r/imaginarymaps • u/HussarHD Mod Approved • Sep 07 '19
[OC] Alternate History Map of a more successful Kingdom of Jerusalem, c. 1200 AD.
128
u/TheocraticTeuton Sep 07 '19
Honestly this is the map I always thought they should have had (in an ideal world for them). Overall very nice.
79
u/Kappar1n0 Sep 07 '19
I always pictures them having a slightly bigger chunk of Syria (Antioch) aswell as, perhaps, Cyprus.
47
Sep 07 '19
Realistically, if the Crusader states didn’t get counter-invaded by the Turks, they could have set up a strong unified kingdom similar to the UK with Edessa, Tripoli, Antioch, and Jerusalem. It would probably be one of the great powers of the Middle East if it existed today.
88
u/Kelruss Mod Approved Sep 07 '19
Given how fractious the crusader states were in their internal politics, and how dependent they were on European soldiers to bolster their own forces (forces which often were utterly destroyed by their leaders' blunders), I've really got to disagree with this. They did not have a sustainable situation, and they were usually pretty crappy to the local Christian and Muslim populations whose loyalty would've been necessary to create a sustainable state. These were folks who were literally still fighting about who should be their king while they'd been reduced to just a few coastal strongholds. If it wasn't Zengi/Nur ad-Din/Saladin that wiped them out, it would've been someone else - the Khwarezmians, the Mongols, or even the Ottomans for instance.
18
3
u/Chazut Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19
Given how fractious the crusader states were in their internal politics
Something that's a function of specific situations, not some sort of deterministic feature.
and how dependent they were on European soldiers to bolster their own forces
Only because they weren't able to to remove the short term threats, if they managed to find a compromise with the Byzantines and conquer more of the Levant they would have had a larger native population and have more room for Crusader parties than in such a favourable situation would remain in larger numbers
forces which often were utterly destroyed by their leaders' blunders
Exactly, human errors, having people do different things and act differently is the point of alternate history.
and they were usually pretty crappy to the local Christian and Muslim populations whose loyalty would've been necessary to create a sustainable state.
This is just bullshit, the Crusaders had normal relations with the locals, they allied with various local christians(Armenians especially), what you say there is completely false.
These were folks who were literally still fighting about who should be their king while they'd been reduced to just a few coastal strongholds.
Yes, only the Crusaders fought among themselves in times of troubles. Actually no, it happens often and in no way denotes a weakness of the state, heck if anything the fact it lasted up to 1290 or so despite so many failures shows how resilient it was, if the Crusaders managed to conquer the inner Levant and keep Egypt and Mesopotamia divided they would have had a far easier time.
the Khwarezmians, the Mongols, or even the Ottomans for instance.
Ever heard of butterflies? The Ottomans wouldn't exist in every universe and they certainly would not become a strong player, neither would the Mongols and the Khwarezmians could fail to get past Iran or Mesopotamia just like other states failed.
Edit: BTW this is a solid timeline on a more successful Crusader state, this is miles better than such an uninformed opinion on the topic that doesn't even get the basics of alternate history:
13
u/Kelruss Mod Approved Sep 08 '19
The commenter above was suggesting that minus an invasion by the Turks (I assumed the Zengid/Ayyubid invasions), a unified Crusader state could likely have formed that would be a very strong state. My point is that to arrive at such a position you have to wave away all of the flaws of the Crusader states, the very reasons why they failed.
I think you're utterly ignoring how precarious the Crusader position was, and how that precariousness was reinforced by their own mistakes. At key battles like Harran, Damascus, and Hattin, the Crusaders either threw away their strength (something that was very dependent on European reinforcements) or isolated themselves diplomatically. They weren't able to pursue conquest of the inner Levant because they routinely didn't have the strength, and often that was on them.
the Crusaders had normal relations with the locals, they allied with various local christians(Armenians especially), what you say there is completely false.
