What if the Crusades were successful?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лип 2022
- Watch next: "Every Significant Mongol Successor State; How The Mongols Fell in 1857"
• Every Significant Mong... -~-
#christian #christianity #saladin #crusades #crusaderkings3 #alternatehistory #whatif
What if the crusades were successful long term and christian states remained in the region. I think much of these christian defeats can be traced back to a single man: Saladin. His charisma and military prowess led him to take control over Shii'te Egypt, turn it Sunni and unify Egypt and Syria against the crusader states. Without Saladin we eliminate the need for the third and especially fourth crusade, leading to a radically different world.
If you like the content please like, comment and subscribe, it helps smaller channels like mine to get noticed!
If you want to support the channel you can go to my Patreon or become a member! You will get early access to video's and will be allowed to suggest priority video subjects!
/ possiblehistory
/ @possiblehistory
Feel free to follow or join our social media platforms:
/ possiblehistory
/ possiblehistor1
/ discord
Audio editor thanks to E4Arakon. For German versions of video's by OSP, Kraut and more check out his channel!
/ @e4arakon
I'd say the byzantines would most likely survive in one form our another due to Russia starting to exist and eventually Russia would become a long term allie of the byzantines and support them and stop them from being conquered.
Honestly, the Russians aren't even necessary. Without the 4th Crusade the Romans don't spend 57 years wandering the wilderness trying to reconquer something they shouldn't have needed to reconquer in the first place plus having to look to the West after the reconquest in fearful paranoia that the Latins would come back to retake what they had lost, wasting further resources in the west that the East desperately needed.
Without the 4th Crusade, the Angeloi... would still fall. Everything about them screams "Transitory Dynasty". Maybe we see a restored Komnenoi, or a new dynasty like the Doukoi, or Laskarids (I'm rather partial to the Laskarids).
In this scenario, after this period of internal dynastic reshuffling and inevitable reform, the Romans would likely recover Anatolia sometime in the 13th century, after the Mongols cave in the Seljuk Turks in the 1240s.
And frankly, since the video was about removing Saladin from the picture, you could change a lot more than just the 4th Crusade. Saladin was born in 1137. That's a lot of stuff you could change. Arguably one of the biggest mistakes of Manuel's reign was when he defeated the Turks... and then made peace and fucked off West to do shit there (like invade Hungary and Italy). Had he instead pressed his advantage against the Turks he could've kept them off balance and, while he may not have reconquered the Anatolian plateau, he likely would've avoided Myriokephalon leaving the Empire in a stronger position versus the Turks.
All of this ultimately would've butterflied away the historical fall of the Komnenos Dynasty, leaving the Empire FAR better off by butterflying away the 2nd Bulgarian Empire.
@Piece of Schmidt Gamer I mostly agree, with the byzantines it always depends on the leadership you could get a basil the 2nd or you could get an angeloi!
>Byzantine survives
Happy Russian fleet sounds
Not really. The russians arent going to not try to break into the med simply because the people who hold the med are orthodox and not muslim.
Another domino effect of this timeline is that without the Ottomans killing the Hungarian king in 1526, Austria does not get personal unions over Hungary and Bohemia, meaning they do not rise to power in the same way as in our timeline. This means there is no Austria to check France's expansion into Italy and the HRE.
I had an idea for a video or series. The premise is that you take an average or incompetent leader and give them the leadership ability and intelligence of say Alexander the Great or Augustus. So for example what if Czar Nicholas was a genius. There is also the opposite making someone who was a genius into an average or incompetent leader.
Would Europeans have the same urge to explore Atlantic as in OTL?
Slightly less so since the initial spark is gone, but when shipbuilding technology develops to a point where oceangoing navies become possible it's just a matter of time before someone gets the idea to sail West, after which a rush for exploration would begin.
I think it was because most of search of Atlantic watch done by the iberian kingdoms who wanted to find new trade routes to be independent of Italian merchant republics.
The Europeans also explored the Atlantic to find ways to lost christian kingdoms or find other mythological holy men. Also the Portugese would still wish to get their hands on the trade instead of having the Italian trade city states keep holding onto that rich monopoly. Or Constantinople.
