A United Levant against the First Crusade?
- Thread starter Iam9Begea
- Start date
-
- Tags
- first crusade islam levant seljuks
He has none, because a plethora of sources back up what Urban II was saying about the Seljuks' attacks on pilgrims and local Christians in the Levant.
That would be my suspicion.
I don't think it's credible that politics/personal ambitions had nothing to do with the Crusades, but that no one cared about religious concerns or pilgrims doesn't make any sense either. Medieval (and later) Europeans were fantastic at being both sincerely pious and very willing to invoke religion to justify things they wanted to do anyway, but that combination needs at least a little bit of at least believing Christians in the Levant needed protection.
I would really like to make this a TL, but the thing is, in a scenario where the Crusaders were defeated by Tutush, how would Tutush treat Christians in his realm?
Christians in Jerusalem, while not in ideal condition, could still exist and practice their faith in somewhat peace (life for pilgrims were made hard but a lot of it was due to Anatolian Seljuks and not Tutush). Unlike Saladin, who was an exceptionally tolerant ruler, Tutush didnt have any unusually strong opinions for or against Christians. Homewer, would he went on a campaign of persecution and massacres after his victory, due to seeing the Christians as potential threads and aj enemy?
Christians in Jerusalem, while not in ideal condition, could still exist and practice their faith in somewhat peace (life for pilgrims were made hard but a lot of it was due to Anatolian Seljuks and not Tutush). Unlike Saladin, who was an exceptionally tolerant ruler, Tutush didnt have any unusually strong opinions for or against Christians. Homewer, would he went on a campaign of persecution and massacres after his victory, due to seeing the Christians as potential threads and aj enemy?
Compare a cold dark western European fiefdom to a vibrant Levantine piece of land which has connections to silk route and is the meeting point of west and east. You can see why it seemed lucrative even if not economically viable in the long run.
Also European Lords preferred their own kingdoms and left due to variety of reasons including having enough loot (Norwegian crusade), bigger problems at home( 3rd Crusade =King Richard) and diplomatic Agreement ( Fredrick II of Sicily). Otherwise crusaders were there to stay untill being massacred by Mamlukes.
Well if we ignore the Roman-Norman wars in Southern Italy, the Norman invasion of Balkans and the long Naval rivalry between rising Mercantile republics of Genoa and Venice with the declining Romans we'd be safe to assume that Crusaders would keep their words.
But what of Alexios? He didn’t get the throne by trusting people and I assume sooner or later he'd betray his christian allies due to economy, paranoia about Franks( Roussel's revolt wasn’t that long ago) and the byzantine Egoism which characterized their description of Crusaders in general (except Thristy Anna Komnena describing Bohemund like a fan girl)
I hope he'll be better than Khwarezmians were in the second siege of Al Quds 😵💫
It wasn't just the lords. Even the lowborn soldiery was adamant about returning home after Jerusalem was retaken. Only a tiny fraction actually was invested in sticking around. Evidently the Levant wasn't all that attractive. And that was for a reason. It had been ravaged for decades by constant warfare and issues of rampant banditry persisted long into the Kingdom of Jerusalem's existence. Baldwin had to lead a military campaign to sweep for bandits in the mountains overlooking the pilgrimage road to Jerusalem in the heart of the kingdom, because things were that bad. At times the density was such that being taken prisoner by one group of bandits only for another one to show up as well was considered plausible. The land, apart from the port cities, wasn't vibrant. It was a desiccated husk of its former glory.
Last edited:
Redsword, since you seem to have a good understanding, can you please answer my question? Namely, would Tutush have went on a massacring spree of Christians after winning the First Crusade, or would there be a way to avoid the persecutions? I want to write a TL with this premise, and i dont want instant persecution a few years after the POD.
