The Fourth Crusade reaches its original destination of Egypt instead of sacking Constantinople

W

WolfBear

Well-known member
What if the Fourth Crusade would have reached its original destination of Egypt instead of sacking Constantinople? You can figure out what the most realistic way to achieve this goal is. (Having Byzantine Emperor Manuel I have a son in the 1150s in place of one of his two daughters seems like one possible way to do this. That way, the Byzantine Empire would still have an adult Emperor in 1180 after Manuel's death rather than having a preteen Emperor.) Anyway, would the Crusaders have actually been successful in conquering Egypt? What effects would this Crusade have had in general? And what would have subsequently happened to the Byzantine Empire in this TL?

Any thoughts on all of this? @Circle of Willis
 
I think the 1202-1204 range was when the crusaders had the best chance to take down Ayyubid Egypt since the latter was just coming out of a civil war, and I stand by what I said the last time you asked me about this POD.

Circle of Willis said:
Well, obviously the crusaders were strong enough to take a reasonably well-defended Constantinople, so they aren't a force to be taken lightly. The Ayyubids are in a critical phase of consolidation after several natural disasters and a civil war between Saladin's son al-Afdal & brother al-Adil, with the latter ultimately triumphing by 1202. Al-Adil himself (AKA Saphadin to the crusaders) was a capable ruler like his brother, though more inclined to peaceful ways - he was first and foremost a diplomat & administrator, not a conquering general (though IIRC he wasn't bad at warfare either), and historically worked to prevent an Ayyubid collapse after the chaos that marred the start of his reign.

So I'd say 50/50. Ayyubid Egypt hasn't recovered from their civil war, famine and quake since all that literally just happened right before the 1202 launch of the Fourth Crusade, but al-Adil is sure to at least give the crusaders a good fight. The crusaders have a sizable army, a mighty navy and competent, experienced leaders of their own (the Flemish brothers Baldwin and Henry who both historically became Latin Emperors, Boniface of Montferrat, and obviously Enrico Dandolo). Could definitely go either way - if the crusaders are to win, they could ironically loosely follow the steps of the RL Fourth Crusade against al-Adil, with al-Afdal filling a role similar to Alexios IV Angelos (a pretender tagging along with the crusaders under the promise of giving them peace, gold and generous land cessions if restored to the Egyptian throne, only to almost certainly die either at the hands of his 'allies' or Egyptians pissed off at his siding with the Christians).
Click to expand...
The long-term survival of the crusader kingdom of Egypt will depend on whether they're able to co-opt the Copts and effectively work together with the nearby KoJ to suppress any Muslim rebellions or attempts at reconquest, of course. Striking up an alliance with Makuria would also help.

As for the Byzantines, depends on whether they can get their act together in spite of the misrule of the Angeloi. If they can't, they'll probably fall to a later Catholic attack to avenge the Massacre of the Latins, or perhaps to another Balkan power (Bulgaria, which tore itself free from Byzantine control under the House of Asen, or Hungary, whose previous king Bela III almost inherited the purple, are the candidates I'd bet on to pull this off eventually). If they can, another step in their cycle of decline, regeneration, rebirth and reconquest should be in order.
 
Circle of Willis said:
I think the 1202-1204 range was when the crusaders had the best chance to take down Ayyubid Egypt since the latter was just coming out of a civil war, and I stand by what I said the last time you asked me about this POD.


The long-term survival of the crusader kingdom of Egypt will depend on whether they're able to co-opt the Copts and effectively work together with the nearby KoJ to suppress any Muslim rebellions or attempts at reconquest, of course. Striking up an alliance with Makuria would also help.

As for the Byzantines, depends on whether they can get their act together in spite of the misrule of the Angeloi. If they can't, they'll probably fall to a later Catholic attack to avenge the Massacre of the Latins, or perhaps to another Balkan power (Bulgaria, which tore itself free from Byzantine control under the House of Asen, or Hungary, whose previous king Bela III almost inherited the purple, are the candidates I'd bet on to pull this off eventually). If they can, another step in their cycle of decline, regeneration, rebirth and reconquest should be in order.
Click to expand...

If the Byzantines manage to recover, where exactly are they going to subsequently expand? For instance, is there any chance of them reconquering the Anatolian interior, Bulgaria, and/or southern Italy?
 
Circle of Willis said:
Yes, I would assume Bulgaria and the Anatolian core under Rum's control are the most obvious and natural targets for Byzantine reconquest.
Click to expand...

Southern Italy is much more doubtful because it was lost over a century earlier, right?

BTW, why did the Byzantines fail to ever reconquer the Anatolian interior after Manzikert in real life? They had almost a century of a Renaissance under the Komnenoi, after all.
 
Circle of Willis said:
Well they tried, and they were defeated. But if the Komnenoi manage to hang on to power and avoid the calamities of Andronicus I's reign + the Angeloi overthrow and decades of misrule a few short years after Myriokephalon, they'll surely rebuild their strength and try again some other time.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well-aware of Myriokephalon. Still, it is a bit surprising that they waited over a century to try avenging Manzikert. Though to be fair, they also spent a lot of time regathering their coastal lands before that.

