WI: Damascus captured by Crusaders in 1129

Vitruvius

Donor
Yes I realize that and probably that's who ends up as the metropolitan bishop, but my point was that historically Damascus was under the jurisdiction of Antioch not Jerusalem. So when a Latin Bishop is installed there it seems like it would cause a kerfuffle if he was made subject to Jerusalem and not Antioch. But then if Antioch returns to the Greek rite perhaps the entire hierarchy in the east is restructured to bring all Latin rite churches under the Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem. Otherwise I could see the Byzantines using the Patriarch of Antioch to help enforce their suzerainty over Edessa and Aleppo.

Either way it has all hallmarks of one of the those seemingly trivial procedural/doctrinal conflicts that becomes a major political fight.
 
I have new thought on this topic.

To remember:

1129 : Damascus is handed over to Baudouin II by the Assassins.
1130 :Zengi takes the offensive into Syria. Princess Alice of Antioch's plot to deliver Antioch to Zengi is unveiled and nipped in the bud by King Baudouin II. Despite the fall of Damascus, the independent minded emirs of central Syria remain more scared by Zengi and ally with Baudouin II.
1131 : After repeated failures in central Syria, Zengi withdraws to Aleppo when the news of Seljuk Sultan Mahmud II comes to announce a new power struggle in Mesopotamia. Baudouin II dies and Foulques becomes King.
1132 : Zengi is defeated near Tikrit by the forces of Caliph al-Mustarshid. Tikrit's governor, Ayyub, makes him prisonner and delivers him to the Caliph who has him executed; Ayyub is appointed atabeg of Mossul while the adolescent Nur ad-Din Zengi flees to Aleppo.
1133 : Caliph al-Mustarshid is defeated by Sultan Mas'ud then turns on his brother and rival Toghrul.
1137 : John II invade and occupy Cilicia. The counts of Tripoli, of Edessa, and the Prince of Antioch pay homage to the Basileus which is coming with a big army. Raymond of Poitiers agrees to trade Antioch for Aleppo.
1138 : Basileus John II besieges Aleppo. Mossul's atabeg, Ayyub, is unwilling to save Nur ad-Din. Much of central Syria escapes Raymond of Poitiers who is devanced by Pons of Tripoli who occupies, sometimes without resistance, Homs, and the rich and fertile Beqaa valley.


Now let me develop my new thoughts.

In Iraq, I see Ayyub holding onto Mossul, receiving the title of Sultan from Caliph al-Muqtafi in 1157 for having helped to repulse Seljuqs in front of Baghdad (IOTL, Mossul was supporting Seljuqs), a battle in which the young Saladin is distinguished.
Saladin becomes Sultan in 1173 at his father's death.
As the Sultanate of Rum expands into Danishmendid lands, Saladin allies with Basileus Manuel and both come to partition Anatolia, leading to the collapse of Rum Seljuq.
Meanwhile, Abbasid Caliphs rule directly over central and southern Iraq, taking advantage of the collapse of Seljuq Sultanate under pressure of Khwarezmians, but the Caliph is still reliant on troops from Ayyubids which exert much influence.

In Syria, the grudge between Tripoli and Aleppo over Pons conquest of Homs and the Bekaa valley poisons relations.
Tripoli allies with Byzantines while Aleppo and Edessa engage into dissent, like when they get involve in the succession struggles within the Danishmendid emirate.

Jerusalem, having make Damascus a march to protect its northern border enters a golden age.
Aside of the siege of Ascalon, Egypt keeps its isolationnist stand.
But Fatimid official Shawar seeks military support from Jerusalem to take power and enters in tributary relations with Jerusalem.
This is only the first of a series of military interventions by King Amaury and his successors, most often to put down rebellions, install or reinstate one vizier or another. Byzantines also participate but their role is minor, maybe garrisoning Alexandria and watching over the delta.
Jerusalem annex Sinai and take over the trade route between Peluse and Suez on which Genoese and Venetian merchants settle. Still, piracy in Red Sea will become an issue.
Enormous profits are generated from trade and go into the Royal Treasaury of Jerusalem; as with the conquest of Syria in the 1130s, Jerusalem northern borders are at peace, these revenues and the recruitment of mercenaries it allows make the Kingdom the big military power of the region. Thus, despite frequent revolts in Egypt, Kings of Jerusalem prefer funding occasional expeditions to restore their control/influence over Fatimid Caliphate rather than annexing it outright and having to support the burden of governing it, while occasional expeditions to restore control/influence are more profitable; it's why Jerusalem limited its ambitions to Sinai and the isthmus of Suez which are not too much populated.
Also, this newfound wealth and Jerusalem position as arbiter in Syrian and Egyptian affairs give much power to the Royal government and allow to centralize government and strengthen Royal authority, not unlike what is done at the same time in France.

