De iure Egypt

[AndrejK]

My proposition is simple:
More Cyrenaica into the Kingdom of Egypt (it has had more ties wity Egpyt than Tripolitania during all CK2 timeframe) and Sinai to Kingdom of Jerusalem

 

[Matihood1]

I agree about Cyrenaica but why Synai? AFAIK it was never a part of kingdom of Jerusalem.

 

[Karlingid]

I agree about Cyrenaica but why Synai? AFAIK it was never a part of kingdom of Jerusalem.

Probably for Levant-gobbling aesthetics, so that Egypt doesn't have anything in Asia.

 

[elvain]

I agree about Cyrenaica but why Synai? AFAIK it was never a part of kingdom of Jerusalem.

Exactly my thoughts. Sinai doesn't make sense out of Egypt, why should it be moved?

 

[AndrejK]

I agree about Cyrenaica but why Synai? AFAIK it was never a part of kingdom of Jerusalem.

Because the Church in Sinai is under the authority of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Also, Sinai is geographically in Asia, not Africa.

 

[Karlingid]

Also, Sinai is geographically in Asia, not Africa.

Called it

 

[Thure]

Because the Church in Sinai is under the authority of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Also, Sinai is geographically in Asia, not Africa.

Politically it still was under Egyptian rule the whole time.

 

[Matihood1]

Because the Church in Sinai is under the authority of the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

I'm pretty sure territories covered by the pentarchy aren't tied to de jure borders. You can put Sinai under the patriarch of Jerusalem without moving the entire duchy into de jure Jerusaelem.