Let's thank Masterworks for sponsoring today's video. Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more: masterworks.art/monsieurz See important Masterworks disclosures: mw-art.co/37WwvbD. *NEW VIDEOS EVERY SATURDAY AT 11AM*
This is basically my Crusader States in Stainless Steel late game Campaing, eliminating the Ayyubids, maintain an alliance with Byzantium, eliminate the Seljuks ect. Though my Campaings usually have me fighting Sicily.
fun fact: The fall of Edessa caused great consternation in Jerusalem and Western Europe, tampering the enthusiastic success of the First Crusade. Calls for a new crusade-the Second Crusade-were immediate, and was the first to be led by European kings. Concurrent campaigns as part of the Reconquista and Northern Crusades are also sometimes associated with this Crusade.The aftermath of the Crusade saw the Muslim world united around Saladin, leading to the fall of Jerusalem.
Historically inaccurate. Saladin is considered to have united the final parts of the Muslim forces around 1187, when he took Jerusalem, not before (Also the aftermath of the second crusade did not unite the Muslim world, for example how the Egyptian Caliphate was still in complete turmoil even just before the third crusade). It didn't lead to its fall, Division among the Crusaders did, for example how King Guy of Jerusalem saw his only allies as those who were dedicated to bring him to personal ruin (Raymond specifically) so he therefore decided at the Battle of Hattin to take a massive gamble instead of sound Frankish battle strategy when fighting Saladin, leading to his downfall and eventual seize of all powers by Saladin himself... that then led to to the unification process Saladin saw fit to proceed with.
A Re-Christianized and "Re-Latinized" (at least partially) North Africa is a fascinating "what if" historical scenario, it would have change the history of the mediterranean world.
Due to the various factions on the Christian and Muslim side, it is hard to envision what a Crusader victory would look like or what the actual aims were. In Europe, some of the logic behind the Crusades was to stop wars within Europe. The Byzantine faction also creates an interesting scenario as it was both a friend and enemy of the Crusades and in many ways suffered the greatest from the Crusades out of any faction due to the Fourth Crusade. In some ways the Crusades were a success in slowing down Islamic expansion, stopping wars in Europe, and bringing new tech into Europe but in other ways they were an absolute failure. The aims and goals of the Crusades were not defined other than take Jerusalem so this is a HUGE reason for their failure. IMO, the best scenario would have been the Crusaders fighting under the banner of the Byzantines and saving Byzantium. That is the only realistic win scenario that is available. An independent Crusader state as described in the video (and even pointed out in the video) would have many, many challenges that would derail it. However, I agree if it survives to the 1500s, it is likely staying put.
it would likely look like the Reconquista or the northern crusade. 2 similar situations that ended up working out. especially the northern crusade. the holy lands would likely be desert Prussia.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Possibly, IMO they were just too isolate and there wasn't much of a cultural influence on the culture. The Christian (and Jewish) populations that came to the support of the Crusader States were already native to the areas and were really more Coptic and Orthodox than Catholic. The main thing that allowed the Kingdom of Jerusalem to even survive as long as it did was its willingness to be tolerate towards other versions of Christian, Judaism, and some less hostile sects of Islam. There just wasn't enough population and manpower in the area for the Crusader States to survive once thy had to go up against a real Eastern Threat like Saladin's united Arabs, Mongols, Mamelukes, Ottomans, etc.
i dont know the point of most of the crusades but the first one was to protect the byzantine empire from the aggression of the islamic nations and take the holy site of Jerusalem
@@codyyancey1367 that was one goal but, in my opinion, behind closed doors, the Catholic Church saw it as a chance to stop fighting between European countries and get the war elements off to another part of the world. That was the main motivation.
The 1st Crusade definitely succeeded and the fact that there were Crusader States in the region for hundreds of years after, also speak to success. Any endeavor that lasts that long cannot be considered a failure.
I think something you didn’t look at were the non-Catholic Christians in this crusader kingdom. Egypt had a significant amount of Coptic Christians and there are other branches in the Levant. The byzantines had treated the Copts in Egypt pretty poorly before the Arabs conquered Egypt (doing so with far inferior numbers and less adept at siege warfare). If the Catholic crusader kingdoms chose to persecute the other Christians and try to force conversions like the Byzantines had before, I think their time would be limited. But assuming your scenario of expanding into Egypt and a decision to tolerate groups like Copts and integrate them into their armies and economy (with European catholics initially as the elites) they could have more success.
This is a point i think is important. I identify as Christian myself. The eastern Roman Empire had a long documented history of schism with the other Christian capitals. This is not even a conversation about who was wrong or who was right -but it is about the fact that Christians in the east, and in north Africa would feel so alienated from Constantinople and Rome that they would take Islam over Christianity. And i think this point is important because it was the mid East, and north Africa who were the first centers of Christianity. What i am saying is that there is somewhere within the Catholic's church inflexibility at understanding Arianism, and the Eastern Roman empires excessive taxation on these parts to where they found Islam as a more agreeable alternative. And no i do not believe for a moment what a "Hallelujah" moment that was for them. They took what they could get. Take into account too, the thing that allowed Islam to spread militarily, it was WAR! The wars with the Persians, why were those necessary? Both the Christians and the Zoroastrians would be the losers.
@@budahbaba7856 You're either a Catholic, or a heretic. There is no middle ground. Catholicism is the only religion which can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ and his apostle Peter. All other offshoots from Catholicism are heresies built on lies and/or misconceptions.
@@honkeykong4049 I honestly don't understand the whole "Catholicism is the only true form of Christianity" argument. Now there are obviously genuine heresies like Mormonism and Jehovah Witness(ism?), but mainstream Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox sects are all nearly identical theologically. Protestants don't believe in the legitimacy of the Pope and don't pray to Mary or the saints, but they agree on everything else. And didn't the Catholic and Orthodox churches split over when to celebrate Easter?
Here's something else to consider from this timeline. Aside from obvious religious differences due to there being now more powerful Christian theocratic states, there is one event that may prevent all the events that made the Reformation inevitable: the destruction of the Knights Templar. To provide context, the Templars relocated to Paris after the destruction of Acre, where they loaned a considerable amount of money to the French King, Philip the Fair, in his wars against the English. Unable to pay them back, Philip arranged for the seizure of Templar treasury and lands under the pretense of persecuting heretics, even going so far as to attempt to kidnap and eventually kill the current Pope. This then led to a French Bishop and puppet taking over the Papacy, moving it to France where it incur much of the corruption that led to the worst years of the Papacy. Even after finally moving back to Rome, these corruptive practices would lead to a severely weakened image, with none of the Christian Kings paying it tribute and thus forcing it to take on political indulgences instead. This prompted Martin Luthor to post his 95 Thesis and lead to the Reformation. Because the Templars remain in the Holy Land and have no involvement with the French Court, the circumstances that led to the takeover of the Papacy do not occur and the Papal States remain a powerful political figure in Europe. How does the Christian world look from this point forward?
martin luther, if anything, would probably just want minor reforms in this timeline (like the so called 'counter-reformation' in OTL) and protestants don't really form. without the 30 years war European colonisation is probably faster earlier, and north america in this timeline probably resembles south America alot more. i wonder if the holy roman empire would not also spread more.
Or could crumble even harder being drunk on power. Such things are common throughout the history and the most likely outcome out of all idealistic ones.
Just seeing Armenian Cilicia was a treat, and getting mentioned was even better. I can imagine in this timeline Armenian Cilicia would eventually push for retaking their historic homeland in the Armenian Highlands, whether as part of the Crusader States or as an independent entity. That said, this mention alone may have just made my day.
Nah, a Resurgent Byzantium means an annexed or vassalized Cilicia like what happened under John and Manuel Komnenos. Antioch remaining united with the Crusader states with a resurgence in Byzantine power is also impossible. They considered it dejure their’s and historically subjugated them under Manuel.
I'm from Bulgaria so not feeling enough satisfied with Ottomans not being a thing cause Bulgaria in this video doesnt exist. In my opinion it would exist soon again. The Mongol hordes would likely put more pressure on the mid east in such scenario since if United it be more wealth waiting for grabs.
Egypt had a large Arabic-speaking Coptic Christian minority by 1100s. They would probably reach majority again under Crusader rule. Though Arabic language may remain dominant given it became common far before Egypt became majority Muslim.
That's an interesting idea, but I don't see a Coptic resurgence. Crusaders would be unlikely to significantly support the "wrong" Miaphysite Christianity of the Copts. I do think that the persecution suffered under the Mamluks would be avoided, so there would be a lot more Copts (25%-30% maybe) and they'd preserve their language. Whether they are Catholicised or retain their own church depends on the tolerance of the crusader kings. However, I suspect that most of Egypt's population (which was already majority Arab and Muslim by the 11th century) would simply convert to Catholicism but maintain the Arabic language. They would be like Maronites, except not a minority group and probably with stronger European influence. They may even abandon Arabic in favour of an Egyptian offshoot of French, but I think that is unlikely. You would probably also have many thousands of Muslims left. A lot of them would be Shia because of the Fatimid legacy. They might migrate to more remote areas- maybe as far as Nubia to avoid persecution. Alternatively, they might be worked expelled, just like in Spain.
