Lets make Crusader Egypt happen. An AHC!

Alright, so it seems that the majority of crusades were directed at Egypt following the failure of the second to capture Damascus from the Burids. What conditions would be necessary for a conquest of Cairo? Lets' put the timeframe anytime from 1169 (the Byzantine invasion under Manual I) and 1291 (the fall of the final organized Crusader statelet).

My personal favourite scenario would be a more successful Rhomania, dominating the Balkans and Anatolia, invading Egypt alongside their allies the Kingdom of Jerusalem. A Joint Byzantine-Ilkhanid invasion would also be interesting (that is if 1204 does not happen as OTL).

In either scenario I can see the Romans, Crusaders and Mongols squabbling bitterly with one and other over the conquests...However, the query stands: can Mamaluk Egypt be overcome or is this simply one of those "Sealion" moments?
 
I wouldn't necessarily say "Sealion" in terms of possibility; however, it IS unlikely given the POD necessary for a Crusader state to arise. There's simply too many Muslims with pointy objects to truly create a state like you ask for. Now, an alt-Byzantine equivalent based out of Egypt as opposed to Greece/Asia Minor? That might work, but it would still be a difficult proposition depending on whether the armies of Islam remain strong.
 
Egypt isn't under the control of the Mamelukes until 1250, so you have a fairly good sized period before they even become a major issue.

After that, I think the main problem is that no one is in a position to do so (a strong Rhomania in 1250 is going to heavily influenced if the Mamelukes rise at all, by butterfly and policy) more than the Mamelukes being impossible to beat.

But this is going to be a heck of a problem. Short term, temporary, tactical success is one thing. Conquering Egypt in full is another. And then ruling it is a third.
 
Last edited:
I think that a strong Rhomania (such as the one hinted at in Elfwine's TL and many others) will be involved in Egyptian affairs by around the time of the Mamaluks' rise to power in the 1260s...likely in conjunction with the crusades against Egypt and the Mongol invasions of Syria. If a Romano-Crusader-Venetian army succeeds where the 7th Crusade failed and rolls into Cairo, it would be interesting to see if Constantinople will try to assert its authority over what could be a major, major cash cow on the Nile.

I know that Issac's Empire utilized the opening made by the Mongol invasions to return Egypt to the rule of Basileus, perhaps this could happen in a post Manzikert POD TL as well? The big key will be if the Romans can effectively rule over a large Muslim population in places such as Cairo and Alexandria.

@ Elfwine: Did you have any Egypt ideas related to your "Eagle" TL set in the late 12th century?
 
@ Elfwine: Did you have any Egypt ideas related to your "Eagle" TL set in the late 12th century?

The Fourth Crusade (slightly different than OTL's owing to different events in the 1190s) is a dismal flop, haven't figured out beyond that.

I know that I don't particularly want either the Mamelukes or the crusaders taking over, but I haven't sorted out how politics in the Ayyubid states sort out.

Rhomania's attention is primarily on stabilizing the situation in eastern Anatolia, and (spoiler) the Mongols fail TTL, so no Il-khanate.

I think Byzantium ruling over a large chunk of Muslims at once is going to be a lot to bite off. Not utterly impossible, but difficult.
 
I was thinking of a Christian intervention in Egypt (including a stronger Rhomania) sometime in the late 13th century around the time of Loius IX's crusade, which almost reached Cairo itself. If a strong Komnenoi TL (such as Elfwines' or the one I'm working on) includes a Byzantine "crusade" aimed at Egypt, could they perhaps woo the Copts and encourage Latins to settle along the Nile ala Outremer?

Another idea I had would be a "partition" of Egypt with the Byzantines taking the coast (Alexandria/Daimetta) and the crusaders acquiring the more troublesome interior (including Cairo). This would be part of a client/vassal relationship between the Empire and the Kingdom of Jerusalem of course, the main difference would be that the Empire in 1285 in my TL would be in a stronger position than it was in 1169 when Manuel I made a similar proposal to the crusaders regarding a conquest of Egypt.
 
Coincidental Nubian invasion.
Didn't the Nubians have some sort of non-agression pact with Egypt though?

Given the timeframe of PODs perhaps a 4th crusade that actually gets to Egypt might be able to seize Alexandria?
 
Didn't the Nubians have some sort of non-agression pact with Egypt though?

Given the timeframe of PODs perhaps a 4th crusade that actually gets to Egypt might be able to seize Alexandria?

And then what? Seizing Alexandria isn't enough to even hold that city as an enclave, let alone make the rest of Egypt surrender.
 
And then what? Seizing Alexandria isn't enough to even hold that city as an enclave, let alone make the rest of Egypt surrender.

True, my thinking however was to have it as a rallying point for either a coptic rebellion supported by the Venetians (Admittedly rather unlikely ) or have Jerusalem invade at the same time.(Should have said that in first post)
 
True, my thinking however was to have it as a rallying point for either a coptic rebellion supported by the Venetians (Admittedly rather unlikely ) or have Jerusalem invade at the same time.(Should have said that in first post)

Jerusalem as of 1204 is in no position to invade, unfortunately.
 
Jerusalem as of 1204 is in no position to invade, unfortunately.

Fair point. Continuing with my 4th Crusade POD however, would it be possible to get the HRE or ERE (Or indeed any of the major powers) to contribute to it?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Considering how Oriental Christians were treated in the Crusader States, I doubt the Crusaders could get Coptic support (an uprising and Crusader invasion at the same time).

Considering the Nubians, the relations between Makuria and Egypt were good during the Fatimid dynasty, flourishing trade and a non- aggression pact. During the Ayubid era relations soured. There was at least one Nubian attempt to invade Egypt and one Ayubd attempt to invade Makuria, both failed miserably. During the Mamluk period relations seem to have been even worse, with Mamluk sponsored bedouins settling in Nubia, and a couple of straight Mamluk invasions.
 
