the industry couldn't sustain that war, you can do something about corruption, but transforming an isolated Italy, that simply didn't have the raw materials, into an industrial powerhouse like Germany is impossible
@@davejosh9588 Italy didn't have to be an industrial powerhouse to win the war. Some better generals and military officials and a little more organization (especially coordination between the fleet and the air force) could also have done it. The operations had to be quick tought.
@@leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498 Average rate of equipment supplies for Italian divisions was better in ww1 than ww2. Seriously, if even 1910s Italy has better industrial production to supply their troops than 1940s fascist Italy, then you know that something must went really poorly. That’s not something you can fix with great general. Fascist Italy might have some newer technology, but Italy in ww1 was able to supply their troops with ammunition. What can great general do when his men don’t get enough equipment to fight?
@@stafer3 It's not like the British troops in Africa were well supplied either, the Generals simply didn't have the initiative or skill to mount an effective assault. They also had a massive numerical advantage in both Africa and Greece.
AltHistHub made one on Zealandia. Problem is that Australia is shaped wrong and is at the wrong latitude for inland seas and wet interiors. Lake Eyre even if filled, isn’t really an inland sea, more a mini- Aral Sea.
@@altiris6874 could be, I thought it was because it was described in the video that french would turn to Algeria after loosing Egypt to Venice. Not sure OP knows that French conquered Algeria shortly after loosing Egypt to Britain.
The greatest gift Amerindians civilization gave us was their agriculture. Corn, Sorghum, Cavassa, Plantains, Potatoes, peppers, avocados, tomatoes, plums, persimmons, pineapples, pumpkins, beans, chocolate, vanilla, ect. Potatoes are the most important. You can produce four times the calories from an acre of potatoes than you can from an acre of wheat. This lead to population explosions in Russia, the Baltic, Poland, Ireland, and Scandinavia.
@@DoxToDox depends on who you ask, if you bereave the 2nd war mob it was a gorilla war fought by Farmers and Mercs and won by the Humans. others say there was no 2nd war and it was just a continuation of the 1stand was won by the Mercs after the CMF folded.
Well the emus were a pretty peaceful race before the human invasions by wining the war the emu states were capable to maintain their economic and political systems that although useful avoided free market capitalism and democracy which in turn weaken them in the long term. Have the emus lost the war and the humans effectively killed entire emu states they would have probably reformed and adopted free market capitalism and industrialization to outcompete the Australians and survive, this would have been huge the emu population was just huge the only reason why Australia was capable of inflicting so much casualties to the emu armies was thanks to their technological advances and even though the emus won by sheer size. Have the emus industrialized the second emu war would have been nasty huge chunks of the Australian population would be exterminated which would in turn force a British american intervention this would have been around the time of the end of ww2 so the soviets would have helped the emus immensely thanks to the population of the emus and the weakness of britain I can see the emus conquering most of australia and forcing the allies into negotiations. After that the emus would have been deeply anti western so a third emu war could happen but I think this one could include large nuclear strikes in emu territories.
Egypt wasn't all Sunni. Egypt had a significant Shia population, and still has a significant Christian population. Calling it "Sunni" is a significant oversight
I've simulated this scenario in Crusader Kings 2. As an Italian nobleman, I conquered Egypt and Syria from Saladin, then, after a game century later, I have the Outremer Empire holding land in all of the Middle East, Persia, parts of East Africa, half of North Africa, and West Afghanistan. I don't brag often but I wanted to share this because it is the same subject to what your video is talking about.
Eyyy, you got a sponsorship? Congrats! Ad breaks are always annoying but when its channels I like, I appreciate it because it means the channel is moving up enough to get that bread.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography no he literally said he couldn't find a peasant uprising full stop. He didn't mention anything about it being a success or not.
Another interesting jumping off point regarding the crusades would be "What if the first crusades had gone according to plan?" Namely, the restoration of eastern Byzantine lands to the empire as well as the mending of the Great Schism.
Loved the video top tier info dump, but I was kind of expecting to hear you discuss the social and religious shifts this would've caused, would Egyptian Christianity prevail? In a regular western European catholic way? What about Orthodox Christianity in Asia minor? Would the enhanced western presence push it out into the north entirely? You talked about Judaism which was very cool, but what about Islam? How would this affect the later schisms? Again, loved the video either way!!!
