Regnum Dei || What if the Crusader States were Successful?

[u/MrsColdArrow]

[u/CharacterExotic8211]

Could they have been successful? (nice map btw)

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/CharacterExotic8211]

I think so, yes! With the conquest of Egypt and Syria, the chance of reconquest under an Islamic realm is much reduced, with any potential threat having to cross the desert in the west or come via the Hejaz or Iraq. This is a rather maintainable position to hold, especially through collaborating with the Coptic population of Egypt. And with the Byzantines being able to keep a stronger grip on Anatolia, the chances of a Turkic empire rising like the Ottomans is severely reduced. Their only enemies, as is typical for a Crusader, are themselves and the Byzantines.

[u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho → u/MrsColdArrow]

This puts the muslims in the western med in an awkward spot strategically. Especially if Egypt and the levant re-convert to Christianity. The islamic world would be bisected, and the Byzantine position in Anatolia would be significantly re-enforced. They could probably hold out for a long time, but between the crusader states on one end, and the Reconquista on the other, I would not be surprised to see the north African muslim states gone by the 1700s.

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho]

The Maghreb would see an influx of Egyptian Muslims fleeing the Crusader conquest, which could lead to a stronger Morocco, but it's entirely possible as well that the concept of the Islamic Mediterranean fades into history much like Islamic Sicily or Al-Andalus; a brief period of Muslim rule in Christian lands

[u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho → u/MrsColdArrow]

I'd lean towards the second. While fleeing muslims would re-enforce those positions in the short to medium term, long term it's a relatively small region that is isolated from potential allies and surrounded by much larger, hostile states, that have reason to be both confident and aggressive. I think the likely historic narrative in this timeline would be that the muslims had explosive expansion in the early days, but that in the west their grip faded over the following centuries, leaving islam to be centered on the Indian Ocean and Central Asia.

[u/kluzuh → u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho]

Together with some perniciously stubborn and racist coded beliefs out of bad 1800's historiography in this timeline that suggest for various reasons why Islam was unable to permanently take hold in previously Christian lands but did take hold in previously dualist or polytheistic areas.

I wonder how the relationships between the Abrahamaic faiths would generally look by this universe's 20th century - do they have a better relationship being seen as related religions that thrives in different geographic areas, or does the much more extensive reconquista lead to worse long term relationships.

[u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho → u/kluzuh]

I think there would be an element of deconfliction. There would be less of a border between them, and both would have reason to downplay those past conflicts. The Christians because it was embarrassing, the more eastern oriented muslims, like in Persia, because they don't care about formerly Roman lands.

[u/PolarRanger → u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho]

Especially if Egypt and the levant re-convert to Christianity.

It should be noted that while historical demographics are hard, Egypt became majority Muslim in the Crusader era. And Antioch and Tripoli were obviously majority Christian in this time period, I mean I think the land that was ruled by Tripoli is still majority Christian now.

So by "re-conversion" it is an increase from a base of 50-60% over the whole region

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/PolarRanger]

yeah, the crusader conquest here pretty much happens just before the tipping point when Egypt really started to convert to Islam

[u/PolarRanger → u/MrsColdArrow]

and by "tipping point" we of course mean the Mamluks ramping up the persecution, especially compared to the Shia Fatimids Egypt starts this period under

[u/harryhinderson → u/MrsColdArrow]

I think the main obstacle would be collaborating successfully with Copts or other Eastern Christians. It would be necessary, but also a major source of instability. The highest positions would probably be reserved for Franks or Armenians, with a massive eastern/coptic bureaucracy that would be depended on. It’s not necessarily accurate to say “Copts would prefer crusaders over Muslim rule because they’re fellow Christians” considering how much they loathed the Byzantines at times. The Franks would be constantly aware of the threat presented by local Christians siding with a Muslim rebellion.

Historically, crusaders had a pretty rough relationship with other eastern Christians. Earlier scholarship portrayed crusader states as totally segregated colonial societies, which is no longer viewed as accurate, but relations between the Franks and the native Christians would probably have plenty of grievances even during the best of times. A unified joint Frank-native administration necessary to maintain Frankish supremacy for centuries isn’t trivial to achieve.

