Egyptian Crusader Kingdom

[Elfwine]

Assuming the crusaders can take Egypt in the first place, how long could it last (if it is taken by the Fourth Crusade or later)?

Louis IX establishing something lasting might be different than the Fourth Crusade being as large as expected and going where it intended, for instance, so if that matters, please pick the most probable (or interesting) option and explain.

 

[Pachac]

Not very long at all. Even assuming a successful campaign, there just isn't the Crusader power-base post-Hattin to control Egypt. Not to mention that unlike the Mamluks the Ayyubids are decentralized and would survive such a blow and take back Egypt at the first sign of Crusader weakness. It is much more likely for a more successful crusader state to be formed on the basis of Norman ruler-ship of for the expedition of Amalric to succeed.

 

[Elfwine]

Not very long at all. Even assuming a successful campaign, there just isn't the Crusader power-base post-Hattin to control Egypt. Not to mention that unlike the Mamluks the Ayyubids are decentralized and would survive such a blow and take back Egypt at the first sign of Crusader weakness.

Can't the crusaders establish something? I mean, if there are people settling down (like there was after the First) and not just a one shot military campaign.

 

[Pachac]

Can't the crusaders establish something? I mean, if there are people settling down (like there was after the First) and not just a one shot military campaign.

There are a lot more Saracens in Egypt than in the Holy land.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I voted that it could last 50-100 years though it would have to be very early on and preferably during the last years of the Fatimid Caliphate.

 

[Elfwine]

There are a lot more Saracens in Egypt than in the Holy land.

At least double (defining the Holy Land as up to and including Antioch, not just Palestine).

But how much of a power base does the new kingdom need?

On its own merits, leaning on the KoJ for support weakens that kingdom.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Where would their capital be for that matter? What would their relations be with the Copts?

 

[Elfwine]

Where would their capital be for that matter? What would their relations be with the Copts?

My guess on the first is Alexandria (mmmm, seaport) and the second...that's the rub.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

My guess on the first is Alexandria (mmmm, seaport) and the second...that's the rub.

I sort of like Cairo or maybe somewhere in Upper Egypt. There was a high concentrations of local Christians in the south than in the north which was already predominantly Arab and Muslim though it depends how good are the relations between the Crusaders and the Coptic community. Egypt has a lot of land for a King of Egypt to grant to anyone willing to stick around and form some sort of local landowning nobility as well as any Christian military orders and Italian trading firms. As Impi stated, there are a lot more Muslims in Egypt so maybe there's no prohibition of Muslim inhabitants in wherever they make their capital.

 

[Pachac]

I sort of like Cairo or maybe somewhere in Upper Egypt. There was a high concentrations of local Christians in the south than in the north which was already predominantly Arab and Muslim though it depends how good are the relations between the Crusaders and the Coptic community. Egypt has a lot of land for a King of Egypt to grant to anyone willing to stick around and form some sort of local landowning nobility as well as any Christian military orders and Italian trading firms. As Impi stated, there are a lot more Muslims in Egypt so maybe there's no prohibition of Muslim inhabitants in wherever they make their capital.

Luqsor is the best, I think. It's far enough up the Nile to avoid the initial torrent of any Muslim revolt in the north(If a revolt suddenly starts in, say, Cairo and the palace is there the King may get killed by an angry mob) and it has a larger population of Christians. It's also easier to maintain relations with the Coptic kingdom of Makuria to the south. It's also still a fairly large city.

 

[EMT]

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't Egypt majority Christian until around the fall of the Mamluk Sultanate?

 

[Elfwine]

I sort of like Cairo or maybe somewhere in Upper Egypt. There was a high concentrations of local Christians in the south than in the north which was already predominantly Arab and Muslim though it depends how good are the relations between the Crusaders and the Coptic community. Egypt has a lot of land for a King of Egypt to grant to anyone willing to stick around and form some sort of local landowning nobility as well as any Christian military orders and Italian trading firms. As Impi stated, there are a lot more Muslims in Egypt so maybe there's no prohibition of Muslim inhabitants in wherever they make their capital.

There's that.

Do you think that pursuing a mixture of religious tolerance (of at least the sort practiced in Norman Sicily) and younger sons being drawn to Egypt would work to allow the kingdom to establish itself?

I'm admittedly looking at a rather late (post-1200) POD, but now that you mention that, I'm just curious in general. There ought to have been more possibilities for more colorful states.

