Successful Seventh Crusade

Hello,

This is my first TL attempt. I would really appreciate your remarks. I would also appreciate if someone could correct my english mistakes.

During the Seventh Crusade led by Louis IX of France (Saint Louis), in 1248-1250, the Franks attempted to invalde Egypt which would indeed provide a base from which to attack Jerusalem.
The crusader army consists of 15,000 men that included 3,000 knights, and 5,000 crossbowmen. His brothers, Alphonse of Poitiers, Charles of Anjou and Robert of Artois join him.

1249 : Damietta is taken by the Crusaders.

1250 : King Louis's brother Alphonse of Poitiers arrives with reinforcements. The Ayyubid sultan of Egypt, As-Salih Ayyub, dies after hearing about the defeat.
The Crusaders must choose between Alexandria and Cairo as the next target. The ardent Robert of Artois, another brother of the king, will convince the Crusaders to sail up the Nile Delta instead of attacking Alexandria. Indeed, control of Egypt has a significant strategic interest for the Crusaders .
Robert of Artois, Louis's brother and the Templars attack the Egyptian camp at Gideila near Al Mansurah. Emir Fakhr al-Din is killed. After the death of Fakhr al-Din, Robert of Artois chooses to wait for the rest of the royal army (PoD). It is not trapped in the city and avoid a massacre of the frankish vanguard. Robert of Artois and William II of Salisbury are not killed.

On the morning of February 11th, the Muslim forces launch an offensive against the frankish camp but are repelled by the frankish archers regiment. On February 26, the Crusaders take Al Mansurah. The Battle of Fariskur does not happen and Louis IX is not captured. The Mamluks led by Baybars are defeated. Malik al-Salih Ayyub's successor, Al-Mansura Muazzam Turanshah arrives in Egypt on February, 27th. He tries to besiege the city, but is defeated and flees.

The Crusaders seize Cairo a month later. Then, Robert of Artois easily seized Alexandria with a few templars, allowing the Crusaders to take control of the Nile Delta. Louis stands firmly in Cairo.
A short truce is concluded with al-Muazzam Turanshah. Incapable and awkward (as in OTL), Turanshah commits many errors and the frankish army win several battles.
The crusaders consolidate their positions in Lower Egypt.

The Mamluks revolts against Turanshah and kill him (as in OTL). The Ayyubid sultan An-Nasir Yusuf (Emir of Aleppo), which does not accept the takeover of the Mamluks in Egypt, captures Damascus and Gaza. Aybak marry Shajar al-Durr (As-Salih Ayyub's widowed wife) and became the first Mamluk Sultan of Upper Egypt (as in OTL).

Alphonse of Poitiers is crowned king of Lower Egypt under the name of Alphonse I. Charles of Anjou becomes duke of Alexandria, Robert of Artois recieves the title of Duke of Damietta.

1251 : Louis IX leaves for the Holy Land, as in OTL, but in a much more favourable position than in OTL.
The Shepherds' Crusade let to an european settlement of Palestine.

Louis IX ally with the Ayyubid dynasty of Syria (Al-Nasir Yusuf, emir of Aleppo) against the Mamluks of Baybars. In OTL he could because the Mamluks sill had a lot of frankish prisoners.
The Ayyubid agree to give back Jerusalem.

The Mamluks oppose strong resistance to the Franks, continually threatening them.

1258-1260 : The Mongols led by Hulagu Khan take Bagdad, destroying the Abbasid Caliphate. In 1260, they invalde Syria destroying the Ayyubid Dynasty. The last Ayyubid king An-Nasir Yusuf is killed by Hulagu in 1260.
The Crusaders enter into an alliance with the Ilkhanate. The Mamluks are defeated by the Mongols and the Crusaders and Baybars is killed.

The Franks accept to pay a tribute to the Ilkhanate and Hulagu Khan agrees to give away the Upper Egypt.

Thanks to Louis IX, the orthodox Copts are well treated. The Edict of Alexandia in 1255 grants the orthodox Copts religious freedom. Mixed marriages between orthodox Copts and Catholics are not uncommon. The Muslims are forced to convert to christanism or expelled from Egypt.
Alphonse of Poitiers set up an effective administration. Trade between Egypt and Europe increases.

The conquest of Egypt leads to a diffusion of muslim scientific and technological knowledge in Europe.