I don't see why Tutush would become kinder to Christians after fighting a Crusade. You would definitely get instant persecution intensification. I don't think he'd suddenly become a particularly tolerant ruler unless he is forced to. And there's a fine line between having so much trouble dealing with local Christians that the ruler considers it better to annihilate their capacity to resist completely, and Christian dissent being strong enough to induce concessions. Frankly I don't see Tutush becoming super nice all of a sudden just because a Crusade popped up on his doorstep and started trying to evict him. I don't think he'd try to annihilate the Christians, since they comprise a large part of his tax base, but brutal repression seems the most likely response.
Last edited:
Ahh, you misunderstood me. Of course he wouldnt be much nicer to them. What i was asking was simply if there was a way where Tutush wouldnt persecute the Christians and just let them be. Maybe if the Crusade is beaten easily enough (like possibly in Antioch) He wouldnt see it as something extraordinary?
Well, I stand by what I said earlier. If Tutush is still alive and in a strong position, the Crusaders and Byzantines will be more cautious and a situation like occurred at Antioch is far less likely. A joint offensive by the Fatamids, Byzantines, and Crusaders is highly likely. But assuming the Byzantine-Crusader army is easily beaten back and so are the Fatamids and the whole thing fizzles out (unlikely as I think that is), I guess it might not be perceived as something special. But the Seljuks weren't letting the Christians be before, and they definitely wouldn't after.
Again, i dont really think the Fatimids would ally with the Crusaders. Fatimids had a short civil war in 1094-1095, and while the Fatimids were shympatetic to an alliance with the Crusaders, who they percieved as Byzantine mercenaries, the Crusaders rebuffed those offers.
But, lets imagine a scenario, where the Byzantine portion of the Crusader Army (a small unit of several thousand) doesnt leave the Crusaders, and where they sluggishly coordinate an attack with the Fatimids. Homewer, Antioch and the Sinai are seperated by a wide stretch of land. Tutush has the option of either having Antioch take the brunt of the Crusades (who historically struggled immensily there) while be marches down and confronted the Fatimids, or he could ignore the Fatimids for now and relieve Antioch. Now, the armies of Tutush's sons seperatly attempted to relieve Antioch and failed, but they possibly/probably could have been victorious if united. Tutush has a much larger military and economic strenght than his sons had, and not being in a state of total chaos also helps. The Fatimids, while not pushovers or anything, would probably lose to Tutush on 1 v 1. Remember, Tutush wasnt a military enept ruler either, or atleast he had competent generals (as seen by his earlier victory against a good general, Suleiman of Rum). So, i believe Tutush could have more or less won the confrontation.
Alexios advised the Crusaders to ally with the Fatamids, and these talks continued almost right up until the siege of Jerusalem itself. The sticking point for both sides was the matter of Jerusalem; both sides were prepared to partition Palestine between them, but neither wanted the other to have control over Jerusalem. With Tutush as an opponent that neither alone can defeat, both sides would have greater incentive to make some concessions. Also, with Alexios in command (which the Crusaders themselves repeatedly requested, casting even further doubt on the claim that they were all out to make independent colonies to begin with), it is far more likely that something gets worked out.
We can't pretend the Siege of Antioch is necessarily the point of collision between Tutush and the Byzantine-Crusader Alliance, nor would a hypothetical siege of Antioch be in as uncertain a position as OTL. A more methodical advance through Anatolia under Alexios's steadier leadership makes it more probable the confrontation would occur away from Antioch, and it also makes logistics easier to handle. Fact of the matter is, with Tutush alive, the circumstances would be so different so as to make it very unpredictable what the circumstances of confrontation are.
Last edited:
@Iam9Begea
I think this is a an excellent TL, basically making the the Zengids/Ayyubids but a couple decades earlier.
(I was actually looking for a way to make this happen, but hadn't researched about Abu Sa'id Taj al-Dawla Tutush, so thanks.)
I personally think that in 1094, instead of marching to Hamedan, he takes Baghdad, Basra and Khuzestan, from Mosul, which he had taken the previous year.
