WI Alexius I got what he wanted....

[Riain]

.. when he appealed to Pope Urban for European mercenaries in 1095? Would a European mercenary force have been able drive the Turks out of Anatolia and reclaim it for the Empire? What would the next century or two have been like without the Crusades?

[Sgt Detritus]

.. when he appealed to Pope Urban for European mercenaries in 1095? Would a European mercenary force have been able drive the Turks out of Anatolia and reclaim it for the Empire? What would the next century or two have been like without the Crusades?

It might depend on who was paying the mercenaries. If the Pope was then he might be tempted to secretly ask the mercenaries to claim any territory they took in the name of the Western Church

[Don_Giorgio]

They would have asked for something... Maybe Antioch... or any other rich city/region...

[Matthais Corvinus]

Well, I think one could argue that what Alexius I got, the Crusades, was actually pretty good for the Empire. They managed to capture some territory during the First Crusade. The Latin Outremer created a major distraction for the Muslim world, and definitely attracted Muslim armies that otherwise might have been used to conquer Byzantine territory. The Crusades brought many Latins east, giving the Byzantines Latin commanders and troops that they may not have otherwise had. Really it was vagrancies of fate within the Byzantine Empire, mainly Manuel's lack of an adult male heir and Isaac Angelos' failure as an Emperor, that caused the Byzantines to be weakened at the very moment that they couldn't really afford to be.

If you for instance, have Alexios II die, and Maria and Renier of Montferrat become the Byzantine rulers, then you can have the other surviving Montferrat brothers, Conrad and Boniface, come to assist their brother. Conrad was already fighting for the Byzantine Empire, and Boniface looks to be basically a mercenary, and would definitely be brought to the Empire to support his brother. With the three Montferrat brothers commanding the Empire then I would say that the prospects of the Byzantine Empire look much better.

[Don_Giorgio]

Montferrat becoming Byzantine Emperor? Impossible... No subject of the Empire would have accepted him... If he was proclaimed Emperor 2 things happen... Either the Empire collapses from internal struggles or he would be dead in a few days by assassination...

[Matthais Corvinus]

If Alexios II dies, then Maria becomes the Empress, and Renier could be her consort, keeping his OTL position of Caesar.

In OTL they became the epicenter of Greek resistance to the Dowager-Empress Maria's Latin-phile rule. Additionally, although Renier was a Latin, his father, William V, was allied to Manuel, and his brother Conrad was married to a Byzantine princess and commanded Byzantine troops successfully against HRE troops, capturing Frederick Barborossa's chief adviser.

Actually Conrad married a Byzantine princess after Manuel and Renier both died. He did command Byzantine troops successfully during this era, and Isaac's offer of marriage to Conrad demonstrates the premium that the Byzantine ruler, regardless of who that was, placed on the Montferrat family alliance.

If Maria's rule remained pro-Greek, which IMO it would, then I think that there would not be significant resistance to her regime. Conrad and Boniface were both successful military leaders OTL, and would have backing from the Empress herself. With the combination of Maria's pro-Greek rule, and the Montferrat's brothers military success, this would perhaps be the next step in what appeared to be the Byzantine Empire's latinization.

[Riain]

AFAIK Alexius wanted European horsemen to fight the Turks out of Anatolia, and then leave or perhaps stay on as Imperial subjects. I assume that mercenaries would have been minor nobles and/or common men-at-arms without major nobles as commanders since command would lie with the Imperial generals. ___________________ Instead what he got was a movement dedicated to fighting in the Holy Land against Syrian and Egyptian kingdoms. These were led by powerful men intent on their own aims, not following the wishes of the Empire. That the Empire made gains in this period is a by-product of the Crusades distracting Islamic military power from the Empire to the Holy Land itself.

[el t]

Western mercenaries for a limited engagement would be feasible for the Byzantines, but I doubt that a major expedition that could expel the Turks from Asia minor could occur. The main problem is religion. Since the schism of 1054, the papacy regarded the Greeks as heretics or even worse. They probably even felt that the Turkish invasion was divine retribution for the break with Rome. I don't think that Alexius was desperate enough to become a Roman Catholic just for the sake of Asia Minor. Latin mercenaries were notoriously enreliable anyway. Look what happened to Andronicus and the Catalan company. That was a disaster. Without the crusader states, I see a stronger Fatimid caliphate until the Mongol invasions.

