The Fourth Crusade and the march on Cairo.

No, it wasn't; Pharaoh was a long dead title.
Also there would be a few muslim states on the upper nile,
Nubia was Christian till 13th century
the kingdom might be restive or it might not be, and with the Ayyubids taken out this might prompt the far more formidable Khwarezmids to actually move in.
Ayyubid Syria, Damascus and Aleppo are still there, but no longer allied with Crusader Egypt.

Once King Boniface liberates Jerusalem for Isabella and Amalric, and the pre-Hattin Frankish Oultrejordain, will he immediately press against Damascus, or take some time enjoying the fleshpots of Egypt?

In 1203, Boniface is an eligible widower, aged about 53 (and OTL went on to marry in 1204). He had one adult son, left back home as the Marquess of Montferrat. OTL, Boniface died in battle with Bulgars in 1207. If in TTL he stays at peace in Egypt, he will live past 1207.

Since Isabella and Amalric OTL died natural causes in 1205, it is not butterflied away and happens on schedule. What next? And who will Boniface have married?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Nubia was christian but a) it had a strong muslim minority and b) it didn't have to deal with a sudden influx of southern egyptian refugees IOTL.

Also this leaves the problem that the crusaders are overstretched and once everyone packs up and goes back home they'll be down to one tenth of the crusader army to defend things.
 
Also this leaves the problem that the crusaders are overstretched and once everyone packs up and goes back home they'll be down to one tenth of the crusader army to defend things.
With big fat Egypt to divide in fiefs (compared to the modest sized Holy Land or Latin Empire), many will stay.
 
The ambassadors asked for ships to carry 33 500 men and 4500 horses, for 85 000 marks. When Venice built the fleet, they showed up with something like 11 000 men.

If the ambassadors make a less gross overestimate, say 17 000 men and 3000 horses (still an overestimate, but roughly the amount of ships that actually did sail in more spacious conditions), it costs 46 000 marks. And 51 000 marks is what they could find OTL. So, the fleet is paid and Venice being paid is not entitled to any share of conquests

I don't know the exact numbers of soldiers involved, but I know that the envoys didn't overestimate the Crusade dimension: they simply didn't take in account the simple preference of the various leaders for other ports. Some crusaders sailed from southern France, Genoa or even southern Italy. They gave to the venetians the right numbers, but due to a decentralized chain of command there was a part of the Crusade that simply never sailed from Venice...and before anyone say something about that: no, IMHO I don't think it's feasible a fully cohordinated crusading force that show up in a port, ready to embark. From a political and military point of view it's quite irrealistic.

IMO we should identify another naval supporter for the Crusade: we can't avoid an attack to the Roman Empire if we use Venice.


Assuming the Venetians are excluded from spoil distribution (having been fully paid as contracted), how will victorious Crusaders divide Egypt?
Even if we rule out the venetians and use another city state (or some other naval power of the time) the crusaders should give them some kind of benefit. After the conquest they need to manage the new lands and a powerful ally with a strong navy is almost mandatory: the Outremer Kingdoms, for example, were heavily involved in trade with the italian city states and relied on their naval support even after their victory in the holy land. I think the same should happen in a conquered Egypt.
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
A Interesting aspect are how Egypt are split up in fief, I image that each fief will a slice of the Nile, with nominal control of the hinterland on both side, the most complex pirce will likely be the delta or Lower Egypt, which it stay together will be the dominating state. I imagine that someone will become king of all Egypt, but de facto many of the Nile fief will become independent states. The question are whether this is viable, with Lower Egypt controlling access to Europe.
 
