What if the Holy Land was captured by the Crusaders and kept till today?
- Thread starter Docky90
- Start date
let's say that apart from what he has already highlighted John Frederick Parker, I would suggest a subtle change in the 3rd crusade, that is, that Frederick Barbarossa does not die crossing Anatolia, so that he brings his army of at least 20 thousand men to the holy land, which would be a formidable help to the weakened army of Outremer ( although it would perhaps be more appropriate to intervene directly in the aftermath of the first crusade, perhaps making sure to condense in a single military campaign the different routes used by the princes in 1101, or better coordination during the 2th crusade with the aim of breaking the alliance between Zengi and Nureddin, or even allowing Henrich VI to survive may be useful to the cause, given that his crusade of 1194 - 96 ( commonly known as the German Crusade ) had partly achieved good successes ) although any Pod that allows a semblance of stability in Constantinople can be very helpful for the crusaders, the possibilities are many to obtain the result you request, even a more stable and competent succession at the helm of the kingdom of Jerusalem instead of the chaos of the last decades of Otl can lead to important changes without resorting to external military help
Last edited:
That is beyond the POD and I would say it is more than a subtle change.
Not to dismiss what has already been posted, but to build on it: You're going to need more than one thing for "until today" - even assuming things like the conquest of Egypt (good for both keeping it out of unfriendly hands and - if they can hold it - a resource boost to the Franks), that's an extra seven hundred years in a region that is going to see quite a bit of fighting in most possible worlds with a POD after the First Crusade.
So to say that the Middle East will be radically different than OTL seems a substantial understatement. No Mamluk conquest of the Levant, no Ottoman Empire (in and of itself a huge change), a different state of affairs in Iran...
It might be easier to start with what parts of the region aren't changed tremendously from having enduring Catholic kingdoms in the Levant and the things that would be necessary or helpful to ensure that.
So to say that the Middle East will be radically different than OTL seems a substantial understatement. No Mamluk conquest of the Levant, no Ottoman Empire (in and of itself a huge change), a different state of affairs in Iran...
It might be easier to start with what parts of the region aren't changed tremendously from having enduring Catholic kingdoms in the Levant and the things that would be necessary or helpful to ensure that.
Last edited:
You're partly right, but mine was more of a list of possible scenarios that can all in turn lengthen Outremer's chances of survival if taken individually, I wasn't suggesting that they all happen at the same time or in this TL
Hard agree with @Elfwine - with a few centuries of cascading ripple effects in play, it's incredibly hard to gauge how the world develops and essentially falls to what the writer feels more correct/appropriate.
I think we can predict at least a few things that could be still relevant to the area:
1. The rise of the Ottoman has either to be butterflied or at the very least severely nerfed - because an Ottoman Empire with a comparable stregth to OTL Ottoman Empire would have rather sooner than lather conquered the area.
2. Without strong Ottomans the spanish will be the dominant power in the Mediterranean in the 16th century - much more so than OTL, This means probably much more success in the maghreb for them compared to OTL.
3. Would the Teutonic Order still be involved in the Baltics? I have no idea how that one would play out without them or someone similar.
4. Supposing some kind of reformation happens (likely) and religious wars starting up in Europe the Kingdom of Jerusalem can expect much less help from than on - probably being forced to make compromises with other local christians and possibly muslims as well (we have it that it survived to OTL so they must choose this route as a confrontational one would likely lead to their destruction).
5. OTL France tried to play the protector of the catholics of the Levant. Both nationalism and catholicism would point to the same direction in a 19th century so probably some special kind of relationship is established wih the French. This could be vassalage or even a protectorate.
6. If nationalism still rises the Kingdom would be in a difficult position. It will have a good share of various christians, a lot of arabs and muslims, and cionism will happen (even without nazism) so a significant number of jews.
So the KoJ will either be a secular state doing a very hard balancing act between the various christians, jews and muslims, or an even bigger sh*tshow than what we have OTL with its days numbered.
Agreed, to start, probably a greater maronite population and presence in Lebanon/Antioch and Jerusalem, basically greater levantine Christian population. Probably less Christians in the surrounding territory, sorry assyrian christians, probably gonna get expelled as fifth columnists. Maybe significantly less people all around, due to being a battlefield and not a sleepy backwater.