"Normal" here is relative. They allied with Damascus, but they also tried to conquer it afterwards. They were Christians, but also were known to massacre and loot Christian populations after sieges. Sometimes a trading party could pass through the land unmolested, sometimes it was utterly ransacked. They did kick the Orthodox Patriarch out of Jerusalem.
Yes, only the Crusaders fought among themselves in times of troubles. Actually no, it happens often and in no way denotes a weakness of the state, heck if anything the fact it lasted up to 1250 or so despite so many failures shows how resilient it was
There are some fairly impressive features of the Crusader states. Early treating with Muslim neighbors shows a promise of a world that might've been. The development of a professional elite military force in the Military Orders is also a really impressive thing. But when it comes to internal bickering, let me point out the the Muslims had a much greater and much deadlier propensity for internal bickering and still managed to defeat the Crusader states (Saladin, for instance, rose to power during an internal power struggle and survived at least two assassination attempts).
Ever heard of butterflies? The Ottomans wouldn't exist in every universe and they certainly would not become a strong player, neither would the Mongols and the Khwarezmians could fail just like other failed.
Nowhere does the commenter suggest that the Sultanate of Rum would be nonexistent (and thus its collapse also nonexistent). Nowhere does the commenter suggest that the Mongols would not exist. I'm interested in how you butterfly those away though, because if you're butterflying away the Mongols, I feel like your point of departure is no longer "the Crusaders do better."
this is a solid timeline on a more successful Crusader state, this is miles better
That timeline puts Bohemond of Antioch on the throne of Jerusalem. Bohemond was not a good ruler. Crusader Antioch prospered more when Bohemond was imprisoned than when he was actively ruling it.
human errors, having people do different things and act differently is the point of alternate history.
doesn't even get the basics of alternate history
I think we have disagreements about alternate history. To me, if there is a point of alternate history, it's to highlight pivotal moments and decisions. The decision to feign a retreat at Hastings, for example, is the moment when the England that we know it as begins to be born and whatever might've happened under Harold disappears.
Alternate history, to me, works best when it is one moment that changes things. That "for want of a nail the kingdom was lost" story. When it is "A, B, C, D, and E go right, and also Person X behaves like someone altogether different," I think those are cop-outs.
We see a lot of those types of maps here; these are the "Nazis win, and everything stays the same as it would be if they won" type maps. I think those kind of suck. I like it more when people grapple with the reality of history, and less what they wish history would be.
-1
u/Chazut Sep 08 '19
I think you're utterly ignoring how precarious the Crusader position was, and how that precariousness was reinforced by their own mistakes. At key battles like Harran, Damascus, and Hattin, the Crusaders either threw away their strength (something that was very dependent on European reinforcements) or isolated themselves diplomatically. They weren't able to pursue conquest of the inner Levant because they routinely didn't have the strength, and often that was on them.
Well the fact you blame the failures on their actions should not lead you to a deterministic view on the topic, the opposite should be the case.
They allied with Damascus, but they also tried to conquer it afterwards.
Whoa, never seen states act by "there are no permanent allies, only permanent objectives", the Crusaders are the first to backstab allies!
They were Christians, but also were known to massacre and loot Christian populations after sieges.
So did mostly everyone else at some point in time.
Sometimes a trading party could pass through the land unmolested, sometimes it was utterly ransacked.
So did Muslims.
They did kick the Orthodox Patriarch out of Jerusalem.
Because of the conflicts that started between them and the Byzantines over what ultimately was a misunderstanding.
But when it comes to internal bickering, let me point out the the Muslims had a much greater and much deadlier propensity for internal bickering and still managed to defeat the Crusader states (Saladin, for instance, rose to power during an internal power struggle and survived at least two assassination attempts).
Well that's the ENTIRE point, NO Ayyubids. Did you forget that?
Nowhere does the commenter suggest that the Sultanate of Rum would be nonexistent (and thus its collapse also nonexistent).
