WI no "Hakim the Mad" as Egyptian Fatimid Caliph - possibly no Crusades to Jerusalem?

Without 1,2 & 3rd Crusades, would Turks take Constantinople centuries early?


  • Total voters
    11

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
WI instead of "Hakim the Mad" ascending to the Fatimid Caliphate, a more stable, conventional individual takes over in 996 AD. This alternate Caliph does not desecrate Jerusalem in 1009 and generate alot of corresponding bad press in Western Europe. As a further knock-on, say that the absence of Hakim has a knock-on effect keeping the the Fatimid ruling system more stable, with the result that the Seljuk Turks do not take over Jerusalem because the Egyptian Fatimids are able to fend them off consistently through at least the early 1100s? Without both Hakim's desecration and the wave of elevated intolerance/violence toward pilgrims that accompanied Seljuk rule during the late 11th century, when we get to the year 1096 does the Pope call for a Crusade to recover Jerusalem? Presuming Manzikert still occurs and the Byzantine Emperor calls for help in Asia Minor as in OTL, do West Europeans responds?

If there are no Crusades by West Europeans into the Levant by the mid-1100s, how is West European, Byzantine, Seljuk and Fatimid-Egyptian history altered over the longer term?

Without Crusaders contesting Syria and Palestine, do the Seljuks fare better in consolidating control of Asia Minor and threatening or perhaps taking Constantinople and cross into Europe?
 
1. No, al-Hakim was not an issue in creating the crusades. It was pumped up later, I am of the opinion that the reason the crusades occurred had to do with internal growths in Europe and Manzikert. If not, then the crusades would've occurred earlier without the plea for help from Byzantium.

2. Al-Hakim had no effect on the lack of ability in the Fatimid military. The Fatimids issue was deep rooted and decayed as its predecessor, the Abbasids were, it takes an outstanding leader, for the Fatimids to defeat the outstandingly lead Saljuks. I would say that the Fatimids are in for a beating from the Saljuks regardless, as is Byzantium.

3. Doubtful, the crusades would occur and push the Saljuks out of Anatolia. If not, then the Saljuks go the way of the Umayyads and their ally the Uqaylids. The Saljuks lose the naval battle in Bosporus, then get pushed back by Byzantium out of Anatolia. Without actually taking Constantinople, Anatolia cannot be held for a great length of time by an external power, this was learned by stronger regimes like the Sassanids and Umayyads.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If not, then the Saljuks go the way of the Umayyads and their ally the Uqaylids. The Saljuks lose the naval battle in Bosporus, then get pushed back by Byzantium out of Anatolia. Without actually taking Constantinople, Anatolia cannot be held for a great length of time by an external power, this was learned by stronger regimes like the Sassanids and Umayyads.

By "Anatolia" I assume you mean coastal Anatolia and some parts of the interior northwest, rather than the whole thing. Because even in OTL, with the Crusaders fighting the Seljuks all throughout southeast Anatolia and Syria, and Byzantine offensives, Turks still controlled interior Anatolia continuously. I don't see how removing a military opponent from contact with the Turks (in the case of no Crusades) would make the Turks in Anatolia do *worse* than OTL.
 
By "Anatolia" I assume you mean coastal Anatolia and some parts of the interior northwest, rather than the whole thing. Because even in OTL, with the Crusaders fighting the Seljuks all throughout southeast Anatolia and Syria, and Byzantine offensives, Turks still controlled interior Anatolia continuously. I don't see how removing a military opponent from contact with the Turks (in the case of no Crusades) would make the Turks in Anatolia do *worse* than OTL.

Not necessarily worse, but a major defeat of the Saljuks in Constantinople would have same effect as the Umayyads who ruled interior Anatolia, a complete loss and a counterattack following massive loss of able bodied soldiers.
 
Top