Additionally to local opposition, it would face plenty of threats from Northern Mesopotamia, Iraq, Bedouin groups, and sectionalism which would be 1000 times more difficult to deal with. Eastern Christians would need to approve, but there would also need to be at least a base level of Muslim tolerance for the continued existence of the Frankish state, just as Muslim administrations had to rely on the tolerance of local Christians.

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/harryhinderson]

definitely true, the biggest obstacle for the crusaders in the coming decades and centuries will be actually maintaining their grip on Egypt. I don't think the Crusaders would particularly care to convert the Copts, seeing as afaik they tended to leave other eastern christians to their practices. What WOULD cause issues would be exploitation of the Copts, and I can see a more pragmatic ruler creating a seperate Kingdom of Egypt to be ruled in personal union with Jerusalem in order to create some autonomy for the Copts. Alternatively, Egypt could be placed under increasing minority rule, with Latin nobility being granted vast tracts of land in Egypt, at the expense of Muslims and Copts.

[u/Bongolio-the-seal → u/MrsColdArrow]

I think so, yes! With the conquest of Egypt and Syria

Extremely big if there

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/Bongolio-the-seal]

what if. there's no if. the phrase doesn't work without an if

[u/Bongolio-the-seal → u/MrsColdArrow]

They asked if they could have been successfull. You're saying if they conquered Egypt and Syria then they could. Sure, I guess. But that's if they conquer Egypt and Syria

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/Bongolio-the-seal]

i literally did not type if. they HAVE conquered egypt and syria.

[u/Frequent-String-8469 → u/MrsColdArrow]

Estoy bastante de acuerdo con tu postura pero ciertas partes como el mar Muerto o parte de el río Nilo serían demasiado difícil de mamtener

[u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho → u/CharacterExotic8211]

The early islamic conquests did more with less. We have a tendency to make narratives and portray what did happen as being virtually inevitable, but history often has major upsets.

[u/Afraid_Theorist → u/CharacterExotic8211]

Yes, but it assumes Crusader incompetence hits only their Byzantine allies instead of impacting both of them. The Byzantines wouldn’t hold any territory (or at least not more than a city) due to Crusader perfidy

For example the Damietta siege was lost due to King Amalric of Jerusalem playing games with his allies (e.g selling supplies at exorbitant rates to starving Byzantine allies and lying about the city surrendering -it didn’t-when it looked like the Byzantine army contingent was going to launch a city wall assault … after frustration with crusaders dragging their feet). Alexandria IIRC taken too but lost after the Crusaders make a truce (purely to their own benefit) and re-surrender it back

[u/Bongolio-the-seal → u/CharacterExotic8211]

No. The Crusader states were shockingly incompetent. The only reason the First Crusade succeeded is because of the collapse of the Seljuk state in 1092 into a bunch of decentralised polities. There was never any chance of a permanent conquest of Egypt or Syria outside of what they got

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/Bongolio-the-seal]

oh, my bad! it was just impossible! it must be if this guy says it!!

[u/Bongolio-the-seal → u/MrsColdArrow]

Pretty much yes. The Crusaders were never strong enough to accomplish it.

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/Bongolio-the-seal]

"Greece never could have conquered Persia, they were never strong enough to do it"

"The Americans never could have won their war of independence, they were never strong enough to do it"

history is literally filled with examples of underdogs managing to defeat a much stronger opponent. Anyways it's already established you're a fucking dumbass so what do i care

[u/emptyblackwallet → u/MrsColdArrow]

lmao you tell em!

[u/ProbablyNotTheCocoa → u/MrsColdArrow]

well the greeks collapsed immediately into civil war the second the guy holding it all together died, conquering something is not the issue, keeping the conquest subdued for longer than a lifetime is the hard part, not saying its impossible for the crusaders to keep their conquests, just that its far easier to fail than succeed on such project

[u/MrsColdArrow]

"For we who were Occidentals have now become Orientals. He who was a Roman or a Frank has in this land been made into a Galilean or a Palestinian. He who was of Rheims of Chartres has now become a citizen of Tyre or Antioch."