Since native Coptic Christianity formed the majority of the population in Egypt until the fourteenth century, I think its likely that Egypt would be a majority Christian state today, if it had been subject to long term Crusader domination. The Coptic Church would have been brought into the communion of the Catholic Church (much like several orthodox groups in the Union of Brest) and would have constituted the dominant Eastern Catholic church within the communion. There would still be a sizable Islamic minority though and depending on whether or not the Crusader States adopted a Spanish approach of obliterating Islam, or a more tolerant attitude, then you could have had a quite religiously diverse Egypt, but still with a Christian majority of at least 60% (native Egyptian majority and a sizable European migration) I think the effect of the loss of Egypt to Islam would have been crucial. With the rest of north Africa cut off from the Islamic world, and undoubtedly in conflict with Crusader Egypt, it seems likely that large parts of North Africa would have been colonised by other Mediterranean states, if not by France. Isolated from the rest of the Islamic world, I cannot see how Islamic powers in North Africa could have sustained resistance. Eventually you probably would have had Iberian colonisation of the western half and an expanding Crusader Egypt moving against the Eastern Half, with perhaps a few Italian states, such as Venice or Genoa, taking ports, cities or small regions. If you had the Latin states dominating the southern and eastern Mediterranean, I think its unlikely that Byzantium would have sustained the East/West Schism. It may have but I think on balance that having such powerful neighbouring states would have drawn it into the Catholic fold as the natural price for an alliance against the Islamic powers in the Anatolian plateau and the Iranian highlands. You probably would have seen a similar move with Byzantine Greeks as you had with the Egyptian Copts with the Greeks forming a Byzantine Greek Eastern Catholic Church under the Pope. There would have obviously been those who resisted the move but I think they would have probably been eventually reduced to relative obscurity, much like the Old Believers in Orthodoxy today. If Byzantium could have survived is anyone's guess. It depends massively on the situation in the Anatolian plateau. Its certainly possible that the Turkish statelets of Anatolia, including the early Ottomans, might have been defeated and much of Asia Minor brought under the rule of Constantinople. Despite their military advantages, it is worth remembering that the Ottomans were defeated by the Timurids and they had a tough time dealing with the Albanians and the Serbs. If they had been prevented from establishing a foothold on the European side of the Dardanelles then its quite probable that they would be eaten away slowly by the Byzantines, or through a major campaign of a unified Crusader-Byzantine force. What I think is more likely is that the Crusader States fracture and are partially overrun by various Islamic powers and that eventually large parts of Asia Minor and the Levant are retaken by Islam, probably forcing a Christian Egypt and a beleaguered Byzantium into an alliance to hold off the onslaught. I think you would have retained a Christian Egypt and that Byzantium may have survived on its European heartlands, but that beyond Nicaea would have been long term within the Islamic sphere of influence. You could have possibly have had Byzantium retake the lands along the Pontic coast, and maybe coastal Ionia and maybe even as far east as Ancyra but any further would have been a stretch for Byzantium.
The Christians of Egypt are Miaphysites who had their land plundered by the crusaders, so they might not be as supportive as you think they might. And the Romans emperors probably wouldn't be keen with the pope telling them what to do.
@@seaininmacbradaigh7632 As a Middle Easterner, I agree with some of this analysis but would push back on quite a bit. I would, in particular, say that I agree with paragraph 1 on Egyptian religion -- including the numerical dominance of Christians and the "Catholicization of Coptic Christianity". There would have been Sunni and Ismaili minorities that remained as most Crusaders who established regimes realized that despite believing that Non-Catholics were infidels, society would simply grind to a halt without them. There would have certainly been pressure to convert, but no expulsion. Additionally, if the Crusader Kingdoms in the Levant are any precedent, you may actually have Muslim immigration into Crusader-held Egypt and the Levant because the feudal organization of the townships was seen as more secure than the comparison in Islamic societies. I disagree with most of paragraph 2. By and large, the Maghreb states resisted Portuguese, French, and Spanish invasions with minimal involvement from the Middle Eastern Islamic States - like the Merinids and Sa'adians in Morocco and the Libyans - or, like the Hafsids in Tunisia, capitulated to the French and Spanish as a tributary in order to avoid annexation into the Ottoman Empire (this eventually failed and annexation happened anyway). The Maghreb was generally adversarial to the Middle East and, accordingly, the loss of Egypt would have had minimal impact to the maintenance of Maghrebi states. I do agree that Venetians and Genoese would have still controlled the waves, but add that Egypt had a relatively large navy as well, which Crusader Egypt would have been rather silly to not use to challenge the Italian city-states. I disagree with most of paragraphs 3-4 and want to point out