What does a Crusader Levant look like in the long term?

Might be possible if Byzantium manages to retake Anatolia I suppose.
The Byzantines and the Crusaders often had a very troubled relationship, ever since Alexios Komnenos abandoned them at Antioch in 1098. Isaac Angelos was even secretly an ally of Saladin. After the latter's rise to power and the Fourth Crusade, the Crusaders often allied with the Seljuks of Rum as a means of distracting the Ayyubids.
 
Its worte mentioning that non sunni minorities were able to survive more then six centuries of sunni rule by being able to hide in the mountains of libano and syria, so why in a smaller time frame would the chiristians be able to convert everyone by the 1600? Also what happens with the catholic orthodox conflict? If the romans are well and alive why would they let the latins keep the levant for themselves?

Well it is all variable. The Shi’i groups in the Islamic realms had/has the option of taqqiyyah, which they abused to remain free from persecution or they simply had the fortunate planning to avoid conversions. Further, there was great amounts of antagonism on all sides. It honestly depends on how the crusaders choose to deal with the Shi’i and other groups, such as Druze.
 
Last edited:
No, it didn't. Egypt became majority Muslim in the late tenth century, in the twilight of the Fatimids and about three centuries and a half after conquest. Iran was majority Muslim as early as the early ninth century, less than two hundred years after conquest.

Wasn't thinking about Iran and Turkey tbh. Would like the dates on Egypt though.
 
This is in and of itself an incredibly difficult question to answer. it really depends on the situation of its salvation, and how it remains intact. Does this Crusader state remain unitary? Does it remain divided into petty fiefdoms? How strong are the foreign powers likely to intervene, both Arab, Persian, Mongol, French, Roman, and Holy Roman? Etc, etc.

Now, the Crusader states if they do survive will be the focus of petty politics, and their borders will recede and diminish overtime, with the northern counties being taken under Roman influence at times, while Jerusalem itself could come under Egyptian influence time and time again.

Once established, you are likely to have ongoing contact with the Italian Merchants. This won't necessarily lead to settlement, but the establishment of small Italian communities on the coast alongside the valuable waystations. You'll likely have Frankish and German immigration trickle in, with wayward sons attempting to make a name for themselves in the kingdom - and the various kingdoms going out of their way to bring the rich kingdom and its counties into alliance with each other.

Let's not mentioned the continued patronage of the Romans, so you'll have Greek competing as well, especially in the northern cities. Armenian might also become a common language in Edessa and similar northern counties, with Cilician Armenia remaining a major neighboring state.

So, by the 1600s, you'd have an utter mess. Multitudes of various small European-language enclaves would dot the coast and the major cities. Italian (Venetian, Genoese, maybe Pisan even), French (d'oil & d'oc), German, Greek, Armenian, and etc. A pidgin language would likely emerge as a trade language would form. This would be your proto-Maltese Franco-Arab tongue, which I'll just call Crusader for lack of a better word. This would exist along the major trade routes and the larger cities, though Arabic would be a larger tongue at first, eventually fading over to the pidgin form. On top of that, you have the Assyrian/Chaldean/other enclaves dotting the region, making the entire Levant a true patchwork.

Now, as for religion, it would be a slow conversion, but with the Crusader states well secured enough to survive permanently, they'll also be strong enough to encourage conversions. Some will happen naturally just to be more successful in moving through the government and gaining access to certain positions. A trickle of Europeans will come in over the centuries, boosting Christian population, especially in the cities where they will congregate, which will create a very mixed environment - urban Christian vs native Muslim and Christian populations.

This is all just conjecture, mind, but I don't see anything being nice and neat.
 

Marc

Donor
Medieval Egypt conquered by the Crusaders has been a very frequent topic, despite a number of posters pointing out both the serious challenges in even trying to take control of Lower Egypt, and the very likely low return on capital, economic and human, that would have to be invested. My guess is that it's a picturesque concept, partly the glorious and sensual legends of the Nile, and part some clash of civilizations notion that resolves in the West's favor.
Here's a simple counter-thesis, the Crusader's do manage to acquire some part of Egypt, which makes them even more attractive to the Mongols, who decide to sweep them into their holdings - the moral is, being too tasty and not quite big enough is very risky when wolf packs are entering the range...
 
Last edited:
Top