Well, that´s not really true, it´s actually almost completely false at this point.

The Turks just were about to border Constantinople after Manzikert, the Byzantines didn´t exactly know how to deal with them.

Nor were Crusader particularly bloodthirsty by any historical standards.

Guess that is fair, though I do think you are discounting all the ravages done on the marches through Europe by the Peasant's crusade such as the Pogrom of 1096 and the numerous attacks on Eastern Europeans as they marched through the region. The religious nature of things like the Pogrom really only came out in a crusade, when contrasted with the more ordinary conflicts. The Second Crusade also had various skirmishes along the European marching route and the like. Every time you read about a Crusade it usually ends up having a bunch of attrocities in the initial European phase. Then again you could be right in it just being conflicts of the era being like that, but I don't really think that holds up - there was a tendency to put aside the ordinary rules of conflict during a crusade due to the "foreigness" of the enemy and the fact that harm against them had been sanctioned by the church.

I also think that you are ignoring the scale of death that marked particularly the sack of Jerusalem. Sure things like this happened elsewhere, but the religious motivations pushed people to the extremes.

I know that the Turks were new neighbors, but I was speaking more generally - The Byzantines spent centuries acclimatizing to a muslim neighbor, albeit arab at the time, and was able to use some of those lessons to communicate with the Turks. They also had experience with other nomadic peoples along their northern border, which eased the difficulty of understanding the frame of mind the Turks had. The westerners had none of those.
 
I do think that the bad publicity the Crusades have come from three main factors:

- the high expectations people have to them (they were supposed to be pilgrims not an usual armed band). This caused the contemporaries and the later writers to details and criticize the atrocities comited by them.

- the fact that they screwed up big time with the 4th, ending any chance to reconciliation between east and west

- the anti religious stand of the western Europe post French revolution wich deamed anything Medieval or Religious as being wrong, barbarous and retrograde. This, coupled with the anti Catholicism of the Protestant world and with our inability to understand how could be people be so motivated by religious ideals, plus the political realities, results to a very negative perception over Crusades.
 
The historiography of the Crusades is ever a very controversial subject, and the previous posters presented an interesting debate regarding the matter of the violence itself. Much like I wrote in the very first chapter, rephrasing a quote of Mr. Christopher Tyeman (author of God's War), one of the most bizarre paradox of Medieval Christian Europe was the conciliation of the warrior ethos of the post-Romano-Germanic polities (namely their landed elites) with the New Testament ideology. Indeed, the Crusades (or better, the "holy wars") are arguably the most emblematic phenomenon of religious violence in the Medieval west. @aegis03florin absolutely nailed the point by addressing the fact that the Crusaders are seen through a biased lens nowadays - I'd like to add that, this trend was only aggravated in the 20th Century, when nationalist ideologies appropriated the Crusades as the "original" clash of civilizations (that is, Samuel Huntingdon's concept), with Arabs and Palestines during the struggle against the British Mandate likening the Crusaders as the "precursor" imperialists, much like the URSS demonized the Teutonic Order as a Medieval mirror of Nazi Germany. Even today, there is a persistent perception that the Crusaders were moved by greed and rapacity (a view advanced as early as the writings of Voltaire and Edward Gibbon), which makes it difficult to explore the period with a (real or not) pretense of trying to enter "in the mind" of the Medieval western worldview.

My point is: nowadays, it is somewhat difficult to address the subject of the Crusades in an strictly impartial assessment. Be it because our modern realities, perceptions and sensibilities are so different from those of 1000 years ago that it all seems too alien for us to understand, and not even in the least because many of our sources were biased since their publication.

For example, in the beginning of the TL, some readers warned me about the question of the Crusader brutality during their campaigns, explaining (correctly) that most of it did not go beyond the "usual" patterns of Medieval warfare. Regarding the massacre after the fall of Jerusalem, on the other hand, I in great part was simply addressing the matter by the same fashion by which both Christian and Islamic writers wrote about it at the time.

I hope that no one get me wrong now, as I took this point seriously when the readers pointed out, but I also must ask you to take some stuff with a grain of salt, because some parts are indeed played out out of narrative drama (for example, the previous chapter was partly narrated as if seen from the POV of the *Byzantine Emperor, and it is natural that he would be prejudiced against the "Franks"), while others are incorporated from the way the contemporary sources - both Christian and Muslim - treat the matter, so I found it reasonable to adopt it as a narrative development.

