Egypt, the Crusades and Nubia.

Here, the crusaders conquer Egypt, either during the reign of Amalric I of Jersualem, or during the 5th crusade. The question is how this affects the kingdoms south of Egypt. Are they pressured to convert to Roman Catholicism? Are they invited to assist in the government of Egypt? If relations with Nubia and possibly Ethiopia develop, would earlier contact with Africa possibly affect European attitudes towards the African slave trade and race?
 
Here, the crusaders conquer Egypt, either during the reign of Amalric I of Jersualem, or during the 5th crusade. The question is how this affects the kingdoms south of Egypt. Are they pressured to convert to Roman Catholicism? Are they invited to assist in the government of Egypt? If relations with Nubia and possibly Ethiopia develop, would earlier contact with Africa possibly affect European attitudes towards the African slave trade and race?

The population of Egypt is way too large for a Crusader state to make much impact on it. If Napoleon couldn't manage to hold it, I doubt a bunch of Medieval knights are going to do much better.

An ephemeral presence in Egypt is not going to change anything about attitues toward race and slavery; for that you need the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, and about 1,000 more years of intellectual development in that direction.

If anything, having access to Egypt's slave markets is likely to make Europeans connosieurs, as the best quality slaves could be found there.

What might happen, though, is that you might see the Levantine community in Egypt increased in size and prominence as it was in the Ottoman Empire due to the Fourth Crusade. You will also probably see much different political development in the region, as the overthrow of Egypt's government by foreigners is likely to see it replaced by something different.

Giovanni Giustiani of Siege of Constantinople fame, wasn't actually Genovese, he was a Levantine of Genevese descent - his family had been in the Middle East for centuries.

Anyway, this would probably increase France's prominence in the East Med.
 
The population of Egypt is way too large for a Crusader state to make much impact on it. If Napoleon couldn't manage to hold it, I doubt a bunch of Medieval knights are going to do much better.
A significant percentage of who remained christian.
And the muslims certainly managed to change it when they took over.

Very right on slavery though. Africa had sustained contact with Africa for...well...forever. It was still big on slavery though.
As for race it wasn't really a big deal in pre-modern times. Its only once you get to the enlightenment and all that sort of thing that it starts to really arise.


Catholocism would of course be the problem in a crusader Egpyt. Where the Europeans should be working together with the Copts to dominate the muslims they'll likely end up annoying them too by pressuring them to adopt catholic ways.

In my current TL I have a (later) crusader Egpyt. I'm concentrating solely on the British part of history for that world for now though.
 
Last edited:
A significant percentage of who remained christian.
And the muslims certainly managed to change it when they took over.
But no Muslims will convert (or at best a tiny number, after centuries) to Catholicism after the crusade takes Egypt. The only hope for converts would be to proselytize the Copts (which is likely to eliminate whatever fledgling support they may have held for the crusaders) or import pagan slaves to begin a sort of Christian Mamluk system. Which would create a whole new set of problems.
 
But no Muslims will convert (or at best a tiny number, after centuries) to Catholicism after the crusade takes Egypt. The only hope for converts would be to proselytize the Copts (which is likely to eliminate whatever fledgling support they may have held for the crusaders) or import pagan slaves to begin a sort of Christian Mamluk system. Which would create a whole new set of problems.

Why not? The Moriscos did IOTL.
 
Why not? The Moriscos did IOTL.

1) If the Crusaders manage to take over Egypt after a struggle as long assed as Iberian Reconquista in which the Islamic Egypt would've gone through essentially the similar procedures as Andalusia did IOTL, then yes.
2) A sudden take over while Egypt is still enough freshly Islamic, then no.
3) I'm afraid you'll need a loadsome of very very verrry helpful external factors that will be just playing for Crusaders advantage for to make #2 a "yes" here.
4) The #1 would require a previously enough Catholicized place nearby as the main base for the operation.
5) The best place for doing #4 would the Greater Levant as whole (Greater Palestine[at least today's Israel+PLO territory+Amman] + Greater Syria[or at least Lebanon+Damascus+Antioch]).
6) But to acquire #5, you've got to go through something like #3, if not just exactly that.
7) Last but not least, the easiest choice for filling option #3 with is a localized Peshawar Lancers-esque catastrophe on at least Iraq, Kurdistan and Anatolian plateau. The second easiest would be around million miles away....
 
Last edited:
A significant percentage of who remained christian.
And the muslims certainly managed to change it when they took over.

Very right on slavery though. Africa had sustained contact with Africa for...well...forever. It was still big on slavery though.
As for race it wasn't really a big deal in pre-modern times. Its only once you get to the enlightenment and all that sort of thing that it starts to really arise.


Catholocism would of course be the problem in a crusader Egpyt. Where the Europeans should be working together with the Copts to dominate the muslims they'll likely end up annoying them too by pressuring them to adopt catholic ways.

In my current TL I have a (later) crusader Egpyt. I'm concentrating solely on the British part of history for that world for now though.

The % of Egyptians who remained Christian was under 10. Also, that was an earlier period where the difference between Islam and Christianity wasn't clear to everyone - plus the Islamic conquest of Egypt was a serious movement, not a pointless aristocratic dalliance of European nobles with too much time and energy on their hands. The center of Arab power was also adjacent, not months away. There is no way that a Crusader regime could be maintained in Egypt - despite a lot of effort, it didn't work in Palestine, which had a fraction of the population and political unity.
 
The % of Egyptians who remained Christian was under 10. Also, that was an earlier period where the difference between Islam and Christianity wasn't clear to everyone - plus the Islamic conquest of Egypt was a serious movement, not a pointless aristocratic dalliance of European nobles with too much time and energy on their hands. The center of Arab power was also adjacent, not months away. There is no way that a Crusader regime could be maintained in Egypt - despite a lot of effort, it didn't work in Palestine, which had a fraction of the population and political unity.
10% is the lower bound not the upper bound, and that's today. Numbers were higher in the past.

Its long term survival is indeed rather iffy but depending on when it happens it might last for a while, the Arabs weren't always very united and back then having an army was more a case of money than simple manpower.
 
Top