that Byzantine Emperors repeatedly went to Rome and promised to convert to Catholicism in exchange for military protection. However, we should point out that while those Emperors were willing to forfeit the religion, educated locals in the Byzantine Empire rejected it. Conversely, non-educated locals in the Byzantine Empire were among those who mass-converted to Sufi Sunni Islam (see Jalaleddin Rumi) which had a strong revival in the Seljuk period and early Ottoman period. Because of this, I feel that the Byzantine Empire would have a strong public resistance to an alliance with the Crusader states and would lean into its alliances with Turkish statelets like the Ottomans, Aydinids, Germayanids, and Karamanids against the Mongol Ilkhanate and the remnant of the Seljuks, using their wealth to buy such an alliance. These Byzantine-Islamic alliances would likely have preserved the Eastern Orthodox Church and created a balance of power against the Catholics in Europe, Egypt, and the Levant. All of the above said, I do agree that most Byzantine Orthodox within the Crusader state would have become Melkite Catholics. And I agree with you that without the ability to springboard to Europe and conquer Christian-majority territories (as the Ottomans did in our timeline) the Ottomans would have been a footnote in history -- just as the Aydinids and Germayanids are in ours. I suspect that the main broker of power in eastern Anatolia would have been the Karamanids and they would form an alliance with the Byzantines to deal with the Ilkhanate in the east and the Catholics in Syria. In the 1400s, I believe that Timur would have destroyed the Levantine Crusader states (just as he sacked Mamluk-ruled Aleppo and Damascus in our reality) and could well have conquered Constantinople -- certainly all of Anatolia would be taken. The Ottoman resistance to Timur was much more effective than anything that the Byzantines could have done and even they were trounced, so that does not bode well for the Byzantines.
@@josh-kg1rb How? The majority of Egypt's population is Arabs. Native pre-Arab Egyptians or Copts haven't ruled Egypt for years because they haven't formed the majority of Egypt's population since the Dark Ages
We have one in Canada. They're annoying as shit about it lol. They're not crazy but they're all about quebec for sure and theres a little bit of mutual contempt with them and some other provinces. They also speak an old school slangy version of french. Like Shakespeare English
David Bryan Like he said Quebec was very settled and most of Louisiana were Quebecs explorers,merchands and soldiers. The population was approx 60000 at the end of Canada. But the french monarch were a bunch of dumbass and refused most of the plans for colonization and choosed the tiny island i stead of Canada after the seven years war
@@jumperwilli7770 there's a whole country of people speaking french in europe, itll be fine. Its just always seemed counter productive and foolish to me to cling to your european heritage in such a tangible way 150 years later. After they essentially discarded them. Them, not you. Since then quebec was integrated into our infrastructure and allowed to stay. Pretty good peace deal. You dont have a suburb, or french part of every city, you have an entire province of people clinging to a national identity that either didnt exist or discarded them. Its out of touch with reality and impractical. If the anglo descended people held that same belief they would have just cleared out the colony. Worry less about the language thing, no one cares, and more about making the province make some actual money. Speak whatever you want, were all tired of our tax money bailing out your pretend industries. Your also the only province that insists on fucking up elections by voting for the bloc. A party that is solely based on the province of quebec and its interest. Refusing to have the pipeline on your land, yet never turning down bailout money from those same provinces where people are loosing jobs as a result of it not being built. Just take the oil money and spout a bunch of shit about the envirment right after. All while do nothing to set up a renewable energy sector in your own province. OP this is what its like.
@421less1 You don,t seem to understand our history and you're only scratching the surface. We were conquered and not discarded by our colony,we kept our language and culture to not spread a rebellion. Sure they did gave us infrastructure and we're proud to have them that's why we didn't really rebelled. Also, Quebec was pretty populous for his size so they decided to keep us,cause it would be dumb to take us out.ç But they did try to assimilate us mutliple times and we had basically less political influence in the colony. After the low and pper rebellions,we did negotiate with Ontario to make Canada and have more political influence (we had the same number of people at that time). So Canada was born by ''unisson'' not by the english alone. So yeah we did contribute to Canada, we even gave part of our province to Newfoundland and Labrador and paid off TWO debt of Alberta. So tbh yeah sure we'll fucking stay in this fucking country and we'll put our interest in what we want,go cry about your pipeline as you want,we will cede no more of our land
4:30 I find it really cute how desperately he tried to speak very angrily but I support all your videos and I can see all the effort it must took you to do this keep going for the love of alternate history
I hear: "With no strategic objectives" Me think at least of: -Access to the Medditerrain sea -Connection between india and europe -Important religious location -carpets? ....
