PC:Crusader States survive to present day?

There certainly was a not entirely insignificant movement East - colonists invited and Greek/Macedonian cities deliberately planted and nurtured. Outremer never had as much luck there.
I would guess, actually, that in percentage terms the amount of migration was probably quite comparable. The majority of Greeks really did not want to go East, and there are plenty of examples of colonies set up by Alexander attempting to flee back to the Aegean during the early wars of the Successors.

But I think the problem is more that the Crusader States rest on very shallow foundations, and the external opposition is fierce - so they rest pretty much on the strength of their armies with little inclination by the locals to be that worked up in their defense beyond that.
True- but the same can equally be said about the early Caliphate, or indeed the early Roman Empire.

On Egypt:
Egypt in the fourth century BC more likely to find a different ruler merely a change of masters than in the twelfth or thirteenth.
Why?

Not as familiar with the seventh century, but even if it's poppycock that the Monophysites welcomed/aided the Arab/Muslim invaders, they certainly weren't fiercely dedicated to Constantinople (as a consequence of the Last War and things from the state's attempt to recover from that, from what I can tell).
Again, I don't disagree with you. But I have my doubts the Arab peasantry of both Christian and Muslim faith that inhabited Outremer in the eleventh century was especially dedicated to a Turkish government that was itself an alien incursor into a world that'd been Byzantine/Arabic for the past four hundred or so years.

And being dependent on being bailed out by foreign intervention is a decidedly weak reed to lean on. European monarchs - and the Papacy - have plenty of concerns of their own, the Holy Land is at most one of them.
Don't disagree here either- but once again, you can make the same point about lots of other conquests that did IOTL stick.
______

I'm certainly not saying that the survival of the Crusader States is particularly likely, or that there are not serious and formidable objects in the way of their survival. But I do think that you have a tendency to airily dismiss a lot of things as being "ASB" based purely on what you see as internal factors involved- our discussions on the survivability of the WRE is another example of this. I think calling surviving Crusader States "ASB" is quite a serious abuse of the term.
 
I'm certainly not saying that the survival of the Crusader States is particularly likely, or that there are not serious and formidable objects in the way of their survival. But I do think that you have a tendency to airily dismiss a lot of things as being "ASB" based purely on what you see as internal factors involved- our discussions on the survivability of the WRE is another example of this. I think calling surviving Crusader States "ASB" is quite a serious abuse of the term.

I try to avoid using the term "ASB" per se for these sorts of things. But for example, the Crusader States even if their hold within the Kingdom of Jerusalem is as firm as the hold of the French within France are surrounded by enemies much more capable of conquering the kingdom in its entirety. That's not going away by a successful crusade of 1102 or even the Second Crusade taking Damascus.


My chief objection is that people seem to think that there's no such thing as an overwhelming difficulty.

Nevermind that empires and kingdoms falling happens through out history, once we focus on say the WRE or the Crusader States, suddenly longevity if not permanence is expected regardless of the internal or external situation if only we come up with a good POD.

Does it actually take alien space bats to preserve the Kingdom of Jerusalem? No. But it would take the circumstances so amazingly exploited by the First Crusade to be the normal state of affairs so that it never has to face a united Syria+Egypt or equivalent.

And unlikely the early Caliphate it isn't facing two exhausted opponents with distractions everywhere (as its first major foes), unlike Rome it doesn't have a particularly effective military system (not ineffective, but nothing giving it a great edge over its neighbors).

And even more so, for these "survive to the present day" - it's not good enough for it to manipulate the divisions of say, the Ayyubids.

It has to keep doing that against all the powers that rise here for centuries - regardless of the tides of fortune (in both senses of fortune). That's just not plausible in the environment this offshoot of Latindom is trying to survive.
 
The most important thing is to knock out Egypt which can then stand as the daddy to the other crusader states and properly protect them like Jerusalem was never able to.
I'm not seeing why so much of the thread's seeing SAFETY in a land where they would be both oppressors AND far outnumbered by those they're oppressing.... That kind of thing tends to lead to consequences like Mussolini's....

Basileus Giorgios wrote:
You could equally say that about any contemporary state.
Are you sure? But Muslims were more tolerant and freer. And Crusader leaders IMHO tended to be extra scum by their radicalized and conquestloving natures. Think there's no reason why Constantinople always wanted them through as fast as possible?

True- but the same can equally be said about the early Caliphate, or indeed the early Roman Empire.
Except both early Rome and early Caliphate were nicer to their conquered, and even put some in charge, generally. No small difference.
 
Are you sure? But Muslims were more tolerant and freer. And Crusader leaders IMHO tended to be extra scum by their radicalized and conquestloving natures. Think there's no reason why Constantinople always wanted them through as fast as possible?
The idea of "Medieval Muslims (and maybe Orthodox Christians) Good, Medieval Catholics Bad" gets repeated a lot, but I'm not sure there's a huge amount of evidence for it. Certainly medieval Islamic states were more than capable of serious levels of brutality.

Except both early Rome and early Caliphate were nicer to their conquered, and even put some in charge, generally. No small difference.
I'm pretty sure the near-industrial levels of genocide and exploitation that accompanied Roman expansion, or the erection of a deeply racist state that used new laws to shackle its Christian subjects as cash-cows in the form of the early Arab state are just as nasty as anything we see in the Crusading movement.
 
Not to mention the reason Byzantium wanted them through as fast as possible wasn't about intolerant bigots, it was about pillaging.

I think the main problem religiously with the Crusaders is that even if they're no more intolerant than most, they're no more tolerable than most. The Muslim and nonCatholic subjects are hardly as committed to the Kingdom of Jerusalem as the Latins.

Not actively rebellious necessarily - just relatively indifferent to its fate. And when only at most a quarter of the population is Frankish, with only about two thousand knights for the whole of the Latin East at its height . . .

Problems ensue.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
On Egypt:
Egypt in the fourth century BC more likely to find a different ruler merely a change of masters than in the twelfth or thirteenth.
Why?

Probably because the culture/religion was there for a shorter span of time.

On topic: I think it's possible if the Muslims are more tolerant of the crusaders/crusaders are less zealous and unforgiving.

Hmmm... take the crusades out of the crusades? :D
 
Top