Egyptian Crusader Kingdom

How long a crusader kingdom in Egypt last?

  • The Crusaders taking Egypt is a medieval Sealion.

    Votes: 43 29.1%
  • No more than a half century.

    Votes: 37 25.0%
  • 50-100 years.

    Votes: 35 23.6%
  • 100-150 years.

    Votes: 9 6.1%
  • 150-200 years.

    Votes: 3 2.0%
  • 200+ years.

    Votes: 21 14.2%

  • Total voters
    148
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.

What is your source for this? Every history of the Copts I've ever encountered says the tipping point, where Egypt became majority Muslim, occurred toward the end of the 12th century, not early in the 10th century. You're revising the timeline by almost three centuries.

That being said, as far as cooperation with the Copts by the Crusaders goes, it's unlikely. The Copts were and are Monophysites and considered heretics by both the Eastern and Western churches at that period. Historically, the Crusaders tended to treat the Monophysite Christians they encountered about as badly as they did the Muslims under their control...a great many people killed during the great Crusader massacres which occurred at various times during the history of the Crusades were local Christians and not Muslims or Jews. It's difficult to see how they are suddenly going to "embrace the heretics" when they didn't do it anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
What is your source for this? Every history of the Copts I've ever encountered says the tipping point, where Egypt became majority Muslim, occurred toward the end of the 12th century, not early in the 10th century. You're revising the timeline by almost three centuries.

That being said, as far as cooperation with the Copts by the Crusaders goes, it's unlikely. The Copts were and are Monophysites and considered heretics by both the Eastern and Western churches at that period. Historically, the Crusaders tended to treat the Monophysite Christians they encountered about as badly as they did the Muslims under their control...a great many people killed during the great Crusader massacres which occurred at various times during the history of the Crusades were local Christians and not Muslims or Jews. It's difficult to see how they are suddenly going to "embrace the heretics" when they didn't do it anywhere else.
But didn't there was a lot of cooperation between the Crusaders and the Armenia (Cilicia's relations with the Crusaders, and the cooperation of Armenians with the Counts of Edessa)? I don't know much about Armenian Christianity, but it is considered by both Orthodox and Catholics as Monophysite.
 
What is your source for this? Every history of the Copts I've ever encountered says the tipping point, where Egypt became majority Muslim, occurred toward the end of the 12th century, not early in the 10th century. You're revising the timeline by almost three centuries.

That being said, as far as cooperation with the Copts by the Crusaders goes, it's unlikely. The Copts were and are Monophysites and considered heretics by both the Eastern and Western churches at that period. Historically, the Crusaders tended to treat the Monophysite Christians they encountered about as badly as they did the Muslims under their control...a great many people killed during the great Crusader massacres which occurred at various times during the history of the Crusades were local Christians and not Muslims or Jews. It's difficult to see how they are suddenly going to "embrace the heretics" when they didn't do it anywhere else.
I strongly agree. Unless the Crusader rulers of Egypt realize that they cannot think in terms of a long term government without the strong support of the Coptic Christian population. Especially since Egypt is relatively densely populated.
 
Crusader Egyptian Kingdom

But didn't there was a lot of cooperation between the Crusaders and the Armenia (Cilicia's relations with the Crusaders, and the cooperation of Armenians with the Counts of Edessa)? I don't know much about Armenian Christianity, but it is considered by both Orthodox and Catholics as Monophysite.
Relations between Armenians and Franks in the counties of Edessa and Antioch were not always very rosy. Armenians were not treated very well in Edessa until the regin of Joscelin of Courtenay. A Frankish prince was chosen to be king of Armenia, Phillip of Antioch, but he was murdered by the nationalist faction there.
 
What is your source for this? Every history of the Copts I've ever encountered says the tipping point, where Egypt became majority Muslim, occurred toward the end of the 12th century, not early in the 10th century. You're revising the timeline by almost three centuries.

I suggest you name your own sources before you accuse someone of revisionism.
 
Last edited:
I suggest you name your own sources before you accuse someone of revisionism.

As a third party, why don't you both name sources, so that the rest of us can find out as well.

And then, fight to the death on magic carpets over the Battle of Hattin.
 
As a third party, why don't you both name sources, so that the rest of us can find out as well.

And then, fight to the death on magic carpets over the Battle of Hattin.

Very well!