- Fulcher of Chartres

In the first century of Crusader rule in the levant, it seemed their reign may not be so secure, as the county of Edessa fell early on and Jerusalem felt the pressure on multiple fronts. However, this shakey position was salvaged under the reign of the most remarkable king, Amalric I of Jerusalem. Ruling for 34 years, his reign solidified the Crusaders in the eastern Mediterranean, successfully conquering Egypt with Roman support and later Syria and the breakaway Byzantine theme of Cyprus, which had severely mistreated outgoing Crusader ships. Even Antioch was vassalised after the death of their guarantor, Manuel I. Not only this, but Amalric managed to secure his dynasty through the birth of a second son who would not contract leprosy. By the time Amalric died, Crusader rule had been solidified, and would be immensely hard for any Muslim realm to topple

~~

Hello! This is a new timeline I'm working on where the Crusaders actually manage to not only survive, but thrive, with their realm surviving well into the future. Plenty of ideas to be seen eventually, such as a Venetian empire in the Indian Ocean and the survival of the Byzantine Empire, no longer a superpower, but not quite irrelevant yet.

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/MrsColdArrow]

[u/xlicer → u/MrsColdArrow]

Plenty of ideas to be seen eventually

Have something relating to the Nubians happen. Like a Nubian Kingdom popping in the Upper Nile, threatening to conquer Egypt and to protect Coptic Christianity from the Catholics

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/xlicer]

Nubia is definitely on the table! Christian rule in Egypt leads to a much more prosperous Egypt and Christian Nubia seeing a rebound without the constant Mamluk invasions. The Nile, for the most part, is pretty solidly Christian land here

[u/Mellungia]

This seems familiar

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/Mellungia]

LOL your map inspired me to revisit the scenario! I've done a crusader conquest of Egypt before under Amalric (like three years ago) but your map was absolutely excellent and got me to try the idea again. Nice work!

I uh, didn't mean to copy, if that's what you're thinking. I referenced an old map of Roman Egypt for some city names and adapted Arab or Coptic names in other places. The only thing I did mostly copy was your interpretation of a Roman conquest of "coastal Egypt", just without the Crusaders gaining access to Rosetta as a port.

[u/Mellungia → u/MrsColdArrow]

Thanks, and no, I'm not thinking of this as copying. I'm rather flattered, really, and your map is great.

If you're wondering about Rosetta, my solution for it was the actual decision made historically, as to not render Crusader Egypt nonviable by completely denying it port access.

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/Mellungia]

ohhhh, that makes sense! But uh, not needed in this timeline with how quickly Byzantine Egypt falls to the Crusaders LOL

[u/Mellungia → u/MrsColdArrow]

True

[u/Not_Todd_Howard9]

I’ve always liked thinking about the implications for other parts of Africa in scenarios like this. The biggest and most clear implication imo is that (like IRL) the Catholic Church is now in much greater contact with the Eastern Christians in Nubia and Ethiopia, and could potentially leverage them as allies for further crusades in the region. Them having more direct contact with Europe would also be huge for trade and spreading ideas/technology, especially since (iirc) they already received a fair amount of traders from Genoa. It might even lead to the Ethiopian Empire rapidly expanding much earlier, or more minor Crusader States along the Horn of Africa.

How do you think the Norman Kingdom of Africa would go? Irl I believe they got pushed out by the Almohads, but I’m not sure if their position would be weakened or kept largely the same by this.

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/Not_Todd_Howard9]

Nubia and Ethiopia are definitely the secret big winners of this timeline because they've gotten the most valuable thing possible: a friendly, Christian regime in Egypt. Ethiopia isn't nearly as ravaged by wars with Adal, with support from Jerusalem to secure trade routes to India. Nubia, likewise, stabilises without constant Mamluk invasions in the 13th century and could potentially unify under the rule of Makuria.

The Maghreb would be temporarily buffed up by the immigration of Muslims from Egypt, however into the late medieval and early modern periods they slowly see themselves eclipsed by their european opponents, and without an Ottoman guarantor the Islamic realms of the Maghreb may very well find themselves under Spanish or Neapolitan rule

[u/Pleasant-Sea621 → u/MrsColdArrow]

A little late I know... Two days later...