@@Crusader-tg1wx If ya pay a visit to turkey you can get beautiful handmade carpets. Both made recently and old, heirloom kinda ones. Just go to a random village, everyone has heirloom carpets although people didnt know their value until recently. So it won't be cheap if you try to buy old ones.
F..ing the Seljuks that were attacking successfully East Romans for 50 years means nothing? Even in 1098 Emperor Alexios thought that Crusade od Dukes (I. crusade) were mercenary troops he asked pope for!
> I hear: "With no strategic objectives" There is a reason that Eleanor of the Aquitaine wanted to remain with her uncle, the Prince of Antioch, rather than go back to poor and primitive (even compared to her home in Poitiers) Paris. Outremer was rich compared with anywhere in Western Europe, and not for discovered hoards like a DnD game. Taxing major trade routes is a great way to get money, as the IRS could testify.
Wow I thought I was the only one who was curious about the idea Anyway my althist ideas: What if the Majapahit Empire survived? What if Ancient Mali had never declined? What if the Orleans won the Mad war against the Bourbons? What if the whole reformation never happened? (Henry the 8th gets a child with his Catholic wife, Marthin Luther's proposal to the Catholic Church is accepted, Calvin never exists)
Dan zig All you need to do the reformation one is have Luther’s demands be met or Luther never exist. Nobody (with some exceptions) really thought exiting the church completely was acceptable until Luther broke off. Once you deal with the Luther part, Henry VIII would probably have hostilities with the Pope but he never actually breaks off of the church. And Calvin would never rise to his fame without Luther rising to his fame. Luther was really the kickstarter. Take him out and the reformation as we know it never happens.
To continue from your Tamerlane video when the Crusaders landed in Lebanon and finding an organized and friendly Church (the Maronite Church) we became strong allies and troops within the Crusader Armies. The name Farris means knight in Syriac. Our Church was the only one permitted to use the alters of France and our Patriarch was a participant at the Council of Trent. Please read the writings of William of Tyre who was astonished to find Christians in the area that recognizes the office of the Pope.
What if the kingdom of Castille managed to conquer the entirety of Spain rather than unifying it with Aragon through a royal marriage? Saying this because Isabella of Castille disagreed with many of her husband's policies in regard to native americans, jews, etc.
When would that be though? It needs to be earlier than Isabel's reign since without Aragons help Portugal probably takes over Castille at that point in time
A true 'byzantophile' would know that "byzantines" was deliberate slander invented by western Europe so that they could pretend that the Roman Empire was dead, because they wanted to claim that they were the true inheritors of Roman culture. The city wasn't even called Byzantium anymore. It was called Constantinople.
Jay Girgis Thanks the video was interesting like getting an insight as to how the two churches function. However, I must say that I was skeptical as to how events would occur as it seemed to be a simple copy and paste scenario with only a change in location and kingdom/empire. I lack in medieval history knowledge but I recognize how politically powerful the churches were. I figured that a change in religion would have long reaching effects and how they would progress. Events like the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and conflicts would be questioned as many kingdoms, governments, and individuals were involved in causing it. Other than that pretty informing video as it provided new information. Thx.
It is a responsibility of a Muslim to protect the persons life if they pay jizya tax more than his own life .but sadly in history many Muslim rulers violated this and just collected the tax while not caring except for the rashidun caliphs.u can search this rule I’m not telling a lie.
It's relative tolerance, by our standards, they weren't tolerant, by their time standards, when in most of the world you could get killed for following the wrong religion, making non believers pay a tax instead of torturing them to death, is pretty tolerant
@@Goodguy507 actually that depends on the era and the Califate and Sultanate we are talking about one might be super tolerant and open and another might be incredibly war like and oppresive sometimes even in the same region similar to Europe as Europe really did not jump on the stake burning "heretics" band wagon until after the Reformation as the Church constantly ask people to stop persecuting religious minorities (specifically the Judeo-Christian variety not the pagan ones) though it did not really help limit it.
@@Goodguy507 as an example the original Califate of Islamic Spain was incredibly tolerant to both Jews and Christians but when they were overthrown by the Moors from North Africa they become oppresive and making it manditory for the minorities to convert which was one of the reasons that the Spanish Kingdoms succed in reconquesta.
What if the Knights Templar never fell? What if Bleeding Kansas never happened? What if the Raid on Harper's Ferry succeeded? What if the Meji Restoration failed?
Oh hey thanks for taking my suggestion! I know other people wanted it too I just wanted to see your take on it. I might not agree with everything you said but you were pretty fair and had some neat ideas.