Anyway, makes sense.

BTW, what do you think happens if John II Komnenos lives longer?
 
WolfBear said:
Yes, I'm well-aware of Myriokephalon. Still, it is a bit surprising that they waited over a century to try avenging Manzikert. Though to be fair, they also spent a lot of time regathering their coastal lands before that.

Anyway, makes sense.

BTW, what do you think happens if John II Komnenos lives longer?
Click to expand...

They didn't wait a century, efforts to reclaim Anatolia began almost immediately in the 1080s with the Komnenian Restoration, Myriokephalon represented the high water mark (Although one could argue the 1150s presented an equally good point, IIRC). Without the loss of Constantinople and the splintering of the Empire, it's likely the Byzantines could capitalize on the arrival of the Mongols to finish off their "Reconquista" of Asia Minor while also taking advantage of events in Bulgaria to reclaim that region. In effect, rolling back the clock to Basil II.
 
History Learner said:
They didn't wait a century, efforts to reclaim Anatolia began almost immediately in the 1080s with the Komnenian Restoration, Myriokephalon represented the high water mark (Although one could argue the 1150s presented an equally good point, IIRC). Without the loss of Constantinople and the splintering of the Empire, it's likely the Byzantines could capitalize on the arrival of the Mongols to finish off their "Reconquista" of Asia Minor while also taking advantage of events in Bulgaria to reclaim that region. In effect, rolling back the clock to Basil II.
Click to expand...

Intriguing analysis. Thank you for that.
 
Crusader Egypt would probably be able to expand into the Upper Nile, while the strengthening Byzantines and the centrality of the Copts to the stability of the new Egyptian Kingdom could produce a new Ecumenical Synod, or several, to end the Schism(s) on the basis of Christian fraternity against the Muslims. Between Christian control of Egypt, the collapse of the Rum Sultanate and the Mongols arriving on the scene, it's likely the Crusader states can be expanded and given sufficient time to become stable.

The Islamic world would thus be bifurcated, which opens up many possibilities there for alternate development but also opens up the means to it being further reduced. The 7th Crusades under the French seriously targeted Tunisia and the Iberian Christian states were serious about expanding the Reconquista into North Africa too. Likewise, the odds here favor Sartaq (or some analogue) converting the Golden Horde to Orthodoxy, which means the Russian Steppe and much of Central Asia, possibly the Caucasus too, will be Christianized. End result might by Arabia itself, Persia and elements of the Indian Ocean basin becoming the rump Islamic world.
 
Last edited:
History Learner said:
Crusader Egypt would probably be able to expand into the Upper Nile, while the strengthening Byzantines and the centrality of the Copts to the necessity of the new Egyptian Kingdom could produce a new Ecumenical Synod, or several, to end the Schism(s) on the basis of Christian fraternity against the Muslims. Between Christian control of Egypt, the collapse of the Rum Sultanate and the Mongols arriving on the scene, it's like the Crusader states an be expanded and given sufficient time to become stable.

The Islamic world would thus be bifurcated, which opens up many possibilities there for alternate development but also opens up the means to it being further reduced. The 7th Crusader under the French seriously targeted Tunisian and the Iberian Christian states were serious about expanding the Reconquista into North Africa too. Likewise, the odds here favor Sartaq or some analogue converting the Golden Horde to Orthodoxy, which means the Russian Steppe and much of Central Asia, possibly the Caucasus too will be Christianized. End result might by Arabia itself, Persia and elements of the Indian Ocean basin becoming the rump Islamic world.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Persia might eventually return to Zoroastrianism in this TL. Perhaps as an alternative to its 16th century mass conversion to Shi'ism?
 
WolfBear said:
I wonder if Persia might eventually return to Zoroastrianism in this TL. Perhaps as an alternative to its 16th century mass conversion to Shi'ism?
Click to expand...

It was dead by the 1200s, the last chance for a Zoroastrian revival was the 800s or early 900s; there was very few left by this point and by the 16th Century Islam is too entrenched. You could, however, see a Christian Iran/Persia here, which would further reduce the Muslim world. They remained a very large minority until Timur and the various denominations pre-dated Islamic conquest, meaning Nestorianism/Church of the East could be seen in the same light as the Shia were, in terms of being an organic, natural faith to Iran as opposed to the Arab Islam. Becomes more likely if the Caucasus, from which the Shia came from IOTL, is Christianized fully here.
 
History Learner said:
It was dead by the 1200s, the last chance for a Zoroastrian revival was the 800s or early 900s; there was very few left by this point and by the 16th Century Islam is too entrenched. You could, however, see a Christian Iran/Persia here, which would further reduce the Muslim world. They remained a very large minority until Timur and the various denominations pre-dated Islamic conquest, meaning Nestorianism/Church of the East could be seen in the same light as the Shia were, in terms of being an organic, natural faith to Iran as opposed to the Arab Islam. Becomes more likely if the Caucasus, from which the Shia came from IOTL, is Christianized fully here.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Also, what happens to Pakistan, Bangladesh, and northern India here? Do they remain Muslim?