I hope to tread carefully on grounds that I know are very sensible, and I really appreciate your feedback in this regard. Also, I'd like to point out that, for now it indeed appears that the TL is following a pro-Christian (in fact, a pro-Crusader) bias, I'm aware of it. I hope you understand that is simply out of the expedient of placing a greater narrative focus, and because I believe that some very specific and convenient conditions must be placed to create a more plausible scenario of "Crusader-wank" (that is, a KOJ that survives some centuries beyond OTL). Some other chapters, as you will see, are more focused on the Islamic polities in the Near East, and I intend to adress the role of not only the "Byzantines" (who, despite being "coadjuvants", are actually a fundamental piece in the puzzle), but also the Armenians, the Jewish peoples, Georgia (I thank one of the readers above for remembering me about the Georgians, I confess I had them placed in a metaphorical fridge, something I should not do), as well as the nomadic peoples of Central Asia, as these are they create the most meaningful impacts in the fate of the Crusader kingdom.

TL; DR: Many things I put in the TL are played up for narrative drama, as well as being simply recollections of the original sources, such as Fulcher of Chartes and Guibert of Nogent, and also Ibn al-Qalanisi, at least as they are presented through modern historians, namely Runciman and Tyeman. I realize they are very biased and I do (and will) try to play out with different perspectives (from Christians and Muslims) to give a more comprehensive approach to the subject.
 
Last edited:
Also, to answer the original question presented by @Gloss, I believe that the "Byzantines", at least during the First Crusade period, were somewhat prejudiced towards the western Europeans, especially the Normans. For example, Anna Komnena, Alexios' daughter and writer of one of the accounts of the First Crusade, uses the terms "Franks" and "barbarians" interchangeably, as synonyms, to refer to the Normans of Robert Guiscard, a trend used by many previous and future "Byzantine" historians.

Also, I originally was addressing solely the relationship between the "Byzantine" Empire with the first Crusaders, and, like @Zulfurium pointed, I was under the impression that most of these expeditions were very damaging to the reputation of the Crusades, with indisciplined bands such as those of Peter the Hermit and Walter Sans Avoir wreaking havoc against Christian populations in Central and Southern Europe. This pattern repeated many times in the First and Second Crusades, culminating in the disaster of the Fourth Crusade. I imagined that an account of the Crusades that avoided addressing these episodes (even if, again, somewhat dramatized) would be simply incomplete.
 
One minor question, why is Antioch shown in a different colour than that of the Byzantines in the map? Wasn't it annexed by Emperor Alexios inspite of Bohemond's claims on it?

The maps I posted before are actually from OTL, so they still represent what would be the Norman Principality of Antioch. ITTL, as you noted, the province of Antioch should be represented as a "Byzantine" territory.

I found it fair to give an historical map because, so far, there are not a lot of divergences in geopolitics. They will begin pilling up from the 12th C. onwards.
 
13. The Arrival of the Burgundians and Germans in Constantinople (1101)
beWFfc7.jpg


Konstantinoúpolis, city of the world's desire. One can only fathom what would a pilgrim from the sequestered hamlets of Burgundy or the silent towns of Germany have imagined when they arrived in Europe's largest and most populous metropolis

In the midst of 1101, a smaller contingent of westerners arrived in Constantinople.

Much like the baronial armies of the First Crusade, this was a force of minor nobles, knights, soldiers and volunteer pilgrims. Most of them had come from the region that comprised the heartlands of the defunct kingdom of Burgundy; in these days, the Burgundian fiefs were partitioned between a county and a duchy – whose lords were, respectively, vassals of the German Emperor (who was also de iure King of Burgundy) and of the King of France. The Count Palatine of Burgundy was Stephen [Étienne] I of Ivrea, and the Duke of Burgundy was Eudes [Odo] Borel, a grandson of late King Robert II of France. A minor party of Germans from the Rhineland and Franconia came together with them, led by Conrad of Fritzlar, Constable of Emperor Henry [Heinrich] IV.

They had previously warned the Constantinopolitan court about their approach, having come from the same overland route used by Duke Godfrey from Germany into the Balkans. Alexios had taken measures to prepare for their arrival, providing resources and guidance while they traversed Macedonia and Thrace.

To any of the Greeks, the appearance of another Frankish army might have seen as a grave concern, but to the ingenious Caesar of Constantinople, it was a great opportunity. He himself had asked for Latin mercenaries to assist in the war against the Turks, years before, and, indeed, received much more than he had bargained for; nevertheless, the might and turbulence of the Franks could be diverted to weaken the Seljuk dynasts and allow for a gradual takeover of Asia Minor.