@@12SPASTIC12 I find it unlikely, 1000 years is a long time and even if half of it was spent trying to change the language, one of the easiest things to change of an area (the language would be changed due to the connections to Islam) I find it likely that it would be
What matters is the religion not ethnicity. if the Levant was a Christian majority it would surely be an atheist degenerate place, where women go naked for everyone. like your countries. just like the rest of Europe and America.
For the next alternate history, I’d like to see the What if Dollfuss survives from assassination then allied with Italy to avoid Anschluss and declare a war on Germany with the allies and What if Mongolia conquered Japan and see what will be happens. Plus, I’d like to see a new chapter of the Scar Nicholas that Hitler meet Nicholas II. I believe that Hitler become the minister of culture in Scar Nicholas Universe. :)
@@fkjl4717 It's not random, in fact, a Axis Victory would be evem more random and nosense by this criteria, yet it is one of most common and popular Alt History scenarios. You just don't understand the subject or is too proud to recognise an error.
yes according to Muslim sources Coptic Christians were still the majority of the population at the time of the first crusade (specifically Al-Muqaddasi). (edit: that said relgious tensions between copts and latin christians might still result in a breakaway, depending on how things are handled)
@@dontcomply3976 not really. The Normans and the Anglosaxons were both Catholic at the time. Here the native Egyptians would be Coptic Orthodox and the Frankish Crusaders would be Roman Catholic. Probably Ireland under British control would be a better comparison.
you realize that it was only around the time of Baldwin the 1st of Jerusalem that Egypt lost it's majority Christian Population, the Miaphysites would never allow the westerners rule them for long, if the crusaders did rule Egypt they may either try to mend the schism between Alexandria and Rome, or not wanting revolts they may convert to Coptic Christianity and make Coptic the official language to gain allies in the native Egyptian population, as well as the Ethiopians of the horn and the Armenians who are also Miaphysites.
@@SuperCrow02 it wouldn't be rebellions directly but rather the perceived consequence of a rebellion, like the destabilization, and the ability of the surrounding Muslim states who could use the rebellion as a pretext to attack the state.
@@johnroach9026 Isn't that basically the Eastern Rite Catholic churches? Though it seems like you're saying the inverse where its Orthodox but Latinized, vs Catholic but retaining their own eastern rites more closely associated with Eastern Orthodoxy.
How would the Protestant reformation affect it then? My theory is that we could also see a new type of Protestantism develop in the region at the time oof the reformation.
The Crusades were doomed to fail because they didn't stay true to their original objective: help the Byzantine Empire. Only the First Crusade did this. All the rest, most predominantly the Fourth, turned against Byzantium, which was split between Latin and Turkish spheres. The Catholics canibalized their own Orthodox allies for some extra islands and lands in the Balkans.
@New History Official I would believe that Byzantine Greeks would reform and end the centuries old as Romans. There were tensions of Greek identity as well. If the Ottomans existed and conquered Constantinople, then by the help of Christian Europe, they successfully pushed the Turks out of Anatolia and freed the Greeks. The Greeks would rebrand themselves as another kingdom of Europe, this time as a Greek Orthodox superpower of the Eastern Medieteranean.
@New History Official I got another alternative for the 4th crusade. What if the newly established latin empire doesnt fight Bulgaria but accepts alliance? No1 on the Balkans be able to trouble it. No humiliation near Adrianopole and so on. Could always use an extra hand. After all they werent locals. Couldnt continually maintain decent sized armies.
@New History Official the Push of Turks out of Anatolia never was a goal for crusaders. Their goal was "reclaim the Holy land" (Jerusalem, Palestine, Antioch, etc.) and create here a Christian state.
The byzantines retreating during the 1st crusade must be at least one reason for the europeans to tell the emperor to f*ck off during the next centuries
@@danshakuimo would Italy even exist? If trade routes come back to Christian hands, Venice, Genoa, Neapol, Milan, Papal states, etc. would be oil-rich far longer. Also there would be always Spain, France or Austria to put down possible "Unifier".
Funny that I found this. I was just playing CK2 earlier and was King of Jerusalem but ended up swearing fealty to the Byzantines and later became emperor because I owned so much of the empire (over half) that I managed to get myself chosen as the next emperor. Big brain
I'm in the middle of a CK2 game, and the Crusades actually worked in my game, with the establishment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Fast forward about 300-400 years, and Jerusalem controls Egypt, half of the Arabian Peninsula, and is making their way to Anatolia. Note that the Islamic world in my CK2 game is fractured and don't have a lot of massive kingdoms. Kept having rebellions and splitting apart.
What if the Teutonic and Livonia orders successfully became a military power in Eastern Europe. Basically a military order independent of Europe kingdoms and empires like Germany holy Roman empire.
The Teutonic and Livonian orders were already an autonomous, powerful military force in our own timeline. No state (e.g., the HRE) exerted much influence over them because they came from hundreds of German principalities. Its a big part of why they almost immediately went rogue and started attacking the Catholic Poles and Orthodox Russians too.
@@Steadyaim101 in medieval total war 2 I play them and do just that making the tectonic and Livonia order a powerful military order independent and strong.
@@fkjl4717 yeah cause in the game version medieval total war 2 Teutonic campaign I conquer them so no Russia just the order of the Teutonic and Livonia order which might become a second Germany in Eastern Europe. An order of men at arms and knights ruling Eastern Europe .
@@eidoneverchoosen1171 I respect TW games, i played thousands of hours...but for historical simulation games like UE4 or Crusader kings 2 are much better.
I think that after the crusader state and the Byzantine empire stabilized, they would probably unite under a personal union, so long as the great schism is mended.
That makes no sense. The Best you would get is the historical situation of the Byzantines as the overlords and the Crusaders as Vassals like what happened under Manuel Komnenos. The cultural differences are too strong hence why their alliances often failed.
@@tylerellis9097 Agreed. I doupt East Roman dignity would allow it to be left out of the Holy lands. Sooner or later it just would go for it. East Rome couldnt have any1 sitting nearby and just have peace. Many of its wars with Bulgaria happent not because of Bulgaria but because of it's to make Bulgaria exit the balkans.
@@ivokantarski6220 1. Bruh the Bolghars were squatting on and invaded Byzantine lands, raided the Empire, attacked and subjugated Slavs in Byzantine territory, intervened in multiple Byzantine civil wars, and was right next to Constantinople. They had literally tripled in size right in front of the Empire, I don’t think Serbia appreciated that either lol. Byzantium hired the Rus cause Emperor Peter was allowing raiding Magyars through Bulgaria to Byzantine territory while making the Empire pay Tribute. Even then their was periods of decades of peace between the 2. Serbia, Croatia, Georgia, and the Lombards were never conquered. The Serbs and Croats actually had permission to settle in Byzantine lands from the Emperor. Other than the Arab Muslims who constantly raided the Empire, Bulgaria was the only state the Byzantines ever completely conquered and the only one to ever attack Constantinople repeatedly. 2. But yes a Union of Zealous Feudal Latin Catholic Crusaders with Imperial Bureaucratic Greek Orthodoxs is impossible.
Deus Vult! You should also remake your "What if Alexander The Great lived?" video. Also, how about "What if the Aztecs defeated Cortez?" or "What if the Mongols conquered Japan?"
Kind of disapointed how it wasn"t mentioned hoe the liberation of the still significant Coptic orthox population in egypt would have boosted the christian cause or impacted it's subsecuent rule. Still awesome video
Can you do a continuation scenario on how the age of exploration would go in this world? I doubt it'd be very different. But that really depends on how much time passes.
Excellent video Monsieur Z! I am sorry that I am late for the party. You hit the information on the nail almost to a T. If I were to add one thing, the Holy Land was majority Christain during this time period. Especially Egypt. So it would be easy for the Kingdom to get a large standing army quickly. I got this information from Real Crusades History. He is a wonderful historian on the Crusades and the Middle Ages
With Christianity in control of Egypt, this would mean that there is no absurd increase in the price of spices. Which is what originally lead to the Portugese and the Spanish trying to find another way to India. So with The Crusades succeeding, the Americas likely would not have been found for potentially a century or two more.
I think the mongols would definitely be able to take over all of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in this timeline since the main reason why Mongols failed to the Mamlukes was because of the lack of Hulagu Khan (who had ventured back to Mongolia) and the cavalry culture of the Mamlukes. I doubt the slow and tanky knights of Jerusalem would be powerful against the speedy and accurate mongols.
Would Mongol bows be powerful enough to penetrate Crusader plate armor or Crusader chain mail? I don't really know that much about armor and arrows and whatnot. I do know English Long-bows could penetrate armor, but those were some of the most powerful bows ever made.