ALGORITHM LETS GOOOOO
soo non muslim balkans...hmm less chaotic
İm not sure though, there is still the Decline of the Second Bulgarian Empire, Stepan Dušan creating the Serbian Tsardom only for it to collapse, Bosnians still seen as Heretics for their Church, even without Muslims you still have Catholics and Orthodox christians wich Byzantines will certainly make sure to keep divided and fractured to not Threaten their Balkan Borders, or even worse Hungarians and Byzantines playing Chess with eachother to convert Bosnia to their own faith, You need more than Ottomans to get the Balkans since War and Tensions existed long before they come.
What if the allies didnt guarantee Poland
then Poland would be actually prepared for war.
@@oliwierbroda2575 and nothing would change
@@leonardopicconi781 we would last way longer
@@oliwierbroda2575 maybe 3 months instead of 1. It wasn't a preparation issue, German blitzkrieg was simply unstoppable during the first half of the war
@@leonardopicconi781 3 months would give UK and France a lot of time to reconsider their war plans. Also there is possibility that in such scenario they would attempt to push. Next thing German casulties would be higher and blitzkrieg would fail.
Ah yes, ISP's Le Pepe mega campaign
Great video, still binging, but keep forgetting to comment on them all!
Does the european age of exploration still occur?
Almost certainly yes. While Muslim control over the trade routes was a big boost to the initial reason for departure, fact is that progress in seafaring technology only now allowed for consistent sea travel. Even without the Ottomans to raise taxes on spices it is a matter of time before Portugal starts to map out Africa, and after that it's just a matter of time before someone is crazy enough to try to sail west. It might happen later, but I have little doubts it will happen.
Enjoyed it. Great video.
1) What if Buddhism didn't lost it's dominance in Central Asia and indian subcontinent?
2)What if caste system in indian subcontinent was weak
3) What if Indo greek kingdom conquered entire Indian subcontinent
2 is great
Six day from now remember me to comment "Where new video" to keep the tradition alive
this time line would be a better place to live for sure
Good Lord, when you start thinking about seemingly regional changes in history, it affects so many things across the globe. It’s kinda fun.
0:25 Muslim rethoric against the Crusaders got more heated the longer they were there and modern muslims certainly see it as an epic religious war.
Yup overtime I doubt the Fatimids would just do nothing especially, likely they could have invaded the Crusader States sometime after they are somewhat stable so an alternate 3rd or 4th Crusade might have happened with Egypt becoming the target like in our timeline. (The plague might even spark some Anti Outremer movement inside and outside Outremer itself.)
What if Ogedei Khan did not die in 1241 leading to the retreat of Subutai Khan from his campaign in Europe?
What if the Magna Carta was not signed? I know in itself it wasn't that innovative or decisive, but it became a real precedent for Parliamentary rights in England influencing the balance of power in the country. If the Kings of England had prevented the emergence of Parliament during the late Middele Ages, they might have gone the way of France with absolutism down the line.
What if a fleet of pox ridden Vikings landed in America and started contact with natives but fleeing south every time the skraelings become sick. Maybe they even have horses. These and the diseases spread throughout the continent and by 1492, most are immunised to smallpox and have horses.
What if Charlemagne did not give territory to the pope, no papal state
What if Napoleon was born in another country? either Corsica does not belong to France but to Austria or his father emigrates to America. Basically what if an other country than France had that kind of military leadership, he would not take control of the state necessarily but any war they are involved in would have him as a general or even as the head of the army.
What if the space race did not end?
What if nuclear weapons were easier to make, leading to more proliferation? (maybe a scientist leaks plans to every countries for small nukes to spread the power)
What if france became fascist in February 1934, invaded Germany in 1936 and split it off in different smaller states, giving parts to poland, Austria, Danemark and keeping their own share?
What if in 1935 a french civil war similar to the spanish similar had broken out?
What if the Yorkist won the Battle of Bosworth? Basically changing the Renaissance English Dynasty.
What if Greek demi-god heroes were real and active from Mycean Greece all the way to the Hellenistic period? Or maybe even later, some roman lines like Ceasar claimed descent from Venus and other deities.
Well, to the Napoleon one, he would just wouldn't rise to power. And entire XIX century does not happen
Honestly you forgot that the byzantines get a good dynasty every couple hundred year so they might rebound and reconquer bulgaria and most of Asia Minor and maybe serbia to but thats streching it
I still think a large Jewish population from Europe would've moved to the Levant over time and built communities due to religious doctrine and mercantile connections, seeing it as their homeland, the difference being that they wouldn't control the state. The Jews would have an eye towards Zion when faced with persecution all the same. It's just that they'd be living in a catholic majority nation that probably has some sort of variation of Latin used as the lingua-franca among all the crusader peoples and Hebrew would probably only be used in a liturgical sense. I don't see the plight of the Jewish people ever changing, and I see them being a substantially large minority in the Holy Land.