1261 : Thanks to the franco-mongol alliance, there is no immediat threat against the crusader States. Robert of Artois is send to defend Constantinople.
Michael Palaiologos decides not to take Constantinople in order to avoid a war against the Crusaders States.
The Empire of Nicaea do not focus on Constantinople but instead on Anatolia. Michael Palaiologos avoids the costs of the rebuilding Constantinople and those of a war against Charles of Anjou.
He do not attempt to reunite the Eastern church with the West, avoiding a religious conflict within the Empire of Nicea.

1265-1270 : The Seljuq Sultanate of Rum is weakened by the mongol invasion and starts to split into small emirates (beyliks). The Empire of Nicaea take advantage of the mongol invasion and take a few cities in Anatolia. Michael Palaiologos enters an alliance with the Ilkhanate and with the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia.
He does not betray Hulagu Khan and does not ally himself with Nogai Khan, the ruler of the Golden Horde. The Empire of Nicaea is attacked by Nogai Khan and Michael Palaiologos is forced to stop his offensive against the Turks.
The Empire of Nicaea start to employ egyptian and nubian mercenaries.

The Armenian kingdom of Cilicia is not invalded by the Mamluks in 1266 and Hethum I does not abdicate in 1270. Armenia remain a strong ally of the Christians.
The siege of Antioch does not happen in 1268.

1270 : Charles of Anjou convinces his brother Louis IX to lead a military expedition against Tunis but it is not considered as a crusade. Louis IX dies of dysentery on August 25, 1270 as in OTL.
Alphonse of Poitiers does not join the expedition and does not became ill.

1271 : The Ninth Crusade does not happen. Prince Edward I of England makes a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

1272 : The Kingdom of Makuria remain independant and becomes an ally of the frankish Egypt.

1273 : The Empire of Nicaea retake Sinop.

1275 : Alphonse I of Egypt dies.

1280 : Egypt is already a regional power that protect the other crusader states.

1282 : Michael Palaiologos dies. The Empire of Nicaea is stronger as in OTL and has kept its territories in Anatolia.

1289 : The Knights Templar found their own monastic state, just as the Teutonic Knights had done in Prussia. The State of the Knights Templar is formed in the south of Anatolia in the region of Attalia.

1297 : Louis IX is canonized.

1302 : The Empire of Nicaea, Egypt, the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia, the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller and Venice enter an alliance against the Turks.
Osman I is defeated in the Battle of Bapheus.

1307 : Jean de Joinville completes his Life of St. Louis, a very different one from the one we know.

1312 : The Knights Templar are even more powerful than in OTL, but, since they have not become useless, the order is not dissolved.

1339 : The State of the Knights Templar expands to Iconium.

1350 : King Charles II of Egypt dies without male heir. His successor is his cousin-in-law, Theodoros I, a coptic orthodox prince.
Because of the Hundred Years' War, France does not have the means to intervene.
The Serbian Empire takes Constantinople and Stefan Dušan is crowned Emperor of the Serbs and greeks.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I will dispute expelling all Muslims that do not convert in Egypt. Ifind this unlikely to work or even be tried in such a populous country. More likely would be legal limitations on their rights (higher taxes, barred from official positions, property limits, etc.).

Also, just a tad too wanky for the Crusaders. Basically, everything that could go right seems to be doing so (if you count the Christians as a whole, at least).
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I will dispute expelling all Muslims that do not convert in Egypt. Ifind this unlikely to work or even be tried in such a populous country. More likely would be legal limitations on their rights (higher taxes, barred from official positions, property limits, etc.).

Also, just a tad too wanky for the Crusaders. Basically, everything that could go right seems to be doing so (if ou count the Christians as a whole, at least).

I'd say it's great for a first time though
 
Ignoring the fact that with this you just ended the plot for my favorite book series "Les Rois maudits" by Maurice Druon, i will ignore this heresy and say Sir, you have my subscription (Speaking with a British accent).
 
Ignoring the fact that with this you just ended the plot for my favorite book series "Les Rois maudits" by Maurice Druon, i will ignore this heresy and say Sir, you have my subscription (Speaking with a British accent).

You mean "speaking without an accent" ;) :p
 
Just take my subscription!!!

Though I do agree, it is pretty wanky for Christianity as a whole, but nonetheless, it's a pretty good set for a first attempt.
 
