Norman Guiscard invades Fatimid Egypt instead of Byzantine Empire
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
They're not getting in Egypt first, they'll have to pass trough modern day Libya and Tunisia first.
Why would they go on an adventure on the other side of the Mediterranean? When they have several problems with the HRE even at home?
The Crusades went there because of religious fervor, not because it's practical or a smart idea.
Edit: Actually most Crusades passed trough Anatolia before going to the Levant.
Last edited:
Why? Any latin invasion of Egypt would be naval, just like OTL.
OTL they're guys with religious fervor who are doing something in the name of God and with his benediction, the Crusades are not something guys would do normally, it's an extremely risky thing to do.
Most Crusades didn't even go to the Levant navally but passed trough Anatolia, the only case where Egypt has been invaded navally was in the 5th Crusade and unsurprisingly it failed.
There are some other examples of invasions from the sea - this, for example. Or for that matter St. Louis's first crusade/the Seventh Crusade.
But more pressingly, the Fifth Crusade didn't fail because of problems with coming from the sea. I'm not sure why, assuming sufficient fighting power on land in the first place, that it would be a bad idea for the Normans to invade from the sea as opposed to going overland (which is going to be rather more arduous than by sea).
Didn't fail because of that but fighting hundreds of miles away from your bases has some issues.
And you will notice the Fifth Crusade has bases nearby unlike the Normans here.
Why is going on land arduous? Striking at Egypt from Sicily is not very likely to be the Normans' first objective.
Last edited:
Your initial post seemed to imply that it being a naval invasion was a major factor in its failure, thus my comment. If that wasn't what you meant, my apologies.
The general issues of it being harder/slower to transport things by land than by sea here.
I'm pretty sure it's significantly richer than Libya (not that great a supply base) as far as if it would make sense as an early objective. It certainly wouldn't take religious incentives to see ruling Egypt as a potentially very profitable endeavor that's worth some risk/difficulty as far as a naval invasion.
It makes it significantly harder than if you were invading your neighbour.
Egypt is on the other side of the Mediterranean, I don't see why the Normans would plan to go navally invade it just because. The Normans didn't seem to have plans to do invade Egypt, for the matter there are several very rich regions theoretically in Norman reach but which have very high risks, including some closer to home.
That's more a distance than thing than sea vs. land here.
"Because it is weak and rich." is a pretty good "because". The Normans are not going from one end of the Mediterranean to the other either.
Roussel Balliol did fine with the non-Catholic local population when he set up his little statelet in Anatolia. For providing stability which the empire was unwilling and incapable of providing with its endless civil wars and the Seljuk Turks around, he ended up being remarkably popular with his subjects for being of a different religion. Given the right circumstances, Norman rule could be considered acceptable by non-Catholic subjects. Depends on context.
Last edited:
Why don't we invade North Italy? It's rich and theoretically not impossible we succeed. Why not invade the ERE? It's rich and up until this point has proven itself to be weak.
Really this kind of argument can apply itself to a lot of places other than Egypt and they're easier to invade.
They were doing well yeah. Iirc the sultan keep offering the crusaders jersulem and expending the crusader holdings in the holy land if they just fuck off.
The crusaders ended choosing to push their luck and advance inland. Where they got wrecked.
Who they blamed? Fredrick II Hohenstaufen lol
There's a lot of space between "there's no reason for the Normans to do this" and "continuing to fight the ERE might be profitable" (to pick their OTL choice). I'm not going to say I think the Normans going after Egypt is obviously the most reasonable thing in the world and super likely to succeed, but I don't think its some kind of far fetched insanity to imagine Guiscard making an attempt - successful or otherwise.
Byzantium isn't going to take over Egypt anytime soon, after the initial Arab invasions they never went much further than Antioch, let alone Egypt. And the ERE had some troubles with the Seljuks and Normans at that point so it's very doubtful they can do anything.