Besides, the Germans and Burgundians were noticeably more disciplined and conscientious than the agitated Lombards, and Alexios I found it easier to dialogue with lay noblemen than with fanatical demagogues like Anselm of Milan. The German Constable Conrad was particularly deferential towards Alexios, as he was aware about the courtesy given by his liege, the Emperor of the Romans, to the monarch of the Greeks. The Burgundian lords, likewise, were impressed by precious gifts (from gold to silk) and a generous offer of resources (food, horses and clothes).

When they departed from Constantinople – accompanied by a force of Pecheneg mercenaries led by the Tzitas and the Scholae led by Nikephoros Bryennios, son-in-law of the Emperor – crossing the strait of Marmara to meet the Lombards in Nicomedia, the French and the Germans had adopted Alexios’ own personal crusade against the Turks, much like the princes of the First Crusade had done, and were convinced about the necessity of securing a foothold in the heart of Asia Minor to allow a safe land route of pilgrimage coming from Europe.

Thus, they trekked from Nicomedia to Nicaea, and from there to Dorylaeum. The crossing of Phrygia was made difficult by the sudden appearance of the Seljuks, whose hit and run tactics exsanguinated and vexed the Crusaders.

In spite of the constant harassment by the Turcoman horse archers, the combined Lombard, Burgundian and Franconian host arrived in Iconium [Konya], and put the city to siege.

This fortified city had been established as the court of the Seljuk Sultan of Rûm, Kilij I Arslan, and, despite having been captured by the Franks in 1097, it was once again in Turkish hands. The Crusaders were aware that the Sultan himself was afield, personally coordinating the raiding parties in Phrygia to intimidate his Christian enemies, and by besieging his capital, they intended to force him into battle.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully, the Lombards, Burgundians, and Franconians are more successful going South than they were going North in OTL. Taking Iconium, and keeping it would pay dividends to the Byzantines and Crusaders over the long term as it would make the land route from Constantinople to the Levant a lot safer for pilgrims and travelers.
 
I'm very curious on how the POD will affect the development of the Italian Merchant states especially Genoa and Venice. Since the Crusaders clearly have a better relationship with the Romans will it stunt the growth of the Italians merchant empires (since they don't need to rely on them as much) and facilitate a greater Roman naval presence in the Eastern Med?
 
I'm very curious on how the POD will affect the development of the Italian Merchant states especially Genoa and Venice. Since the Crusaders clearly have a better relationship with the Romans will it stunt the growth of the Italians merchant empires (since they don't need to rely on them as much) and facilitate a greater Roman naval presence in the Eastern Med?

Genoa already has a pretty large naval base as they are already shipping supplies to crusaders.
 
Last edited:
What's to stop Alexios from launching his own invasion (or even a raid) in conjunction with the Crusaders? If they can coordinate well enough perhaps a 2-pronged assault into Central Anatolia?
 
Hopefully, the Lombards, Burgundians, and Franconians are more successful going South than they were going North in OTL. Taking Iconium, and keeping it would pay dividends to the Byzantines and Crusaders over the long term as it would make the land route from Constantinople to the Levant a lot safer for pilgrims and travelers.

That's it exactly! Iconium is a central location in Anatolia, and a necessary supply point for the Europe-Asia route. The weakening of the Anatolian Turks benefits both Christian parties.

I'm very curious on how the POD will affect the development of the Italian Merchant states especially Genoa and Venice. Since the Crusaders clearly have a better relationship with the Romans will it stunt the growth of the Italians merchant empires (since they don't need to rely on them as much) and facilitate a greater Roman naval presence in the Eastern Med?

I'll give a lot more attention to the Italian city-states in future chapters. I believe that, in fact, the renewal of "Byzantine" power in the east won't necessarily hamper their development, considering now they won't even need a 'middleman' among the Islamic Near Eastern powers to profit from the oriental trade. Also, I can antecipate that the Normans as a rule of thumb will be patrons of the Italian enterprises, so they have a lot to gain even if Byzantium becomes yet again a relevant player.

Relatively speaking, I think that Venice will be comparatively worse in relation to OTL, since they are the ones that benefited the most from Byzantium's collapse. Nevertheless, the continued survival of the Crusader State will allow they and other Italian thalassocracies to gain footholds in the Levant that they effectively lost IOTL by the 13th century.