:p i fixed it for you, mate.
r13teVT.jpg


Btw Jérôme, if you need any help with the TL let me know and I'll do my best to lend a hand. Also sorry for hijacking this a bit, I'll delete my posts if you want :D
 
Sympa, le premier post. Si tu aimes les uchronies médiévales, tu devrais lire The Lucky Mariage de Aegis03Florin.
Bon, après tout se passe en effet trop bien pour les Croisés. Après tout, les Mongols ne sont encore que des barbares, Ilkhanides ou Horde d'Or. Ils peuvent en préférer un et éviter la guerre, mais cela ne veut pas dire qu'ils sont alliés.
De toute façon il faudra prendre en compte Tamerlan qui mettra fin à l'expérience croisée.
 
The Muslims are forced to convert to christanism or expelled from Egypt.

Muslims made up over half the population of Egypt at this time. Since the vast majority won't convert in such a small time period, this means Egypt is depopulated by a lot. In a time when population and agriculture was the basis of a country's wealth, this effectively destroys the Egyptian economy. Mass expulsion of this size is unfeasible. If attempted, it would probably lead to mass revolts which could very well overthrow the Frankish invaders.

Neither the Spanish nor the Norman Sicilians expelled the Muslim population of the lands they conquered. Instead, there was an ongoing, but small, level of self-deportation that occurred for centuries, the removal of Muslims from political life, and a small level of naturally occurring conversion. When Muslims were finally expelled from these lands, it was centuries afterwards when Christians made up the bulk of the population. When this happened in Spain centuries after the end of the Reconquista (and even longer from the Conquest of Valencia), it still greatly harmed the Spanish economy.

The vast majority of the Muslim population will stay where it is. Only the urban elite - educated and fairly prosperous - may choose to leave on their own. The Frankish crusader will not want the Muslim peasants working their fields to leave at all. Should Egypt remain in the Christian camp, it will take several centuries before Christians dominate demographically.

There could be an increasing number of legal restrictions against Muslims over many decades and centuries to remove them from controlling important economic activities. This would make more and more elite Muslims leave for better opportunities elsewhere. But initially the Christians would need their expertise and involvement in order to milk Egypt for its wealth. The restrictions will only be slowly introduced after the Franks consolidate their control, and then greedily see opportunities for expansion in certain areas if they can legally limit Muslim dominance in that area.
 
Thanks to Louis IX, the orthodox Copts are well treated. The Edict of Alexandia in 1255 grants the orthodox Copts religious freedom. Mixed marriages between orthodox Copts and Catholics are not uncommon.

Religious freedom is not a concept known in the Middle Ages. As part of pragmatic policy to consolidate their rule, the Frankish rulers of Egypt might tolerate the independence and practices of the Coptic Church. There could be something like an Edict of Tolerance, but most likely there won't be an official policy, just a pragmatic administration. The Copts aren't even Chalcedonian Christians like the Eastern Orthodox. There are major theological disputes with Latin Christianity. No Frankish ruler can keep good graces with Rome by giving full religious liberty to "heretics".

This doesn't mean a modus vivendi can't be worked out, especially in the short term. The Latin Crusaders were traditionally tolerate of the native non-Latin Christians in the Kingdom of Jerusalem too. In the long term though, the Latin Church will want the Coptic Church to change enough to be in communion with Rome, and this simply isn't going to happen. Most likely some Copts end up changing enough to have communion with Rome like the Maronites did. But I suspect the vast majority of Copts won't.

Intermarriage could very well be common, but likely only upon conversion of one of the members. Or at the very least, agreement that the children will be raised in only one of the Christian faiths. Among the nobles, this is likely to be one way to Catholicism. Among the lower classes, this could go either way.

The Latins will be welcoming to the Coptic Christians as allies to help cement their rule of Egypt, and they will be better treated than under Muslims. Many of the restrictions imposed upon dhimmis, like the jizya tax, will be removed. But the Coptic Church won't be seen as the equal of the Catholic Church. As Frankish control over Egypt solidifies and strengthens, tolerance towards the Copts will slowly erode as they aren't needed as much anymore. How bad it could get is debatable and could end up in many ways.
 
Given the butterflies of the PoD (in particular the ones involving the templar if you are into conspiracy theory, or Artois, if you are into more serious history), the 100 year war will definitely not occur.
 
Seventh Crusade

Religious freedom is not a concept known in the Middle Ages. As part of pragmatic policy to consolidate their rule, the Frankish rulers of Egypt might tolerate the independence and practices of the Coptic Church. There could be something like an Edict of Tolerance, but most likely there won't be an official policy, just a pragmatic administration. The Copts aren't even Chalcedonian Christians like the Eastern Orthodox. There are major theological disputes with Latin Christianity. No Frankish ruler can keep good graces with Rome by giving full religious liberty to "heretics".