[Don_Giorgio]

Byzantines wouldnt have accepted an Empress regnant... Not after Irene... Besides Franks etc. they would be the first who wouldnt recognised her claim based on a Papal Bull of Urban II (saying that-cant exactly remember but it was like-"No woman shall rule the Romans")
And the fact that a woman occupies ERE throne would have turned any power-hungry General against her...

[Riain]

The emperor didn't become a Pecheneg just because he hired them to fight for him. So why would he become a Catholic just because he hired a few thousand armoured horsemen? I think the Crusade got out of hand from even Urban's expectations, certainly he didn't want the "People's Crusade" to happen even if he did want the 1st Crusade itself.
So WI Urban, wanting to burn off the energy of the excess of landless minor nobles, didn't call a crusade but facilitated the recruitment of these same fighting men as mercenaries?

[Matthais Corvinus]

AFAIK Alexius wanted European horsemen to fight the Turks out of Anatolia, and then leave or perhaps stay on as Imperial subjects. I assume that mercenaries would have been minor nobles and/or common men-at-arms without major nobles as commanders since command would lie with the Imperial generals.The army that your describing is what the First Crusade was made up of, ambitious noblemen. There were no Kings along for the First Crusade, and the men who were there were basically in it for God, Glory, and Land. The First Crusade did swear an oath of allegiance to the Byzantine Emperor, but once they took the Holy Land this oath was ignored. The only place that the oath remained an issue was Principality of Antioch, which was a target of Byzantine ambitions, and various Princes were forced to swear allegiance to the Emperor over the years.

Instead what he got was a movement dedicated to fighting in the Holy Land against Syrian and Egyptian kingdoms. These were led by powerful men intent on their own aims, not following the wishes of the Empire. That the Empire made gains in this period is a by-product of the Crusades distracting Islamic military power from the Empire to the Holy Land itself.So Alexius asked for help, got a Crusade instead of some troops, but still came out ahead in the end. He didn't have to pay the Crusaders and benefited militarily from there presence both directly (the First Crusade helped seize a city or two before going to the Holy Land) and indirectly (as you point out), so basically the Crusades (at least the first one) were a win for the Byzantines.

I don't think that Alexius I was desperate enough to become a Roman Catholic just for the sake of Asia Minor.Absolutely agree. I don't think that a East-West reunification could take place without changes that happen over generations (as in some ATL).

Latin mercenaries were notoriously unreliable anyway. Look what happened to Andronicus and the Catalan company. That was a disaster.That particular incident was disasterous, however I wouldn't go so far as to paint Latin troops with the same brush. Prior to the Fourth Crusade Latin troops and commanders did fight and fight well for the Byzantine Empire.

Without the crusader states, I see a stronger Fatimid caliphate until the Mongol invasions.IMO the Outremer Latins and Sal al-Din took advantage of what was already a decaying political order. I don't think that removing the Crusades would stop the Fatimid Caliphate's slide toward extinction.

The Byzantines wouldn't have accepted an Empress regnant... Not after Irene... Besides the Franks etc. would be the first who wouldn't recognize her claim based on a Papal Bull of Urban II (saying "No woman shall rule the Romans"). The fact that a woman occupies ERE throne would have turned any power-hungry General against her...As I'm reading back through this I agree with you. I don't think that Maria (Manuel's daughter, not his Latin wife of the same name) could have reigned as the sole Empress.

If she had a son, who would presumably have been fathered by Renier, then once Alexios II dies (with a Maria's son now in the mix Alexios' accidental death becomes more likely during the post-Manuel power struggle) that infant son is crowned as Emperor, with Maria (Manuel's daughter) as the Dowager-Empress. Renier then retains his OTL position of Caesar. With this as the scenario then I still see Renier and his brothers as the military commanders who act as the power behind the throne, commanding the military.

Though this might not be the most popular thing, I think that after a few years of Maria's (the Latin wife) misrule, Maria's (Manuel's daughter) rule, even with her husband's Latin supporters, would be a welcome change, especially if her husband's brothers are successful.

The emperor didn't become a Pecheneg just because he hired them to fight for him. So why would he become a Catholic just because he hired a few thousand armoured horsemen?This is an excellent question. I don't think that the Emperor would suddenly become a Catholic.

