Let's start from the framework. The date is set to 1651, a year when Louis officially reached a majority. Which meant that he was 13 years old and France was still ruled by his mother and Cardinal Mazarin for the next 10 years (Louis assumed personal control of the government only in 1661, after Mazarin's death).
If we assume (to simplify situation in France) that this is the end of 1651 then Fronde of the Princes is still going on (and the "Spanish Fronde" did not start, yet), Mazarin returned from the exile and Turenne is back on the royal side and Conde just revolted.
In OTL serious fighting started in 1652 so it will be avoided. Ditto for the Spanish and Lorraine's invasion of the French territory, which could produce a confusing scenario of the "misplaced armies".
However, Prince Conde is an open revolt, he took Paris in July 1652, Mazarin was in exile, again, Louis XIV was able to re-enter Paris in October of 1652 but Mazarin was recalled only in 1563.
Franco-Spanish Was (started in 1535) is still going on. In OTL it dragged all the way to 1659 when BOTH sides had been completely exhausted (France was victorious in Flanders but lost in Catalonia and Italy).
French armed forces at that time amounted to few 'old regiments' and more or less ad hoc troops raised by the government or by any influential figure (Conde was not the only one, even the Great Mademoiselle had her own troops). The armies had been quite small (15K at the Battle of the Dunes including 6K English).
By 1661 (10 years after PoD) French army was "a large but loosely organized force of about 70,000 men. Like the other European armies of the period it consisted of a mixture of mercenaries, guard units, local militias and levies conscripted only for specific campaigns and then disbanded. Organization, cohesion, training and equipment were generally of a low standard." It took a consisted effort of Le Tellier and his son the Marquis de Louvois to recreate the Royal Army as a disciplined and professional force of permanent regiments under central control and to double (for the starters) its size.
All of the above means that at the PoD:
(a) Louis XIV is not yet Louis XIV "of the history and books": he is not governing and will not be governing for quite a while.
(b) France is still in the midst of the civil war, Louis is not always has access to his own capital, people who are governing on his behalf are hated and have to maneuver between the powerful parties and to buy services of the generals.
(c) France of 1651 is at the war with Spain on 3 main fronts: Flanders, Italy, Catalonia so it is logical to assume that after the dust raised by the sudden landing in the XIII century settles, it is going to proceed (as much as the internal troubles will allow) in these directions finding (a VERY pleasant surprise) that the enemy is either not there (not too many Spaniards near XIII century Milan and Flanders) or, in what they expect to be "Spain" are not what it expected to be (lacking certain vital "components", just like Don Quixote's helmet :-)): Catalonia is a part of Aragon and its ruler, Pedro II, is under illusion that he has some influence in the Southern France (Provence). In OTL he was disabused of this notion in 1213 at the Battle of Muret (13 years after the PoD) but in ATL even a low-quality army of 1650's would have a definite advantage over the 6K of the low-quality (had been beaten by 1.7K of their contemporaries) troops of 1200.
[Side considerations. Strictly speaking, short of the potential psychological effect of the firearms upon the people who did not have a clue, this would not be necessarily granted: Polish heavy cavalry had been more than once defeating their opponents (Swedes, Russians, Ottomans) in the 1st half of the XVII century. The trick seems to be in the strength of opponent's fire. As long as only a third of an infantry had firearms and/or their rate of fire was quite low (inadequate drill and/or low fighting spirit), the heavy cavalry could made it within the lance length and when their lances had been longer than the pikes of their opponents (Muscovite infantry did not have pikes at all and the same, AFAIK, more or less goes for the Janissary), the rest was the history. In the case of the infantry without the pikes, even a lighter cavalry could do the trick providing it attacked eagerly.
However, the miracle ceased working against a greater firepower (Cossack Wars, Deluge, etc.) and I'd assume that by 1651 the French were adopting more progressive tactics of the 30YW with the musketeers amounting to at least 60% of the infantry; baginet was still a thing of a remote future).]
So, it is more or less reasonable to assume that as long as there are at least some forces free from fighting against Conde & Co, France can successfully advance in all directions. Of course, this would not be Napoleonic-style "blitz": warfare of the mid-XVII heavily emphasized taking the geographic points (even with the allowances for their inadequate fortifications, there were plenty of them) and for the small armies, after leaving numerous garrisons, there was always a danger of running out of troops for the field operations.