I used Maqrizi's Itti'az, where he mentioned that when Al-Muizz went to Egypt and instituted tolerance he 'appeased the Copts and the Jews, for the Copts were still numerous among the Muslims'. The Footnote by Shanjool Jiwa, the translator, explained that the Copts suffered widespread persecution during the Rashidun, Umayyad, Tulunid, and Ilkhshidid period and had been reduced to a plurality. He cites Nasawari and Ibn al-Athir, who cite an extant census document from the 10th century. Maqrizi's problem was that he was constantly rushing(for whatever reason) to finish his work and it was never finalized. Many of his facts, figures, and citations either don't exist or the citation was never finished. The Itti'az was essentially not done when when he mysteriously stopped writing it.
 
Last edited:
I always wondered how Nubia would come into play, had the Crusaders taken Egypt. The Nubians were after all, Christians, and I'm sure there would have been some attempt to bring them over to Rome. Any thoughts?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
But didn't there was a lot of cooperation between the Crusaders and the Armenia (Cilicia's relations with the Crusaders, and the cooperation of Armenians with the Counts of Edessa)? I don't know much about Armenian Christianity, but it is considered by both Orthodox and Catholics as Monophysite.
The Latins had a far more nuanced relationship with Greek Orthodox Christians than they did with other sects, and the Armenians were Byzantine enough to the Latins that it made no huge difference.

But that's really it. Anybody else was either a Christ-killing Jew, a Christ-denying Saracen, or a Christ-profaning heretic.
 
The problem is similar to that of other large empires. the Almoravids had massive expanses to cover. Besides the Christian kingdoms of Spain they had to deal with many others.

I am always a bit skeptical of arguments that hinge on massive empires being unweildy. For one thing, these state shsould also have far more resources to draw upon. Do we think that Orthodox Christianity would have fared better in Anatolia and around the Aegean if the Byzantine Empire had been broken into quarreling states from, oh, 800 on?

They had most of their troops drawn from North Africa.


IIRC this was what the late Umayyads did as well. Plus slave soldiers, the saqaliba.


I think that the real reason behind the failure of either side to win these battles is either lack of generalship, failure of army cohesiveness, unpreparedness, or general lack of will. Is that fair enough or do we face disagreement here as well?

I'd agree overall. But I think that the period overall shows that the Crusaders probably had an edge, although not a decisive one, in military technology. Did anything compare to Krak des Chevaliers in terms of Muslim fortifications?
 
I'd agree overall. But I think that the period overall shows that the Crusaders probably had an edge, although not a decisive one, in military technology. Did anything compare to Krak des Chevaliers in terms of Muslim fortifications?

The massive crusader castles were because of their lack of efficiency with siege-craft. For such a massive castle, Baibars smashed it with relative ease. Bohemond could not smash the similarly large walls of Antioch. Though Jerusalem fell in 1099 it was more a lack of Muslim garrison and the rebuff of Ridwan and Kerbogha that did them in.

I am always a bit skeptical of arguments that hinge on massive empires being unweildy. For one thing, these state shsould also have far more resources to draw upon. Do we think that Orthodox Christianity would have fared better in Anatolia and around the Aegean if the Byzantine Empire had been broken into quarreling states from, oh, 800 on?

The problem is that more land generally means more rivals unless you have the logic of the Roman empire where preemptive strikes are the only way to guarantee safety. In the case of the Almoravids, while they had a greater resource aggregation, they also had to get involved in their African lands constantly which distracted from their campaigns in Spain. Spain was more of a liability to them like Britain was to Rome(except Britain had important resources of silver).
 
The problem is that more land generally means more rivals unless you have the logic of the Roman empire where preemptive strikes are the only way to guarantee safety. In the case of the Almoravids, while they had a greater resource aggregation, they also had to get involved in their African lands constantly which distracted from their campaigns in Spain. Spain was more of a liability to them like Britain was to Rome(except Britain had important resources of silver).

Why was Spain a liability? The Umayyads managed to run an impressive state out of it.
 
Why was Spain a liability? The Umayyads managed to run an impressive state out of it.

The Umayyads had Spain as a core rather than a periphery and while they relied mainly on Berber mercenaries from North Africa they didn't have to deal with the catch: Tribal conflicts. To a state which has to deal with North African conflicts, having to deal with the Reconquista as well is a bit of an annoyance.
 
The Umayyads had Spain as a core rather than a periphery and while they relied mainly on Berber mercenaries from North Africa they didn't have to deal with the catch: Tribal conflicts. To a state which has to deal with North African conflicts, having to deal with the Reconquista as well is a bit of an annoyance.

I'm not so sure I buy this core v. periphery idea. It's not like Al-Andalus on its own was able to defeat the Christians; this is why the Almovarids were invited over to begin with.
 