I think that during the reign of Manuel I Komnenos there were indications that the Empire was moving closer to the Latin West:

-he held Latin-style knightly tournaments;
maintained a friendship with the Latin King of Jerusalem Baldwin III;

-contracted a marriage-alliance with France, with his son and heir, Alexios II to marry Agnes of France, a daughter of the King of France Louis VII;
he had his own daughter marry the son of one of his Italian allies (William V), Renier of Montferrat;

-he married the sister of the Prince of Antioch, Maria of Antioch, and fathered his only son and heir Alexios II off of her;

-he also married female relatives to the brothers Baldwin III and Amalric I, both Latin Kings of Jerusalem; and

-he employed many Latins in his army as mercenaries.

What I think all of this points to is that during the reign of Manuel the Byzantine Empire was becoming very involved in the politics of the Latin West. His wife Maria's Latin-phile regency for her son Alexios II turned many against the Latins, and resulted in an wave of violence against Constantinople's Latin inhabitants following her overthrow. If something like what I describe happening above were to occur however I think you would see the continuing involvement of the Greek Byzantine Empire in the affairs of the Latin West. I would actually argue that what was seen under Manuel was the Byzantine Empire on the cusp of a degree of Latin involvement that had not been previously seen. I believe that the marriage alliances point to the much greater role that Manuel wished the Byzantine Empire to play in the West.

[Riain]

There were no Kings with the first Crusade, but there were major nobles as commanders and the crusaders arrived en masse as a combined fighting force with the intention of carving out their own states. They had no intention of becomeing the cavalry arm of the Imperial army as Alexius would have wanted when he made the appeal. And as for the fact that they were nobility, it was the nobles who could most readily afford to become cavalrymen in the conditions prevailing in western Europe. I think Alexius didn't want an independent army traversing his territory to fight elsewhere, he wanted to strengthen his own army to retake Anatolia from the Turks. I don't think the Crusades provided the direct benefits to his empire that Alexius was looking for, whatever indirect benefits they did provide for the empire.

[Matthais Corvinus]

There were no Kings with the first Crusade, but there were major nobles as commanders and the crusaders arrived en masse as a combined fighting force with the intention of carving out their own states. They had no intention of becomeing the cavalry arm of the Imperial army as Alexius would have wanted when he made the appeal. And as for the fact that they were nobility, it was the nobles who could most readily afford to become cavalrymen in the conditions prevailing in western Europe. I think Alexius didn't want an independent army traversing his territory to fight elsewhere, he wanted to strengthen his own army to retake Anatolia from the Turks. I don't think the Crusades provided the direct benefits to his empire that Alexius was looking for, whatever indirect benefits they did provide for the empire.

Alright. So you don't think the Crusader assisted capture of the city of Nicaea, the capital of the Rum Sultanate, was a direct effect of the Crusaders being there then. This a map of the Byzantine Empire prior to the First Crusade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Byzantiumforecrusades.PNG), and this is a map of the Byzantine Empire after the First Crusade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Byzantium1st-crusade.PNG). You'll notice that in the first map, the Byzantine Empire control of Asia does not extend far past Constantinople city limits. In the second map, you'll see that Byzantine control in Asia comprises of the entire Black Sea and Med coasts. But I guess the Crusaders didn't have any real effect on the Byzantine Empire's expansion right?

How, exactly do you think Alexius could have acted differently to get what he wanted? As I see it he got the best that he could from the situation, a bunch of motivated, well led troops, who only had to minimally feed and give water to (not pay) in order to take the capital city of his existential enemy.

What I could see is Alexius, instead of going to the Pope, goes directly to the source, and promises some Latin nobles (if it was me, I'd go for Normans, they may be politically unreliable, but they are devilishly good military guys, so perhaps he recruits Bohemond) land if they will help him recover land. That though leaves open the possibility of having some heretical, militarily competent barbarians holding down an important part of your frontier, and I don't know how advisable that it. Like I said, Alexius got the best possible deal.

[Riain]

The Crusaders helped capture Nicea, but then took off for the Holy Land to do their thing. The rest of the gains made by the Komnenos' were indirectly helped by the Crusades and the Outremer states, but Crusader armies weren't part of the forces which fought the battles and made the gains. I'm wondering what would happen if these same forces, without ther grasping commanders, were integrated into the Imperial army. They certainly wouldn't take off to the Holy Land after Nicea, they would be directed onto the next target city or region. ______________ As for how Alexius could have done this, I don't know. As you say he could have asked someone other than the Pope. Or the Pope may not have perverted Alexius wishes, and/or Bernard of Clairveau may not conducted a further perversion of Urbans ideas.