I don't know the exact numbers of soldiers involved, but I know that the envoys didn't overestimate the Crusade dimension: they simply didn't take in account the simple preference of the various leaders for other ports. Some crusaders sailed from southern France, Genoa or even southern Italy. They gave to the venetians the right numbers, but due to a decentralized chain of command there was a part of the Crusade that simply never sailed from Venice...and before anyone say something about that: no, IMHO I don't think it's feasible a fully cohordinated crusading force that show up in a port, ready to embark. From a political and military point of view it's quite irrealistic.
Yes, but it could be realistic for the envoys to realize that some will go different routes. The envoys could have given only slightly optimistic numbers for the crusaders that actually show up from Venice.
IMO we should identify another naval supporter for the Crusade: we can't avoid an attack to the Roman Empire if we use Venice.
No. If the Crusaders make a bargain they can fulfill and have done so, Venice is bound by contract and has no excuse to divert them to Zadar, let alone Roman Empire.
Even if we rule out the venetians and use another city state (or some other naval power of the time) the crusaders should give them some kind of benefit. After the conquest they need to manage the new lands and a powerful ally with a strong navy is almost mandatory: the Outremer Kingdoms, for example, were heavily involved in trade with the italian city states and relied on their naval support even after their victory in the holy land. I think the same should happen in a conquered Egypt.

Agreed. The King of Egypt will ally with Venice simply because Venice has conveniently available fleet, and he can afford to give away chunks from the big and rich Egypt cheaply. But it will be on Boniface´s terms - Venice will not be in position to veto his accession or require specific attacks on enemies.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Agreed. The King of Egypt will ally with Venice simply because Venice has conveniently available fleet, and he can afford to give away chunks from the big and rich Egypt cheaply. But it will be on Boniface´s terms - Venice will not be in position to veto his accession or require specific attacks on enemies.

Actually a lot of foreign policy would be on Venetian terms once war hits. Especially since Sicily is still there and is still likely to be siphoning off most of the settlers for the Middle East.
 
A Interesting aspect are how Egypt are split up in fief, I image that each fief will a slice of the Nile, with nominal control of the hinterland on both side, the most complex pirce will likely be the delta or Lower Egypt, which it stay together will be the dominating state. I imagine that someone will become king of all Egypt, but de facto many of the Nile fief will become independent states. The question are whether this is viable, with Lower Egypt controlling access to Europe.
Not sure. William the Bastard was able to keep a lot of England and give the fiefs in small pieces such that England has powerful kings Henry I and II with central administration. Hautevilles of Sicily were able to have powerful Palermo government as well. By contrast, King of Jerusalem was weak and the barons relatively independent, and ditto about Latin Empire. How was the Lusignan monarchy of Cyprus relating to the nobles?

There were practical considerations. The barons of Outremer had to be strong and independent to defend their lands and castles - ditto about Latin Empire. William Bastard had to allow palatine Marcher Lords on Welsh frontier - but in the inside of England, his writ ran.

Egypt has vulnerable frontier in Sinai, but otherwise much of the Nile Valley is protected by deserts, with only minor risk of Bedouin raids, but no big organized enemy expected there. Boniface would have an obvious temptation to keep lion´s share and create a centralized kingdom after the example of Sicily - but will his authority over fellow crusaders suffice? Cyprus was pretty safe, too.
 
Not sure. William the Bastard was able to keep a lot of England and give the fiefs in small pieces such that England has powerful kings Henry I and II with central administration. Hautevilles of Sicily were able to have powerful Palermo government as well. By contrast, King of Jerusalem was weak and the barons relatively independent, and ditto about Latin Empire. How was the Lusignan monarchy of Cyprus relating to the nobles?

There were practical considerations. The barons of Outremer had to be strong and independent to defend their lands and castles - ditto about Latin Empire. William Bastard had to allow palatine Marcher Lords on Welsh frontier - but in the inside of England, his writ ran.

Egypt has vulnerable frontier in Sinai, but otherwise much of the Nile Valley is protected by deserts, with only minor risk of Bedouin raids, but no big organized enemy expected there. Boniface would have an obvious temptation to keep lion´s share and create a centralized kingdom after the example of Sicily - but will his authority over fellow crusaders suffice? Cyprus was pretty safe, too.

Also Egypt doesn't have the Holy Places that Palestine does. Crusaders in Jerusalem or anywhere close was a rallying call that united Muslims. Sinai was open but difficult to cross. Look at the British advance across Sinai in World War one. Although the Turks got across the desert easily enough they couldn't supply their forces after suffering a defeat.
 
Top