We can probably safely assume that, if the problems related to OTL Fronde are resolved faster (absence of the foreign troops), France can achieve its goals on all fronts within a year or so. Of course, there is an open question if, for Mazarin and Anna, the goals remain the same as in OTL even if there is no Hapsburg Encirclement and a need to cut off the Spanish Road. Let's assume that they ARE the same: a little bit of a "glory" do not hurt.
But the "Age of Louis XIV", his powerful army and ambitious plans (like border on the Rhine) are still years ahead with a need to put the French economy and finances in at least some order.
Now, back to some other points:
1. Relations with the Papacy - as you mentioned, this is complicated because French Church and the Papacy are "out of synch" by few centuries both in the terms of a dogma and in a general attitude. By 1651 French clergy and government were seemingly considering the Papacy as some kind of a ceremonially necessary nuisance with a minimal rights of interference into the affairs of the French clergy. Spiritual authority was there, somewhere, but, at least when Louis grew up, it would not stay in the way of Louis' self-esteem (he almost went to war with the Pope over the issue of ambassadorial seniority).
Taking into an account that 1200's were still a period of an ongoing conflict between the Papacy and Imperial power, adding France of the mid-XVII into the picture could be quite interesting with more than one possible scenario but I don't know this subject well enough for the meaningful speculations.
2. The 4th Crusade. IIRC, in the initial post I found it quite unlikely in the OTL form and shape.
In OTL _preaching_ for it started in 1199, prior to the PoD (so the "preaching" is still there). A crusading army was organised at a tournament held at Écry-sur-Aisne by Count Thibaut of Champagne in 1199 with the negotiations regarding its transportation continuing in 1200 and 1201.
Somewhere in the midst of these negotiations comes a loud sucking sound accompanied by a huge cloud of dust. When the dust settles, there is no Count Thibaut and the troops he raised but there are numerous rather confusing things which everyone still have to digest.
To start with, in OTL the bulk of the crusaders were from France. France of the 1651 is in the middle of the Fronde and the participants are too busy fighting for their own interests. Government has a long list of other priorities, which leaves its opponents as the potential candidates.
Just for the fun of it, you can consider a scenario in which Prince Conde (I have serious doubts about his personal piety but let it be) decides to become the King of Jerusalem or a Sultan of Egypt, convinces his followers that this is a good idea and disembarks from Marseilles. Why would he be sailing for Venice and not directly to the Outremer or Cairo is a different story but if he did then, based upon what I know about this historic personage, him getting out of money while he and his troops are in Venice would be a Venetian problem (how about the Sack of Venice?) and a chance of him agreeing to become a de facto subordinate of the Doge of Venice would be extremely slim.
While an idea of fighting the Muslims got some traction in the mid-XVII France, it was taking a different shape. The INDIVIDUAL nobles would join the Maltese Knights or go to fight on the Hapsburg side as the INDIVIDUAL volunteers (AFAIK, only one of them remained on the imperial service after Louis recalled these volunteers and this act involved an official request to allow change of the "citizenship"). There are no French feudal bands which in the XIII OTL amounted to the bulk of the crusading force.
It is anything but clear to me if, without the French participation the 4th Crusade would have numbers big enough for anything as significant as siege of Constantinople.
3. Spreading of the knowledge. Your vision of the historic knowledge being freely passed all the way from France to the Central Asia is interesting but I have serious doubts that this would be the case, at least in the short term:
3.a. Even the XVII century communications between France and the Central Asia had been minimal.
3.b. Scenario under which the French historians (or whoever) are sending information about the events of the past few centuries all over Europe and Asia seems to be unlikely. To be fair, there was an old movie, "Francis I", in which Fernandel is transferred from the early XX century (with a volume of Larousse encyclopédique) into the time of Francis I and makes a career by telling the famous people their futures (visiting Henry VIII is extremely happy to learn about his 5 future marriages). :-)
3.c. Scenario under which somebody travels from the XIII century Baghdad or Bukhara to Paris in a search of wisdom also seems unlikely.
Then, because this was brought in a context of the future Mongolian conquests, getting an advance knowledge from the "infidels" would not be necessary because it was already widely available well before each specific conquest.