This doesn't mean a modus vivendi can't be worked out, especially in the short term. The Latin Crusaders were traditionally tolerate of the native non-Latin Christians in the Kingdom of Jerusalem too. In the long term though, the Latin Church will want the Coptic Church to change enough to be in communion with Rome, and this simply isn't going to happen. Most likely some Copts end up changing enough to have communion with Rome like the Maronites did. But I suspect the vast majority of Copts won't.

Intermarriage could very well be common, but likely only upon conversion of one of the members. Or at the very least, agreement that the children will be raised in only one of the Christian faiths. Among the nobles, this is likely to be one way to Catholicism. Among the lower classes, this could go either way.

The Latins will be welcoming to the Coptic Christians as allies to help cement their rule of Egypt, and they will be better treated than under Muslims. Many of the restrictions imposed upon dhimmis, like the jizya tax, will be removed. But the Coptic Church won't be seen as the equal of the Catholic Church. As Frankish control over Egypt solidifies and strengthens, tolerance towards the Copts will slowly erode as they aren't needed as much anymore. How bad it could get is debatable and could end up in many ways.
I strongly agree.
 
Seventh Crusade

My points: (1) The Venetians and Genoese and possibly others will demand trading rights in Egypt. (2) A western conquest of Egypt will possibly stiffen Muslim resistance and lead to efforts to re-conquer it. (3) The Latins already in Syria/Palestine will desire lands in Egypt, as they are richer and more fertile than in Syria.
 
Hello,

Interesting. I will dispute expelling all Muslims that do not convert in Egypt. Ifind this unlikely to work or even be tried in such a populous country. More likely would be legal limitations on their rights (higher taxes, barred from official positions, property limits, etc.).
Yes, I think they would be two periods : During the first century, Muslims are granted religious freedom but have to pay higher taxes. After 1350, they would be increasingly oppressed and subjected to more and more legal limitations of their rights, like in Sicily under the Hohenstaufen rule.

Btw Jérôme, if you need any help with the TL let me know and I'll do my best to lend a hand.
Jérôme if you want, you can also count with my help.
Yes, I have a few new ideas and a few questions.

Bon, après tout se passe en effet trop bien pour les Croisés. Après tout, les Mongols ne sont encore que des barbares, Ilkhanides ou Horde d'Or. Ils peuvent en préférer un et éviter la guerre, mais cela ne veut pas dire qu'ils sont alliés.
The Franks would have hard times struggling against the Mamluks between 1251 and 1261. Things would become easier after the Mongol invasion provided that the franco-mongol alliance really works. But I really think they could hold the Nile Delta.

The crusaders stand united behind their King Louis IV. The military leaders are Louis IV's brothers : Alphonse of Poitiers, Charles of Anjou and Robert of Artois. There is no divisions or rivalries among them.

On the contrary after the first defeats, the loss of several cities, the death of 2 sultans, and the war againsts the Ayyubid, the Mamluk army would be disorganized and demoralized. The Crusaders would take advantage of the conflict between the Ayyubid and the Mamluks (which lasted until 1255 in OTL).

In OTL they were several attempts at a Franco-Mongol alliance against the Islamic caliphates. In 1249, Louis IX sent André of Longjumeau as emissary to the Mongols. Later he sent William of Rubruck to Karakorum. The Ilkhanate was sympathetic to Christianity.

In OTL the crusaders agreed to allow the Egyptian Mamluks to cross their territory to fight the Mongols. In my TL, they would not.

Religious freedom is not a concept known in the Middle Ages. As part of pragmatic policy to consolidate their rule, the Frankish rulers of Egypt might tolerate the independence and practices of the Coptic Church. There could be something like an Edict of Tolerance, but most likely there won't be an official policy, just a pragmatic administration.
Yes I think that since the Crusader recognize the strategic interest in controlling Egypt, they would carry out a pragmatic policy.

My points: (1) The Venetians and Genoese and possibly others will demand trading rights in Egypt.
Yes, but since the Franks do not need venitian or genoese help to invalde and to hold Egypt, they would have no reason to grant them trading rights.

(2) A western conquest of Egypt will possibly stiffen Muslim resistance and lead to efforts to re-conquer it.
In my TL, after 1261, Syria is under Mongol rule, Egypt is controlled by the Franks, the Sultanate of Rum starts to disintegrates like in OTL. There is no muslim power able to confront both the Ilkhanate and the Franks.
 
Last edited:
Top