alternatehistory.com

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?
Top