1st Crusade more successful?

I've been reading up on the First Crusade recently, and I began to realize why it was the most successful Crusade.

As a general rule, all the crusades have suffered because of infighting, poor supply lines, alienation of the Byzantines and the fact that so few European soldiers made it to the Holy Land at all.
The first crusade suffered all these problems. The reason it succeeded where the others failed is that the surrounding muslim powers were incredibly weak. The Seljuks were divided. The Fatimid Caliphate was in its death throes.

So, that got me thinking. What if the First Crusade was even more successful?

Firstly, the People's Crusade needs to not happen. That should be relatively easy. Simply kill off Peter the Hermit, and have Walter Sans Avoir and the other knights who joined the People's Crusade enlist in the later Princes Crusade.
This means that when the enlarged Princes Crusade reached Constantinople, they're met with open arms. (Bohemond's presence be damned) The Byzantines readily feed the Crusader army.
Alexios, since he isn't put off by the People's Crusade, gives full Byzantine support for the Crusade. This means that conquered territories will become part of the Byzantine Empire, and the sizeable Byzantine Army will join the Crusade.
As in OTL, the Sultanate of Rum is smashed. Anatolia is reclaimed for Christiandom. Unlike in OTL, they are adequately provisioned in their journey to Armenia and have larger Byzantine forces assisting them.
Baldwin becomes the count of Edessa, which remains a Byzantine vassal.
At Antioch, the Saxons arrive to assist the Crusade. Antioch is still a formidable obstacle; the greater provisions and troops however mean the Crusader army emerges from the siege in a better state than it had been. The city would have been starved out, but like OTL the armies of Mosul come to break the siege, a traitor opens the gates, and the Crusaders take the city.
Mosul's army is then, as in OTL, completely defeated. Here's the single largest shift in the crusade. OTL, the crusaders paused in Antioch for a year to debate whether their oaths to the Byzantines, who had deserted the Crusade, still existed. TTL, the oaths clearly do. So, instead of waiting a year, the large, well-provisioned Crusade has some time on its hands.
The Crusaders thus proceed down the coast as OTL, after capturing Aleppo, and besiege Jerusalem. By this point, and after the long journey, even their improved supplies are stressed. The city is taken in 1098.
The Crusaders then continue south, as the Fatimids refuse to negotiate. They defeat them, but do not expand into Egypt due to the logistical difficulties (the Crusaders ships had been made into siege engines, and so could not be used.) The first Crusade thus ends and the crusaders are allowed to return home or remain in their captured territories as Byzantine vassals.

The Byzantines however are stronger now. Mosul and Damascus can be invaded by them and whatever forces remained in the next few decades, restoring the Byzantine Empire outside of Egypt. It's even possible that they could attack the decaying Fatimid Caliphate and retake Egypt, once breadbasket of the Empire and home to large Christian populations.

What do you think?
 
When you say Anatolia is reclaimed, how far East do you mean? Why would the Byzantines go into Armenia now?

Overall, it seems quite sound so far except I don't know if the Crusaders can go more South than OTL and if the Byzantines can go into Armenia.
 
Last edited:
Knowing the arrogance of the Christian leaders I think that they would still find a way to screw it up. cough *Hattin* cough
 
Knowing the arrogance of the Christian leaders I think that they would still find a way to screw it up. cough *Hattin* cough

Most likely, but the BUTTERFLIES!!! :p

They could survive and stumble on or survive and prosper. But it would be difficult.
 
As a final triumph in 1099, the crusaders could have taken Ascalon when the Fatimid army had been defeated, the town was a sitting duck and the garrison was prepared to surrender. In OTL the opportunity was wasted because Godfrey of Bouillon didn't want Raymond of Toulouse to take the city for himself. Let him have it: that leaves Tripoli available to become part of the kingdom.

Thereafter, the main issue is manpower. Can you get a larger, continuing migration of families from the west?
 
In my mind the biggest lost opportunity of the 1st Crusade was the capture of Ascalon. After the Battle of Ascalon the city was willing to surrender to Raymond but Godfrey wouldn't allow that so the city held on for 50 years as a base for continual raids.
 