Doing so fairly easily, by June 1094.
Signing a peace treaty with Berkyaruq, the border being the Zagros mountains.
Spending the rest of the year consolidating the fertile crescent.
Probably moving the capital to Raqqa/Barbalisos, the mid point of the fertile crescent. Able to control Syria and Jazira. But also Navigable via Euphrates to Baghdad, Basra and IO.
Building Nizari style castles in the passes of the Zagros, to prevent Berkyaruq marching eastwards.
Developing the region:
Especially Iraq, which had been in decline since the Anarchy in 861, and especially since 932 when the destruction of Nahrawan devastated Iraqi agriculture. Seljuk pastoralism not helping either.
But Basra has greater wealth potential via the Indian Ocean trade. Which had shifted to Fatimid Egypt and Hormuz.
So developing Basra's ports and fleets. Taking Siraf, Hormuz and the rest of the Persian gulf.
Then building strategic ports throughout the IO, in an attempt to centralise IO trade in the hands of the seljuks (somewhat like Portuguese), challenging the Fatimids.
On 21 June 1094, Badr al Jamali dies. Tutush would recognise the vulnerability of Egypt, with their major vizier gone and Mustansir being quite old. And start preparing an army to invade.
Mustansir's death on 29 December 1094, and the subsequent months of civil war, couldn't have come at a better time. Nizar in Alexandria, while Mustali is in Cairo.
Thus in late January 1095, Tutush enters Egypt, surprising the Fatimids.
After a few weeks or months of siege, Cairo is taken. Probably in March. With Alexandria towards the middle of the year.
Restoring Sunni control over Egypt almost 80 years earlier than OTL.
Uniting Iraq and Egypt properly, for the first time since the Anarchy, 230 years ago.
And providing immense wealth, fame and prestige. Perhaps moving some of the Abbasids to Egypt, where they can be more easily controlled, and can begin to remove Fatimid loyalties.
Then consolidating conquest of Egypt. Developing the postal system and road network between Syria and Egypt, to strengthen Syrian control over Egypt.
The red sea navy, when added to the Persian Gulf navy, would allow further centralisation of the IO.
Helping the Najahids of Zabid against the Shia Highlands. In doing so taking Hudaydah, Mocha, Aden. Then Zayla' and Berbera.
Then increasing Tutushid control over IO trade, the engine of the pre modern economic system.
It already was greatly influenced by individual Arab/Persian merchants.
The centralisation policy would attempt to bring these individual merchants under the influence of the Tutushids, by founding or conquering strategic points on the Indian Ocean route. Like Malacca, Chittagong, Goa, Colombo, Kilwa, Tidore, Appari, Taiwan etc.
Funneling the immense wealth of IO trade into Tutushid hands.
Most importantly developing the Egyptian and Levantine navies. To slow down the Christian monopoly over the Med.
Testing the Tutushid navy on the former Zirids, who had disintegrated in wake of the Banu Hilal invasions. The region now filled with many small tribal principalities
Easily taking Cyrenaica from the Banu Sulaym in September 1095, then Tripoli from the small Banu Khazrun a few weeks later.
Then sending thousands of Syrian/Arabian Bedouin and a few hundred elite horse archer Ghuzz (later extremely prized by alMohads) to defeat the Banu Hilal tribe who dominated southern Tunisia and Algeria. With a significant battle against them November-December 1095
While the navy takes the only remaining Zirid possession: Mahdia in January 1096. then Tunis from Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd al-Haqq of the small Banu Khurasan tribe in early February later.
Finally, splitting up the Hammadids in an alliance with the pious Yusuf ibn Tashfin of the AlMoravids.
Turtush's empire taking their new capital of Bejaia by June 1096, while the AlMoravids strengthen their hold on Tlemcen and Algiers.
Ibn Tashfin had actually declared for the Abbasids, depsite them never expanding that far. And taking the humble title of amir al muslimeen, instead of mumineen.