Where new video
Should be today :)
@@possiblehistory LETS GOO
Horrible take on the Byzantines
Good vid. A quick correction, in English we pronounce “muslim” as “muzlum.”
i have a single suggestion: what if the chartist revolution actually came
The first thing the first Crusade had to do is take out The Sultanate of RUM then they could have proceeded to Jerusalem and taken the city. With a revived Eastern Roman Empire to protect the Kingdom.
11:35 I am pretty sure the Crusaders agreed to recognize the Mongols as Suzreigns to avoid war.
12:03 The majority were most certainly not Muslim when the conquest happened and even less as they stayed there longer.
16:53 Again, it was already majority Christian when the first Crusades happened, just not latin or greek christian.
Exactly, most people forget Coptic Christian, or Assyrian and Armenian Christian..
pog
Wouldn't Egypt become coptic Christian majority. Being surrounded on all sides by Christians and likly economic subjugation of Egypt
doubtful since european christians considered middle eastern christians as being heretics. I think Egypt would still end up like it is today in terms of demographics. The whole reason why many Egyptians converted was because of the crusades; the presence of these states would ensure that islam spreads much faster among the population in Egypt.
It would be an interesting situation
Why will Roman Empire fall? They bounce back for century from many threats, and without crusaders and osmans they can live untill today.
This is a great video, so Mr. Possible History and the Crusader states being dominant forces in the Middle East would change European policy. But don't understand why the Crusaders feared the Byzantines would conquer their lost territories? I know some of the crusaders want to land in the Middle East, but should they see a stronger Byzantine Empire as a potential ally against any hostile Muslim power or the Mongol Empire? If the Byzantine Empire remained stronger with its lost territories and did significant reforms that could improve the empire. The realm is more liberal and democratic than the United Kingdom and has the Byzantine Emperor as a figurehead symbol of the nation's unity and the people. Who knows? Maybe the Romavos would be married by the Byzantine Imperial family, and we might have a Byzantine Emperor Peter the Great and a possible personal union of Russia and Byzantine, similar to the UK and Hanover. Did you know George III was a member of the House of Hanovrain? It was a German royal house that ruled the kingdom of Hanover and had kings who were from Hanover and ruled Great Britain until Victoria became Queen of Great Britain. I think the Byzantine Empire might survive in the modern day and have a constitutional monarchy similar to Japan with the Japanese Emperor, and the Byzantines could even have a claim on Russia's entire since they had some view of orthodox Christianity and had no problem converting to the religion and modernize Russia way faster than the Romavos ( except for Peter the Great, Nicholas I and Alexander II) and have a better time industrializing and catching catch with the rest of world. I think the Palaiologos could survive with Maragaret Paleloga with her eldest son, Francesco III Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, as Emperor and possibly with Godscall Paleologue as the Last Paleologue Empress of the Palaiologos Dynasty. I think the Byzantine Empire might be in good hands by royal houses such as Gluccksburg, Mountbatten, or Romanov. In your opinion, which of these royal houses would have done a better job, and explain why?
This is a great video, Mr. Possible History, so please keep doing a fantastic job and always try your best? Also, did you see my what-if ideas, and were they too much for you?
Yeah the Byzantines do use the Crusaders to their advantage but their relationship with the Poulain is shakey but yeah its really odd he said that they are a threat to Outremer without giving a detailed explaination on the 2 state's relationship. (He even kind of hints that this relationship lasts until Byzantium enevitably collapses.)
i see the Byzantine empire surviving, maybe even reconquering Anatolia, here is where i would say i disagree with you, because there was no 4th crusade and period of Latin control of the byzantine lands, there is no Italian merchant colonies in the Crimea due to the byzantines being able to shut them out of the black sea, no Caffa means no transmission of the black death back to Europe, is there still a plague? yes, but not to the same extent. The Byzantines would never be a great power like they once were, but they would be able to Hellenize and Christianize the Turkic Muslims in Anatolia, i would say their frontier cities would be Trebizond and Maybe Antioch if they played their cards right with places like Armenia and Georgia being puppets. The Franks, Germans and Italians mix with each other, The Arabs and remnant Greeks, Assyrians and groups like that to form and Outremer culture and one "Levantine Kingdom' that may or may not eventually fall under the Byzantines as a vassal, but this is just my humble opinion as to what would happen, Love the Video
The Safavid dynasty would still rise in Iran as the history of Iran doesn't seem to be affected much here. They would convert Iran to Shia Islam and without Ottoman rivalry would conquer Iraq, eastern Anatolia and maybe Hijaz but after that is hard to predict.