What if the idea of the European Union had occurred a thousand years earlier? The great European powers start to unite, the various royal families intermarry specifically with the goal of unifying various regions - not just alliances, but actual union from the combination of bloodlines. Or another variant, the French revolutionary idea happens at that time and spreads to other European nations whose populations are sick of being cannon fodder in spates between Kings. Even the scenerio presented here could have some variations if say for example two of the great powers combined - a French/Italian Empire, or the Germans decide to support the French in the Middle East on the principle of religious solidarity. It becomes a good Christians duty to help the French in Egypt and instead of the continuing European wars all the hotheadeds and glory hounds catch a ship to Egypt and then try to invade whatever Islamic neighbour seems most vulnerable. There becomes a European land rush in the Middle East.
@@DaDARKPass It was. Now it's all about eroding national sovereignty in the name of German interests. Instead of shooting you, they just garrote you with purse strings.
If the French had been able to conquer and stably rule Egypt for a time, plus supported the Crusader states on the Eastern Mediterranean, might this not have given Byzantium and the Armenians just enough breathing room to have kept the Turks out of Anatolia? And without Anatolia, would the Ottomans necessarily have been able to conquer Egypt?
There isnt much the Byzantines can do after the 4th crusade. Kingdom of Cilicia has a better chance of survival than them if the Crusader states were around
@@WhatifAltHist where are the other regions where these "mystery grandfather's" left their DNA? It's hard to Google this. Keep getting unrelated papers about random genetic studies.
Here in the Dutch city of Haarlem, we still have church bells called 'Damiaantjes". These were taken from Damietta during the 7th crusade, it wasn't just French people :).
What if the Franks converted to Arianism instead of Nicean Christianity? What if the mongol expansion never happened? What if the Viking expansion never happened/ was delayed by a few centuries?
"There wouldn't be any threat after the mongol empire " Arnt we forgetting something?. How could you do that to Timur" the Prince of destruction ". He would absolutely destroy the French Egyptian kingdom and turn it into sawdust
He was never interested in controlling egypt really i mean he did defeat the turks at ankara but would bother to trurly annex them i think he prefer india
@@yonathanrakau1783 He did invade syria and the holy land and then the french would of declared a crusade on Timur, and then Timur would of biltzkeriged the french.
@@combobreakergaming9460 france werent able to declare a crusade ffs the pope did and at this time they are busy with the 100 years war, and the pope busy with ottomans timur would only sack and loot probably instal a native king but would bother to actually occupy the land he is just not interested in levant he love india much much more after battled around the levant i doubt he would really bother to invade all of egypt its just too far from his homeland the supplies and such
@Pecu Alex thats a possibility but even if he did that he would probably instal a local ruler or a puppet king which would just broke free later on just in time for his death and ottoman invasion so afterall the history wouldnt change much at all or he would fail due to the supply we dont really know but thats what it is
0:56 This map has some issues: the Buyid dynasty of Persia was gone even before the Crusades. They were conquered by the Sejuks in 1050s. I don't know which year this map represents, I guess it's late 1100s or even 1200 AD, at that time nearly all of Iran was subdued by the Khwarazmian Empire. Also Tabriz is the name of a city, the region itself is called Azerbijan and their dynasty was called Eldiguzids or Atabegs of Azerbaijan, they were de facto independent but in name only an autonomy. Also the lesser Armenia (or Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia) was the only Armeian state since Bagratid , when the Bagratid Kingdom was annexed by the Byzantine Empire.
I feel like the Ottoman seizure of Egypt isn't as foregone a conclusion as this video states. Why? Europe during this time was still heavily Catholic, meaning Egypt could draw on that pool of manpower- likely many protestants would join to, depending what exactly happens with the Reformation. Furthermore, the Ottomans would face a centuries old nation with fortifications and trade, a nation with likely some access to all the tech the Ottomans had on a military front and with a home-field advantage. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen- I don't have the clairvoyance or historical expertise to argue that, but I don't think it's completely assured. Additionally, it would be a nation forged in constant conflict by its neighbors, be they skirmishes or full on wars, and with the legacy of various European wars to draw on. Another factor would be how independent Egypt was, and how much its inhabitants regarded it as ancetral land, as home.
Although there's nothing much here about what the alternative timeline might be, the brief history of some parts of Crusade history here is really good.
What if Crusades succeeded? Expectation: Deus Vault! Christian state in Jerusalem! Reality: Dang it... Another French Colonial ending, this time, with Mongolian contact.
0:45 I’ve heard otherwise. Apparently it’s a myth that people drank beer over water. There were wells and boiling pots. People couldn’t be perpetually drunk.