Genoa already has a pretty large naval base as they are already shipping supplies to crusaders.

Indeed, Genoa OTL was one of the first arrivals in the Crusade, and gave a lot of help, including the supplies and resources for the assault against Jerusalem itself.

What's to stop Alexios from launching his own invasion (or even a raid) in conjunction with the Crusaders? If they can coordinate well enough perhaps a 2-pronged assault into Central Anatolia?

So far, Alexios is being very, very cautious. IOTL, he did not invest a lot of his manpower in the recapture of Anatolia during the early 1100s (I suppose because by then they had only recently restored communication and supply routes in Smyrna, Nicaea and Attalia). The Crusaders seem ready to invest their own lives and resources to help him, so his assistance, for now, will be substantial, but he is not ready to put all his resources on the table. For the time being, it is more interesting to him to await.
 
Firstly: WTF.

Secondly: while you were copying manuscripts, I studied the blade. While you were giving sermons, I was sacking Saracen cities on a quest to liberate the Holy Land for Christendom and to find the ULTIMATE waifu!

Don't worry, I'll be back when the Pope calls for another crusade (this time with castles overwhelming the Saracen ones).
 
At this point, how is the rest of the middle east reacting to this initial crusade?


In this very early stage, they are mostly on "by the beards of the Prophet, how did these infidels defeated the greatest warriors of the Turks and the Fatimids??" kind of shock, but, for the time being, there won't be many incursions against the Crusaders excepting from Egypt.

You might be surprised, but IOTL the Islamic world's reaction was surprisingly slow. They took more than four decades after the fall of Jerusalem, in the 1140s, to mount an organized response against the Crusader States, spearheaded by Zengi (who built his whole career in the ideology of "removing Franks from the premises"). Until then, the Crusaders had been on a warpath, having conquered Lebanon (County of Tripoli) and a big portion of Syria (Principality of Antioch), and only decades later did a single Islamic power launched its resources in an effort to finally destroy the KOJ - Saladin and the Ayyubids. So, we had almost a century in which the KOJ survived entirely due to the internal fracturing of the Muslim world.

I brought this information so you can understand what will be one of the most significant divergences: the bellic "answer" to the First Crusade - you can call it "jihad", even if the term nowadays has a very sensible connotation - will come sooner than IOTL... but, on the other hand, it will be less incisive as those of the Zengids and Ayyubids, so we can at least have the KOJ survive for some time longer, even if still under stress. Think about Hungary or the Romanian principalities during the Ottoman expansion, or perhaps.

The Turks, who are geographically closer to Asia Minor, will tend to be the most serious enemies of the Crusades coming directly from Europe, while the Egyptians will be the most serious enemies of the Franks in Palestine itself.
 
Last edited:
14. And here rest the valiant Lombards who took the Cross... (1101)
Turkish cava.jpg


Drawing of the early 12th C. Seljuq heavy cavalry army


Sultan Kilij Arslan of the Rûm Seljuks, despite his young age, was an experienced commander, and desired a great battle to shatter the aura of invincibility of the Christian invaders, whose feats impressed the mightiest lords of Dar-al-Islam. To do so, he made peace with his rival, Gümüştekin Dānishmand Ahmed Gazi, progenitor of a Turkish dynasty in Sebasteia and Charsianon, and together they marched against the Crusaders. He had attempted to gain the allegiance of Emir Radwan of Aleppo, but received a refusal on the grounds that he was honoring a truce with the Rhomaion Basileus.

A couple days of indecisive engagements near Iconium in June 1101 were followed by a tactical victory of the Christian side, when a sudden downpour of rain thwarted the Turkish favored tactic of horse archery, as their horses trampled in the mud. Kilij Arslan, fearing to have lost the favor of Allah in that day, decided to abandon his capital city and retreat to a safer country in the heart of Asia Minor.

Even in spite of the defeat of their suzerain, the citizens of Iconium resolved to resist the siege, and the battered and irritated Crusaders rearranged their placement to encircle the circuit of walls.

During the siege, the rainy weather suddenly gave way to an unforgiving climate of sun-scorching days and cold nights. The Lombards, enraged by the losses suffered, impatient of awaiting the siege and histeric about a possible Turkish counterattack, pressed for the abandonment of the siege, demanding that they resume their path to Jerusalem. The Germans, in these difficult days, formed a vocal opposition, as did many of the Burgundians, arguing that capturing Iconium was necessary to fulfill their vows to the Emperor, and to ensure a safe transit through Asia, but they remained a minority.

