Would Crusader states have been any more viable in North Africa than the Levant?

Would medieval crusader states have been more viable in Africa than the Levant


  • Total voters
    114
I know Spain somewhat flirted with the idea after the Reconquista, which is why they have Ceuta. I suppose it would be easier logistically as well, but I don't really think there's much motivation for it. The Crusaders would have to have some reason other than conquering the Muslims and reclaiming lands.

It would be a neat concept though. Having re-christianized Berbers using African Romance as a lingua franca.
 
The fun one

Manzikert does not happen, either a draw or Byzantine win. The Seljuks turn on the Fatimids and a Stronger Byzantine empire does not call on the West for help and is seen as a tough prospect.

The crusading impulse is still there and gets redirected.

There is a chance that the Pope may encourage crusades or the Normans of Sicily go for Tunisia on their own account, with blessings. Its not going to have the long term Royal Crusade effect but I can see a Bohemond Prince of Carthage and Tancred Count of Numidia.

The sort of Norman/Arabic/Byzantine mix worked in Sicily and was the Major naval power in the Med for a long while.

That I can see surviving.
 

trajen777

Banned
The biggest problem that the Crusaders had was no no defensible borders. The kingdom took the coast but not the inland cities. If they had taken Damascus - Aleppo - Hams - Homs they would have done 2 things:
1. Created a interior defensive barrier
2. Eliminated the Arabs logistics points to launch attacks.

The Arab armies would have had to start their attacks from way back - Mosul / Baghdad / Egypt or secondary cites. Which would have left them much weaker in their attacks. In addition the economic losses to Arabs and the gain to Crusaders would have been major tipping point.

What also is letter reviewed was that the majority of the populace was Christian and not Muslim, at time of Crusades.

As the Egyptian state became weaker this would have been an easy conquest. In fact pre Saladin the crusaders were becoming entrenched in Eqypt

So basically if they had captured the key internal cities (3rd Crusade) whether they focused on the original area or Tunisia did not matter
 
And what trajen said is essentially the deal. Wrong sort of Christian though.

The Levant is always adjacent to Egypt, needs the inland parts of Syria or else eventually a Moslem ruler will emerge and overwhelm the Crusader states.

Morocco may have a hinterland to make crusading hard.

Tunisia does not have the major power nearby that can do a Zengi or Saladin or Baybars. Its not far from Sicily/Italy who are a major naval power and could prove attractive to Normans for long enough to survive and prosper.

But to be attractive at all means no crusade to the free Jerusalem in the first place.
 
Top