WI: Venetian Egypt

[DominusNovus]

1) What is the most likely way that Venice could end up in control of most of Egypt?

2) What is the most interesting way?

3) How might Venice govern such a large territory?

4) What political impacts might this have on the region and Europe?

 

[Faeelin]

I think it'd have to be some blowout after a Crusade that succeeds in taking it (maybe even a 4th Crusade that goes the right way), but how do you occupy and garrison it? Venice had trouble with Crete, and Egypt is much larger and more populous.

 

[The Professor]

I think it'd have to be some blowout after a Crusade that succeeds in taking it (maybe even a 4th Crusade that goes the right way), but how do you occupy and garrison it? Venice had trouble with Crete, and Egypt is much larger and more populous.

Absolutely, best way would for a Doge to have become the primary heir. Of course that leaves open to his Royal heir not being accepted as Doge later

 

[Don Quijote]

Venice needs to have a larger native population to keep its 'Empire da Mar' alive and strong for much longer. To garrison Egypt would probably require Venice to control most of northern Italy, or at least some of the major cities like Milan, so that it can have a bigger loyal population willing to serve it. Of course there's always the mercenary option, but that's not always cost effective.

To capture Egypt, Venice has to move before the Ottomans, who defeated the Mameluks in 1516-17. From about 1500 onwards Venice was usually on the defensive against Ottoman expansion, and I doubt it would have been in a position to successfully attack an Egypt already under Ottoman rule in the mid 1500s. If they can get established in the late 1400s, they might be able to mount a successful defence of the country, depending on the effort the Ottomans put in. Ideally, Spain will be willing to help with naval support, as Venice may not be able to hold on alone against a determined invasion force.

 

[Faeelin]

If they can get established in the late 1400s, they might be able to mount a successful defence of the country, depending on the effort the Ottomans put in. Ideally, Spain will be willing to help with naval support, as Venice may not be able to hold on alone against a determined invasion force.

How could Venice hold Egypt, even presuming it can conquer it, when it couldn't hold territories closer to Venice that weren't full of an Islamic population that would hate their guts?

 

[Don Quijote]

How could Venice hold Egypt, even presuming it can conquer it, when it couldn't hold territories closer to Venice that weren't full of an Islamic population that would hate their guts?

Because the Ottomans took them after Venice had begun to decline. What territories do you have in mind? Cyprus didn't fall until 1571, and Crete didn't completely fall until 1669. Venice's main problem was an insufficient land army. Solve the population problem (more Italian territory), and a Venetian Egypt is possible. I can't say that it would last for long, but with Spanish support it can survive well into the 1600s.

 

[Faeelin]

Because the Ottomans took them after Venice had begun to decline. What territories do you have in mind? Cyprus didn't fall until 1571, and Crete didn't completely fall until 1669. Venice's main problem was an insufficient land army. Solve the population problem (more Italian territory), and a Venetian Egypt is possible. I can't say that it would last for long, but with Spanish support it can survive well into the 1600s.

• The Siege of Thessalonica (1422–30), with Venice active from 1423 on, resulting in the capture of Thessalonica by the Ottomans
• The First Ottoman–Venetian War (1463–79), resulting in the capture of Negroponte, Lemnos and Albania Veneta by the Ottomans
• The Second Ottoman–Venetian War (1499–1503), resulting in the capture of the Venetian strongholds in the Morea (Peloponnese) by the Ottomans
• The Third Ottoman–Venetian War (1537–40), resulting in the capture of the Cyclades except Tinos, the Sporades and the last Venetian strongholds in the Morea (Peloponnese) by the Ottomans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Venetian_Wars

 

[TheYoungPretender]

1) What is the most likely way that Venice could end up in control of most of Egypt?

2) What is the most interesting way?

3) How might Venice govern such a large territory?

4) What political impacts might this have on the region and Europe?