@@j.scottwigginsjr.3946 Since they had little problems with that in Eastern Europe during their campaigns in Russia, Poland, Hungary and Romania, they Mongols would ably run circles around and defeat the crusaders, devastating the Levant and conquering Syria if nothing else, moving the center of this Outremer into Egypt. Though this Outremer might have fared better if they adopted some of the local light cavalry culture and recruited christianized arab light cavalry.
@@viktorwasielewski5687 faced little problems against hungary? you mean defeating the largely light cavalry army in the first invasion and failing to take any foritifcations, and then getting their asses handed to them by the knight and crossbow heavy hungarian army in the 2nd invasion? yeah 'little problem' my ass. the crusaders would kick the mongols asses *hard*, history shows the mongols were weak to european style knights and european style crossbowmen, things the crusaders had in spades.
been a while since the last "what if" video. nice to see a new one after all this time ... still eagerly waiting for the next installment of Scar Nicolas's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen though
You could also touch the points about . The baizantines holding the status of protector of the slavs and orthodox christianity. Potentially bringing them in conflict with russia later in the timeline. Another nice one would be ,your thaughts on the age of exploration as it was primarily fueled by the seizure of the land trade route between india and europe by the muslims. It would be nice.
With Egypt remaining under Christian rule,in Egypt likely we would see Coptic Christianity and the Coptic language gradually recover dominance against Islam and the Arabic language.
@The roots are deep first off I'm an atheist, second off you mean Muslim, third off I don't sew how I could be when I don't like any abrahamic religion
Ariovistus achieving victory at the Battle of Vosges in 58 BC would have had a massive influence on the history of Rome and Gaul, and would be a really interesting "What If" scenario.
The idea of North Africa and the Near East becoming Christian again is probably the most fascinating alternate timeline to me. The idea of a modern world where North Africa and the Near East is considered European and much of it considered part of the western world is just such a cool concept. World history would never be the same.
No Middle East where not considered Europeans even by Europeans themselves ( ancient or modern) even before Persian Greeks wars they have completely different history , culture, values , look etc and since you’re talking about religion Christianity started in Middle East dose that Europeans are middle Easter Arab invaded Europe for a long time are Europeans Middle Eastern ?
@@painxsavior7723 at the time they weren’t. But back then most of Europe wasn’t the same as it is now. The Germanic areas couldn’t have been more different to the other places that Rome held. But today, Germanic nations share a lot of history with Rome and are considered part of Western civilization which comes from Rome. What I’m saying is if Rome continued to influence North Africa and the Middle East, those places would probably be considered part of western civilization too. Meaning sharing religion, culture, alphabets, history, etc.
@@xELITExKILLAx and if Middle Eastern nation ruled Europeans for a long time they too would be considered Middle Eastern ? So does that mean Spain is berber ? (Native people of North Africans )
@@painxsavior7723 He didn't mean it like that. Being part of the Western World isn't determined by genetics or location but rather by shared values and ideas. It stands a reason why Czechia and Australia are considered part of the West despite of zero connection to the Roman Empire itself.
@@MissionControlTet oh ok I see I probably should have thought about it more honestly I don’t know why I replied in the comments of a pro west American right wing channel but here we are thanks for the clarification🙂
it should be remembered that the crusades were also something of a mass migration, since the warriors also needed craftsmen and peasants for menial chores. a stable crusader state would be a magnate for even more migrations, as in any other colonial endeavor. such a trend would result in a scaling down of european wars, since the kings and nobles would be convinced to seek lands in the east. with less people to go around demanding reform after the plague, there would be no peasan'ts revolt and the feudal system would be more firmly entrenched, while the rennaisance may occur in the crusader colonies, closer to the greco-roman heritage still studied in byzantium. one may think that an alliance between the byzantines and the crusader kingdoms would result in a reverse crusade, this time by byzantines and their allies reaching into europe. the possible pretext for that may be the plea by the wallachian prince dracula to help him stop the turks, who wouldn't take things lying down. he was an orthodox christian before converting to catholicism. and so, after declaring wallachia and hungary a crusader protectorate, the bolstered byzantine empire advances into mainland europe, and many kings and queens either declare themselves as the legal rulers of lands overseas by lineage to crusader kings, or find their lands subjugated to the rule of crusader lineages for much the same reason.
I wouldn't really call it a mass migration, the majority of the participants of any given crusade quickly went home after it was over. Not very much actually stayed hence why they always had manpower problems.
@@parmafarnesio6586 and yet, many histories that i read refer to the non-combatants that joined the crusade as a mass migration in anything but name, probably because the byzantines expected a number of fighting men and not the large numbers that joined them, with all the attendant problems. the emperor's letter to pope urban is often seen as the cause of a misunderstanding between them, and sometimes as a ploy by the pope to take over the lands of the crusading nobles.
Thanks for this insightful video! I doubt that the Outremer could be politically united, a) feudalism b) the division between french germanic, norman, occitan and english crusaders c) the opposition between Palestine's spiritual prestige and Egypt's wealth and massive christian population would require at least 2 states in the region. Tripoli, Galilee and maybe antioch and later on syria could, though, be integrated into Jerusalem as their titles were already of lower rank.
this outcome is widely unrealistic, for multiple reasons 1. the normans never would have let the papal states survive there is no reasonable timeline in which the papal states and norman sicily can co-exist this is in part due to papal interest in their land and in part due to norman unwillingness to accept the pope as anything more than a spiritual leader this, in combination with the general animosity between the normans and the holy roman empire, would likely lead to a united, norman italy, and, since this is in a time before the holy roman empire declared itself "holy", a severely discredited West Rome 2. capturing egypt in and of itself would have already given Jerusalem an immense christian population, as at this time, the copts were still a significant portion of the population given the zealous nature of the cause, it would not be unlikely that Jerusalem collapses not in spite of taking out egypt, but because of it, since there is a good chance they would have slaughtered the copts, seeing them as heretical this in turn would have paved the way for a coptic rebellion, that could have resulted in an immediate muslim reconquest of the crusader state if jerusalem could have cooperated with the copts however, jerusalem without a doubt would have eventually become coptic, seeing as the copts would have already been the majority of the christian population in this altered timeline a coptic jerusalem would have been closer aligned to ethiopia rather than byzantium, and as such, fallen out of the western cultural sphere this would in turn have created a state much like Russia, that is neither western nor ethiopian, and just this awkward middle thing that looks uncanny to either side. had jerusalem simply vibed with the copts and somehow remained catholic, like they do in your scenario, then the plague would likely put an end to that as you noted, the plague could have caused jerusalem to collapse, but not in the way you think egypt, if at all united, would not have been a muslim breakaway state, but a christian one, one that is again much closer aligned with ethiopia rather than the west though this hypothetical egypt would be an even more bizarre entity, as it would try to both co-exist with the probably still-existing muslim majority in its borders, as well as the christian states surrounding it, paving the way for one of three out comes: A) a failed state that collapses within a century, probably giving rise to a new caliphate, reinvigorating muslim aggression B) a trade empire that pacified its muslim population by encouraging syncreticism with coptic theology C) a militant empire, hostile toward the encroaching catholic states that see it as lesser, likely syncretizing the more aggessive parts of islamic theology, both to pacify its own population, and to encourage a stronger "us vs them" mentality, a rival of the west's own-making
The thing is with Coptic Jerusalem is that culturally, the ruling class would still have many cultural ties to their European ancestors even if they themselves adopted Oriental Orthodoxy instead of Roman Catholicism. The question is whether the religious element would've actually caused them to be excluded from Western matters or not. I would say because they still share cultural similarities and probably still speak the language, and assuming the Copts are tolerant of the remaining Catholics and allow them safe passage to the Holy Land, there shouldn't be too much of issue and they would not be truly excluded from the Western Cultural Sphere. But whether they will be a weirdo state like Russia depends on many factors as well. And I believe in our timeline many native, non-Catholic Christians fought and died for the crusader states so I would highly doubt that the Crusaders would slaughter the Copts for being heretics and if it does happen it would be due to a few rowdy knights consumed by bloodlust rather than because the people in charge said so. Cilician-Armenia was a major ally of the Crusaders despite not being Catholic, though there was some chafing due to the religion part. However if the Catholics did start persecuting the Copts and Muslims in Egypt then there would probably be a bunch of rebellions and the Crusaders would probably only hold onto a small number of cities while the rest become independent Coptic or Muslim states, with a few probably joining Makuria to the south.
It’s actually not impossible for the Holy Land to unite purely through inheritance. The various ruling families of the Crusader states frequently intermarried and by the end of the 15th century the House of Savoy would have nigh indisputable claims to most of the monarchies in the region thanks to the marriage of Anne of Cyprus to Louis, Duke of Savoy
The video has a good introduction with showing the importance of the Levant, the Holy Land and Egypt to the Greco-Roman world, and that this region constituted the economic and financial stronghold of the Mediterranean world. As for the disunity of Alexander's successor kingdoms, well one can say that Eastern Rome had gone full circle with bringing out the combined strategic military potential of the Greek-speaking Eastern Mediterranean, anchored in Constantinople. Also, a side note for Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria forming a three-way economic sphere of influence, these three cities also constituted 3 of the 5 Apostolic Sees of the original Pentarchy alongside Rome and Jerusalem. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) was translated in Alexandria in the 3rd Century BC, and it was in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians.