in order for the crusades to work well you need the bizantines to commit. I think what you really want us to increase the regions around bizantium and to take egypt in order to cut off islam from africa
IMO there are a few times it could have worked, the Manuel I one was a failure because the 2 factions failed to organise (especially because of desputes on who should get what) had the Byzantines properly invaded with the Crusaders, had they been successful enough there are a few things that might have happened
1.) Egypt remains an Islamic State but technically under the Protection of the Byzantines and the influence of the Crusaders for a time (more likely outcome)
2. Byzantium and the Crusaders carve up Egypt with Byzantium likely getting a bigger chunk of it (less likely as most people at the time thought Manuel I was overreaching on Egypt but still possible had he commited.)
3.) Crusaders/Outremer Controls a significant chunk of it after the 2 states form an agreement that the Catholic Outremer as a Byzantine Ally/Vassal. (The Least likely outcome, neither Party really liked each other and I doubt Byzantium is willing to just give the Poulain Egypt, a Really Wealthy region.)
No Armenian Genocide. Big W for Armenians
a perfect world
What if the ottomans won the first siege of vienna
They were already close to the point of overextending themselves. The big difference I could see is a United Germany much earlier if the ottomans are perceived as a scary enough threat
@@hs5312 yeah, but i dont think Suleyman wouldve even taken Vienna, the reason for attacking the city was concolidating Hungary, conpletely humiliating Charles and subsequently destroying the Habsburgs to in the future crush venice and conquer Italy with the help of France. I think a victory at vienna wouldve resulted in the capture of Charles and desturction of the Habsburgs and the Holy Roman Empire, protestantism probably taking over everything north of the Alps quickening germanys unification, a stronger Ottoman French Alliance who probably Attack Spain Italy and the Catholic Church together (while germany is in the process of infighting) crushing them and driving catholicism out of europe, with the ottomans taking Italy and the french spain. The only wild card here is the polish lithuanian commonwealth although i doubt they could do anything against the ottomans and french together. I can also see the ottomans and the french entering Marriage Alliances and somewhat creating a muslim protestant neo roman Empire. But honestly this is pretty far fetched but kinda fun
You kind of glossed over Nur al din of syria. Nur al Din basically set everything up for Saladin. Without Nur al Din, Saladin wouldnt have owned syria. Nur al Din also destroyed the county of Edessa.
Also even more important than Saladin is Baybars. Baybars literally destroyed the crusaders and was one of the main figures behind the rise of the Mamluks.
What if King John the bad of england actually converted to islam?
I think that what if the ottomans took Vienna in 1529 is really good
Even if they unifie they would still not have enough numbers. They would never go deeper than the walls of gaint city Damascus. Thus, what you talked about even in the best of conditions is impossible.
Also , such population would overtime convert to Islam as in overtime line.
Egypt was lead by Shia but majority of the population was still Suni. There is a difference between the leaders and rest of the population.
Saladin didn't just like that change the creed. It happened because it was Suni majority population wise of the citizens.
Iraq doesn't have a Shi majority but it is close. If you add Kurds as Suni to the Suni side as they are majority Suni the suni side would be 51%.
I don't see Crusaders taking Damascus. Also, Muslims would always go for Jerusalem.
I will say this, which is the elites may have been shite while the rest were Sunni, but it is possible over a long timeframe for one group to change the other. Iran was a majority Sunni area for the longest time, what changed that is the shite Safavids took over Iran and slowly the population would convert to be shite just like the ruling class. So it is very possible if a shite ruling stayed in power the rest of the population may have converted
@@hs5312 Savid are an exception because they used force alot of genocidal crazy force. Also, they manipulated Islam and Shia. The leaders are not even Muslim shia or suni.
Also you missed the point because they didn't last for long. Even if Saladin didn't come someone would. The mamluks would come eventually. So it is not going to be a long enough period.
@@ailediablo79 maybe as far converting to Shia specifically, but the conversion of Iran until well after the end of the Safavids. But often religion may spread slowly from elites, that is part of how Islam took over in the first place. Also kind of ignored the mamluks, thing is that seems a little less guaranteed to happen without Saladins dynasty
Cope