Shah Mohammed had encounter with the Mongolian troops at least year prior to the invasion of 1219 and prior to this the Mongols had been operating against Kuchluk (Gurkhan of the Kara-Kidans) right on Khwaresmian border.
By the time when the Mongols invaded Caliphate, they were around for quite a few years.
The first Russian contact with the Mongols happened in 1223 and prior to it the Mongols had been staying in the Volga-Don steppes for few months. The invasion of 1237 - 38 had been preceded by the conquest of the Volga Bulgaria and the Black Sea steppes which ended in 1236.
Mongolian Western campaign started in 1240 by conquest of the Southern and Western Rus and a further advance to Hungary and Poland. Communications between these regions and Northern Rus had been good enough to spread the news.
However, the principle "forewarned means forearmed" is not universally applicable. The Mongolian opponents would need not only to know about the coming danger (which they mostly did) but to be able to counter it and this was a big problem because, unlike all their opponents West of Mongolia (China was a special case), the Mongols had a well-organized and competently led army while their opponents usually had only the ill-disciplined feudal bands which could not be changed to something more efficient without sweeping social/administrative changes which those in charge (when there were any, aka, not in the Russian or Polish princedoms) simply could not accomplish even if they knew what these changes are.
On the top of it, as far as the Western Campaign and preceding conquest of Rus were involved, the invaders had as a de facto leader Subotai who was, for all practical purposes, a military genius surpassing Napoleon in the areas of campaign planning and troops coordination.
You made an interesting point about "not provoking" them. At least Lev Gumilev was arguing that one way or another Genghis and his immediate successors always had been provoked one way or another. Of course, sack of a Mongolian caravan and murder of the envoys were direct provocations but OTOH at the time of his invasion of Khwaresm Genghis and his generals were seemingly quite well aware of the local geography, strength of the opponent, etc. for this campaign being just a knee-jerk revenge.
The same goes for the Winter Campaign in Russia: one needed in-depth knowledge of the local geography (seemingly better than Nappy had in 1812 :-)) and troops coordination on the front hundreds miles wide during the Western Campaign also implies a good familiarity with the theater.
Knowledge that the Mongols did NOT make it anywhere close to France and that they did not stay in the Central Europe makes French direct involvement rather unlikely even if by that time Louis XIV is a mature person. Wouldn't he be rather more interested in some meaningful conquests like expansion to the Rhine, grabbing a piece of North Italy or even colonial expansion (Levant and Egypt being among the potential targets)?
As a side note, Marlow, DID right a play about Tamerlane (did you read it?) but, except for the very few factoids known on the West (T's existence and capture of Bayazid) its geography leaves "coast of Bohemia" far behind. :-)
Louis' interest in Poland is another tricky issue: in OTL during his reign wives of 3 kings of Poland came from France (well, at least the 1st marriage happened when he was a child) and the Commonwealth was a part of Louis' international combinations against the Hapsburgs and Brandenburg. However, in 1200 there are no Hapsburg emperors, Brandenburg is an obscure Margraviate and for the next century Poland is just a set of the relatively weak princedoms.
Post by Rich RostromPost by Alex MilmanPost by Rich RostromNope. The Fourth Crusade is not going to be preached
because for at least a decade everyone is going to be
digesting the colossal impact of the ISoT.
What does Louis XIV starting wars have to do with it?
The colossal shock to everyone's thinking will put all
major enterprises on hold for a long time, as will the
practical impact of UT France.
Post by Alex MilmanPost by Rich RostromAlso the Greeks will learn of the OTL events, and
take measures to avoid them.
How exactly?
How would they learn of it? Once the idea that UT France
is actually from the future takes hold among DTers, it
will spread rapidly, and anyone with any consciousness
of history (which surely includes the Byzantine Greeks)
will want to see the upcoming history that would have been.
How will they avoid the events? Well, they could seize
on and execute Emperor Isaac II and his son Alexios
Angelos, the Byzantine princes who invited the Fourth
Crusade to Constantaninople. Isaac had been blinded and
usurped by his brother Alexios in 1195, and imprisoned
along with his son. The younger Alexios escaped in 1201,
went to his brother-in-law, Philip, "King of Germany",
and there began agitating for the Crusaders to restore
his father.
After reading of the events of OTL 1203-04, the Byzantines
will surely decide that they are traitors, and chop them.