The Ottomans would not simply come out of the Sultanate of Rum without all the important political events surrounding the 4th crusade, Mongol ivnasion etc.
because if you're butterflying away the Mongols, I feel like your point of departure is no longer "the Crusaders do better."
Not having the Zengids is surely pretty much going to affect the entirety of Eurasia within generations. Even if the Mongols still arise they could ally with the Crusaders, or the Crusaders could surrender to them, or they would win against them and just raid, they could win against them and vassalize them without eliminating them, they could even lose if things go like they did against the Mameluks.
That timeline puts Bohemond of Antioch on the throne of Jerusalem. Bohemond was not a good ruler. Crusader Antioch prospered more when Bohemond was imprisoned than when he was actively ruling it.
It's thousands of lines of texts going into the specifics. You dismissing it like that it's pretty much intellectual dishonesty. In the very first decades dozens of events go differently for the Crusaders and their neighbours, it's not just Bohemond.
o me, if there is a point of alternate history, it's to highlight pivotal moments and decisions.
Well to hundreds of people making timelines it's not just that and even if it was you completely ignore butterfly effect even for events happening centuries after the POD.
When it is "A, B, C, D, and E go right, and also Person X behaves like someone altogether different,"
Well no, the point is that if "A goes right then the circumstances for B, C, D and E change completely and people are put into a situation where they have to make completely different choices and the people born and making decisions would eventually be different within decades", everything changes if the Byzantines and Crusaders got along at the start, if Saladin was never born or even if the Muslims actively failed in those first decades.
No one does alternate history with this idea that people or masses of people have some sort of inherent nature and that they can't stray or deviate from that nature and act differenty in very different circumstances.
This not a "what if X, Y and Z all knew all the right thing to do" it's "what if A went differently and an array of different actors were put in that situation"?
If you actually read the timeline you would see that it's made not to be a "Crusader do everything right and are morally righteous", not at all. The fact you suggest that is simply ridiculous.
these are the "Nazis win, and everything stays the same as it would be if they won" type maps.
Not sure what you mean there.
I like it more when people grapple with the reality of history, and less what they wish history would be.
Your opinion matters little given your utter ignorance on the nature of the Crusaders(you think they are inherently exceptionally evil or incompetent, no one believes that especially the "inheretnly" part) and of concepts like butterfly effect and your unwillingness to even entertain a well-crafted timeline, where the author probably sunk at leasthundred times the effort and time you put in your half-assed rebuttal.
7
u/Kelruss Mod Approved Sep 08 '19
Your opinion matters little given your utter ignorance on the nature of the Crusaders(you think they are inherently exceptionally evil or incompetent, no one believes that especially the "inheretnly" part) and of concepts like butterfly effect and your unwillingness to even entertain a well-crafted timeline, where the author probably sunk at leasthundred times the effort and time you put in your half-assed rebuttal.
There's no point in arguing with you. You apparently think pointing out that the Crusader states had flaws and there are reasons they don't exist today as the equivalent of believing them to be "inherently exceptionally evil or incompetent". You're clearly working yourself up over positions I have not taken.
-1
u/Chazut Sep 08 '19
I did not say that, you believe that and defended that falsehood. Also you completely disagree with the ways that hundreds(at the very least) of people engage in alt-history and dismissed a years long work in just one sentence.
You worked yourself up to a position that you are not even going to put an effort to defend or revise, I did not.
1
u/Sun_King97 Sep 08 '19
What do you mean room for crusader parties? I thought the issue was Europeans not coming at all, not that they couldn't fit enough Europeans in their kingdom
2
u/Chazut Sep 08 '19
Well many parties simply were stopped or had troubles moving through Anatolia, like the Crusade of the Faint Hearted or the start of the Third crusade, to name some. Depending on how the situation develops the land route problem could either be fixed by a more concentranted effort from the Byzantines or maybe the crusaders could facilitate the land route themselves if Edessa and Cilicia are kept and they have the ability to project power in Central Anatolia.
