Most likely Crusader capital of Egypt?

Supposing that, at some point in time, a Crusader Egypt is established, what capital are they most likely to choose?

I was thinking it was between Alexandria and Damietta but are there any others?
 
Supposing that, at some point in time, a Crusader Egypt is established, what capital are they most likely to choose?

I was thinking it was between Alexandria and Damietta but are there any others?

Depends on how far they penetrate and how many lords come with them. There is a chance they might do as they did in the Levant and split up into numerous domains, thus having multiple capitals. Alexandria and Damietta are the most obvious, Rosetta in between them. Should they push further in, then Cairo would be the ideal bastion connecting Upper and Lower areas (though if the Crusaders couldn't take Damascus or Aleppo I don't have high hopes for them pushing further than the delta). And if they decide to branch out, there could be a kingdom in Cyreneica under the control of Crusader Egypt or a Italian merchant republic to act as a stopping ground between Europe and the delta.
 
Depends on how far they penetrate and how many lords come with them. There is a chance they might do as they did in the Levant and split up into numerous domains, thus having multiple capitals. Alexandria and Damietta are the most obvious, Rosetta in between them. Should they push further in, then Cairo would be the ideal bastion connecting Upper and Lower areas (though if the Crusaders couldn't take Damascus or Aleppo I don't have high hopes for them pushing further than the delta). And if they decide to branch out, there could be a kingdom in Cyreneica under the control of Crusader Egypt or a Italian merchant republic to act as a stopping ground between Europe and the delta.

Assuming they take most of modern day Egypt and Cyrenica, I was considering Cairo but had thought that the crusaders would prefer traditional Christian capitals rather than Islamic ones.
 
Depends on how far they penetrate...

...I mean, come on dude. Is it only me...?! :px'D

More seriously, I doubt a Crusader Egypt is feasible. I'd say the most likely answer is 'none', since I don't believe they ever had any realistic chance of ruling there. Especially after what happened at Bilbeis.
 
...I mean, come on dude. Is it only me...?! :px'D

More seriously, I doubt a Crusader Egypt is feasible. I'd say the most likely answer is 'none', since I don't believe they ever had any realistic chance of ruling there. Especially after what happened at Bilbeis.

Actually ‘penetration’ is common military term. Not only is it a good word to describe how far amies push and thier direction. In the modern era it is used as military science term in the penetration of bullets, epecially tanks and warships. You know you have angle, trajectory, distance, armour thickness, ‘shell type’, gun etc.

The only other use of penetration is in the criminal definition of rape, which is graphic.
 
Last edited:
On the topic, the Christians tried conquer Egypt in the fifth Crusade. Could have won as well. I’m actually looking at Frederick II attempt to centralise the HRE. In 1217 they were actually asking him to aid them in Egypt. I don’t think the state would be very big.
 
I am going to say Alexandria. Its on the coast. It's large and it's got an even larger Christian history behind it to make it ideal.

It is still not very plausible the the Crusaders would be hold it though. Unless they conquer the entire Nile delta first.
 
I am going to say Alexandria. Its on the coast. It's large and it's got an even larger Christian history behind it to make it ideal.

It is still not very plausible the the Crusaders would be hold it though. Unless they conquer the entire Nile delta first.

Why not? Alexandria seems quite defensible and Egypt has a recent history of controversial regimes in this time period. Tulunids and Fatimids come to mind...
 
Why not? Alexandria seems quite defensible and Egypt has a recent history of controversial regimes in this time period. Tulunids and Fatimids come to mind...

They were Muslim though. I think the locals would take note of a Christian regime declaring themselves in charge.

I was thinking the main use of the city by the Crusaders would as forward base to attack the delta. If the Crusaders fail then the Muslims would try to take it back and it would fall just like the Crusader Kingdoms eventually did.
 
They were Muslim though. I think the locals would take note of a Christian regime declaring themselves in charge.

I was thinking the main use of the city by the Crusaders would as forward base to attack the delta. If the Crusaders fail then the Muslims would try to take it back and it would fall just like the Crusader Kingdoms eventually did.

To the Muslims of the period, the Fatimids and Tulunids to a degree are equally not Muslim to the Sunni majority. The scholars of the period of the Sunni school clearly say that there is no difference between the Is’maili Batinist Shi’a and that of the Christians. Likewise, Abbasid opinion of the 9th century was, even outsider Sunni Muslim regimes are spreading fitnah (chaos) and according to the current and past rulings, a rebel against a legitimate Caliph is made a disbeliever, thus the Tulunid ruling is clear cut.
 
They were Muslim though. I think the locals would take note of a Christian regime declaring themselves in charge.
There was still a pretty sizeable minority of Christians in Egypt durring this time period. IIRC a larger portion of the population than in the southern Levant.
 
I feel like making the city founded by and named for Alexander the Great the capital would be the perfect blending of strategic location, defensibility, and symbolism.
 

Scaevola

Banned
Why not? Alexandria seems quite defensible and Egypt has a recent history of controversial regimes in this time period. Tulunids and Fatimids come to mind...
Alexandria is unsustainable as an enclave. It can't feed itself, non-Christian Egypt certainly won't sell grain to it (or will do so at exorbitant prices), so it depends on shipped in grain from the get-go. Without holding the rest of the delta, crusader Alexandria won't see much trade go through either, as non-Crusader Egypt will go through its own ports as much as it can. Thirdly it isn't even that safe, at the first sign of instability or weakness it will be attacked, as enclaves are extreme thorns in the side of the surrounding territory. Alexandria moreso than most considering its importance. Look at how many times Calais was attacked by the French, and the English are right across the Channel. Alexandria is across the whole Mediterranean from Christian Europe.
 
I say Damietta. By dumb coincidence I just happen to be re-reading Joinville and Villehardouin and a lot of military and diplomatic chips were put down on the table for possession of Damietta by all sides. To me that's an indicator of it's importance.
 
Top