Makuria likely is not in a position to intervene on their own in Egypt during the 13th and 14th centuries. They could enter into strong diplomatic relations with a stronger Rhomania that rules the Balkans and Anatolia and thus have interests in Egypt though, likewise with a crusader invasion on the northern coast and in the Nile Delta.

If either Christian power seizes Daimetta in say, the 1280s or 1290s, could Christians from Makuria and Nubia play a role similar to Armenians and Syriac Christians in Outremer?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Makuria likely is not in a position to intervene on their own in Egypt during the 13th and 14th centuries. They could enter into strong diplomatic relations with a stronger Rhomania that rules the Balkans and Anatolia and thus have interests in Egypt though, likewise with a crusader invasion on the northern coast and in the Nile Delta.

If either Christian power seizes Daimetta in say, the 1280s or 1290s, could Christians from Makuria and Nubia play a role similar to Armenians and Syriac Christians in Outremer?
Of course it's also possible that the crusaders simply see Makuria as more infidels that need to be defeated.
 
They don't seem to have been that hostile to the Copts, but they don't seem like they'd be "FELLOW CHRISTIANS YAY!" right away, either.

What if the Copts go toward Catholicism (or Greek orthodoxy)? Some eastern churches did so and now are part of the Catholic church, right?

Considering conquest I don't see that much problems. Granted, there's no such thing as a single POD which then, two years later, yields crusader Egypt. But weakening Egypt and strengthening the crusaders or Byzantines over a significant amount of time can do the trick, such in "Revival of Rhomanion". Holding it is the problem - but that's also solved in "Revival of Rhomanion": a prevous civil war "sorted out" the religious groups in Egypt and the Byzantines accept the Copts. A similar thing could help the crusaders. Church union is another option. Assimilation yet another one - if Egypt stays under Christian rule, repeated low-scale revolts without outside intervention, immigration and incentives to convert should slowly increase the fraction of Christians.

What's important IMHO is that Egypt can be made pretty safe from outside intervention: In the South, three's only Ethiopia with which Christians could get along, in the West there's only desert, an outside invader can only come from the East, where the crusaders/Byzantines should hold out anyway.
 
What if the Copts go toward Catholicism (or Greek orthodoxy)? Some eastern churches did so and now are part of the Catholic church, right?

Why would they? I suppose you could have something like the Maronites, sure, but why would the Eygptian Copts acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope?

What's in it for them?

Considering conquest I don't see that much problems. Granted, there's no such thing as a single POD which then, two years later, yields crusader Egypt. But weakening Egypt and strengthening the crusaders or Byzantines over a significant amount of time can do the trick, such in "Revival of Rhomanion". Holding it is the problem - but that's also solved in "Revival of Rhomanion": a prevous civil war "sorted out" the religious groups in Egypt and the Byzantines accept the Copts. A similar thing could help the crusaders.

And the crusaders accept the Copts because of a burst of pragmatism utterly alien to them OTL?

Church union is another option. Assimilation yet another one - if Egypt stays under Christian rule, repeated low-scale revolts without outside intervention, immigration and incentives to convert should slowly increase the fraction of Christians.

It didn't work in the Levant. Why would it work here, with a much denser and higher native population? Also, without outside intervention seems highly unlikely.

What's important IMHO is that Egypt can be made pretty safe from outside intervention: In the South, three's only Ethiopia with which Christians could get along, in the West there's only desert, an outside invader can only come from the East, where the crusaders/Byzantines should hold out anyway.

Neither the crusaders or the Byzantines are even remotely close to holding Syria in the early 1200s, so coming from the East is still possible. Meanwhile, the idea that "there's only desert" to the West ignores that said desert was perfectly capable of producing an invader - the Fatamids came via said desert.
 
Why would they? I suppose you could have something like the Maronites, sure, but why would the Eygptian Copts acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope?

What's in it for them?

And the crusaders accept the Copts because of a burst of pragmatism utterly alien to them OTL?

For once, theological development can bring them closer by pure chance, but more important, the pope has the ability to motivate thousands of fighters to go there. Granted, there's a high chance of the Copts regretting it later, but a pragmatic crusader king might get it done (not many of those, though). So, yeah, it's not easy. One would need an early POD affecting the whole middle East and in particular the theological fundaments of mainly the Copts - but also the Catholics. In the later case, they must be more open to the other Christian faiths, and more hostile to non-Christians.

It didn't work in the Levant. Why would it work here, with a much denser and higher native population? Also, without outside intervention seems highly unlikely.

Neither the crusaders or the Byzantines are even remotely close to holding Syria in the early 1200s, so coming from the East is still possible. Meanwhile, the idea that "there's only desert" to the West ignores that said desert was perfectly capable of producing an invader - the Fatamids came via said desert.

Neither the original poster no I mentioned a particular POD. In fact I made it clear that you'd need a POD decades before the conquest of Egypt.

A first thing that's needed is more immigration from the West, immigration of ordinary people with families. There could be lay orders to organize that or the knightly orders could be open to married laymen in lower ranks.

Considering Egypt, "A revival of Rhomanion" presented an easy way to reduce the fraction of Muslims: civil war followed by a very bloody conquest.

Now for foreign intervention: How many invaders of Egypt came from the West and how many came from the East? If the East is secured (and that means control of Syria or at least larger parts of Syria by the crusaders or Byzantines as an earlier POD), Egypt is pretty safe from the East (aside from invasions of competing crusaders :rolleyes:). And given the direction where historically invaders came from, that means Egypt is pretty safe overall.

That's an important point to consider when discussing the stability of crusader states: Egypt and the Levante combined are more stable, even if the crusader states are not fundamentally different to OTL.
 
Top