Theoretically if the crusades “succeeded” the Byzantine empire never would have died and in return, ideally, the Greek emperor would have overturned the great schism. The failure of the crusades is inextricably linked to the selfishness of the crusaders and the lack of direct assistance to the Greeks, who were asking the pope for assistance against invaders. It turned into a giant mess, the pope didn’t have centralized authority over the crusades to effect any sort of coordination and devolved into a huge free for all and even saw crusaders attacking Greek Christians, who was asking for help.
Great video! If only... One point: Egypt was much more christian in this period. The coptic population was around 50/60% if I'm not mistaken so a christian reconquest would have a good amount of allied population to help with that.
this would change history so much it's fascinating cause this means we get to see possible Byzantine and Jerusalem colonies and they'd also industrialize at some point
A fascinating side effect of this POD is that, because Constantinople doesn’t fall, the spa ish wouldn’t need to find an alternate route of commerce to the goods from asia, and therefore the new would have been discovered much later, specially if spain retaliates against morocco and the caliphate and invades them. I can’t imagine what changes would happen because of this. Is a huge divergence between our timelines.
While the Crusades never entirely failed what most dont realize is that the Crusades ulimately never failed or succeeeded either way - they kinda did both. They won some objectives and also failed in others. For example, the Crusades ultimately paved the way for Europeans to be interested in world affairs like a medieval age superpower in the meantime, it also made foreign cultures establish first contact with Europeans. That in a way is a global success as people of different origins for the first time made contact (albeit not peacefully but still diplomacy on the battlefield). The next success gave the Europeans inspiration that eventually made way for Marco Polo, Ferdinand Magellan, Prince Henry the Navigator, Vasco Da Gama, and many others. Most dont realize that it was the crusades early in the wars that dire needed an ally that lead them to accidentally discover the Mongols under the Golden Horde that were also fighting the Turks lol at the same time!! The two sides almost formed an alliance! Crazy happens in history - imagine Mongols and Crusaders forming an alliance. Also, it paved way for the Portuguese to est alliance with the Kingdom of Axum Ethiopia whom successfully repelled complete takeover by Islam of Eastern Africa. Then came losses-Crusaders did fail to hold and Maintain Jerusalem for the Holy Roman Catholic Church and Holy See Archdiocese and the Pope was emotionally injured by it at the time. Second failure, Crusaders never really ended up establishing any successful territorial gains and ended up losing all the lands they conquered. Third - the Crusades never was able to unite the Western European kingdoms as the Pope had hoped so Europe will rise again, it just flopped like House of Cards. (But good try Europe) Ultimately alot came out of crusades-new intrigue, Europeans discover new trade routes. Horse cavalry became important, Lateen triangular sails made faster ships and more agile. Eastern inventions started making way to the eventual Renaissance. So yea Crusades were interesting.
I know we talked about the Ottomans Romanizing before but I just recently thought of another idea: what if Russia *fully* Romanized? When I say “fully,” I say it because Russia did adopt many Byzantine traditions because Tsar Ivan III married Sophia Palaiologina, who was a niece of Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI, and it was her idea. But what if they went all the way? Say the Grand Duchy of Moscow under Ivan III changes to the “Roman Empire” but is called the “Muscovite Empire” by everyone else like how the East Romans became Byzantines; Ivan III changes his name to “John IX” to continue Byzantine succession while his wife Sophia becomes “Zoe II.” So on, so forth. I think it could be interesting.
It be just another laughable wannabe Roman state. Every1 wants to be Roman ffs. I mean I get it but have some self respect. Romania claims to be Roman land what a wannabe, Holy Roman Empire claims title what a wannabe, Ottomans claim title what a wannabe jeez every1 wants to be but no1 rly was. Rome died in 4th century as an empire. It's only continuation as a matter of fact was East Rome as it was a part of it and properly continued much of its style. Plus it was the closest it could get to a Roman culture.
Would the success of the Crusades have a large effect on the history of Germany because of the Teutonic Order? Would this order still have made its way to the Baltic if not forced out of the Middle East?
Let's thank Masterworks for sponsoring today's video.
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more: masterworks.art/monsieurz See important Masterworks disclosures: mw-art.co/37WwvbD.
*NEW VIDEOS EVERY SATURDAY AT 11AM*
Isn’t this just an NFT-type scheme?
Oh god, your advertising NFT's.😔
Deception? What deception? Stephen wasn't lying, he had false information.
This is basically my Crusader States in Stainless Steel late game Campaing, eliminating the Ayyubids, maintain an alliance with Byzantium, eliminate the Seljuks ect.
Though my Campaings usually have me fighting Sicily.
Monsieur, sorry can a create a video in Italian of your video?
fun fact: The fall of Edessa caused great consternation in Jerusalem and Western Europe, tampering the enthusiastic success of the First Crusade. Calls for a new crusade-the Second Crusade-were immediate, and was the first to be led by European kings. Concurrent campaigns as part of the Reconquista and Northern Crusades are also sometimes associated with this Crusade.The aftermath of the Crusade saw the Muslim world united around Saladin, leading to the fall of Jerusalem.
Historically inaccurate. Saladin is considered to have united the final parts of the Muslim forces around 1187, when he took Jerusalem, not before (Also the aftermath of the second crusade did not unite the Muslim world, for example how the Egyptian Caliphate was still in complete turmoil even just before the third crusade). It didn't lead to its fall, Division among the Crusaders did, for example how King Guy of Jerusalem saw his only allies as those who were dedicated to bring him to personal ruin (Raymond specifically) so he therefore decided at the Battle of Hattin to take a massive gamble instead of sound Frankish battle strategy when fighting Saladin, leading to his downfall and eventual seize of all powers by Saladin himself... that then led to to the unification process Saladin saw fit to proceed with.
@@obviousgorilla124 you know what is historically accurate? you getting no bitches, HAH got em!
@@johnnottellingyou2402 you don’t need to be rude
@@Massiveboy21 but i was just playin
@@johnnottellingyou2402 lmao 😂
A Re-Christianized and "Re-Latinized" (at least partially) North Africa is a fascinating "what if" historical scenario, it would have change the history of the mediterranean world.
That would be an extremelly based alternate timeline.
They probably wouldn’t be so poor
@@S3aCa1mRa1n they would also be seen as culturally European, or at least close to it.
@@memezoffuckery3207 "Work with the Chinese" least realistic part of your comment.
@@memezoffuckery3207 TF did I just read?
Due to the various factions on the Christian and Muslim side, it is hard to envision what a Crusader victory would look like or what the actual aims were. In Europe, some of the logic behind the Crusades was to stop wars within Europe. The Byzantine faction also creates an interesting scenario as it was both a friend and enemy of the Crusades and in many ways suffered the greatest from the Crusades out of any faction due to the Fourth Crusade. In some ways the Crusades were a success in slowing down Islamic expansion, stopping wars in Europe, and bringing new tech into Europe but in other ways they were an absolute failure. The aims and goals of the Crusades were not defined other than take Jerusalem so this is a HUGE reason for their failure. IMO, the best scenario would have been the Crusaders fighting under the banner of the Byzantines and saving Byzantium. That is the only realistic win scenario that is available. An independent Crusader state as described in the video (and even pointed out in the video) would have many, many challenges that would derail it. However, I agree if it survives to the 1500s, it is likely staying put.
it would likely look like the Reconquista or the northern crusade. 2 similar situations that ended up working out. especially the northern crusade. the holy lands would likely be desert Prussia.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Possibly, IMO they were just too isolate and there wasn't much of a cultural influence on the culture. The Christian (and Jewish) populations that came to the support of the Crusader States were already native to the areas and were really more Coptic and Orthodox than Catholic. The main thing that allowed the Kingdom of Jerusalem to even survive as long as it did was its willingness to be tolerate towards other versions of Christian, Judaism, and some less hostile sects of Islam. There just wasn't enough population and manpower in the area for the Crusader States to survive once thy had to go up against a real Eastern Threat like Saladin's united Arabs, Mongols, Mamelukes, Ottomans, etc.
i dont know the point of most of the crusades but the first one was to protect the byzantine empire from the aggression of the islamic nations and take the holy site of Jerusalem
@@codyyancey1367 that was one goal but, in my opinion, behind closed doors, the Catholic Church saw it as a chance to stop fighting between European countries and get the war elements off to another part of the world. That was the main motivation.
@@volbound1700 Crusades against Cyprus and Constantinople showed clearly that kings and knights had very different motivation - Money.
The 1st Crusade definitely succeeded and the fact that there were Crusader States in the region for hundreds of years after, also speak to success. Any endeavor that lasts that long cannot be considered a failure.