Interestingly enoguh, I find it interesting that some Zoroastrian holidays in Iran, such as Nowruz, have not only survived, but also thrived, even over a millennium after Iran became Islamized.

BTW, you might be interested in this article:

www.economist.com

Disenchanted Iranians are turning to other faiths

Repression is spurring alienation from the official creed
www.economist.com www.economist.com
 
WolfBear said:
Interesting. Also, what happens to Pakistan, Bangladesh, and northern India here? Do they remain Muslim?

Interestingly enoguh, I find it interesting that some Zoroastrian holidays in Iran, such as Nowruz, have not only survived, but also thrived, even over a millennium after Iran became Islamized.

BTW, you might be interested in this article:

www.economist.com

Disenchanted Iranians are turning to other faiths

Repression is spurring alienation from the official creed
www.economist.com www.economist.com
Click to expand...

It makes sense when you realize Shia conversion was, in essence, the first stirring of national identity in some time. Retaining some connections to the past as part of that doesn't surprise me; it's the same as Christians who assimilated Pagan holidays for their own ends or how Attaturk attempted to use the old Turkish/Tengri word for God to replace the use of the Arab word Allah.

As for India, it's hard to say. If we assume the Mongols go Christian, maybe they come into the region as conquering Christians and spread their faith. Or, they still go Muslim as that's what on the ground already but the issues in the wider Islamic world make a Hindu pushback more likely. Alternatively, and as a sop to the Islamic world in this case, many Muslims immigrate/flee to the Islamic warlords in India and thus help to make the faith there the majority.

I did, before you posted this and while thinking on this, consider the possibility of Islam concentrating on East Africa, India, and Southeast Asia (Especially the Indies) before discovering and settling Australia, South Africa, etc. In essence, the Muslim world is shifted Southwest lol.
 
History Learner said:
It makes sense when you realize Shia conversion was, in essence, the first stirring of national identity in some time. Retaining some connections to the past as part of that doesn't surprise me; it's the same as Christians who assimilated Pagan holidays for their own ends or how Attaturk attempted to use the old Turkish/Tengri word for God to replace the use of the Arab word Allah.

As for India, it's hard to say. If we assume the Mongols go Christian, maybe they come into the region as conquering Christians and spread their faith. Or, they still go Muslim as that's what on the ground already but the issues in the wider Islamic world make a Hindu pushback more likely. Alternatively, and as a sop to the Islamic world in this case, many Muslims immigrate/flee to the Islamic warlords in India and thus help to make the faith there the majority.

I did, before you posted this and while thinking on this, consider the possibility of Islam concentrating on East Africa, India, and Southeast Asia (Especially the Indies) before discovering and settling Australia, South Africa, etc. In essence, the Muslim world is shifted Southwest lol.
Click to expand...

Interesting analysis. And Yeah, we could at least see northern India become Muslim in this TL as a result of a huge influx of Muslim refugees from elsewhere into India. As for a Muslim Australia and South Africa, they would certainly look very interesting.
 
WolfBear said:
Interesting analysis. And Yeah, we could at least see northern India become Muslim in this TL as a result of a huge influx of Muslim refugees from elsewhere into India. As for a Muslim Australia and South Africa, they would certainly look very interesting.
Click to expand...

IIRC, something like 25-30% of India did become Muslim under the Mughals, and it was the prime faith of urbanized people. Entirely possible here Islam could become the majority faith in all of India.
 
History Learner said:
IIRC, something like 25-30% of India did become Muslim under the Mughals, and it was the prime faith of urbanized people. Entirely possible here Islam could become the majority faith in all of India.
Click to expand...

FWIW, British India was almost 20% Muslim in 1881:


I'm not sure about earlier data, though. But FWIW, the 1881 figure includes both Pakistan and Bangladesh since they were both a part of British India.
 
WolfBear said:
FWIW, British India was almost 20% Muslim in 1881:


I'm not sure about earlier data, though. But FWIW, the 1881 figure includes both Pakistan and Bangladesh since they were both a part of British India.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason Islam was so widely successful in Bangladesh is because it was mostly tribal pagan when the Muslims arrived on scene; same reason the Northeast went Christian under the British, their missionaries arrived before Hinduism had the means to advance into the area. It's a notch in favor of Christianity such the Mongols go Christian as they invade. Alternatively, of course, it also means that the better positioned Islamic rulers could help to further cement their rule by converting a wider swath of the population.
 
History Learner said:
Part of the reason Islam was so widely successful in Bangladesh is because it was mostly tribal pagan when the Muslims arrived on scene; same reason the Northeast went Christian under the British, their missionaries arrived before Hinduism had the means to advance into the area. It's a notch in favor of Christianity such the Mongols go Christian as they invade. Alternatively, of course, it also means that the better positioned Islamic rulers could help to further cement their rule by converting a wider swath of the population.
Click to expand...

The Mongols never actually managed to conquer large parts of India, though--did they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top