@Pecu Alex Brewed wort starts with boiled water, or else it turns into a veritable petri dish. OTOH, I think diluting normal 4%+ beer or ale down to small beer (~1.5%) will kill the germs unless you are drinking sewage, so that would work, too.
I would have actually taken this prompt a little differently than WhatIfAltHist did. I would have made two changes within the Second Crusade. (1) The Council of Acre in 1148 decided that the Second Crusade would attack the Zengids with the assistance of their local ally the Emirate of Damascus as opposed to attacking the Emirate of Damascus and forcing them to align with the Zengids and (2) that the Crusader interventions in Egypt, which are bolstered by the Zengids being weaker in this timeline, result in Shawar or Dirgham ruling Egypt as a Crusader vassal, providing it with the wealth to attract more Crusaders and sustain the three remaining Levantine Crusader states. In such a case, the Crusader State would be much more internationalized (since the knights come from everywhere), there would have been much more interreligious cooperation since the First Crusade resulted in a place for Non-Catholic Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Druze in wider Crusader society and the Third Crusade, where Saladin was able to reconquer Jerusalem would never have happened since the Fatimid Dynasty never fell.
If Godfrey had reigned longer, if fulk asked for a stronger military presence, if Baldwin didn’t have leprosy, if raynald of chatillon reigned in the attacks, if Richard had legitimate issue, if guy and sybilla weren’t attached at the hip, if Saladin was beat at hattin, if Frederick II just… no, if acre held out longer… just a few ideas that would’ve contributed to a longer lasting crusader presence
I think about that from time to time. What if the US was more tolerant to the natives and if so, what kind of culture would come from that? Kind of like New Zealand I guess.
@@bakthihapuarachchi3447 > What if the native americans created their own state? They were more tribal than the Germans during the Battle of Teutoburger Wald. Arminius was assassinated for trying to be the original Tecumsah, six months after that battle. Maybe, if the Norse had a permanent holding in North America, so it was exposed to European diseases centuries earlier and more gradually, so they didn't have a 90-95% die-off just before the English settled, and the Indian tribes were more politically and technologically advanced.
One thing is wrong. Muslims were still only just a majority in Egypt at this point so Egypt would likely end up a Christian majority country with a large Muslim minority sort of like the balkans. This would also massively help its economy as it would have much closer connections to Europe after it would eventually gain independence from the ottomans
@The Nova renaissance Don't You have the dlc? Because if you do you should really do it. The flavour events make it quite fun even if it's quite op in the beginning. The challenge is not making a huge empire, but rather holding it together the Charlemagne "create the HRE" decision also has an interesting way of changing de jure area: all territories of your fist emperor title if you have one(creating a second empire title is useless) and every kingdom title you hold directly become de jure part of HRE, meaning you can make the de jure encompass the historical, French, sicilian and Spanish territory (just conquer over holy wars) quite easily
@The Nova renaissance if you want to kill Carl as carloman try going martial focus (assuming you also have the way of life dlc) and Duel him. First few seconds and you know if your playthrough is going to be easy or is already completely ruined (seriously if you lose the Duel you can give up, if you win kill him and you'll get all his land) And tbh most my playthroughs are some tribes becoming culturally German and religiously reformed germanic creating the empire of Germania (a struggle to survive once the Franks gain a claim on saxony) a german, germanic fylkir of Germania Well, can you guess which country I'm from? Other than that I always enjoy making Shia the predominant form of Islam, creating Israel or uniting all of Africa
One of the reasons why the Mongols only sent a small force against the Mamelukes is because most of the army was sent back in Mongolia for an election. And by this point the Mongol empire was about to break in several empires due to not having one designated leader. They wouldn't have sent a large army against crusader Egypt for the same reason.
"Aragón, or modern Catalonia" Dude, wtf? Aragón is the region between Navarra and Catalonia, the kingdom of Aragón includes Catalonia that was internally divided in many counties, not was the head of Aragónese kingdom, that was obviously Aragón, even not was a political unity. I am aragónese, I know about this topic, I don't know why people (out of Spain) confuses Aragón with Catalonia how often.
Regarding the population of Egypt, the reason it was so low was it was uniquely devastated by the Black Death far beyond other regions, so actually they were increasing in numbers they just got hit so hard it send them all the way back to when Christ was around population wise.