I think the first was successful not the rest especially the 4th
@@thedeadlysquidward1641 yeah but the 4th was funnier tho
@@thedeadlysquidward1641 The 3rd Crusade was successful
@@ЖудаМ kind of a side mission the main goal was to take Jerusalem but they did some other stuff
im in religion class right now learning about the differences between middle ages Catholicism and modern
I think something you didn’t look at were the non-Catholic Christians in this crusader kingdom. Egypt had a significant amount of Coptic Christians and there are other branches in the Levant. The byzantines had treated the Copts in Egypt pretty poorly before the Arabs conquered Egypt (doing so with far inferior numbers and less adept at siege warfare). If the Catholic crusader kingdoms chose to persecute the other Christians and try to force conversions like the Byzantines had before, I think their time would be limited. But assuming your scenario of expanding into Egypt and a decision to tolerate groups like Copts and integrate them into their armies and economy (with European catholics initially as the elites) they could have more success.
This is a point i think is important. I identify as Christian myself. The eastern Roman Empire had a long documented history of schism with the other Christian capitals. This is not even a conversation about who was wrong or who was right -but it is about the fact that Christians in the east, and in north Africa would feel so alienated from Constantinople and Rome that they would take Islam over Christianity. And i think this point is important because it was the mid East, and north Africa who were the first centers of Christianity. What i am saying is that there is somewhere within the Catholic's church inflexibility at understanding Arianism, and the Eastern Roman empires excessive taxation on these parts to where they found Islam as a more agreeable alternative. And no i do not believe for a moment what a "Hallelujah" moment that was for them. They took what they could get. Take into account too, the thing that allowed Islam to spread militarily, it was WAR! The wars with the Persians, why were those necessary? Both the Christians and the Zoroastrians would be the losers.
@@budahbaba7856
You're either a Catholic, or a heretic. There is no middle ground. Catholicism is the only religion which can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ and his apostle Peter. All other offshoots from Catholicism are heresies built on lies and/or misconceptions.
@@honkeykong4049 found the fanatic cultist
That's interesting because Copts are considered to be orthodox, not heterodox.
@@honkeykong4049 I honestly don't understand the whole "Catholicism is the only true form of Christianity" argument. Now there are obviously genuine heresies like Mormonism and Jehovah Witness(ism?), but mainstream Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox sects are all nearly identical theologically. Protestants don't believe in the legitimacy of the Pope and don't pray to Mary or the saints, but they agree on everything else. And didn't the Catholic and Orthodox churches split over when to celebrate Easter?
Here's something else to consider from this timeline. Aside from obvious religious differences due to there being now more powerful Christian theocratic states, there is one event that may prevent all the events that made the Reformation inevitable: the destruction of the Knights Templar. To provide context, the Templars relocated to Paris after the destruction of Acre, where they loaned a considerable amount of money to the French King, Philip the Fair, in his wars against the English. Unable to pay them back, Philip arranged for the seizure of Templar treasury and lands under the pretense of persecuting heretics, even going so far as to attempt to kidnap and eventually kill the current Pope.
This then led to a French Bishop and puppet taking over the Papacy, moving it to France where it incur much of the corruption that led to the worst years of the Papacy. Even after finally moving back to Rome, these corruptive practices would lead to a severely weakened image, with none of the Christian Kings paying it tribute and thus forcing it to take on political indulgences instead. This prompted Martin Luthor to post his 95 Thesis and lead to the Reformation.
Because the Templars remain in the Holy Land and have no involvement with the French Court, the circumstances that led to the takeover of the Papacy do not occur and the Papal States remain a powerful political figure in Europe. How does the Christian world look from this point forward?
martin luther, if anything, would probably just want minor reforms in this timeline (like the so called 'counter-reformation' in OTL) and protestants don't really form.
without the 30 years war European colonisation is probably faster earlier, and north america in this timeline probably resembles south America alot more.
i wonder if the holy roman empire would not also spread more.
Butterfly flaps its wings man
I like how this implies France, the first daughter of the Church, single handedly destroyed the power and prestige of the Papacy.
Papal states would be more powerful obviously. Maybe they would win Cambrai League war? And Unify Italy under the Pope?
Or could crumble even harder being drunk on power. Such things are common throughout the history and the most likely outcome out of all idealistic ones.
Just seeing Armenian Cilicia was a treat, and getting mentioned was even better. I can imagine in this timeline Armenian Cilicia would eventually push for retaking their historic homeland in the Armenian Highlands, whether as part of the Crusader States or as an independent entity. That said, this mention alone may have just made my day.
i imagine they would also accept byzantine control of the region, after all when the byzantines controlled it sometimes armenains became emperors.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 , fair point.
Nah, a Resurgent Byzantium means an annexed or vassalized Cilicia like what happened under John and Manuel Komnenos.
Antioch remaining united with the Crusader states with a resurgence in Byzantine power is also impossible. They considered it dejure their’s and historically subjugated them under Manuel.
I'm from Bulgaria so not feeling enough satisfied with Ottomans not being a thing cause Bulgaria in this video doesnt exist. In my opinion it would exist soon again. The Mongol hordes would likely put more pressure on the mid east in such scenario since if United it be more wealth waiting for grabs.
May I ask why armenian cilicia is so important to you? Are you armenian?
Egypt had a large Arabic-speaking Coptic Christian minority by 1100s. They would probably reach majority again under Crusader rule. Though Arabic language may remain dominant given it became common far before Egypt became majority Muslim.
That's an interesting idea, but I don't see a Coptic resurgence. Crusaders would be unlikely to significantly support the "wrong" Miaphysite Christianity of the Copts.
I do think that the persecution suffered under the Mamluks would be avoided, so there would be a lot more Copts (25%-30% maybe) and they'd preserve their language. Whether they are Catholicised or retain their own church depends on the tolerance of the crusader kings.
However, I suspect that most of Egypt's population (which was already majority Arab and Muslim by the 11th century) would simply convert to Catholicism but maintain the Arabic language. They would be like Maronites, except not a minority group and probably with stronger European influence. They may even abandon Arabic in favour of an Egyptian offshoot of French, but I think that is unlikely.
You would probably also have many thousands of Muslims left. A lot of them would be Shia because of the Fatimid legacy. They might migrate to more remote areas- maybe as far as Nubia to avoid persecution. Alternatively, they might be worked expelled, just like in Spain.
The Copts could also work out a deal to mend the schism. The Coptic Catholic Church is, after all, a thing.
new slave girls for the barbary states.
@@12SPASTIC12 I find it unlikely, 1000 years is a long time and even if half of it was spent trying to change the language, one of the easiest things to change of an area (the language would be changed due to the connections to Islam) I find it likely that it would be
Iʻve been working on an ethnic map of such a secnario, for some time now! Great to see you exploring such a timeline!
Looking forward to seeing that. Post it on the site: www.usofz.com/feed
What matters is the religion not ethnicity. if the Levant was a Christian majority it would surely be an atheist degenerate place, where women go naked for everyone. like your countries. just like the rest of Europe and America.
For the next alternate history, I’d like to see the What if Dollfuss survives from assassination then allied with Italy to avoid Anschluss and declare a war on Germany with the allies and What if Mongolia conquered Japan and see what will be happens.
Plus, I’d like to see a new chapter of the Scar Nicholas that Hitler meet Nicholas II. I believe that Hitler become the minister of culture in Scar Nicholas Universe. :)
What allies LoL? UK and France totally ignored Anschluss IRL.
@@fkjl4717 THAT IS WHY IT'S ALTERNATE HISTORY.
@@brunoacostasilva Oh, i m sorry, but i believe that Alternate History should be a HISTORY, not some random bullshit.
@@fkjl4717 It's not random, in fact, a Axis Victory would be evem more random and nosense by this criteria, yet it is one of most common and popular Alt History scenarios.
You just don't understand the subject or is too proud to recognise an error.
13:14 I'm pretty sure that Egypt at the time of the Crusades still had a majority (Coptic) Christian population so that part doesn't make much sense.
yes according to Muslim sources Coptic Christians were still the majority of the population at the time of the first crusade (specifically Al-Muqaddasi). (edit: that said relgious tensions between copts and latin christians might still result in a breakaway, depending on how things are handled)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 It might have been some thing like Norman England with a Latin speaking elite and a mostly Coptic underclass
@@dontcomply3976 not really. The Normans and the Anglosaxons were both Catholic at the time. Here the native Egyptians would be Coptic Orthodox and the Frankish Crusaders would be Roman Catholic. Probably Ireland under British control would be a better comparison.
coptic or catholic or orthodox, you all dayouth infidels who worship the cross.
you realize that it was only around the time of Baldwin the 1st of Jerusalem that Egypt lost it's majority Christian Population, the Miaphysites would never allow the westerners rule them for long, if the crusaders did rule Egypt they may either try to mend the schism between Alexandria and Rome, or not wanting revolts they may convert to Coptic Christianity and make Coptic the official language to gain allies in the native Egyptian population, as well as the Ethiopians of the horn and the Armenians who are also Miaphysites.