There might be a chance in 1300 when the Ilkhanate decisively destroyed a large Mamluk army and seized Damascus while their nominal allies among the Crusaders attacked the Syrian coast and Druze and Maronite leaders rebelled in the mountains. Have the campaign of 1303 go far better--the Mamluks are decisively defeated and their leadership captured or killed. Note that this would include their chief propagandist Ibn Taymiyyah and the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustakfi (the chief religious figure). There's a huge chance the Mamluks would be totally unable to recover Syria and be crippled for a generation by infighting, dealing with other rebels (they also faced a Bedouin uprising at the same time), and stopping the Ilkhanate from conquering Mecca and Medina.
As for the Crusaders, this would leave them the Holy Land. They likely will not have Jerusalem at first, but they can have a skeleton Kingdom of Jerusalem plus re-establish Antioch. As the Ilkhanate itself suffers internal issues within 40 years of this, the Crusaders could move to seize Jerusalem and re-establish the Crusader states at their height. As for the other threat, the Ottomans/Anatolian Turks, the number of Crusaders diverted to the Holy Land and perhaps its new focal point in attracting adventurers (and the intrigues of the Mediterranean powers) might give Byzantium some chance to recover. Ultimately I think they might be screwed, but in the process any Turkish state might never be much larger than the mid-19th century Ottoman Empire and most importantly, too focused on Europe to deal with the Crusaders. A balance could be established where a (Shia?) post-Ilkhanate Persian state keeps the Ottomans checked along with Georgia (Timur and the Turkmens who followed him hopefully get butterflied), Cilician Armenia (if they survive), a strong Balkan Christian state, and the merchant republics.
This balance of power seems feasible to hold for many centuries, even if dynasties fall and the states themselves are different. But it does rely on European scientific and economic development not being altered by the more or less never-ending crusades to still have a "Great Divergence." Personally I think Portugal would still want to explore south and would eventually find Brazil, and there's also the matter of the North Atlantic codfish industry which would also attract explorers.
As for the Crusaders, this would leave them the Holy Land. They likely will not have Jerusalem at first, but they can have a skeleton Kingdom of Jerusalem plus re-establish Antioch. As the Ilkhanate itself suffers internal issues within 40 years of this, the Crusaders could move to seize Jerusalem and re-establish the Crusader states at their height. As for the other threat, the Ottomans/Anatolian Turks, the number of Crusaders diverted to the Holy Land and perhaps its new focal point in attracting adventurers (and the intrigues of the Mediterranean powers) might give Byzantium some chance to recover. Ultimately I think they might be screwed, but in the process any Turkish state might never be much larger than the mid-19th century Ottoman Empire and most importantly, too focused on Europe to deal with the Crusaders. A balance could be established where a (Shia?) post-Ilkhanate Persian state keeps the Ottomans checked along with Georgia (Timur and the Turkmens who followed him hopefully get butterflied), Cilician Armenia (if they survive), a strong Balkan Christian state, and the merchant republics.
This balance of power seems feasible to hold for many centuries, even if dynasties fall and the states themselves are different. But it does rely on European scientific and economic development not being altered by the more or less never-ending crusades to still have a "Great Divergence." Personally I think Portugal would still want to explore south and would eventually find Brazil, and there's also the matter of the North Atlantic codfish industry which would also attract explorers.
1. Probably, but what happens instead we cannot easily infer. So it's a fairly meaningless statement.
2. Already hard disagree, for all we know the colonisation of America ends up with a different balance of power that may well see a Spain for example more oriented towards Africa and disinterested in the Med, unlike OTL (as the easiest example of still successful, despite changes, yet not necessarily more navally ascendent in the Med).
3. Far enough that they're probably not particularly affected (so again, not much added).
4. With more successful Crusader States, expecting the Reformation to happen or with similar to OTL issues/timing/borders (if at all) is a very bold "in spite of a nail".
5. In six centuries everything can change, not just nationalism, France itself could be a wholly different beast. Especially as it had very strong cultural ties with Outremer.
6. I'll go out on a limb and say that in six centuries, the KoJ could simply be a monolith because of distinct heritage and likely imposed unitary Christian identity.