 

[Pachac]

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't Egypt majority Christian until around the fall of the Mamluk Sultanate?

Incorrect. It was majority Christian until the appearance of the Ilkhshidids, a dynasty in the early 10th century. being Turks, they were a tad more zealous in their conversions. While the Fatimid state did breed a state of tolerance the Coptic Christians were whittled down by the continuing Jizya. The Mamluks bred a more aggressive conversion technique but the Copts had been the plurality since the 10th century.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

There's that.

Do you think that pursuing a mixture of religious tolerance (of at least the sort practiced in Norman Sicily) and younger sons being drawn to Egypt would work to allow the kingdom to establish itself?

Aren't you the pessimist when it comes to the Crusades anyhow?

I think it could work. Egypt is a lot richer and larger than Jerusalem. It might as well attract a lot more Latins to come over there and settle. Who would become the lucky fellow to crown himself King of Egypt? Louis IX has enough trouble lording over uppity barons in France and I doubt his piety is so grand that he would abandon everything in Europe to make a fresh start building a brand new kingdom from scratch in the Near East.

Charles I of Naples will probably cut it.

 

[Pachac]

The Infidel crusaders will be destroyed before the century is up by the leaders of Islam!

 

[Elfwine]

Aren't you the pessimist when it comes to the Crusades anyhow?

Yes. But I'm a pessimist in general, the Crusades are just easy to pick at as an example of trying to accomplish something with insufficient resources.

I think it could work. Egypt is a lot richer and larger than Jerusalem. It might as well attract a lot more Latins to come over there and settle. Who would become the lucky fellow to crown himself King of Egypt? Louis IX has enough trouble lording over uppity barons in France and I doubt his piety is so grand that he would abandon everything in Europe to make a fresh start building a brand new kingdom from scratch in the Near East.

Charles I of Naples will probably cut it.

That makes sense.

By the way, who voted for 200+ years?

 

[King Gorilla]

I'd say 50-100 years. The act of taking Egypt in itself gives a degree of longevity to the Crusader States because it takes out one of the local powers capable of rallying the resources necessary to expel them. The profits of garnered by such a rich kingdom would insure another generations worth of man-power as the 3rd and 4th sons of the nobility clamor for the chance of fortune an influence.

The behavior displayed by the crusader states, in addition to simple demographics will doom it in the long run. That being said, I feel the shock of the conquest itself would afford more than a generation's worth of life.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Though Charles I of Naples was just Count of Provence at this time and hadn't yet assembled the vast assortment of possessions that he would gain much later in his lifetime. He did participate in the Seventh Crusade, fighting gallantly at Damietta and Mansourah. He and his brother Alfonso did not have as much piety as their brother Louis IX and departed early on in the Crusade in May of 1250; the former due to learning of a major uprising against his rule in his native heartland and power base of Provence. It's a major shame since Charles was a rather effective military commander and King given his later life.

Robert was a rather reckless individual and his death in Mansourah proves that he would had not made a good King.

Maybe Louis IX gives Egypt to King Conrad II of Jerusalem as per the agreement made. So I guess Conrad would become King of Egypt and once he dies a few years later, it would be his infant son Conradin I suppose though headed up by a relative or an influential noble who serves as regent.

 

[Pachac]

I don't really think there would be much shock at all. The Ayyubids have a much larger base outside Egypt which they are very much willing to utilize to make life hell for a tiny Catholic nobility. The kingdom would survive only by virtue of the fact that if it can stave off the initial offensive it may push the Ayyubids out of an feeling of emergency and back to internal bickering. When a state similar to the efficient war machine of As-salih comes along, however, I expect the comfortable position they once had in Egypt would collapse. Unlike the holy land which the Ayyubids avoided attacking because of its importance in their economy, Egypt's importance in their economy is too large to allow in the hands of the crusaders who will likely be unreasonable in their demands. In the absence of a Mamluk war machine to combat the Mongols, the Kingdom of Egypt under the crusader may suffer the same fate that the Christian kingdoms of Eastern Europe did.

 

[Big Tex]

I don't know about holding all of Egypt but a successful Crusade with power centered in Alexandria could last a century or so in a good climate. Yes the Arabs will whittle it away but it isn't unrealistic to see some Kingdom of Egypt existing in Alexandria and the immediate lands for a good long while as long as sea access remains open and a place like Genoa or Venice keeps it supplied.