Is it possible for independent states to exist in the Levant after the fall of the Crusaders, rather than having Jerusalem, Antioch, Edessa et al absorbed by the Byzantines, Egyptians, and Suljuk empire? I really don't know a lot about the era, but it just struck me that the Levant always seemed to end up as the playground of its neighbors and didn't really maintain any sort of independence even on paper for the longest of times. Is an 'Emirate of Jerusalem' or somesuch a viable Levantine state following the fall of the Crusaders, or will local rulers be forced to submit to control from Damascus or Cairo?
Islamic successors to the Crusader states?
- Thread starter Ofaloaf
- Start date
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Not really possible. The Levant was pretty easy for anyone to cross into. It's hard to get an independent Levantine state.
Grey Wolf
Donor
If Saladin doesn't unite the various Islamic states but they still over-run the Crusader kingdoms, wouldn't you end up with something akin to the situation you describe?
I can't see an independent Jerusalem per se because it was seen as a great prize which must be taken back, so one or other of the leaders are going to want to hold it. You can't really magic them into being altruistic about it
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
I can't see an independent Jerusalem per se because it was seen as a great prize which must be taken back, so one or other of the leaders are going to want to hold it. You can't really magic them into being altruistic about it
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Could I... magic them into becoming preoccupied with internal affairs, so that the commanding officer in the field could, if he so wanted, simply rule the place himself at least for a bit before Egypt/Seljuks/Someone turns their attention back to the Holy Land?
Saladin's failure to unite everyone sounds like a good start, yeah.