Egyptians tend to be bad at rebelling against an occupying people. I doubt they would be more rebellious to fellow Christian rule than Muslim rule.
@@SuperCrow02 it wouldn't be rebellions directly but rather the perceived consequence of a rebellion, like the destabilization, and the ability of the surrounding Muslim states who could use the rebellion as a pretext to attack the state.
_[Sabaton faintly echoes in the distance]_
In this timeline we can probably see a new sect of Christianity like Catholicism but with a pope on Jerusalem and a stronger emphasis on evangelism
I can imagine it being more like a Latinised Orthodox church, keeping the Pentarchy but embracing a predominantly Catholic doctrine and tradition
There would need to be a blending of christian doctrines to keep the peace.
@@johnroach9026 Isn't that basically the Eastern Rite Catholic churches? Though it seems like you're saying the inverse where its Orthodox but Latinized, vs Catholic but retaining their own eastern rites more closely associated with Eastern Orthodoxy.
How would the Protestant reformation affect it then? My theory is that we could also see a new type of Protestantism develop in the region at the time oof the reformation.
@@jacksauce maybe a slight change but I doubt a schism like the east Catholicism we see here would panic the Catholics enough to reform
"European merchants supply the best weaponry, contributing to their own defeat"
- Salahuddin Al Ayyubi
@@scottanos9981 venetians
Yea that's the kind of underhanded malicious slimy thing they would believe
@@scottanos9981 Italians who emulated the Jewish ways and became successful as a result
The Crusades were doomed to fail because they didn't stay true to their original objective: help the Byzantine Empire. Only the First Crusade did this. All the rest, most predominantly the Fourth, turned against Byzantium, which was split between Latin and Turkish spheres. The Catholics canibalized their own Orthodox allies for some extra islands and lands in the Balkans.
@New History Official I would believe that Byzantine Greeks would reform and end the centuries old as Romans.
There were tensions of Greek identity as well. If the Ottomans existed and conquered Constantinople, then by the help of Christian Europe, they successfully pushed the Turks out of Anatolia and freed the Greeks. The Greeks would rebrand themselves as another kingdom of Europe, this time as a Greek Orthodox superpower of the Eastern Medieteranean.
@New History Official Have the Fleeing Crusaders not tell Alexios to turn back and that’s very much possible.
@New History Official I got another alternative for the 4th crusade. What if the newly established latin empire doesnt fight Bulgaria but accepts alliance? No1 on the Balkans be able to trouble it. No humiliation near Adrianopole and so on. Could always use an extra hand. After all they werent locals. Couldnt continually maintain decent sized armies.
@New History Official the Push of Turks out of Anatolia never was a goal for crusaders. Their goal was "reclaim the Holy land" (Jerusalem, Palestine, Antioch, etc.) and create here a Christian state.
The byzantines retreating during the 1st crusade must be at least one reason for the europeans to tell the emperor to f*ck off during the next centuries
Finally, Ethiopia isn't alone for hundreds of years.
The Italians would probably have never dreamt of conquering Ethiopia in this timeline.
@@danshakuimo would Italy even exist? If trade routes come back to Christian hands, Venice, Genoa, Neapol, Milan, Papal states, etc. would be oil-rich far longer. Also there would be always Spain, France or Austria to put down possible "Unifier".
@@fkjl4717 Oh yeah you're right, a united Italy was a very recent thing. Things would be a lot different.
Funny that I found this. I was just playing CK2 earlier and was King of Jerusalem but ended up swearing fealty to the Byzantines and later became emperor because I owned so much of the empire (over half) that I managed to get myself chosen as the next emperor. Big brain
Similar for me
My son instead got the title of king of jerusalem and byzantine emperor after my death, and his sister became queen of bulgaria
I'm in the middle of a CK2 game, and the Crusades actually worked in my game, with the establishment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Fast forward about 300-400 years, and Jerusalem controls Egypt, half of the Arabian Peninsula, and is making their way to Anatolia. Note that the Islamic world in my CK2 game is fractured and don't have a lot of massive kingdoms. Kept having rebellions and splitting apart.
Oh God! Please does anyone know how I can get Mount and blade warband phantasy running on my system?
omg i really like your voice mr z you should make more podcast on paxhistoria or do voice over like some thing that can be make easily
Gay
I liked the first video and I wondered if you would ever do a remake. And I have to say, you didn't disappoint me. Thanks
One can only imagine 😔
imagine dayouth infidel, only in your dreams. reality is that Muslims will soon conquer Rome inshallah
@@Sectarian. cope more
@@elemperadordemexico You're the ones who lost lmao
@@hall511 So did you, 1948-2022
@@elemperadordemexico Didn't it take you 800 years to take back Iberia?
Just imagine being able to move to Byzantium today, it sounds beautiful
What if the Teutonic and Livonia orders successfully became a military power in Eastern Europe. Basically a military order independent of Europe kingdoms and empires like Germany holy Roman empire.
The Teutonic and Livonian orders were already an autonomous, powerful military force in our own timeline. No state (e.g., the HRE) exerted much influence over them because they came from hundreds of German principalities. Its a big part of why they almost immediately went rogue and started attacking the Catholic Poles and Orthodox Russians too.
@@Steadyaim101 in medieval total war 2 I play them and do just that making the tectonic and Livonia order a powerful military order independent and strong.
Well, then Russia wont exist. Novgorod and Pskov areas would be a part of united Livonia order.
@@fkjl4717 yeah cause in the game version medieval total war 2 Teutonic campaign I conquer them so no Russia just the order of the Teutonic and Livonia order which might become a second Germany in Eastern Europe. An order of men at arms and knights ruling Eastern Europe .
@@eidoneverchoosen1171 I respect TW games, i played thousands of hours...but for historical simulation games like UE4 or Crusader kings 2 are much better.
I think you missed the one of the most important points when it comes to population, as at that time Coptis was still dominant religion in Egypt,
Would love to see a series based on this.
I think that after the crusader state and the Byzantine empire stabilized, they would probably unite under a personal union, so long as the great schism is mended.
That makes no sense. The Best you would get is the historical situation of the Byzantines as the overlords and the Crusaders as Vassals like what happened under Manuel Komnenos.
The cultural differences are too strong hence why their alliances often failed.
@@tylerellis9097 Agreed. I doupt East Roman dignity would allow it to be left out of the Holy lands. Sooner or later it just would go for it. East Rome couldnt have any1 sitting nearby and just have peace. Many of its wars with Bulgaria happent not because of Bulgaria but because of it's to make Bulgaria exit the balkans.
@@ivokantarski6220 1. Bruh the Bolghars were squatting on and invaded Byzantine lands, raided the Empire, attacked and subjugated Slavs in Byzantine territory, intervened in multiple Byzantine civil wars, and was right next to Constantinople. They had literally tripled in size right in front of the Empire, I don’t think Serbia appreciated that either lol.
Byzantium hired the Rus cause Emperor Peter was allowing raiding Magyars through Bulgaria to Byzantine territory while making the Empire pay Tribute. Even then their was periods of decades of peace between the 2.
Serbia, Croatia, Georgia, and the Lombards were never conquered. The Serbs and Croats actually had permission to settle in Byzantine lands from the Emperor.
Other than the Arab Muslims who constantly raided the Empire, Bulgaria was the only state the Byzantines ever completely conquered and the only one to ever attack Constantinople repeatedly.
2. But yes a Union of Zealous Feudal Latin Catholic Crusaders with Imperial Bureaucratic Greek Orthodoxs is impossible.
Deus Vult!
You should also remake your "What if Alexander The Great lived?" video. Also, how about "What if the Aztecs defeated Cortez?" or "What if the Mongols conquered Japan?"
It’s glorious!!!!
Hey
the lions of Arabia and Iraq would quickly destroy this dayouth state once it's 'established' ofcourse it's only in your dreams and youtube videos.
@@Sectarian.cope
What if William the conqueror lost the battle of Hastings.
Then he would only be known as William the Bastard
Kind of disapointed how it wasn"t mentioned hoe the liberation of the still significant Coptic orthox population in egypt would have boosted the christian cause or impacted it's subsecuent rule. Still awesome video
Especially considering they were a majority at the time
@Leo the British-Filipino I love our Coptic Brothers! Some of the first and most-faithful Christians.
Can you make a metropol part 2 I really enjoyed the timeline and I would like to see it continued
I waited so long for a video like this
The best timeline
We need a part two
Can you do a continuation scenario on how the age of exploration would go in this world? I doubt it'd be very different. But that really depends on how much time passes.
A part two would be cool, maybe some crusade colonies.
Deus Vult!
Excellent video Monsieur Z! I am sorry that I am late for the party. You hit the information on the nail almost to a T. If I were to add one thing, the Holy Land was majority Christain during this time period. Especially Egypt. So it would be easy for the Kingdom to get a large standing army quickly.