"What if the Crusades actually had succeeded? What if the Christians held onto the Holy Land?" Well, you're going in completely the wrong direction right from the start. The Crusades were never supposed to hold onto the Holy Land. They were never even supposed to be there. To understand why, we need to look at the historical context. The Crusades were requested by the Roman Emperor* after the Battle of Manzikert. He asked for mercenaries to help him defend against the Turks in Anatolia. The Pope, in one of the most breathtakingly stupid acts of geopolitical misdirection in history, decided to instead send fanatics to fight the Arabs. So they were doing the wrong thing, against the wrong people, in the wrong place. To make matters worse, the Turks and the Arabs were fighting each other at this time, so by attacking the Arabs, the Crusaders were indirectly helping the Turks - literally the exact opposite of what they were asked to do. Any alternate history of "What if the Crusades succeeded?" needs to start by making sure that they actually go in the right direction to begin with. *Yes, Roman Emperor, not Byzantine. It was never officially called a 'Byzantine' empire during its existence. Imagine if Trump and Trudeau were arguing about whether Canada or the US are the true inheritors of British culture. They realise that neither of their claims can have any kind of legitimacy as long as Britain is still in existence, so to get around this problem they invent the lie that Britain disappeared in 1776, and since then country living in the British Isles has actually been the "Londonian Empire". That sounds stupid, right? Well, that's how stupid people sound when they refer to the second half of the Roman Empire as a 'Byzantine' empire. For a start, the capital wasn't even called Byzantium any more. Its name was changed to Constantinople over a century before the Empire lost its western half. So, even IF we're going to be really stupid and pretend that it was a separate empire, it should be called the Constantinoplian Empire, not Byzantine. There is no logical reason to call it a 'Byzantine' empire. Secondly, we need to bear in mind that the Roman Empire did not, in its entirety, fall in 476. That was merely one date in a chain reaction of events which involved the restructuring, decentralisation, and change of management of the western half (and even then, it was a process, not an event). By contrast, the eastern half was able to maintain a continuity of government for another thousand years. Referring back to the previous analogy, this is just like how the British were able to maintain continuity of government going into the 1800s, even though they had lost control of their western territories (the 13 colonies).
11:26 but Portugal was already indepent by 1145 , what really hapebed was that the Portuguese king at time died and and an secession war was hapend , in that time (in 1390's) Castile tryed to *anex* Portugal but we defeted them in Aljubarrota war
@@barraman. Because today, they are treated as their own separate thing. Their ancestors migrated from Siberia milennia after "Amerindians". Original colonizators of continent are genetically close to Tibetans and moved via land bridge. Later Inuits are northeast Asians, who "island hopped" through Bering straits a were slowly migrating soutwards, when first Spanish came.
@Pecu Alex People who have seen domesticated elephants in India, go to North America and domesticate mammoths, useful for work and transport in cold northern climates.
its actually not a myth but its ok. water in the best medieval cities would be non-potable by today's standards. Light beer (heavily diluted, alcohol content was not enough to induce intoxication unless you seriously wanted to be stoned) was much cleaner due to the alcohol killing off the germs during dilution.
I'd strongly recommend Three Arrows' video "Were the Crusades defensive? - A Response to Steven Crowder" as well if you want to separate facts from fiction. It pretty thoroughly debunks one side's mythologization of the crusades without romantacizing the other side.
We did an alternative history video on this recently. Basically the Crusaders could have won had they encouraged more settlement from Europe, made a stronger alliance with the Mongols and focussed on Egypt, not the Holy Land.
And how many of them were succesful? Europe, China and Japan had hundreds of peasant rebellions, that likewise amounted to nothing. Peasant rebellions are still common in India.
