manpower was extremely limited. The kingdom of Jerusalem and its allies were always chronically short of men. They could barely hold what they had. Even during each crusade, the vast majority went home at the end (if they were still alive) and only a handful stayed on.The only reason they even survived as long as they did was due to Muslim disunity.

Where is the manpower coming from for this miraculous conquest of Mesopotamia? And what are the Zengids, Ayubids, Abbasids, Seljuks, Khwarezmians and others doing, apart from sitting around eating baklava?
 
I think it would require nothing less than divine intervention.

People forget that the Crusaders' manpower was extremely limited. The kingdom of Jerusalem and its allies were always chronically short of men. They could barely hold what they had. Even during each crusade, the vast majority went home at the end (if they were still alive) and only a handful stayed on.The only reason they even survived as long as they did was due to Muslim disunity.

Where is the manpower coming from for this miraculous conquest of Mesopotamia? And what are the Zengids, Ayubids, Abbasids, Seljuks, Khwarezmians and others doing, apart from sitting around eating baklava?
If the early crusades achieve more success and the Byzantine secured Central Anatolia, there is a high possibility that the Crusade could secure the inland of the Levant and at that point an invasion of Egypt is more than possible(they tried OTL after all as well)
 
If the early crusades achieve more success and the Byzantine secured Central Anatolia, there is a high possibility that the Crusade could secure the inland of the Levant and at that point an invasion of Egypt is more than possible(they tried OTL after all as well)

Yes this makes a lot more sense. Those regions are all reachable by sea. Damascus is within range, as the Second crusade showed (although they failed to take it). And emperor Manuel I Komnenos sent a fleet of over 200 Byzantine ships to invade Egypt in 1169 (although that failed too).

Trouble is that is a pretty extreme buff to the Crusaders and Byzantines all at once. The First crusade was already bordering on ASB in our timeline. To have the Byzies retake Anatolia and a crusade not only succeed but also take Egypt is pushing the boundaries of reality a bit too far imo.

Unless the entire Muslim world suddenly discovers daytime television and decides to stay at home to watch singing talent shows instead of defending their lands, I can't see it happening.

Best case gains for the Crusaders might be a successful attack on Damascus during the second crusade, or perhaps a temporary ascendancy in Egypt. But in the long run, the Crusaders are always going to get ground into the dust by one of the local powers, sooner rather than later.
 
Trouble is that is a pretty extreme buff to the Crusaders and Byzantines all at once. The First crusade was already bordering on ASB in our timeline. To have the Byzies retake Anatolia and a crusade not only succeed but also take Egypt is pushing the boundaries of reality a bit too far imo.

Unless the entire Muslim world suddenly discovers daytime television and decides to stay at home to watch singing talent shows instead of defending their lands, I can't see it happening.

Best case gains for the Crusaders might be a successful attack on Damascus during the second crusade, or perhaps a temporary ascendancy in Egypt. But in the long run, the Crusaders are always going to get ground into the dust by one of the local powers, sooner rather than later.
Buffing the Crusaders and the Byzantines at once is easier that buffing just one of either. Also it wouldn't be just one Crusade, there would be multiple.

The thing is, that if they loss both Damascus and Aleppo, they won't really be able to help Egypt that much, plus with the ascendancy of Georgia and the securing of Anatolia, they wouldn't be secure at home either.

I don't get why you think that, imagine that instead of being on the defensive, the crusades after the second enjoy a better route to the Levant with better Byzantine control(especially important in the 13th century) and with more naval involvement of the Italians.
 
IMO, step one would be nix the Great Schism. That would help solve a lot of the disunity problems between east and west.
 
Top