I got this information from Real Crusades History. He is a wonderful historian on the Crusades and the Middle Ages
It would be interesting to see how this impacts later history
What a beautiful dream
With Christianity in control of Egypt, this would mean that there is no absurd increase in the price of spices. Which is what originally lead to the Portugese and the Spanish trying to find another way to India. So with The Crusades succeeding, the Americas likely would not have been found for potentially a century or two more.
Basically peace in the middle east. No palestine conflict, no syrian war, etc
Idea for the next one what if Edward III had won the Hundred Years’ War.
For your next alt history video I’d love to see What if the Gallipoli campaign succeed
I think the mongols would definitely be able to take over all of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in this timeline since the main reason why Mongols failed to the Mamlukes was because of the lack of Hulagu Khan (who had ventured back to Mongolia) and the cavalry culture of the Mamlukes. I doubt the slow and tanky knights of Jerusalem would be powerful against the speedy and accurate mongols.
Would Mongol bows be powerful enough to penetrate Crusader plate armor or Crusader chain mail? I don't really know that much about armor and arrows and whatnot. I do know English Long-bows could penetrate armor, but those were some of the most powerful bows ever made.
@@j.scottwigginsjr.3946 Since they had little problems with that in Eastern Europe during their campaigns in Russia, Poland, Hungary and Romania, they Mongols would ably run circles around and defeat the crusaders, devastating the Levant and conquering Syria if nothing else, moving the center of this Outremer into Egypt. Though this Outremer might have fared better if they adopted some of the local light cavalry culture and recruited christianized arab light cavalry.
@@j.scottwigginsjr.3946 Considering the succes of the Golden Horde in Eastern Europe id say the Mongools have a good possibility to win.
Probably not, there are sources telling that small recurve bows of that time were not powerful enough to pierce chainmail
@@viktorwasielewski5687 faced little problems against hungary? you mean defeating the largely light cavalry army in the first invasion and failing to take any foritifcations, and then getting their asses handed to them by the knight and crossbow heavy hungarian army in the 2nd invasion? yeah 'little problem' my ass.
the crusaders would kick the mongols asses *hard*, history shows the mongols were weak to european style knights and european style crossbowmen, things the crusaders had in spades.
This happened to by buddy Eric once
I like this mapping style
This is very nitpicky but the northern coast of Turkey (especially around Trembzond) should be Byzantine and not Turkish.
None of the Byzantine borders in this vid are accurate lol. He’s just generalizing to visualize the general situation.
@@tylerellis9097 True but overall, the borders are not that far off from reality. Better than some Medieval maps that even appear in major textbooks.
@@volbound1700 Ehhh it’s about on par with the high school textbooks I had in history lol.
My God… it’s… *beautiful*
Fun Fact: did you know that king Baldwin the first would get help from the king of Norway in his conquest
Let's go!
I would actually like to see a part two
been a while since the last "what if" video. nice to see a new one after all this time ... still eagerly waiting for the next installment of Scar Nicolas's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen though
Better time line to be sure
For the Holy land!
Deus Vult!
You could also touch the points about .
The baizantines holding the status of protector of the slavs and orthodox christianity. Potentially bringing them in conflict with russia later in the timeline.
Another nice one would be ,your thaughts on the age of exploration as it was primarily fueled by the seizure of the land trade route between india and europe by the muslims.
It would be nice.
I feel like I know this will be based without even seeing it yet.
Heck yeah been waiting for one about the crusader states one of the most interesting times in history
Glorious
With Egypt remaining under Christian rule,in Egypt likely we would see Coptic Christianity and the Coptic language gradually recover dominance against Islam and the Arabic language.
Make a part 2 ezploring how the age of explorations, colonization and indistrialization will work in these tl please
I wonder what the long term effects of this scenario would have on Western Europe
Well there would be no Ottoman Empire. That’s already huge enough of a break that the amount of butterfly effects would be insane and incalculable.
Ottomans not existing best timeline ever
Please don’t i dream about this stufff . This is what i desire.
Agree
Good stuff!
Though fanatism . But surely it would be better than this world . I am not christian but i can say this undoubtedly.
Though a dumb comment. I don't think it would be better probably be more problems
@@hopeintruth5119 keep your baseless comments to yourself. Atleast think before you speak . You islamist .
@The roots are deep first off I'm an atheist, second off you mean Muslim, third off I don't sew how I could be when I don't like any abrahamic religion
Its pretty idiotic to think the world would be better if the Crusades succeeded.
Ya it would surely hamper the spread of the green fungus. I understand your pain .
It’s too sad that it’s never happened.
Why?
@@HaDe_Twins Maybe they would be like many parts of Europe now, not really that religious anymore
What's sad is Suleiman's failure to take Vienna and expand the caliphate into central Europe 😔
@@madaranotsoanonymousnowuch1539 so true.
I would love to see europe with the majority being muslims.
@@Forlfir they would be dayouth like Europe, and ofcourse degenerate and non-religious.
oh yeah it’s all coming together
Ariovistus achieving victory at the Battle of Vosges in 58 BC would have had a massive influence on the history of Rome and Gaul, and would be a really interesting "What If" scenario.
The idea of North Africa and the Near East becoming Christian again is probably the most fascinating alternate timeline to me. The idea of a modern world where North Africa and the Near East is considered European and much of it considered part of the western world is just such a cool concept. World history would never be the same.
No Middle East where not considered Europeans even by Europeans themselves ( ancient or modern) even before Persian Greeks wars they have completely different history , culture, values , look etc and since you’re talking about religion Christianity started in Middle East dose that Europeans are middle Easter Arab invaded Europe for a long time are Europeans Middle Eastern ?
@@painxsavior7723 at the time they weren’t. But back then most of Europe wasn’t the same as it is now. The Germanic areas couldn’t have been more different to the other places that Rome held. But today, Germanic nations share a lot of history with Rome and are considered part of Western civilization which comes from Rome. What I’m saying is if Rome continued to influence North Africa and the Middle East, those places would probably be considered part of western civilization too. Meaning sharing religion, culture, alphabets, history, etc.
@@xELITExKILLAx and if Middle Eastern nation ruled Europeans for a long time they too would be considered Middle Eastern ? So does that mean Spain is berber ? (Native people of North Africans )
@@painxsavior7723 He didn't mean it like that. Being part of the Western World isn't determined by genetics or location but rather by shared values and ideas. It stands a reason why Czechia and Australia are considered part of the West despite of zero connection to the Roman Empire itself.
@@MissionControlTet oh ok I see I probably should have thought about it more honestly I don’t know why I replied in the comments of a pro west American right wing channel but here we are thanks for the clarification🙂
Great video too bad your sound is a very low, I'm watching it on my phone and the volume is all the way up and I can barely hear you.
Up next: what if Portugal existed. That'd be a cool scenario!
it should be remembered that the crusades were also something of a mass migration, since the warriors also needed craftsmen and peasants for menial chores. a stable crusader state would be a magnate for even more migrations, as in any other colonial endeavor. such a trend would result in a scaling down of european wars, since the kings and nobles would be convinced to seek lands in the east. with less people to go around demanding reform after the plague, there would be no peasan'ts revolt and the feudal system would be more firmly entrenched, while the rennaisance may occur in the crusader colonies, closer to the greco-roman heritage still studied in byzantium. one may think that an alliance between the byzantines and the crusader kingdoms would result in a reverse crusade, this time by byzantines and their allies reaching into europe. the possible pretext for that may be the plea by the wallachian prince dracula to help him stop the turks, who wouldn't take things lying down. he was an orthodox christian before converting to catholicism. and so, after declaring wallachia and hungary a crusader protectorate, the bolstered byzantine empire advances into mainland europe, and many kings and queens either declare themselves as the legal rulers of lands overseas by lineage to crusader kings, or find their lands subjugated to the rule of crusader lineages for much the same reason.
I wouldn't really call it a mass migration, the majority of the participants of any given crusade quickly went home after it was over. Not very much actually stayed hence why they always had manpower problems.
@@parmafarnesio6586 and yet, many histories that i read refer to the non-combatants that joined the crusade as a mass migration in anything but name, probably because the byzantines expected a number of fighting men and not the large numbers that joined them, with all the attendant problems. the emperor's letter to pope urban is often seen as the cause of a misunderstanding between them, and sometimes as a ploy by the pope to take over the lands of the crusading nobles.
I'm curious how the exploration of the new world would happen in this scenario, if it happens at all that is
Wondering if that would effect anything that would do with Vlad Tepes, as the Ottomans shaped his early life
He wouldn’t exist
Thanks for this insightful video! I doubt that the Outremer could be politically united, a) feudalism b) the division between french germanic, norman, occitan and english crusaders c) the opposition between Palestine's spiritual prestige and Egypt's wealth and massive christian population would require at least 2 states in the region. Tripoli, Galilee and maybe antioch and later on syria could, though, be integrated into Jerusalem as their titles were already of lower rank.