Even if Alexios has escaped, and succeeds in diverting
the Crusade - the Crusaders succeeded in restoring Isaac
and Alexios fairly quickly. They laid siege, and routed
Alexios III; the city then submitted to Isaac and Alexios
(the latter being the effective ruler). But afterwards,
Alexios failed to deliver his promised rewards, and was
overthrown and killed, provoking the Crusader assault of
1204 and the sack of the city.
It should also be noted that when the Crusaders arrived
in 1203, they had strategic surprise: the city garrison
and fleet were relatively small, as they had not expected
any similar threat.
The News From the Future would be a very clear warning.
Post by Alex MilmanPost by Rich RostromMore likely, Louis decides to lead a Crusade to the
Holy Land, which with 1651 arms and ships will kick
ass...
If anything, this is quite unlikely. Louis of OTL
had a long list of the places to grab and the Holy
Land was not in it (and he was quite comfortable
with the Ottomans holding it).
UT France will be able to take any border territory
they want with trifling effort. Some of the territory
Louis had to fight for (Rousillon, Picardy, Artois)
are possessions of DT France, and he just picks them
up. DT France also owns all of Flanders - more than
Louis and his Bourbon successors ever got.
As to the Holy Land - in 1651, the Crusades were long
over, and it would have required major military
efforts by France to take Jerusalem from Turkey. In
1200, the Crusades are in full fig, and the Crusaders
hold Acre and other territory in the Holy Land
already. Reconsidering, I don't think Louis would _lead_
a "Crusade", but I think it very likely he would support
such an expedition. It would require only a modest force
of UT French, and there would be plenty of volunteers.
This may shock you, but people of the 17th century had
very different attitudes from moderns. Genuine religious
devotion was much stronger (almost universal). It did
not bar _realpolitik_ actions, but it was there.
A gigantic miraculous event such as the ISoT would
spawn intense religious frenzy, and the redemption of
the Holy Land would be an obvious outlet.
Post by Alex MilmanPost by Rich RostromPost by Alex MilmanThe Mongols are not, yet, on a horizon (and hardly
matter, anyway).
They're forty years out - but even the French of 1651
know of the OTL history. DT Europe will hear about it
from the French. How seriously they will take it is
another matter.
Taking into an account that the Mongols did not get
beyond Eastern/Central Europe why would the Western
Europe bother at all? It did not bother too much
even in OTL when the results were not known.
I wrote "Europe", not "Central Europe". Poland and
Hungary are going to be interested.
Post by Alex MilmanPost by Rich RostromThe Moslem world may actually pay more attention. Once
they grasp what happened, and they hear of the sack of
Baghdad by the Mongols (and the Seljuks hear of the sack
of Ankara) they may take warning. The warning could
spread as far as Khwarezm.
To know about the danger and to be able to deal with
it are two different issues. The Mongols, as a
danger, had been known in the CA before they invaded
Khwaresm or, much later, Baghdad.
But what magnitude of danger they posed was _not_ known.
Even today, the sack of Baghdad figures very large
in Moslem consciousness.
Post by Alex MilmanThe Seljuks are not too important: even before the
Mongolian invasion they are beaten and squeezed out
of a big part of their territory.
But not provoking Mongol invasion will still be a
considerable benefit.
Post by Alex MilmanNot to mention that from the fact that the history
is known in Paris does not automatically following
that it is known in Merv or Samarkand. Who is going
to tell them?
It's going to propagate. The fact of the ISoT is
awesome. It will stun all of Christian Europe, and
Maslem neighbors will notice. Moslems are not stupid;
if they understand that News From the Future is there,
they will seek it.
One big question is how much detailed knowledge
1651 France has of historical affairs in Asia. Probably
not lots, but given that Marlowe could write a successful
play about Timur - enough to give a lot of people advance
notice of events that would matter to them.
Post by Alex MilmanPost by Rich RostromAnother point would be in Iberia - the great battle of
Navas de Tolosa, which broke the Almohads, is only 12
years off.
It is on the list above.
True.
Post by Alex MilmanPost by Rich RostromPost by Alex MilmanRussian and Polish princedoms are not the factors
worth mentioning.
Shock to everyone.
Nope. Just stating the facts.
That was not actually meant as a response to that sentence.
Sloppy editing by me.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.