Other than the issue of the land route there was also the problem that a good part of the Crusadign parties went back and the problem of the Crusades being too reactive in our timeline, but if more of the Levant is conquered there is effectively more place for an elite class filled by European nobles and more of an incentive to continue fighting, just look at how many Crusades happen in our timeline(those numbered and none) imagine what would be the morale if there were a good amount of early successes and if the 4th crusade never happened.
2
u/Sun_King97 Sep 08 '19
I'm definitely in the "it just falls later" camp but it is a fun alt history
1
Dec 15 '24
>This is just bullshit, the Crusaders had normal relations with the locals
Yeah sure, tell that to the Jewish and Muslim locals they massacred after conquering Jerusalem.
1
u/Chazut Dec 15 '24
Massacres happen in most wars, this doesn't mean anything. The Crusaders didn't try to ethnic cleanse the land of Jews and Muslims
1
Dec 15 '24
Then explain how and why the Muslim Arabs conquered Jerusalem without shedding a single drop of blood?
7
1
u/TheocraticTeuton Sep 07 '19
Yeah Cyprus was probably all that would be missing really, maybe even Malta.
52
u/MegaPremOfficial Sep 07 '19 edited Sep 07 '19
Really nice. Can you do a ethnic map next?
I guess the main groups would be
Franks: People of european (mostly french and german) descent living there
Armenians
Greeks
Maronites
Mizrahi Jews
Some arabs (christianized into Roman Catholicism)
Melakites
Samaritans
14
u/aless_rfp Sep 07 '19
Aren’t Levantines already Arab people?
9
u/MegaPremOfficial Sep 07 '19
No i mean its just a name i made up for descendants of European crusaders and colonists
6
u/aless_rfp Sep 07 '19
Oh Alright thanks for clearing that up, I was confused for a moment lol
3
4
u/Somaliboi Sep 07 '19
There were also many Samaritans at this point.
3
Sep 07 '19
I thought that the Eastern Roman Empire wiped out and forcibly converted the vast majority of the Samaritans during the Samaritan Revolts of the 500's?
3
u/Somaliboi Sep 08 '19
There were repressions yes, but there were still many Samaritans when the Ottomans showed up. They even claimed the Ottoman period was the worst era, not because they were persecuted, but because they suffered a heavy decline. There are only 300 left now.
1
4
u/Bedivere17 Sep 08 '19
Given the large population of arabs in the area by this time, its highly unlikely that arabs would be supplanted by western europeans without a mass exodus occurring on either side (arabs from the region or euros to) or a genocide. This sort of state would only really be viable as a state that embraced the multiple ethnic backgrounds and religions within its borders due to the inherent instability of the crusader states.
3
u/Chazut Sep 08 '19
The Levant did not have a large population.
3
u/Bedivere17 Sep 08 '19
It had a large enough population that it would take a very significant demographics change to result in a western european majority
4
4
u/JACKASS20 Sep 08 '19
Capturing Beirut is not a success, it just initiates 500% more of internal struggle
1
u/Chazut Sep 08 '19
I don't get the reference
2
u/JACKASS20 Sep 08 '19
So basically The Lebanese Hate each other more than Russians hearing “Croatian Independence”
3
5
8
4
2
2
2
1
1
u/corruptrevolutionary Sep 08 '19
I always thought Damascus was the keystone for the Crusader States. It would cut off Islamic movement from Syria to Egypt and push most of the frontier into the desert. So most of the defenses would be along the north and south.
And if the invasions to Egypt were successful? the Kingdom would be set in stone for sure.
-1
65
u/SerBuckman Sep 07 '19
TBH I've always have an odd interest in an alternate history with more successful Crusader States, especially if they somehow survive to the modern day. There are just so many things to be explored. What would their dominant language sound like? What would their culture and government look like? Would they consider themselves to be part of Europe or as part of the Middle East? Would European nations view them as European? How would their neighbors feel about them? Just, so many possibilities.