October 1169: Crusaders capture Egypt

On 27 October 1169, a huge fleet of 230 Byzantine warships sailed towards the Egyptian coast, making landfall at the city of Damietta at the head of the Nile. The ships were carrying an invasion force, including heavy cavalry on 60 specially built transports.

At the same time, a large Crusader army led by the King of Jerusalem, Amalric I, marched down the coast of Sinai towards the city. The allies intended to conquer Fatimid Egypt, dividing it between them with Byzantine emperor Manuel I Komnenos taking the coastal area and Amalric's Crusaders taking the interior.

So far, everything is OTL.

Egypt was seen as the fulcrum on which the fortunes of the entire cosmic battle between Christianity and Islam would revolve. If Egypt joined forces with Nur ad Din in Syria, the Crusaders would have a serious problem. Meanwhile, the Byzantines saw the Crusader presence as a useful bulwark in the struggle against the Turks.

What happened next is the subject of some dispute. What we know is that the joint expedition failed, with the consequence that Saladin took power in Egypt in 1171. By 1187, Jerusalem was back in Muslim hands, the Crusader power had been fatally broken, and the Byzantine Empire slipped into terminal decline.

But what if the invasion of October 1169 had succeeded?

1). Could the Crusaders have survived longer than OTL?
2). Would the Byzantines have benefitted?
3). How would the Muslim world react to the loss of Egypt?
4). Could the allies have held the territory?
 
Well this is interesting because a successful invasion, occupation of Egypt might have broken the backs of the Fatimid Dynasty but again this is a big IF.

Saladin's power base and ultimate legitimacy came from Egypt. Also the majority of his reserves and supplies.

The question becomes what would the Christian do to the population? If they co-opted the Coptic Church (which in the 12th century, they would certainly not do) they could set up an effective and tolerant administration to shelter the House of Jerusalem in exile. This could provide strong defense to an almost certain counter attack by Saladin.

If they went about massacring indiscriminately (like they certainly would have done) it would ultimately further entrench Saladin's legitimacy and further fermented hate towards the western Christians.
 
Well this is interesting because a successful invasion, occupation of Egypt might have broken the backs of the Fatimid Dynasty but again this is a big IF.

Saladin's power base and ultimate legitimacy came from Egypt. Also the majority of his reserves and supplies.

The question becomes what would the Christian do to the population? If they co-opted the Coptic Church (which in the 12th century, they would certainly not do) they could set up an effective and tolerant administration to shelter the House of Jerusalem in exile. This could provide strong defense to an almost certain counter attack by Saladin.

If they went about massacring indiscriminately (like they certainly would have done) it would ultimately further entrench Saladin's legitimacy and further fermented hate towards the western Christians.

I don't think you can claim it'd be certain. There'd be an initial bloodbath most likely as with Jerusalem in major cities like Cairo (assuming it goes to the Crusaders and not the Byzantines). Everything else is up to the writer - the Crusaders could be lenient on the Copts, as with Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Crusader States, or it could be intolerance but bearable - unfair laws, very obvious favoritism and perhaps heavier taxes - it could well be, as you said, outright slaughter. But I don't agree that the latter would be certain.
 
I don't think you can claim it'd be certain. There'd be an initial bloodbath most likely as with Jerusalem in major cities like Cairo (assuming it goes to the Crusaders and not the Byzantines). Everything else is up to the writer - the Crusaders could be lenient on the Copts, as with Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Crusader States, or it could be intolerance but bearable - unfair laws, very obvious favoritism and perhaps heavier taxes - it could well be, as you said, outright slaughter. But I don't agree that the latter would be certain.

IOTL the Crusader States didn't really go in for religious extermination, if only because they were massively outnumbered as it was, and didn't need to go making the situation worse. Egypt's Copts wouldn't be legally equal to Catholics, but it's unlikely that they'd be massacred either. Heck, the Copts were already second-class citizens in Egypt; most likely they wouldn't notice any difference, save that their bosses would now be Latin Catholics rather than Muslims.
 
IOTL the Crusader States didn't really go in for religious extermination, if only because they were massively outnumbered as it was, and didn't need to go making the situation worse. Egypt's Copts wouldn't be legally equal to Catholics, but it's unlikely that they'd be massacred either. Heck, the Copts were already second-class citizens in Egypt; most likely they wouldn't notice any difference, save that their bosses would now be Latin Catholics rather than Muslims.

On top of what you said, people seem to have a really weird idea about how medieval states worked. It's as though a lot of people think that 'the ruler is x religion/ethnicity/culture and the people are mostly y, therefore the state will fall apart within less than z amount of time'. In reality there were plenty of states that lasted centuries which ruled populations belonging to other ethnicities and religions with larger populations their own (e.g. the Arab Caliphates, the Ottoman Empire, the Achaemenid Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Teutonic State, the Mughals - need I go on?) with relative stability, surviving all their major revolts from ethnic uprising for hundreds of years. I don't see why the crusaders couldn't hold onto Egypt any more than the Arabs and Muslims could, other than the fact they'd need more men - but I feel a victory would encourage more crusaders and pilgrims to help the cause.
 
The question becomes what would the Christian do to the population? If they co-opted the Coptic Church (which in the 12th century, they would certainly not do) they could set up an effective and tolerant administration to shelter the House of Jerusalem in exile. This could provide strong defense to an almost certain counter attack by Saladin.

If they went about massacring indiscriminately (like they certainly would have done) it would ultimately further entrench Saladin's legitimacy and further fermented hate towards the western Christians.

This is a good point. The Crusaders massacred the inhabitants of Bilbeis, at the eastern edge of the Nile delta. They killed everyone, including Coptic Christians as well as the Muslim inhabitants. From this moment, the Coptic Christians turned against the Crusaders and decided to help the Muslims against the invader. Egyptians united together to defeat the savage barbarous Crusaders.

So it seems like even if the Crusaders had won the battle at Damietta and established some sort of rule, it would probably have been shaky and the entire populace united against them. With very limited manpower, it seems doubtful if they could have held down the country for long.

The Byzantines were probably not that well placed to defend Egypt either. They had long frontiers in the Balkans and Anatolia that needed to be defended against constant attack. They could send a grand expedition and stake a claim, but I doubt they could have held it in the long run, especially against a determined Muslim counter-attack.

Perhaps the struggle for dominance of Egypt was a folly.
 
Top