Fourth Crusade gone right. Start any latter, and the Venetians will never have the depth to hold off the Ottomans any better than they did OTL (which was not all that well).

Holding it is difficult. The Venetians can't hold it solo, like a sort of large Crete or Cyphrus. However, something like Venetian control of Cyprus (or the OTL Outreamor) , where you have a Latin Christian nobility happily oppressing the non-Latin Christian masses, could be an avenue that could work. It might be more stable than Outreamor was itself because Egypt is fairly secure and can be quite hard to attack, especially if its held by a seapower.

The other side of this coin is that you are talking about a Venetian Egypt that is not nearly as Venetian as Negroponte or Crete or the other colonial possessions, more with Venice as the titular overlord who can demand some obedience due to its position as the middleman and source of supply and credit, but has to leave the Crusader nobility with a large amount of latitude.

 

[Anaxagoras]

How could Venice hold Egypt, even presuming it can conquer it, when it couldn't hold territories closer to Venice that weren't full of an Islamic population that would hate their guts?

Actually, wasn't Egypt still largely Coptic Christian at the time of the Crusades? Even today it's still 10% Christian.

 

[Clarior]

Actually, wasn't Egypt still largely Coptic Christian at the time of the Crusades? Even today it's still 10% Christian.

I believe it took about 200 years for Islamization of the Egyptians to really seriously begin as a process, before that most local muslims were Arab migrants and/or administrators. The authorities didn't care about mass conversion so much that early, because ruling over Christians or Jews meant more taxes per peasant than if the population were mostly muslim. Conversion in Egypt was an escape from paying extra taxes, so the earlier you invade it the more likely for it to remain Christian. Also, don't count on the local Christians to see the invading Christians as liberators; muslim rule in Egypt was relatively peaceful for the locals, so if they have even a hint that they won't be treated at least as good by these Catholics as they were the muslims, they'll rebel for certain, and may even side with the Muslim defense. They will have less than no interest in being forcibly converted, which could make the Venetians seem like a bigger threat than their current muslim overlords. Remember that Coptic Christianity is its own entity, and wants to remain such. If the Patriarch/Pope/Bishop of Alexandria's independance is threatened, there will be rebellion as under the Muslims the office was still allowed to operate.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

Perhaps if a total conquest of Egypt is infeasible, an occupation of Nile delta islands and the establishment of naval bases there could give the Venetians essentially a monopoly on Egyptian trade and be a more cost-effective option?

 

[GeneralInTheShell]

; muslim rule in Egypt was relatively peaceful for the locals, so if they have even a hint that they won't be treated at least as good by these Catholics as they were the muslims

That's a curious statement given how hostile the Mamluks were to Egypt's Christian population. They closed down Churches, relocated them from the coast because they felt the weren't trust worthy, routinely removed them from positions of power.

 

[Timaeus]

That's a curious statement given how hostile the Mamluks were to Egypt's Christian population. They closed down Churches, relocated them from the coast because they felt the weren't trust worthy, routinely removed them from positions of power.

Presumably, that relatively peaceful treatment of Christians was under the original Caliphate and the Fatimids. It was more difficult under the Mamluks, which may just give the right push for the Copts to accept Venetian rule.

 

[LordKalvan]

A Venetian Egypt looks very difficult to be achieved.
There may be two-three possibilities, though:

• A Crusader state being established in Egypt sometime during the 12th century, which somehow endures both a Muslim attempt to re-conquer Egypt and survives the Mongol invasion too. Venice might establish a commercial dominance which becomes an actual protectorate
• a long-term alliance between Venice and Milan, which becomes the egemonic power in Northern Italy (this might happen either thru Gian Galeazzo Visconti surviving another 15 years plus, or via a different Venetian attitude toward the short lived Ambrosian republic which was created after the death of the last Visconti duke
• an alliance between Mamluks and Venice in the late 15th century, based on common interests in opposing the Ottomans on land and the Portuguese in the Indian ocean. If successful, it might slowly evolve into a Venetian protectorate

The Crusader-state alternative is the least likely of the three (although there is a different scenario where the Mongols break the back of the Mamluks, but don't occupy Egypt and Venice takes advantage of the power vacuum).