So potentially, sending Caliph Al-Mustazhir in person to Marrakesh to reward the piety of Ibn Tashfin. Which could potentially increase the AlMoravids's loyalty to ibn Tashfin.
Greatly developing the ports from Barqa to Bejaia. The Maghreb becoming a significant naval power once more, preventing the Norman kingdom of Africa. With the Tutushid navy overall being the largest of any individual state in the whole Med.
Using the revitalised Maghrebi navy to take muslim Pantelleria and Malta by early 1097, the former taken in 1123, while the latter seems to have only been raided in 1091, but wasn't actually conquered until 1127. Heavily fortifying both strategic islands. Using their central position to challenge Christian domination of the Mediterranean. Perhaps also supporting Muslim revolts in Sicily....
While revitalising the Agriculture of the Maghrebi interior, after the Banu Hilal devastations, using Persian Qanat builders.
Moving Turkoman pastoralists to the Maghrebi steppes, introducing horse archery to the region's warfare.
Also helping ibn Tashfin, against the Christians to increase Tutush's prestige as helper of all Muslims.
Sending some elite Tutushid horse arching mercenaries to assist ibn Tashfin since Iberians, who would've never come across horse archery.
Beyond that, convincing and helping them in a massive naval expansion, from Peniche/Lisbon to Tarragona and Balerics. As well as from Algiers to Agadir, Macaronesians and Coastal Sahara
As well as daylamite castle builders to build Nizari style impregnable fortresses all over Iberia. Making Muslim defence of Andalus much easier.
Most importantly, sending hundreds of expert siegemasters, so that the Late August 1109 (after
talavera 14th August) siege of Toledo, after Alfonso Vi's death, is successful.
Pushing the Christians north of the sistema central. Giving Andalus much more geographically sustainable and defendable......
Meanwhile, back in the east, in January 1096, Tutush would personally lead the hajj, with alMustarzhir. The first Caliph lead the pilgrimage since Harun arRashid..... Recalling back to the golden age of the Abbasids.
With Tutush personally changing the Fatimid white Kiswa to the Abbasid black.
In doing so, gaining tremendous prestige throughout the entire Muslim world, from the AlMoravids, to the Ghaznavids, Kilwa to Volga Bulgaria.
Then marrying the daughter of the Caliph alMustarzhir. Further increasing his prestige.
Finally, building many Madrasas (perhaps called Tutushiyyah) Converting Azhar to a Sunni centre. And building Bimaristans, mosques, orphanages etc in general.
Cultivating a pious image, which would make the general populace support Tutush more, and less likely to support revolts. (Perhaps if a governor tries revolting, the populace could potentially open the city gates to aid the pious Tutush. Somewhat like Yusuf ibn Tashfin)
Beyond that further consolidation. In mid-late 1096 and early 1097 campaigning against the principalities of Cilicia. Such as that of the Rubenids near Feke.
Developing the regions fortifications especially Tarsus and the Cilician gates.
In late 1096, Tutush would probably hear of the victory of the Sultanate of Rum against the people's Crusade.
In May, the crusader victory at Nicaea might be cause of slight alarm, but probably not.
It would be the loss at Doryleaeum which would cause Tutush to begin preparations.
By mid August the crusaders took abandoned Konya. By the end of the month reaching Heraclea. Dangerously close to Tutushid Cilicia.
But unlike OTL, the Cilician gates would be guarded, making Baldwin and Tancred unable to simply waltz in all the way to Tarsus by 21 September 1096.
Instead, they would have to force their way through the Cilician gates, and then begin a lengthy and difficult siege of Tarsus.
Assuming this succeeds, smaller Adana would probably fall without too difficult of a siege. Thereafter they would then need to pass through the Nur/Amanus mountains. Which only has 2 narrow passes: The Amanian gate or the Belen pass, the latter leading to Antioch.
Getting through these would also be difficult and costly in lives.