[Don_Giorgio]

Actually Alexius wanted them to go in the Holy Lands... He believed that he had secured their loyalty with the oath of fealty which he had imposed on them... However this oath was broken when greed overcome Crusader's zeal... Bohemound was the first to break the oath after the fall of Antioch...

[Riain]

Alexius wanted the crusading forces, as they actually appeared in reality, to go to the Holy Land. But Alexius didn't want a Crusade, he just wanted western european armoured knights as mercenaries to persue a campaign/s to drive the Turks out of Anatolia. It was Urban who wanted a Crusade, and Bernard of Clairveau who made it a populist movement. The 'peoples crusade' was a disaster, I doubt even Bernard wanted that to happen, do more likely he just didn't give the ramifications a second's thought.

[Matthais Corvinus]

Riain, the era we are talking about is Feudal Europe. It was dominated by a military nobility whose purpose was to fight wars. In order to recruit the kind of Latin heavy calvary (ie Knights) that you want the West to provide to Alexius, then you need organizers of that group. In this era those organizers were your "grasping" nobles. I know that you really want those knights fighting for Alexius, but unless you can find another organizers (which you can't unless you want to go back into history and retool European history for the last, hmm, about 400 or 500 years) then you're going to have to accept that Alexius is not going to get what he wanted, and you are the only person who believes that he can.

[Don_Giorgio]

Agree Corvinus...

[Riain]

If it was impossible surely Alexius wouldn't have broached it with the Pope in the first place? I'm sure he had some idea of what was possible and impossible, they Empire was usually pretty good at intelligence etc., before he made a direct appeal to the Pope, so I'll defer to his wisdom. The fuedal system at the time was out of balance with large numbers of nobles, younger sons etc, who despite being raised and accultured to a fighting/noble way of life had no chance at all of gaining their own lands. Urban is suspected of calling for the crusade to give these men an outlet for their energies, he certainly didn't do as Alexius asked. In different circumstances the western europeans could be made into cataphracts with their own land grants, and higher nobles into Strategios of reconquered Themes.

[Don_Giorgio]

Alexius thought that since they were mere Nobles and not Kings (Nobles inferiors to his own imperial rank) he could have secured their loyalty by an oath of fealty... That was his crucial mistake... (not actually a mistake more like a wrong calculation)
Crusaders were deceived anyway in the siege of Nicaea by Alexius who secretly negotiated the surrender of the city to the Byzantine General Taticius because he feared that Crusaders would have sacked it... This was the first breach between Alexius and the Crusading army... Sozopolis Iconium Caesarea and Dorylaeum were freed by Crusaders and were put under Byzantine control theoretically (sic) they were lost to Turks by 1101 though...
Following the fall of Antioch and due to a confusion between Crusaders and Byzantine army Bohemound declared the oath null and void and kept Antioch for himself (though he was obliged legally under his oath of fealty to surrender it to Alexius) This is more like an act of revenge against Alexius for his deception attempt in Antioch...

[Riain]

By the time the Crusaders got to Constantinople nobody expected them to stay and help the Empire win back Anatolia. The oath of fealty was an attempt to salvage something from the Crusaders intention to go to the Holy Land, to make them sattelites rather than Byzantine Themes or adversaries.

[Don_Giorgio]

By the time the Crusaders got to Constantinople nobody expected them to stay and help the Empire win back Anatolia. The oath of fealty was an attempt to salvage something from the Crusaders intention to go to the Holy Land, to make them sattelites rather than Byzantine Themes or adversaries.


Alexius got scared by the size of the army but he imposed this oath of fealty thinking that the Nobles would have obeyed him since he outranked them... (He was still the Roman Emperor of course)
When things got out of control he negotiated the surrender of Nicaea rather than let Crusaders and his army capture it... He was planning to do the same in Antioch but his army was delayed and Bohemound was given the pretext he wanted to set the Crusaders free from their vows... Greed overcame Crusaders and cerainly they wouldnt left the riches of Antioch to the Emperor...