In my mind the biggest lost opportunity of the 1st Crusade was the capture of Ascalon. After the Battle of Ascalon the city was willing to surrender to Raymond but Godfrey wouldn't allow that so the city held on for 50 years as a base for continual raids.

While that did help the Muslim powers in the area, I think that something needs to be done about Egypt, the Baghdad Caliphate and the Emirate in Aleppo and Damascus as well. Or at least two of them.
 
I doubt that much could be done about them with the forces of the 1st Crusade, they wanted to capture Jerusalem and go home, which they did.

The Crusade of 1101 was the biggest lost opportunity of the crusading movment, it could have done all sorts of valuable stuff.
 
I think we now have significantally better relations between the Byzantines and the crusaders and so a good base for later campaigns but i guess the Byzantine Empire is now way too exhausted (not enough manpower) to regain Egypt let alone to hold it.
 
I am not home right now and cannot bring up exact citations, but the Kingdom of Jerusalem was never intended to exist. As initially intended, the Crusader States would have been nominal vassals of the Pope, with large chunks of Jaffa and Jerusalem directly under his rule. The reason this did not happen OTL is because the Church's official representatives in the Crusade, Adhemar de Montei and the bishop of Le Puy, died en route. There was no one to push the Church's interests when the dust settled.

If you are making the First Crusade more successful, chances are that the deathes of these men will be averted. Jerusalem might encompass more territory but it will be a totally alien state. Not sure how interactions with the Byzantines would play out.
 
With or without Peter the Hermit, the Byzantines are not going to welcome the Crusaders "with open arms".

They're going to have exactly the same problems with the Crusaders as OTL from exactly the same sources, and act exactly the same (or so close that the differences barely count as butterflies).

And "sizeable Byzantine army"? If Alexius had a sizeable force to "take part", he'd have sent it OTL specifically to take advantage of the situation - whether he liked the Crusaders or not isn't relevant.

So, while it might - maybe - be possible to have better Byzantine-Crusader relations (marginally) from around Antioch, and it might be possible if things go very well for Alexius for him to regain a bit more of Anatolia - the First Crusade was already successful past all reason for the crusaders, and the Byzantine forces hardly sufficient for the task of even retaking Anatolia, let alone thinking about outside the pre-Manzikert borders of the Empire.

I agree with Riain on the Crusade of 1101 - at least from the perspective of the Crusaders (the Byzantines might not see any great gain), though.
 
You really are a convert about 1101 Elfwine, but then again it is obvious when you look at it.

IIRC Alex did have an army out in the wake of both 1st and 1101 Crusades and captured territory in Anatolia in their wake. However they were theiving, riotous, rapascious bastards and there is little wonder the Byz weren't falling over themselves to lend them more of a hand.
 
You really are a convert about 1101 Elfwine, but then again it is obvious when you look at it.

IIRC Alex did have an army out in the wake of both 1st and 1101 Crusades and captured territory in Anatolia in their wake. However they were theiving, riotous, rapascious bastards and there is little wonder the Byz weren't falling over themselves to lend them more of a hand.

You've said it enough that I'm taking it seriously. And I know that the more famous crusades aren't going anywhere without that kind of success that you say it would bring.

The Third, for example, even if it shatters Saladin's empire, is still dealing with a gutted kingdom.
 
I'm not sure the Crusaders would have thought that ending up as Byzantine vassals with a resurgent Byzantine Empire would be "successful"?
 
I'm not sure the Crusaders would have thought that ending up as Byzantine vassals with a resurgent Byzantine Empire would be "successful"?

That depends. Is it worse than having no kingdom at all? IIRC the KoJ was a vassal more or less at some times or another, but the vassaldom was worn lightly and depended on the proxomity of the Imperial Army.
 
That depends. Is it worse than having no kingdom at all? IIRC the KoJ was a vassal more or less at some times or another, but the vassaldom was worn lightly and depended on the proxomity of the Imperial Army.

I think you are confusing Jerusalem with Antioch?
 
Top