Manuel still fails in Italy in the 1150s, but his eastern borders are more secure and Byzantines are able to deal with Venetians and Normans of Sicily, saving the Angeloi dynasty for the time being. Maybe they can deal more efficiently with the Bulgarian revolt.

Aside of eventual troubles over the succession of Saladin, recurrent revolts in Egypt and troubles caused by piracy in Red Sea, a status quo will remain until Mongols arrive.
 
There a rough map of Middle East towards 1218 in this scenario, just before Mongols invade Khwarezm.

__damascus_1129___tl___middle_east_in_1218_by_galileo_034-d8ny1zc.png
 
The Crusaders don't have the Luxury of retreating to the European side like the Byzantines to weather the storm. Unless they have Cyprus (which crusaders did hold in a few Crusades). This could mean the Mongols sweep down the Levant coast being mongols. This could mean after the mongols leave the Eastern roman could try or Egypt could conquer it. Or a new Crusade.
 
Hey, this is a really good idea Galileo and I encourage you to develop a full timeline on the POD. Very engaging and it strikes me as plausible.
 
*Gasps* The Byzantines have Alexandria:eek:... YES!:D And the Pharos is still standing at this point too.:)
Byzantines have supported and participated to Amaury's expeditions, and they keep Alexandria and a sphere of influence over the delta in reward.



The Crusaders don't have the Luxury of retreating to the European side like the Byzantines to weather the storm. Unless they have Cyprus (which crusaders did hold in a few Crusades). This could mean the Mongols sweep down the Levant coast being mongols. This could mean after the mongols leave the Eastern roman could try or Egypt could conquer it. Or a new Crusade.
There is also the timetable. The Mameluks IOTL were lucky enough to have their victory of Ain Jalut almost coinciding with a succession struggle among Mongols. Also, the Byzantines, in a far better shape ITTL, are a more tempting target.
 
I honestly could imagine Saladin and the Crusaders vs. The Mongols. That would be epic. You know, if the Semites could stop fighting with each other for the moment.
 
I honestly could imagine Saladin and the Crusaders vs. The Mongols. That would be epic. You know, if the Semites could stop fighting with each other for the moment.
Saladin dies long before that moment, but there is still Saladin and Byzantines against Rum.

Hey, this is a really good idea Galileo and I encourage you to develop a full timeline on the POD. Very engaging and it strikes me as plausible.

I'm not feeling inspiration enough to go further into detail.



*************
In Byzantine Empire, things go more or less like IOTL, excepted for the Latin invasion. Alexios III ends overthrown around the same time as IOTL by his son-in-law Theodore Laskaris.
The most preoccupying issue under Laskarids is the Bulgarian who still revolt ITTL and the rebellion is only successfully dealt with by Iohannes III Doukas Vatatzes who has the ressources of an empire, not broken by Latins, to work with. Relations with Venetians are also eventually repaired.

Tha arrival of Mongols is progressive. By early 1220s, Gengis Khan has destroyed the Khwarezmian Empire. For most of 1230s, the Mongols under Chormaqan achieve/complete the conquest of western Iran and launch several incursions into Caucasus and Mesopotamia. It is only by early 1240s that the defeat of the Ayyubids by Mongol general Baiju put Mesopotamia and Caucasus under Mongol sovereignty/vassalage.
It is also with these conquests that Mongols come in direct contact with Byzantines and Latins which accept to pay some tribute to avoid invasion. Aleppo, which has for long kept a feud with most of its neighbors, see them as an opportunity.

In 1258, it's still the infant Iohannes IV who becomes Basileus and general Michael Palaiologos who becomes his guardian and co-emperor. The Mongols, maybe encouraged by Aleppo, go at war with Byzantines. Although Anatolia is ravaged, Mongols are eventually defeated/unable to achieve a breakthrough (maybe unable to cross the straits) and ultimately withdraw when begins the succession struggle after Mongke Khan's death around 1260/1261. Riding on that victory, Michael Palaiologos have Iohannes IV blinded and sets his own dynasty on the throne.
 