The alliance between Milan and Venice is in a way the most intriguing, and if it comes to be would be the best long-term solution: it would require a lot of 20/20 hindsight, but it would solve the lack of manpower which plagued Venice from the 15th century onward. With a stable and secure Northern Italy, Venice would almost certainly be in a better position to oppose the Ottomans and to implement an Egyptian strategy (which was attempted IOTL, but never seriously enough since Venice had plenty of problems both in Italy and in the Egean sea).

Theoretically Venice might commit to the Egyptian alliance even without the backing of a Milanese alliance, but it would require a different strategic approach (IOTL the successful expansion of Venice in Veneto and Lombardy was both a distraction from commercial expansion and a drain of resources; more importantly prevented Venice from focusing on the danger of Portuguese penetration in the Indian ocean).

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Actually, wasn't Egypt still largely Coptic Christian at the time of the Crusades? Even today it's still 10% Christian.

I believe it took about 200 years for Islamization of the Egyptians to really seriously begin as a process, before that most local muslims were Arab migrants and/or administrators. The authorities didn't care about mass conversion so much that early, because ruling over Christians or Jews meant more taxes per peasant than if the population were mostly muslim. Conversion in Egypt was an escape from paying extra taxes, so the earlier you invade it the more likely for it to remain Christian. Also, don't count on the local Christians to see the invading Christians as liberators; muslim rule in Egypt was relatively peaceful for the locals, so if they have even a hint that they won't be treated at least as good by these Catholics as they were the muslims, they'll rebel for certain, and may even side with the Muslim defense. They will have less than no interest in being forcibly converted, which could make the Venetians seem like a bigger threat than their current muslim overlords. Remember that Coptic Christianity is its own entity, and wants to remain such. If the Patriarch/Pope/Bishop of Alexandria's independance is threatened, there will be rebellion as under the Muslims the office was still allowed to operate.

Here's the thing - the Venetians were perfectly willing to oppress the heck out of anyone not Italian or Catholic (or in the case of Zara and some other Balkan coastal towns, quite Catholic). Copt, Muslim, Orthodox - probably wouldn't matter.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

Because the Ottomans took them after Venice had begun to decline. What territories do you have in mind? Cyprus didn't fall until 1571, and Crete didn't completely fall until 1669. Venice's main problem was an insufficient land army. Solve the population problem (more Italian territory), and a Venetian Egypt is possible. I can't say that it would last for long, but with Spanish support it can survive well into the 1600s.

Taking more Italian territory will only multiply problems; the Emperor will surely intervene within the Kingdom of Italy until at least the 15th century and although Venice has a certain amount of terra firma recognised by the Empire before then, its certainly not enough to holy Egypt which, even if one assumes a relatively docile Christian population (which it won't be, the Turkish turban being preferable to the Papal tiara) it simply wouldn't be able to control.

By bet (long odds though it may be) would be during the 14th century and involving some sort of Coptic-Catholic reunification of churches.

 

[Lucius Verus]

Well I'm going address the 4th point. Egypt is climate-wise quite similar to the Caribbean and capable of growing many of the crops the latter did IOTL. Proper Venetian control seems unlikely for OTL Venice which preferred to control trade instead of land. But as a market Egypt would be very similar to Eastern Europe as a source of agricultural products while a dumping ground for finished goods, metals, and timber from the Black Sea. Trade to the east would have one less middleman since the local lords would most likely be more pliable to trade than the Ottoman were IOTL. That being said Portugal would most likely still try for a route to the East, even if later.

As for Egypt I would suggest that the early crusades realize that Egypt was the true power-base of the local rulers instead of striving for the symbolic goal of Jerusalem.