I'm not so sure I buy this core v. periphery idea. It's not like Al-Andalus on its own was able to defeat the Christians; this is why the Almovarids were invited over to begin with.

In addition the French were assisting the Spanish states at this time. I think the integral problem is that the Umayyads initially failed to defeat the Spaniards and they were allowed to mature into stable states in their own right. Once that had occurred, those collective states and the assistance of the French(French contributions to the Spaniards was fairly important during the crusader period, as the Pope deemed it acceptable for them to crusade against the Moors rather than in the Holy land) made it difficult for the Almoravids and Almohads to deal with the new situation. When you add this to the fact that they had their own internal problems it becomes clearer. I remain unconvinced that there is any significant Spanish superiority in the military area.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Christians and Muslims had more or less reached parity by the 9th century, and by the 10th century it was no longer a Christian society with Muslim rulers, but a cosmopolitan Islamic society with Christian members.

One of the big reasons that the Umayyad dynasty failed is because of its shrinking tax base. Who provided the majority of tax dollars for the Umayyad empire? Dhimmis. What happened when people got sick of paying a religion tax? They converted, which meant that the government had to up taxes to make up for those lost dhimmi dinars.

Now lets take a look at Egypt under the . The Christians revolted several times in the 8th century against tax increases. Each time the revolt was smaller. Why? Because there were more converts to Islam, which shrunk the tax base, which raised the rates on the dhimmis and the farmers (most of who were Christian).

By the late 9th century, however, the Christian community needed the support of restive Muslims to launch actual revolts. The growing urban populations especially were converting to Islam, and the Christian community of Alexandria had deteriorated to the point where they had to stomach the theft of their most venerated saint by Catholic Venetians.

So again, Egypt can be considered an Islamic society by the 10th century.
 
On the other hand, divisions within Islam encouraged revolts. For example, the Berbers, where the Kharjites were popular, had to put up with rising taxes as the Umayyads ran out of Jizya revenue and began raising taxes on Muslims. This was one of the bigger reasons for the Great Berber revolt of 741 which both delayed the campaigns in France(which were still going strong after Poiters) and the invasion of Sicily.
 
Make one wonder if Shi'ism could have taken hold in too, then.

Like Persia, it was a not arab nation at first, and Shi"ism kinda latched on a nationalist feeling...
 
Make one wonder if Shi'ism could have taken hold in too, then.

Like Persia, it was a not arab nation at first, and Shi"ism kinda latched on a nationalist feeling...

Shi'ism took hold in different places for different reasons. In Persia it was seen as an intellectual branch of Islam and was often promoted by books and the Nobility were interested. In Bahrain, Morocco, Southern Iraq, and Sindh, it was seen more as a social movement. The problem is that Shi'i Islam was always the minority except in a few areas. Southern Iraq and Kuzestan both had solid majorities or pluralities of Shi'i Islam. Sindh had a substantial minority but it was nipped in the bud by the Ghaznavids. In the largest center of Shi' Islam[Egypt] Shi'i Islam never took hold, peculiarly. It's mostly because of the extremely precautionary and tolerant policies of al-Muizz and his successors. A large number of Da'is(A Da'wa is a mission, and a Da'i is a missionary) however, did spread the religion to such places as Khorasan and Transoxiana.

In the end only a few areas survived the fall of the 'Shia classical period'[1]. Egypt fell to Saladin and when he removed the Fatimids from the Friday prayer and changed all regulations back to the Sunni manner there was little fuss(it is mindful that in the following months he destroyed the Fatimid nobility). The Seljuks entered the stage as powerful protectors of the Sunni faith against the Shia heretics, destroying the remnants of the Alavids(Zaydi Shias) in the Caspian littoral and defeating the Buyids. The Ghaznavids destroyed the nascent Shia dynasty in Sindh. The Qarmati had been undone by fractured politics, defeats by the 'Abbasids and Buyids, and their own weakness. By the 1060s most of them had fallen back to Isma'ili Shi'ism. However, the current Shia in Bahrain are descended from these Qarmati.


As far as I know, after the fall of these dynasties, only the Zaydi Imams of Yemen managed to survive, and Northern Yemen has been mainly Zaydi Shia ever since. However, the esoteric ideas of Shia Islam managed to affect far off Hindu India as well as the Sunnis which conquered them, because, for a while, many of the conquerors had to live with a grumpy Shia nobility.

1- Commonly called that by Historians, it refers to the blossoming of Shia polities in the early 10th century.
 
Top