Last edited:
About the map, I must say again that it is an approximate one, so the Ayyubid Sultanate may extand further into Anatolia. In the 1170's, Byzantines expanded mostly by annexing the Sultanate of Rum and the Ayyubids got most, but possibly not all, of Danishmendid emirate, including those which the Seldjuks of Rum had attempted to conquer.
Also, Jerusalem border may extend further west and south into Arabian desert and Hejaz. Without going deep, they could make the Sharifate of Mecca a client state, supporting/funding one's bid for power (like Qatada ibn Idris) and garrison some ports, including Aden.

Edessa has been victim of bad luck in its involvment in the Danishmendid wars, Ayyubids taking Edessa itself in the 1170s and the remainder being absorbed by Aleppo.
The fall of Edessa has been also the occasion of a reassertion of royal authority of Jerusalem in northern Syria as the Royal Army has an occasion to intervene.

Aside of Tyre, the price paid for Damascus in 1129, there is several Muslim lords vassals of Jerusalem or Tripoli, notably in the Bekaa valley (maybe Baalbek and Chayzar) and also Palmyre, but that an oasis disputed that is, according to the time, vassal of either Jerusalem or Ayyubids or even both.

On the economic and social ground, the relative period of peace and the great prosperity enjoyed by Jerusalem after its subjuguation of Egypt would lead eventually to the rise of a native merchant class which would compete with Venetians and Genoeses, whereas IOTL the much reduced Jerusalem (after the third crusade) was reliant on them. Expeditions in the Red Sea, into Yemen and Hejaz to secure trade routes to India would be part of that development. A significative rift could be observed at the occasion of the conflict between Venetians and Byzantines, the latter being more or less allies of Jerusalem, and its consequences in Egypt.

Culturally, the big trend would be a progressive rift between Latin states and the Church, with maybe an early form of gallicanism.
Indeed, as it was often observed, while newcomers were used to be intransigent in politics like in religion, local Latin rulers have become pragmatic, used to some form of real politik, and especially religious tolerance. The conflict might take long to show but it will surely be meaningful, and lead to an earlier questionning of the relations between Church and the Royalty than in West due to the more diverse religious environnement. Already, it could have been observed that Jerusalem, Tripoli and Byzantines sought to avoid a new crusade after the fall of Edessa, one that Church was willing to make, temperating the gravity of the situation (insisting in the internal side of the affair), and it was a relative success (still some people willing to engage but no organized crusade by barons).
Jerusalem could become an hospitable land for exile of ''heretics'' (we could see Cathars).

In Egypt, the Copts would enjoy a more privileged position in the Fatimid administration and army, but they wouldn't necessarily like the intrusion of Latin and Greek priests and some could eventually join the ranks of a nationalist movement along Muslims. In the long run, even if they succeed, while Jerusalem holds onto the isthmus of Suez, and maybe Damiette and Alexandria, Egyptians would not represent much of danger, especially after the Mongols leave. The Mongol interlude could even be the occasion of some plots to overthrow Jerusalem domination.
 
Last edited:
I was maybe too quck in saying that Byzantines would recover Antioch, but Mameluks did recover northern Syria after Ain Jalut.
Michael VIII would still loot Aleppo, but I think Aleppo could remain by Ilkhans' sides to get rid of Byzantine and Jerusalemite domination. With Ilkhans in control of the western end of the Silk Road, Aleppo and its port of Laodicea, if they manage to keep it, would be in a good position as middlemen for China-West trade, but trade with India would still be made via maritime roads.

The Mongol failure in Mesopotamia and the succession war in Mongol Khanate would cause Mesopotamia to rise up under an irresponsible Caliph who believ too soon the Mongols are done, leading to a sack of Baghdad and the end of the Abbasids and maybe Ayyubids. Between that rebellion, wars with the Golden Horde (allied to Byzantines) and succession disputes for the Mongol Khanate, Ilkhans wouldn't be able to launch another great expedition before around 1280 like IOTL (that of 1271 was a minor incursion in Syria). That time, Ilkhans may find Tripoli and Jerusalem easier targets than Byzantine Empire. That would be a hard time, but we can have Jerusalem surviving with a stalemate, maybe with Byzantines attacking in the rear.
But at the same time, Egypt would take the occasion to rise up and that would be a major rebellion, harder to quell for Jerusalemites than usually.

Middle East circa 1280
(with some trade roads in red, not all)

damascus_1129___middle_east_circa_1280_by_galileo_034-d8o7frq.png
 
Top