But the point is, most of those are not predictions. They're very hazardous guesses that in your case, often flatten the following centuries to have the same trends as OTL despite very large changes, falling under the preview of how one sees history rather than what could reasonably be expected from the POD.
The point being that stuff doesn't have to change, but doesn't have to stay close to what we could expect either, so relying on OTL-specific timings and details of macrotrends is very hazardous.
Last edited:
I think this is a solid place to start/agree with a lot of this however a few additional ponderings.
I'm not so sure about 6, given how far back we going, successful conquest in this period (whether we're talking about Turkish kingdoms expanding in Anatolia or the Christian reconquest of Spain), often had a great deal of forced conversion/expulsions/just outright mass killings, I suspect you see the states that survive will end up firmly majority Christian and probably majority Catholic (although likely with some degree of tolerance of local religious practices remaining as a mixture of a local rite and local folklore particularly for the non-catholic Christians). While ethnically while you start off with a Frankish aristocracy it would probably slowly bleed into effectively the wealthy middle classes drawn from the local population until by the time you get to the 1800s or so you have a unified Jerusalem or Egyptian ethnicity that makes up the bulk of the population. So in a case where the states successful groups identify as Muslim Arabs probably end up in a position more like the Coptic church in Egypt, a significant minority but not big enough to cause major balancing acts.
I suspect this creates decent odds at a surviving Eastern Roman Empire, assuming the preceding states include Egypt (which seems fairly necessary for the long-term survival) you've basically cut off half of the manpower through Muslim states to pull an Ottoman, and even if a Christian power takes over Constantinople it's more likely to just lead to someone cramming themselves and you Emperor instead of outright replacing it. However this doesn't undo all the institutional problems that plagued the late Eastern Roman Empire so I suspect it's best case is effectively the pre-eminent power of the Balkans with some presence in a somewhat more chaotic Anatolia.
I wonder if better access to the East would slow down discovery of the Americas or at least slow down interest and exploitation of it (less issues with accessing silk routes then OTL) I'd say just given the vast technological disparity is still inevitable the Europeans might discover it but possibly a few decades to a century down the line?
Thinking about the likely trajectory of the Crusader states themselves
the bulk of the states have pretty big coastlines, very hostile neighbours to the east and in some cases north and west, and are foudnded on a strong military tradition so I assume they'd continue to be quite military capable states and therefore likely to be dragged into regional wars on a fairly regular basis
I think there's an interesting question about whether or not you see any consolidation, assuming as others this thread assume this includes crusader Egypt, you have one much bigger fish than the rest so wonderful couple of centuries down the line between marriage and conquest you could end up with some sort of unified crusader state stretching from Egypt to Antioch, which could very well end up as major power heading into the Renaissance/early modern period to a degree taking the place in history of the Ottomans. If you did have this type of consolidation I suspect the crusader empire, would eventually push into at least the coast of Arabia partially to take out a future avenue attack but also to help secure control over potential routes to India, needless to say this creates an even more antagonistic relationship with Islam as that would presumably include taking Mecca/Medina (which could of course result in a backlash and their ultimate destruction but this scenario is assuming they are successful).
Alternatively you keep a bunch of reasonably small but militarised kingdoms which means moving the politics of somewhere like pre-unification Spain, or Italy.
Long-term it's really hard to see as you have such a massive flight of butterflies. My general feeling is outside of the consolidation scenario (which honestly could be anything depends on how it forms), the states would effectively form an expansion of southern Europe politically (and for that matter the concept of Europe might be less common politically with people talking about the Roman world or Christendom so encompassing the Middle East and possibly North Africa into the political space that your pound OTL), so they end up as a broadly similar trajectory to states in those areas. Then then I would strongly suspect is odds are the kingdom of Jerusalem remains very religious (short of something like the equivalent of a communist uprising where there is a explicit and militant push towards atheism) simply as you have a reasonably small state with massive amounts of political soft power, and economic potential (pilgrimages) to be maintained by keeping good relations with the Catholic Church, and encouraging participation in it.
Honestly, any PoD significantly prior to 1290-1310 pretty much gets rid of the Ottomans.
