Crusaders and Reconquista more Successful

What if the crusaders states are more successful. The first crusade goes down the same. After that, the crusader states treat local non-Catholic eastern Christians better(doesn't have to be equal) and they use them as their middle men to help keep order. They kingdoms also have better relations among themselves and the Eastern Roman Empire. They help the empire reclaim Anatolia and take all of Syria. Kingdom of Jerusalem takes over Siani. Egypt is then taken and made into a crusader state based out of Alexandria and with Coptic support. With the help of the African Christian kingdoms in the south they secure Egypt's southern border. Reconquista goes as scheduled but is then expanded into Morocco which is successful. With the success of all this support for crusades stay strong. When pirates from North Africa becomes a issue a other crusade is call against North African states. Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya are made into crusader states or directly annexed by Spain.

Thoughts on this and the impact this would have?
 

elkarlo

Banned
Instead of Egypt, whatbif they focused attention on Tunis earlier and longer? Would make a good way point base, and would allow for ghe re re conquest of tripoli. Which would kinda but not , outland Egypt.
I think a lot of North Africa could be taken by France that's not fighting a hundred years war
 

Antaeus

Banned
Instead of Egypt, whatbif they focused attention on Tunis earlier and longer? Would make a good way point base, and would allow for ghe re re conquest of tripoli. Which would kinda but not , outland Egypt.
I think a lot of North Africa could be taken by France that's not fighting a hundred years war
I'd say that it would be a better idea to focus on Egypt since if Egypt falls, North Africa would follow. If North Africa falls, it doesn't necessarily mean Egypt will too. Plus Egypt can make the Crusaders self-sufficient whilst Tunis can't.
 
A big problem with local Christians in the Levant is that there was no local fighting class, which is why the Poulains were so crucial. What the KoJ needs is for the land route across Anatolia to be opened, the Crusade of 1101 would be the best opportunity for this. This would provide a local fighting class to defend the Crusader states.
 
A big problem with local Christians in the Levant is that there was no local fighting class, which is why the Poulains were so crucial. What the KoJ needs is for the land route across Anatolia to be opened, the Crusade of 1101 would be the best opportunity for this. This would provide a local fighting class to defend the Crusader states.
Maybe if Armenians (including Armenian Cilicia) and Georgians were expelled by an invasion, and settled in the Crusader states, bringing with them a military nobility to recruit from the local Eastern Christians.
 
Maybe if Armenians (including Armenian Cilicia) and Georgians were expelled by an invasion, and settled in the Crusader states, bringing with them a military nobility to recruit from the local Eastern Christians.

In the Levant under Islamic rule Christians were not allowed to bear weapons, build houses taller than Muslims and I think even ride horses. While I'm sure there were many exceptions and transgressions if prior to the first crusade a fighting group came to the Levant they would be quickly demilitarised.

However once the Crusaders took over it is only a matter of time before lical elites, not just half French Poulains, begin to militarise to an extent. But it would take a century or more, rather than 88 years.
 
In the Levant under Islamic rule Christians were not allowed to bear weapons, build houses taller than Muslims and I think even ride horses. While I'm sure there were many exceptions and transgressions if prior to the first crusade a fighting group came to the Levant they would be quickly demilitarised.

However once the Crusaders took over it is only a matter of time before lical elites, not just half French Poulains, begin to militarise to an extent. But it would take a century or more, rather than 88 years.
Exactly, the local Christians were demilitarized, but the Armenians and Georgians retained some principalities and a military nobility that was even recruited by the Mongols. If the Armenians and Georgians settled the Crusader States earlier (Armenian Cilicia being officially formed in 1198), then they could militarize the local population and form a fighting class among the "Greeks".
 
Exactly, the local Christians were demilitarized, but the Armenians and Georgians retained some principalities and a military nobility that was even recruited by the Mongols. If the Armenians and Georgians settled the Crusader States earlier (Armenian Cilicia being officially formed in 1198), then they could militarize the local population and form a fighting class among the "Greeks".

The rulers of Edessa and Antioch enthusiastically coopted local militarised Christians, especially in Edessa which was basically bandit country where there were only about 50 fighting Crusader nobles. Armenian Cilicia was basically the same, it was created by the Crusade and existed because of its militarised population segment.

This doesn't leave much of an opening to expel these people to the KoJ to be an automatic militarised class. However each crusade had people who stayed behind, both fighting men, camp followers and pilgrims and similarly a small portion of pilgrims stayed behind. If the Crusade of 1101 and 2nd Crusade managed to open Anatolia and keep it open there would be a large influx of immigrants to boost the militarised and militarisable portion of the population.

Another win would be more successful Komnenoi reconquest of Anatolia, the Byz could keep one Islamic one facing that way.
 

elkarlo

Banned
I'd say that it would be a better idea to focus on Egypt since if Egypt falls, North Africa would follow. If North Africa falls, it doesn't necessarily mean Egypt will too. Plus Egypt can make the Crusaders self-sufficient whilst Tunis can't.
But Egypt was a tougher nut to crack. While Tunis coukd be taken. Which could lead to more enthusiasm from having actual success. It'd also be closer to Europe and help things economically as it could trade with Europe pretty easily
 

Antaeus

Banned
But Egypt was a tougher nut to crack. While Tunis coukd be taken. Which could lead to more enthusiasm from having actual success. It'd also be closer to Europe and help things economically as it could trade with Europe pretty easily

Egypt would have been easy to hold if the Crusaders were good to the local Christians. With Egypt under Christian hands, the entirety of Outremer could be self sufficient and this would make the trouble of taking Egypt entirely worth it.
 
Instead of Egypt, whatbif they focused attention on Tunis earlier and longer? Would make a good way point base, and would allow for ghe re re conquest of tripoli. Which would kinda but not , outland Egypt.
I think a lot of North Africa could be taken by France that's not fighting a hundred years war
Africa (as in the former Roman province of Africa) was already taken by the Norman Sicilians in the 12th century OTL. Didn't last though.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Egypt would have been easy to hold if the Crusaders were good to the local Christians. With Egypt under Christian hands, the entirety of Outremer could be self sufficient and this would make the trouble of taking Egypt entirely worth it.
Egypt was much harder to attack . If they could have taken north Africa, that would have made any conquest easier, having a supply base near by that is
 

elkarlo

Banned
Africa (as in the former Roman province of Africa) was already taken by the Norman Sicilians in the 12th century OTL. Didn't last though.
Imagine if the Normans had w little more backing. Even the Knights of Malta had tripoli at one point. It doesn't have much population, and a small hinterland, so it makes it easy to take
 
Top