[Matthais Corvinus]

Well, actually Alexius apparently was marching an army out to "help" the Crusaders take Antioch. However, deserters from the Crusaders' army told him that all was lost, and he turned his army around, never reaching Antioch. Thus, the Latin Crusaders argued, it was not they, but Alexius, who had broken the oath sworn in Constantinople. He was, as their liege lord, obligated to help them, and since he didn't arrive to help them at Antioch, he had broken the oath.

To achieve what you want Riain, have Alexius continue his march, and the Byzantine army break the Second Siege of Antioch, when the Crusaders are trapped inside the city. With Alexius having just saved their bacon the ruler of Antioch, at least, would have been a vassal of Constantinople. With the aid Alexius has provided at Antioch, the oaths of fealty that the Crusaders swore would still be in effect, since Alexius has kept his up his end of the contractual obligation. Thus the rest of the states the Crusaders establish would have the same obligations to Constantinople as Antioch. The history of the fall of the rest of the Holy Land may look much different. With Antioch having fallen, Alexius probably would want to go after Aleppo next, with its key strategic and economic position.

This may seem like it doesn't really matter, but it does. If the Crusader states right off the bat are vassals of the Empire, then you will end up having a closer relationship between the Empire and the Latin Outremer much sooner. In OTL it was a pretty acrimonious relationship, and the Latin Outremer only recognized its shared interests with the Byzantine Empire after the Second Crusade (1148). One of the things that is noted in both Zirgid and Nur al-Din's campaigns against the Latins is that they didn't want to get the Byzantines involved in the Latin-Muslim wars in the Holy Land. In this TL the Byzantines would be much more involved in the wars, because the constant border skirmishes would be between the Emperor's vassals and the Muslims, not between those crazy barbarian Latins and the Muslims (OTL). The Latins being in the Empire actually will probably end up securing Syria much sooner. The Empire would want both Aleppo and Damascus in the fold, and if those cities fall in the first half of the 12th century, then the Latins would be secure enough to use extensively in the campaigns against the Turks in the interior of Anatolia. The Rum Sultanate would be surrounded on three sides, with the Byzantines to the north and west, and the Latins to the south.

Furthermore, with the Latins as Imperial vassals, Riain, you'll be able to get what you want, an army of Latin knights fighting for the Empire.

[Riain]

I think that by the time the Crusaders got to Constantinople the 'damage' was already done. The Empire's call for mercenaries had already been bastardised into a Crusade, and the armies had sworn to the pope that they would free Jerusalem, not fght for the Emperor. How much of the oath of fealty was "Yeah, yeah, yeah, fealty, whatever, just let us enter the city and cross the straits will ya."?

[Don_Giorgio]

I agree with Corvinus... But there is one thing that troubles me... For how long they will tolerate each other? There have been only 40 years since the schism and the mutual excommunications... Latins would soon started to rebel against Byzantines and Byzantines would try to supress Latins and drive them out of Holy Lands replacing them with Byzantine troops...

[Matthais Corvinus]

I think that by the time the Crusaders got to Constantinople the 'damage' was already done. The Empire's call for mercenaries had already been bastardised into a Crusade, and the armies had sworn to the pope that they would free Jerusalem, not fght for the Emperor. How much of the oath of fealty was "Yeah, yeah, yeah, fealty, whatever, just let us enter the city and cross the straits will ya."?

Under what conditions the oath was made is totally immaterial. The fact that in the TL I offered Alexius keeps up his end of the bargain, means that the Latin nobles are obligated to do the same. The fact that a Byzantine Army with the Emperor at its head is taking part in their military operations helps to maintain that sense of loyalty.

I'm going to go ahead and take issue with your thoughts about what exactly Alexius wanted. IMO what Alexius was looking for was some respite from the body blows that the Empire was suffering. The Turks were breathing down the Empire's neck and the Byzantines were in perhaps the worse strategic situation that they EVER had been in, in their entire history, period. The Crusades gave them breathing room, allowed them to survive the body blow of Manzikert. And they did all this without threatening the territorial integrity of the Empire, or becoming involved in the Empire's internal politics. So would you please explain why the mercenaries would have been any better than what he got?