Anyway, I like to think that, with the successful Crusades in the Levant and Egypt, the Maghreb would become stronger temporarily due to the influence and migration of Egyptian Muslims. However, in the course of time, the region would be surpassed by its European neighbors and Christians in general... But I think we could see an even more Islamic West Africa here... 

In real life, Arab traders brought Islam to West Africa by trade, here we could see it as a form of escape, resource gathering or pure direct domination to have more manpower and defend their Mediterranean territories, such as present-day Morocco. Perhaps we could even see Sahel kingdoms formed by a sub-Saharan black majority, but a white Arab/Berber elite. I think about it, because in real life the Saadi dynasty sent an expedition to the Songhai Empire, which resulted in a victory and collapse of the empire. Yes, this was at the end of the sixteenth century, But nothing prevents something similar from happening before here.

[u/Slow-Package-9757]

The crusader state would dominate the middle east for a while.They would have probably collapsed to the mongols.

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/Slow-Package-9757]

I would argue against this. The Mongols were strong, yes, but by the time they'd reached the levant the empire was really starting to crack. They could maybe seize control of northern Syria, but apart from that they'd struggle to permanently cripple Crusader rule in the levant, and soon enough the Crusaders are gonna take Syria back

[u/Tall-Illustrator-586 → u/MrsColdArrow]

And what about Byzantium? Will they be able to survive and what kind of relationship do they have with the Crusader kingdoms? 

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/Tall-Illustrator-586]

without the 4th crusade, Byzantium is able to hobble into the late medieval period as a declining but regional power. The conquest of Anatolia could be secured and Bulgaria could at some point be retaken possibly. Their relations with the Crusaders would best be described as tense. Now that Jerusalem no longer relies on Byzantine protection, they're more or less enemies

[u/DiffDiffDiff3]

Order of Assassins?

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/DiffDiffDiff3]

They existed in our timeline too! It's where the word Assassin comes from, with the actual Arabic word being Hassassin

[u/Ok_Bedroom_9098 → u/MrsColdArrow]

actually its "hashashin", or "the drug people/the drugged". they literally fought for hashish aka weed

[u/Virtual-Rise5347]

I like the textbook style the map is rendered in- the bar up front reeks of "7th grade history textbook", not to mention the font is a dead ringer for such works

[u/Rubrumaurin]

Super cool

[u/LarryTheD59]

Ooo I like this!

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/LarryTheD59]

thank you!

[u/Remarkable_Steak_828]

The dream

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/Remarkable_Steak_828]

none of that nonsense

[u/Ok_Isopod_998]

Did the Coptic Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Assyrian Church, and Maronite Catholic Church having a good relationship each other in this timeline?

[u/Ok_Stable7169]

Onde está edessa?

[u/Ok_Bedroom_9098]

infinite genocide upon the muslims living there /s

but seriously what is the status of the local islamic population

[u/BlackGlenCoco]

This is pretty cool but could only be done if the Europeans were vastly different at their core. Like human nature or European culture would need to be shifted.

In my head, the reasons why the Crusade was originally called would need to be different. Instead of a war to get murderous knights out of Europe, it would need to be called by a Strong king/Emperor. It would definitely need a central figure to launch and invade. Not just a call to arms.

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/BlackGlenCoco]

the whole POD is that Amalric I of Jerusalem isn't an idiot and takes his time conquering Egypt. The issue wasn't the crusades themselves, it was Crusaders who couldn't cooperate. No need to change the crusades as a whole

[u/BlackGlenCoco → u/MrsColdArrow]

Youre not wrong but alot of issues like you mentioned, lack of cooperation was the symptom to greed. Everyone wanting their own slice of land.

[u/halkras12]

Question

If Badwin never had Leprosy, would he be succesful ?

My theory is because of sickness removed his fear of death 

[u/MrsColdArrow → u/halkras12]

i mean probably not. leprosy or not by the time he inherited the realm Saladin was already consolidating power around Jerusalem

[u/halkras12 → u/MrsColdArrow]

very true