As for a successful 3rd Crusade as a PoD... that would have some major ramifications for the 4th Crusade, meaning it wouldn't happen as OTL. It certainly wouldn't happen at the same time as OTL, likely being delayed a decade+. This means the circumstances for the Crusade to take place as it did would be radically different. For one Enrico Dandolo would be dead (he died in 1205 OTL in his late 90s).
When the 4th Crusade is called it's likely to actually be targeted toward Egypt (seriously, the historical 4th Crusade was such a clown show... right up until it became a tragedy).
There will be lots of knock-ons and butterflies. The latter can't be predicted. For instance, "Spain" may be formed by union of Castile and Aragon, as OTL, or of Castile and Portugal, or of Castile, Aragon, and Portugal, or not formed at all - all depending on who happens to marry whom, who has children, and who dies when.
However, I can see one fairly obvious and predictable knock-on: Roman Catholic princes permanently ruling over a lot more Eastern Christians than OTL. This happened OTL in two places, AFAICT: western Ukraine, ruled by Roman Catholic Poland; and Transylvania, ruled by Roman Catholic Hungary (or for a time, by Protestant local Magyars under Turkish hegemony).
In western Ukraine, under pressure from the Roman Catholic authorities, the Orthodox population formed the "Uniate" church, which retained "Eastern" forms of worship while giving ecclesiastical allegiance to the Pope. This did not happen in Transylvania, presumably due to Turkish conquest and many of the ruling Magyars becoming Reformed Protestants.
The rulers of "Outremer" were Roman Catholic princes, and under them the Roman Catholic Church held ecclesiastical dominance. OTL, AIUI the princes did not strongly back efforts to impose allegiance to the Pope. Their realms were too fragile to risk alienating their Eastern Christian subjects. Some Eastern Christians did declare such allegiance: the Chaldaean Catholics of Mesopotamia, and the Maronite Christians of Lebanon. However, effective papal control was not possible after the fall of Outremer.
If Outremer persists, papal authority will also persist and grow. The Church will gain prestige by sole control of the shrines in Jerusalem, and pilgrimages to Jerusalem will be a common practice all through the next 500 years. Additional Eastern Christians will accept Roman ecclesiastical supremacy. If the Latin Empire also survives, then by the present, many, perhaps all, of the Eastern Christians of the Balkans would do so as well.
However, I can see one fairly obvious and predictable knock-on: Roman Catholic princes permanently ruling over a lot more Eastern Christians than OTL. This happened OTL in two places, AFAICT: western Ukraine, ruled by Roman Catholic Poland; and Transylvania, ruled by Roman Catholic Hungary (or for a time, by Protestant local Magyars under Turkish hegemony).
In western Ukraine, under pressure from the Roman Catholic authorities, the Orthodox population formed the "Uniate" church, which retained "Eastern" forms of worship while giving ecclesiastical allegiance to the Pope. This did not happen in Transylvania, presumably due to Turkish conquest and many of the ruling Magyars becoming Reformed Protestants.
The rulers of "Outremer" were Roman Catholic princes, and under them the Roman Catholic Church held ecclesiastical dominance. OTL, AIUI the princes did not strongly back efforts to impose allegiance to the Pope. Their realms were too fragile to risk alienating their Eastern Christian subjects. Some Eastern Christians did declare such allegiance: the Chaldaean Catholics of Mesopotamia, and the Maronite Christians of Lebanon. However, effective papal control was not possible after the fall of Outremer.
If Outremer persists, papal authority will also persist and grow. The Church will gain prestige by sole control of the shrines in Jerusalem, and pilgrimages to Jerusalem will be a common practice all through the next 500 years. Additional Eastern Christians will accept Roman ecclesiastical supremacy. If the Latin Empire also survives, then by the present, many, perhaps all, of the Eastern Christians of the Balkans would do so as well.
About that, the possibility for the surfived of Jerusalem Kingdom , would be that Richard the Lionheart did not die in 1199, given that originally in the plans of Innocent III the 4th crusade would have been commanded by the king himself ( who actually Otl was preparing for another expedition in Holy Land, since his previous campaign had ended in a ten-year truce with Saladin, but first he had to settle his affairs with his French vassals ), this alone would be enough to avoid the chaos that occurred in the command hierarchy in that disastrous campaign
Last edited:
Yeah, making a point of butterflying the great power that ruled the area for half a millenia is meaningles....