As one who enjoys making maps, good sir, what do you use to make your own?
this outcome is widely unrealistic, for multiple reasons
1. the normans never would have let the papal states survive
there is no reasonable timeline in which the papal states and norman sicily can co-exist
this is in part due to papal interest in their land
and in part due to norman unwillingness to accept the pope as anything more than a spiritual leader
this, in combination with the general animosity between the normans and the holy roman empire, would likely lead to a united, norman italy, and, since this is in a time before the holy roman empire declared itself "holy", a severely discredited West Rome
2. capturing egypt in and of itself would have already given Jerusalem an immense christian population, as at this time, the copts were still a significant portion of the population
given the zealous nature of the cause, it would not be unlikely that Jerusalem collapses not in spite of taking out egypt, but because of it, since there is a good chance they would have slaughtered the copts, seeing them as heretical
this in turn would have paved the way for a coptic rebellion, that could have resulted in an immediate muslim reconquest of the crusader state
if jerusalem could have cooperated with the copts however, jerusalem without a doubt would have eventually become coptic, seeing as the copts would have already been the majority of the christian population in this altered timeline
a coptic jerusalem would have been closer aligned to ethiopia rather than byzantium, and as such, fallen out of the western cultural sphere
this would in turn have created a state much like Russia, that is neither western nor ethiopian, and just this awkward middle thing that looks uncanny to either side.
had jerusalem simply vibed with the copts and somehow remained catholic, like they do in your scenario, then the plague would likely put an end to that
as you noted, the plague could have caused jerusalem to collapse, but not in the way you think
egypt, if at all united, would not have been a muslim breakaway state, but a christian one, one that is again much closer aligned with ethiopia rather than the west
though this hypothetical egypt would be an even more bizarre entity, as it would try to both co-exist with the probably still-existing muslim majority in its borders, as well as the christian states surrounding it, paving the way for one of three out comes:
A) a failed state that collapses within a century, probably giving rise to a new caliphate, reinvigorating muslim aggression
B) a trade empire that pacified its muslim population by encouraging syncreticism with coptic theology
C) a militant empire, hostile toward the encroaching catholic states that see it as lesser, likely syncretizing the more aggessive parts of islamic theology, both to pacify its own population, and to encourage a stronger "us vs them" mentality, a rival of the west's own-making
The thing is with Coptic Jerusalem is that culturally, the ruling class would still have many cultural ties to their European ancestors even if they themselves adopted Oriental Orthodoxy instead of Roman Catholicism. The question is whether the religious element would've actually caused them to be excluded from Western matters or not. I would say because they still share cultural similarities and probably still speak the language, and assuming the Copts are tolerant of the remaining Catholics and allow them safe passage to the Holy Land, there shouldn't be too much of issue and they would not be truly excluded from the Western Cultural Sphere. But whether they will be a weirdo state like Russia depends on many factors as well.
And I believe in our timeline many native, non-Catholic Christians fought and died for the crusader states so I would highly doubt that the Crusaders would slaughter the Copts for being heretics and if it does happen it would be due to a few rowdy knights consumed by bloodlust rather than because the people in charge said so. Cilician-Armenia was a major ally of the Crusaders despite not being Catholic, though there was some chafing due to the religion part.
However if the Catholics did start persecuting the Copts and Muslims in Egypt then there would probably be a bunch of rebellions and the Crusaders would probably only hold onto a small number of cities while the rest become independent Coptic or Muslim states, with a few probably joining Makuria to the south.
It’s actually not impossible for the Holy Land to unite purely through inheritance. The various ruling families of the Crusader states frequently intermarried and by the end of the 15th century the House of Savoy would have nigh indisputable claims to most of the monarchies in the region thanks to the marriage of Anne of Cyprus to Louis, Duke of Savoy
The video has a good introduction with showing the importance of the Levant, the Holy Land and Egypt to the Greco-Roman world, and that this region constituted the economic and financial stronghold of the Mediterranean world. As for the disunity of Alexander's successor kingdoms, well one can say that Eastern Rome had gone full circle with bringing out the combined strategic military potential of the Greek-speaking Eastern Mediterranean, anchored in Constantinople.
Also, a side note for Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria forming a three-way economic sphere of influence, these three cities also constituted 3 of the 5 Apostolic Sees of the original Pentarchy alongside Rome and Jerusalem. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) was translated in Alexandria in the 3rd Century BC, and it was in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians.
If only this had been the way it ended, we destroyed our chances when we fought eachother. All it would have taken is more cooperation
Unfathomably based.
If only... if only
Theoretically if the crusades “succeeded” the Byzantine empire never would have died and in return, ideally, the Greek emperor would have overturned the great schism. The failure of the crusades is inextricably linked to the selfishness of the crusaders and the lack of direct assistance to the Greeks, who were asking the pope for assistance against invaders. It turned into a giant mess, the pope didn’t have centralized authority over the crusades to effect any sort of coordination and devolved into a huge free for all and even saw crusaders attacking Greek Christians, who was asking for help.
Comment for the algorithm
video idea: what if the crusaders actually helped the byzantines (like they were supposed to)
I wish this was our timeline
What if the crusades went as intended by the byzantines
Great video! If only...
One point: Egypt was much more christian in this period. The coptic population was around 50/60% if I'm not mistaken so a christian reconquest would have a good amount of allied population to help with that.
this would change history so much it's fascinating cause this means we get to see possible Byzantine and Jerusalem colonies and they'd also industrialize at some point
A fascinating side effect of this POD is that, because Constantinople doesn’t fall, the spa ish wouldn’t need to find an alternate route of commerce to the goods from asia, and therefore the new would have been discovered much later, specially if spain retaliates against morocco and the caliphate and invades them. I can’t imagine what changes would happen because of this. Is a huge divergence between our timelines.
A better world
Best timeline.
I wish the Crusaders won. Radical Islam would have been eliminated from the face of the earth.
While the Crusades never entirely failed what most dont realize is that the Crusades ulimately never failed or succeeeded either way - they kinda did both. They won some objectives and also failed in others. For example, the Crusades ultimately paved the way for Europeans to be interested in world affairs like a medieval age superpower in the meantime, it also made foreign cultures establish first contact with Europeans. That in a way is a global success as people of different origins for the first time made contact (albeit not peacefully but still diplomacy on the battlefield). The next success gave the Europeans inspiration that eventually made way for Marco Polo, Ferdinand Magellan, Prince Henry the Navigator, Vasco Da Gama, and many others. Most dont realize that it was the crusades early in the wars that dire needed an ally that lead them to accidentally discover the Mongols under the Golden Horde that were also fighting the Turks lol at the same time!! The two sides almost formed an alliance! Crazy happens in history - imagine Mongols and Crusaders forming an alliance. Also, it paved way for the Portuguese to est alliance with the Kingdom of Axum Ethiopia whom successfully repelled complete takeover by Islam of Eastern Africa. Then came losses-Crusaders did fail to hold and Maintain Jerusalem for the Holy Roman Catholic Church and Holy See Archdiocese and the Pope was emotionally injured by it at the time. Second failure, Crusaders never really ended up establishing any successful territorial gains and ended up losing all the lands they conquered. Third - the Crusades never was able to unite the Western European kingdoms as the Pope had hoped so Europe will rise again, it just flopped like House of Cards. (But good try Europe)
Ultimately alot came out of crusades-new intrigue, Europeans discover new trade routes. Horse cavalry became important, Lateen triangular sails made faster ships and more agile. Eastern inventions started making way to the eventual Renaissance. So yea Crusades were interesting.
I know we talked about the Ottomans Romanizing before but I just recently thought of another idea: what if Russia *fully* Romanized?
When I say “fully,” I say it because Russia did adopt many Byzantine traditions because Tsar Ivan III married Sophia Palaiologina, who was a niece of Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI, and it was her idea. But what if they went all the way? Say the Grand Duchy of Moscow under Ivan III changes to the “Roman Empire” but is called the “Muscovite Empire” by everyone else like how the East Romans became Byzantines; Ivan III changes his name to “John IX” to continue Byzantine succession while his wife Sophia becomes “Zoe II.” So on, so forth. I think it could be interesting.
It be just another laughable wannabe Roman state. Every1 wants to be Roman ffs. I mean I get it but have some self respect. Romania claims to be Roman land what a wannabe, Holy Roman Empire claims title what a wannabe, Ottomans claim title what a wannabe jeez every1 wants to be but no1 rly was. Rome died in 4th century as an empire. It's only continuation as a matter of fact was East Rome as it was a part of it and properly continued much of its style. Plus it was the closest it could get to a Roman culture.
Muscovy wouldn't have had the wealth or power or territory necessary to reasonably proclaim succession to Rome like Byzantium did.
Truly a blessed timeline
Would the success of the Crusades have a large effect on the history of Germany because of the Teutonic Order? Would this order still have made its way to the Baltic if not forced out of the Middle East?
It did in my CK2 playthrough
So you mean what if Frederick the Red had got busy
'Nervous laughter intensifys'