But assuming they also manage to breach those defenses, next comes the siege of Antioch.
Knowing it's strategic importance, Tutush would've increased it's resources and garrison, including developing its port of Seleucia Pieria, to make it easier to supply, and preventing it's use by crusaders.
Allowing the city to survive a siege for over a year.
Whilst also burning all foodstuffs in the environs, forcing the Crusaders to venture dangerously far out in search of sustenance.
It's here where the crusaders would fall. Having already lost significant numbers of men and resources siege of Tarsus, and to the defences of the Cilician and Amanian gates.
Turtush would wait for them to start the siege. After a few weeks, in which they would've needed to forage quite far, often being ambushed by Tutush's nearby forces.
He would attack them with a massive army over 60,000 strong, from all over Tutushid domains Berbers to Kurds to Yemenis. And most importantly some survivors from Dorylaeum, familiar with Crusader tactics.
ITTL, Tutush would be able to hold the army together, since he had campaigned with for years and accomplishments great feats. And his piety likely meant he had god on his side....
Thus the OTL desertions wouldn't happen.
The overall larger army, without desertions, better commanders and smaller more fatigued crusader army due to Cilicia, Tarsus, Amanus and Antioch.
Would allow a victory ITTL.
Probably occuring in mid 1098. Due to
Completely defeating the crusaders.
If Tutush can secure the Amanian gates, before fleeing crusaders can reach it, they would have no escape. Thus many of them would be captured as prisoners of war.
Ending the first crusade outside Antioch.
But only in a region where Christians are a minority, to prevent them from building up a powerbase.
Thus, moving many of them to Iraq, Khuzistan and the Zagros border. Where they could be of use in upcoming campaigns against Berkyaruq. A few even to Yemen and the southern and western Maghreb.
Where they would be loyal to, and dependant on, the state that put them in that position, instead of to locals. The locals would resent this small but dominant minority, for having taken their rightful high status positions. Making the foreigners unable to establish a local powerbase, and even more loyal to the state, since if the state ever falls, the locals would exact tremendous vengeance on their minority rulers.
Similar to what the Mongol empire did. Using Persians to rule China and Chinese to rule Persia. Or what the French did in using minority Alawites to rule over Sunnis. Or Belgium with Tutsi minority etc.
As for native middle eastern Christians, they would be treated the same as always. With no especially good or bad treatment, since they were seen as different to foreign Christians, well integrated and somewhat Arabised.
Beyond that, Egypt may have been more than 50% Christian (majority Muslim was in Mamluk times), Armenia was still majority, Syria still had a large Christian minority, especially on the coast. Northern Iraq, around Nineveh and Assyur also had significant Christian minorities. These also provide higher taxes than Muslims, making them an important economic asset.
So it really wouldn't be possible to massacre them, without crippling Egypt and causing mass unrest, amongst both Muslims and non Muslims.
This is also not allowed in Islamic law, so scholars would prevent it.
(When the Byzantines took Cilicia, Antioch, Aleppo, pushed all the way to Damascus and almost Jerusalem, in the 960s, mass massacres of Christians didn't happen)
In another scenario, where the crusaders aren't defeated until the southern Levant, causing great destruction, would probably cause more reprisals. But this would generally be to Christians who supported the crusaders, not Copts or Assyrians...
After defeating them, Tutush's prestige would increase a little, but not that significantly, since they weren't that big of a threat ITTL. Probably seen as an abnormally large Byzantine force of some sort..?
In any case, Tutush would now be able to continue expanding.
Spreading influence into the weakened Sultanate of Rum under Kilij Arslan, making them a vassal of the Tutushids.
Developing Konya and other Anatolian cities by moving Egyptian, Iraqi, Maghrebi and Persian Intellectuals to make it a major centre of learning.
While carrying out a joint land-sea campaign with Kilij on Antalya, via the Tarsus navy. Giving the Tutushids most of the southern Anatolian coast.