I agree with Corvinus... But there is one thing that troubles me... For how long they will tolerate each other? There have been only 40 years since the schism and the mutual excommunications... Latins would soon started to rebel against Byzantines and Byzantines would try to supress Latins and drive them out of Holy Lands replacing them with Byzantine troops...

I don't think the Latins would rebel against the Byzantines. If you look at what happened to the Latin Outremer OTL they moved away from the Latin West's mainstream culture very quickly. The "orientalization" of the Latin East shocked visitors from the West by the first Frankish generation that was born in the East. With a greater relationship between the Byzantines and the Eastern Franks I would expect more inter-marriage. If Byzantine military power is used to secure Syria, then the Latins would be freed up to be used as heavy cavalry in the Byzantine campaigns for Anatolia. I agree that they could end up having fights with the Byzantines, but as a frontier people I think the Latins would recognize that the Byzantines might be heretics, but the Muslims wanted to kill them.

[Prem_Rack]

Western mercenaries for a limited engagement would be feasible for the Byzantines, but I doubt that a major expedition that could expel the Turks from Asia minor could occur. The main problem is religion. Since the schism of 1054, the papacy regarded the Greeks as heretics or even worse. They probably even felt that the Turkish invasion was divine retribution for the break with Rome. I don't think that Alexius was desperate enough to become a Roman Catholic just for the sake of Asia Minor. Latin mercenaries were notoriously enreliable anyway. Look what happened to Andronicus and the Catalan company. That was a disaster. Without the crusader states, I see a stronger Fatimid caliphate until the Mongol invasions.

Nah, the religious raw wasn't that significant at that time.

[Riain]

I don't deny that as it turned out the Crusaders helped the Empire to regain considerable territory while the power of Islam was focused elsewhere. We had a good discussion a week or so ago about the 3rd Crusade and it's possibilities to indirectly enhance the Empire. But in 1204 the same Crusading movement turned on the Empire and struck the blow which doomed it, so Venice could make a buck that week. The fact remains that Alexius called for mercenaries to fight the Turks in Anatolia, he didn't call for a religious war in the Holy Land so he could pick up the scraps and get a few vassals. The fault for the difference lies with Urban and Bernard, change their behaviour and you change history.

[Don_Giorgio]

Actually Alexius asked for mercenaries to the Pope but Urban II was aiming elsewhere... Alexius thought that with the oath of fealty he would have secured their loyalty.... (Alexius expected that the Crusading Nobles would have respected the fact that he was the Roman Emperor)
When he saw that the Crusaders were going out of his control he enforced Byzantine diplomacy in order to "control" the Crusader's conquests as it happened with Nicaea...

[Matthais Corvinus]

I don't think that you can just say that the Crusader-movement was the work of one pope and one very skilled preacher. The outpouring of manpower for this adventure to the East points to demographic pressures that the Church took it upon itself to respond to. What I'm saying is that if you butterfly Manzikert away, and Alexius doesn't need Latin military aid, then you're still going to have to send this excess population of warrior-nobility somewhere.

So lets go with a different pope and no skilled preacher. Alexius' flee falls on deaf ear, or he gets a few knights, whatever, the upshot is no Crusades being preached in the early 1090's. What happens to all those landless, freebooting knights who OTL went East? Well one of two things, either they stay home, in which case you've raised the ante from regular level of violence to a truly horrifying level of violence, what with the low-prices for mercenaries and the willingness of knights to cut each other throats for land. But I don't think the knights would stick around. I think we'd see a bigger focus on Iberia and the Baltic. Both are relatively close, offer the chance for land, and killing the infidel, and both are already happening prior to the Crusades. So what is the effect of all this extra manpower on the Iberian and Baltic frontiers starting in the late 1090's?

[Riain]

We've already acknowledged the demographic pressures, the younger sons who would never gain their own lands. But does that need a Crusade to solve, or would recuriting mercenaries to serve the Emperor directly suffice? Urban could have just supported Alexius' idea, and facilitated a recruitment drive to rid Europe of similar numbers of mounted warriors without all of the relgious, holy land overlay which caused SO much trouble.

[Don_Giorgio]

Urban II was aiming elsewhere... He didnt wanted to help Alexius... but to return the "schismatic" Greeks to the Apostolic See of Rome... But both Pope and Alexius were deceived when Crusaders started working for themselves... they wouldnt have left the riches of the East to Alexius and certainly not the Pope...