Possibly but it was not a coincidence that things played out as they did OTL. Spain and Portugal had the most reason and possibility to start the age of exploration. Could change but the most likely outcome is something similar to OTL in this regard.
I stated: "Supposing some kind of reformation happens (likely)". The endemic problems with the corruption of the catholic church are very likely to happen - the pope's bid for wordly power, costly building projects, and France likely wont be weaker than OTL mean that catholicism will very likely face very similar structural issues to what happened OTL. Its also very likely to provoke a similar reaction - not necesserily the same. But likely similar.
Again there are two kind of events in history:
1. Those driven by great people
2. Those driven by underlying issues (be it economic, geographical, cultural etc).
Massive changes to the first are very easy to produce. Killing Alexander the great early would have had massive and long standing effects on the entire history of the world.
Butterflying events driven by underlying issues is much more difficult to achieve. Lets take what I wrote of the catholic church and reformation above. Can things change and all the underlying issues in the church be butterflied to avoid some kind of reformation? Yes. But it would need so much luck on the part of the church that its much more likely to turn out in a similar way to OTL - a reformation. There can be massive changes - the reformation could be defeated for example. But thats still more likely than avoiding it altogether.
The same goes for example for nationalism: Can it be avoided? Yes. But again the situation IMO makes it more likely to happen than not.
Yeah, every alternate history is guesswork. There is not a single thing that we can for 100% say would happen if we have a POD.
This thread asked the question, that what would be a country like today that OTL fell about 700 years ago. Giving any kind of answer to that is going to involve a huge amount of guesswork. The only thing given is that KoJ exists. What we can do is identify some of the key changes that should happen for that to happen, for this TL to exist - like the necessity of butterflying Ottoman power and make further guesses going from there. Further the KoJ is pretty far away of the European mainland and small enough to make its continued existence likely not drastically changing macro issues on the continent.
Last edited:
The problem is that you're always assuming certain trends to happen and in roughly the same order, thus unfolding roughly on the same timeframe and producing events not too different, basically keeping a wide huge butterfly net, which makes discussion meaningless because events are corraled in a direction that is doing its best to prevent any implication.
For example,'no Ottomans but KoJ' is meaningless because there's so many things it could end causing, with the gigantic amount of time making each roughly as likely as the others. It could make the KoJ be a besieged exclave that thrives while surrounded by other Muslims that thrive because no Ottomans. It could make Muslism Near East presence collapse, because no Ottomans. It could lead to Roman Catholic Anatolia flanking it, instead of Ottomans. It could lead to Byzantine Anatolia, that prevents the Ottomans. It could detract or add from Venice's strength, who long fought the Ottomans. It could motivate Spain and Portugal to not go West, as there's friendly harbors in the East. Or Venice's trade could prove every bit motivating as the Ottoman lock was. It could make the Pope stronger, due to the Crusades making Catholicism stronger. It could make the Pope weaker, as there's more distant realms less controllable by the Pope. It could help mend the Great Schism, because of stronger ties. It could make the Latins hated as per OTL, or maybe worse, by the same ties.... and much. much more else.
And even the trends that are likely to still happen can end up with wildly different results. A 12th Century Reformation is not the same as a 14th or 16th Century one, in content, borders, and success rate, even though the underlying trends are indeed likely the same. Same goes for the emergence of nationalism (regardless of the fact I think it is less likely to happen than a Reformation of sorts). So again, the most one can say is 'it depends on the writer'.
That said, I won't answer anymore. But I'd like to point out that Outremer was a fairly relevant part of European politics, it moved Kings and Emperors, and a thriving one would necessarily have a larger and more lasting impact and influence. It may not impact England, Prussia or Scandinavia much, but any Christian Mediterranean polity will be strongly impacted economically and religiously by its continuing survival and the many implications it has.
Last edited:
There's so many ways for this to happen that, as others have said, it depends on what you want to go with. For example, there's the option that Fatamid-Crusader negotiations during the First Crusade do not break down, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem ends up as a successful tributary buffer state backed by the Fatamids in return for contesting Seljuk Turk rule in Syria and Palestine. This would escalate the Shia-Sunni schism, with the Shiite Fatamids becoming quite possibly reviled by their Sunni adversaries as sellouts. The possibilities are basically endless.