Isolating Cyprus, which would be invaded next, for total domination of the eastern Med.
In the east pushing against his nephew, Berkyaruq. With Egypt, Fertile crescent, Maghreb and IO trade, Tutush would be far richer than his nephew. With a larger manpower base and a massive amount of prestige.
In the south, using the Persian Gulf navy to take Bushehr and Bandar Abbas, then pushing into Fars and Kerman - of the weakened Kerman seljuks - respectively.
While further north, helping the vizier Mu'ayyid al-Mulk and Berkyaruq's half brother Muhammad in their rebellion against Berkyaruq in 1099 Azerbaijan.
OTL, it was fairly close, with Muhammad even taking Isfahan, but the overall result, after 5 years, was indecisive. Berkyaruq died soon after. Allowing Muhammad to rule for a few years, until Ahmad Sanjar of Khurasan killed him, and took over. After a few decades, the Qarakhitai invaded and took all Khurasan basically ending the Seljuks.
ITTL, Tutush's massive advantage would allow Muhammad and Tutush to defeat Berkyaruq in a landslide. With Crusader POWs being a significant part of the army.
17 year old Muhammad becoming a semi vassal of Uncle Tutush. Or perhaps just assassinated/imprisoned allowing unchallenged annexation of the entirety of Iran.
Isfahan could remain capital, or perhaps Hamedan - more controllable from the west, as the closest city on the Iranian plateau to Baghdad.
With Ahmed Sanjar, governor of the Seljuk east, becoming vassal of the Seljuk west, as OTL.
But ITTL, the stability and might of the Tutushids would be able to reduce Sanjar's autonomy. (Unlikely the Chaos of Muhammad Tapar's rule)
Establishing greater central control over Khurasan.
As well as the karakhanids of Transoxiana - increasing trade and cultural contact with the Song Dynasty. Ideally allowing some of its brilliant administrative and industrial reforms to flow into the Seljuk state, greatly improving it.
The most immediate problem would be the Ismaili Nizaris, in 1090, Hasan-i Sabbah took the near impregnable Alamut castle in Northern Iran. Expanding to Rudbar and Quhistan.
Malik-Shah attempted to campaign against them in 1092, but died.
Using the civil war between Tutush and Berkyaruq expand throughout western Iran and even Iraq.
Tutush's conquest of the Fatimids in 1095, would likely send many more Ismailis flocking to the Nizaris.
Then in 1096/7, the Nizari Ahmad b. ‘Attash, managed to take a Shahdiz, only 6km from Isfahan, Berkyaruq's capital, though Berkyaruq was quite lenient with them. Even influencing neighborhoods of Isfahan itself.....
Thus, after having annexed western Iran in early-mid 1099, Tutush would begin the siege of Shahdiz.
OTL, Muhammad Tapar managed to take it soon after starting his reign, despite the weakness and instability of his state. Tutush would have a much easier time, taking it towards August.
From there, comes the much more difficult Alamut. Unlike Shahdiz, which was easy to besiege due to its proximity to Isfahan, Alamut was isolated, deep in the steep mountains of the mighty Alborz. Making it incredibly difficult to even access, let alone attempt to besiege.
By heavily garrisoning the major cities of Qazvin and Karaj, located on the southern foothills of the Alborz, Nizari operations in the Iranian plateau would be stunted.
But to the north, they would retain major control over Gilan and Tabaristan of the Caspian region. Which had little Seljuk control.
So after taking Shahdiz, Tutush would march north, to the territories of Manuchihr II of the Shirvanshahs, semi vassals of eastern Azerbaijan.
Increasing central control over them. Perhaps building a new more strategic capital at Suqovusan, at the confluence of the Kura and Aras rivers.
Then, building a Capsian navy at Baku. Whilst also increasing the Navigability of the Kura river making the Emirate of Tbilisi more navigable. Strengthening the Muslim hold on the city in wake of David IV's beginnings of a Georgian resurgence. Thus also giving Tbilisi a larger garrison and improving its fortifications, preventing its fall in 1122.