Bishop Anselm IV had fallen into the dangerous trap of demagogy: he started believing his own maniacal vocalizations, proclaiming that he was being visited by the ghosts of the Apostles, who arrogated them to go immediately to Jerusalem. The Italianophone crowd was enraptured by a rather hazardous mixture of paranoia, fanaticism and deprivation, whose effect was multiplied hundredfold by the apocalyptic imagery invoked by the Bishop of Milan. Hardly an unique episode, as the new Christian millenium witnessed a revival of sorts of apocalypticism in western Europe, not seen since the fall of the Roman Empire. The turn-of-the-century periods, in particular, experienced these kind of trends, and Anselm of Milan simply repeated and dramatized popular creeds of the epoch.

In any event, the insistence of the Lombards in marching to Jerusalem provoked a fragmentation of the pilgrim column, with the larger part of the host (not only the Lombards, but many Frenchmen as well) marching eastwards towards Cilicia, while a remnant commanded by Constable Conrad, Count Palatine Stephen of Burgundy, and the Greek general Nikephoros Bryennios in the siege of Iconium, believing that the long-term success of the pilgrimage would depend on the submission of that stronghold.

In this regard, Duke Eudes I of Burgundy, unlike Bishop Anselm IV, was genuinely aware about the necessity of establishing in Iconium a safe point between Europe and Syria, but was, nonetheless, eager to march to Jerusalem, fearing that he might die before reaching it, and decided to follow the Lombards with his own entourage, believing earnestly in the God-given nature of their mission. He was, after all, a veteran of holy wars in Spain, and trusted his life to the will of God. After the expulsion of the Turks from near Iconium, he expected that they would be able to march to Syria unopposed.

In this, he was mistaken, as the Sultan capitalized on the division of the Crusaders to attack.

Anyone might have been tempted to equate Conrad’s reluctance to sheer cowardice (as a certain Italian author viciously remarked: “the German Constable was like a child that cried in the dark”), but, in hindsight, it proved to be a very sensible decision – so much that he was able to convince Count Stephen of Burgundy to remain in his side instead of marching with the Lombards – and later sources do not attribute to him the grim fate of the expedition.

Whatever the cause: cowardice, premonition, earnest advice from the more experienced Greek allies, the Franconian Constable would, in a matter of weeks, see the hurried return of his former Burgundian and Lombard colleagues, reduced to meager and bloodied parties of desperate survivors after being ambushed by the Turks near the town of Heraclea Cybistra [m. Ereğli], while hundreds of other faithful, over the course of several days, had either been left as corpses in the cragged hills of Asia or submitted to slavery, so far from Jerusalem, and even farther from their homes. Yes... Kilij Arslan had obtained the triumph he desired, and the humiliation of the Crusaders resounded throughout both Dar-al-Islam and Christendom. Bishop Anselm IV had either been killed or enslaved and would later be canonized a martyr, despite the fact that it had been his recklessness the principal cause of the disaster. The Frankish Duke Eudes I of Burgundy also fell in battle, but some of his vassals, led by his kinsman Gislebert of Faucogney, successfully escaped, and hastened back to Iconium.

Even if none of the citizens of Iconium came to witness the defeat of the Lombards and Burgundians, their resolve was strengthened by the news of Crusader defeat, while the morale of the besiegers plummeted.

Some days later, the victorious Turks under Kilij Arslan and Danishmend Ghazi returned to Iconium to harass the besiegers with petty raids. Taking the overall leadership of the expedition, Constable Conrad and Count Palatine Stephen decided the best course would be to abandon the siege altogether. The rebound of the Turks made it impossible to remain encamped near Iconium, and thus the Germans, Burgundians and Lombard survivors returned to Dorylaeum, pressured by the overjoyed Turkish cavalry, and pleaded for reinforcements from Constantinople.

Kilij Arslan then stopped the chase and returned to Iconium to celebrate his victory, believing the expedition to have been terminated.

What he could not have known, however, was that another grand army of armed pilgrims was just now coming from Europe, mainly from France, but also from Aquitaine and Bavaria, accompanied by a Rhomaion veteran army led by Emperor Alexios himself. They arrived in Dorylaeum a week after the army of Conrad and Stephen returned, and, after consolidating their forces, they immediately marched back to Iconium, perhaps expecting to catch the Seljuk Sultan by surprise.
 
Top