[Matthais Corvinus]

If you start off first asking "Why did the Crusades happen?" then you can see why the idea of turning the landless knights of Europe into Alexius' mercenaries doesn't make sense. The Crusades happened because you had a military society that had defeated all existential threats. The Norse, Muslims and Magyars had all been neutralized. Therefore, a new external enemy had to found, or Europe would tear itself to pieces in internal conflicts. The knights of Europe were going to do violence, the question, as Urban saw it, was whether they were going to do violence to other Latin-rite Christians or to the infidel. The Greeks' defeat at Manzikert, and Alexius' call for help, gave Urban II a pretext for getting rid of the excess knights and sending them on a mission to free the holy land from the infidels and in the process free Europe from the knights.

The advantage of sending them on a Crusade is that they don't require money. Their reward is two-fold: They are going to get land that they conquer from the infidel, and they are going to get spiritual rewards in the next life (absolved of all sins, etc.). Neither one of these rewards requires the spending of money by anyone in Europe. Plus the knights didn't want to be paid, they wanted land. The whole point of the Crusades was to make the landLESS knights landED knights.

So if Alexius' was planning on buying up large numbers of mercenaries, then these men are going to need to be settled somewhere. And that somewhere is probably going to be on the Anatolian frontier. Here we run into another problem. Even in Europe, where vassals faced liege lords of the same church and many times the same culture, there were disagreements about obligations that ended up turning into war. In Anatolia you're going to have Latin knights defending the Byzantine frontier, probably defending places that were rather important to the Byzantine frontier, like fortresses and cities, since this is where you would station troops. These Latin knights are, like all nobility, a grasping, greedy bunch, who want to increase their own power. They know that as far as military tech goes they are pretty much on the top of the heap. And in the sometimes choatic environment of Byzantine politics, they would probably be willing to go for the gold. Byzantine politics, because there is not the same emphasis on heiredity as there was in Europe, a Latin could aspire to the Kingship. And since the Latins would be an important part of the Byzantine military, given how knights are used, they would know just how much power they had. Basically, bringing Latins in large numbers into the Empire (as Rianin is proposing) is not a very good idea. Latins could be used as a more far away frontier people (far away, like in Syria/Palestine) but as an Anatolia frontier people, I can't see good things happening.

[Riain]

I struggle to believe that the OTL Crusades were the BEST Alexius and the Empire could have hoped for when asking Urban about mercenaries. I think Alexius had his own ideas in mind when he broached the subject and Urban turned them into something different, with Bernards 'help'.
Perhaps Alexius could have spoken with someone else, perhaps the HRE or some other important king. They wouldn't have called for a Crusade but would still be interested in moving their demographic issues onto someone else.

[Don_Giorgio]

Even then (calling HR Emperor or any other than the Pope) NO King/Duke/Count gone to help the Byzantine Emperor would want to share what they conquered...
HRE would have helped and asked for recognition of their Imperial Title... If not for lands... (Byzantines refused to recognise HRE as Emperors of the West...)

[Matthais Corvinus]

The reason that Alexius went to the Pope rather than directly to the European monarchs is because the Pope and the Latin Church were the most solid and reliable part of Europe political structure. Most of Europe's Kings were hardly more powerful than their vassals (in some cases far weaker, ie France vs. the Angevins) and all of them were focused on very local issues, like not getting killed, expanding their domains, etc. The Church offered the ability to speak to all of Europe, which is what Alexius wanted to do.

I don't think you can convert the whole population of Europe's landless knights into Byzantine mercenaries because the Byzantine state couldn't pay them, and bringing large numbers of foreign mercenaries into your Empire and settling them worked so well for the Western Empire (Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Vandals, Alans, noticing a pattern?), why shouldn't the Eastern one do it too? Plus, all the knights aren't going to want to just go fight for some other king. I think that the idea of the Crusade appealed to a lot of these fighters not just on the greed/glory/land level, but also on a religious level, after all this period was one in which the Church was at perhaps the apogee of its power. I don't think that fighting the Turks in Anatolia held the same religious appeal that freeing Jerusalem, or fighting to keep Jerusalem free, did. In fact even in Iberia and on the Baltic the Crusaders were at least fighting to expand the TRUE faith. In Anatolia their fighting the infidel for a heretic Emperor. The urge to make the Emperor a Latin-Rite Emperor would be strong.