Ezekiel 29:15 "It will be the lowliest of kingdoms and will never again exalt itself above the other nations. I will make it so weak that it will never again rule over the nations." - prophecy referring to Egypt after 580BC
@@timurthejerk9270 none of the muslim empires spawned or orignated from natural Egyptians. the rulers from those dynasties were born elsewhere and thus the prophecy still holds. its like saying Egypt was a powerful nation under the Ptolemy's lol they were CONQURED or overtaken by foreigners which still fits the prophecy
I think a better question is, what if Bazil II had left a competent heir, and the Themes had not been allowed to be dismantled and the battle of Manzikurt not taking place or perhaps had been won by Bazil's heirs? The Byzantine Empire of Bazil II was the strongest state in the Middle East. It is said, if I recall properly, he was planning a reconquest of Southern Italy from the Normans, which suggest it was probably a better source of revenue so worth going after. The ability to control eastern Anatolia (around Lake Van) and northern Iraq, around Mosul, is what has been historically necessary to hold and conquer the Levant (including Syria) and Egypt. The Ottomans won a big battle there in 1515 (Chaldron?) and that meant the conquest of Egypt two years later. So if Bazil had a competant heir, the Themes would not have been dismantled and Byzantine would have had a strong united army with a purpose of protecting their homes fighting at Manzikurt they may have won or at least broke even - and then we know the Turkish state fell appart shortly there after. So Byzantinum would have then been left the strongest state in the region. They would have then taken Syria, Levant and then Egypt in Due course. This would have been around 1150, there would have still been plenty of Christians left in the Levant and Egypt. It seems likely that eventually Egypt and Syria would have returned to Christianity. Eventually, with North Africa surrounded by Christian states, North Africa would eventually have been retaken as well. Because of this, there would have never been the crusades. Constantinople would never have been conquered by the Turks. Greek might have been the most important language in the world as it would have been spoken by Greece, Turkey the Levant and Egypt - about 200 million people by now. Because the Turks lost at Manzikurt, the turkification of Anatolia would have never occurred. All of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt would be Greek speaking after a couple of hundred years. If we assume that southern Italy was taken by Aragon, as happened in our time line, eventually Byzantium settles in to the borders it had in 476. I like to think that it would have worked with the west to recreate the Western Roman Empire but that's not necessary to consider at this point. Isolated without the Ottomans to help them, eventually North West Africa is taken by Spain 150 years earlier than Spain was actually unified. Islam then would be relegated to the Sahara, Arabian pennisula, Iran/Persia, Afghanistan, Central Asia and Pakistan. Because Christianity encourages widespread literacy and competition still exist between European states, the now enlarged christian world still advances economically and technologically, only earlier new because it doesn't have to deal with fighting Islam in Spain, the Balkans and the Mediterranean sea. Instead, Byzantium begins to push south from Egypt to unite with Ethiopia to keep the red sea free of piracy and perhaps take costal towns as antipiracy bases on the arabian cost. The Byzantines with their Ethiopian allies push into the Indian ocean to capture trade for cottons and spices in India and later Indonesia. Occasionally, the Byzantine provide assistance and alliance with Hindu states thay trade with from time to time when Afghanistan and Turkish warriors attempt invasions of India. As a result Islam never succeeds east of the Indus river. So Islam remains a backward illiterate semi-civilization with only Iran and Iraq as credible centers of civilization - otherwise the rest of it is nothing but bedouin type nomads. Pernhaps, in due time the Byzantines, Russians and Hindus eventually decide to end the threat that Islam poses their society by a three way partition. Eventually the Ethiopians would stabilize the Sudan and Sehel regions of Africa. Anyway, it is really unfortunate that Bazil II did not have a competent heir, for several generations.
Not sure if you'll read these but I'll send you a few ideas I've been entertaining recently. What if Richard III won the Battle of Bosworth Field? What if Majapahit lasted longer? What if the Inca won against the Spanish? What if the Mali Empire discovered America? What if Ivan the Terrible didn't kill his son? What if the Russians won the Battle of Tannenburg? What if Archduke Franz Ferdinand wasn't assassinated? What if China won the Opium Wars? What if the Sepoy Mutiny expelled Britain from India? What if India was a colonial power? What if the Sykes-Picot Agreement never happened? What if Frederick III became Kaiser of Germany? What if the French successfully developed Louisiana (ie. no Mississippi Bubble)? What if the Russians developed Alaska? You can tell that some of these timelines are more plausible than others, and I have an idea which timelines those are (and I'm not as good a historian as yourself). Still, always fun to theorize. Thanks for your time.
@@Cassius4 I also mean divided in that sense. For a long time there has been no sense of unity between Hindus and Muslims, for example, as far as I know about Indian history
"What if the Crusades succeeded?" My friend I deal with that happening almost EVERY SINGLE CK2 GAME. Do you know how many times I've seen the Kingdom of Egypt and Jerusalem? *Which then become vassal of the HRE?!*
What I'd be curious is... what if the Crusaders had come in as genuine allies to the Byzantines (maybe involving some form of deal by which the Crusader States could be set up while still being formally regarded as being part of the Empire)? The main reason you've discarded the First or Third Crusades as being unlikely to be successful is that their support base was a long way away, but if the Byzantines and the Crusaders had managed to actually work together from the start, then the Byzantine Empire would have been there as a reasonably powerful support base rather than, as I understand it, it quickly becoming a case of the Byzantines just hoping the two sides would tire each other out and the Byzantines just hoping they could survive and take advantage of the situation.
Note: Brabant was part of the HRE, Flanders was part of France. Both were wealthy, but during this time period specifically Flanders would be way wealthier, later Brabant would take over (mainly in the 15-16th century), by that time however, both were under Habsburg rule.