The Caspian navy would be used to strengthen control over Gilan, Tabaristan and Gurgan. Since no one else had a navy in the region.
Strengthening control over Rasht. Then Tonekabon/Chalus - the closest cities to Alamut on the northern foothills.
Then taking Amol, which Hasani Sabbah took in 1090. With assistance from Ahmad Sanjar, who would've been simultaneously campaigning from Khurasan into Gurgan, and then into Tabaristan to help in taking Amol.
Conquering all Hyrcania by mid-late 1100
Developing the fertile region. Increasing its Silk and rice production. Ideally even introducing Chinese Tea as a major cash crop, since it's one of the most western regions of Eurasia able to grow the crop.
This would surround Alamut with Qazwin in the south and Chalus to the north. Starting the siege of Alamut in late 1100.
Alamut was still and incredibly difficult to besiege fortress, and could potentially last a decade or longer (like Gerdkuh's 17 year siege in 1270).
But Hasani Sabbah had only taken it 10 years prior, so it's fortifications and supplies probably wouldn't have been improved enough to withstand a decade long siege.
Ideally taking only a few months, but more likely falling within 5 years by 1105 to a few thousand besiegers, occasionally surging to 10k in summers.
Thus Hasan Sabbah would be sent to Baghdad for execution. While Nizari castle builders would be employed throughout the Tutushid empire, improving defence all around. While Alamut would likely be demolished, due to the threat it would pose if it fell into hostile hands again, whilst not being worth the effort and cost to garrison.
Creating peace in Iran unseen for generations.....
Other than that, the Caspian navy would also be used to go up the Volga. Strengthening ties with the Muslims of the Volga Bulgars. Introducing Persian high culture and science to the region. Allying with them against the Cuman-Kipchaks and to a lesser extent the Rus.
Volga Bulgaria soon dominating almost the entire Volga, from the delta almost to Tver in the west and Perm in the east. With Volgograd founded as the second capital due to its proximity to the Don river and thereby the Black sea.
Bulghar domination of the kipchaks, preventing them from assisting the Georgians at Didgori 1121.
Finally, with the Nizaris defeated, the last campaign would be against Mas'ud iii of the Ghaznavids. Ibrahim died in 1099, after having revitalised the ghaznavids, with Indian raids as far as Kannauj.
Mas'ud was a much weaker ruler, so Tutush would use this to reassert their vassalage to the Seljuks. Perhaps even taking Ghazi, forcing them to 2nd capital Lahore, so that they are more focused on lucrative Indian campaigns.
Of which they would have to forward substantial sums to the Seljuks.
Many Ghazis from across the Tutushid empire would travel to Lahore to partake in the Indian campaigns. With Tutush, encouraging the Ghaznavids to aim at annexing Kannauj, instead of raiding it year after year. Allowing raids into deeper, richer regions of India, bringing in more wealth.
Funding the development of most regions of the empire, as well as funding campaigns against Byzantines in western Anatolia and further naval expansion in Med and IO.
(Perhaps a joint AlMoravid-Tutushid campaign in assisting a Muslim revolt in Norman Sicily in the early 1100s?????)
Overall, most of the Muslim world would be reunited.
With a revitalised great Seljuk empire at the helm, ruling directly from Algiers to Transoxiana. With influence over AlMoravids and Ghaznavids.
I'm not well aquatinted with European history, so I'm unsure of the effects of the total defeat of the first crusade on their respective kingdoms back home....
I think this is a an excellent TL, basically making the the Zengids/Ayyubids but a couple decades earlier.
(I was actually looking for a way to make this happen, but hadn't researched about Abu Sa'id Taj al-Dawla Tutush, so thanks.)
I personally think that in 1094, instead of marching to Hamedan, he takes Baghdad, Basra and Khuzestan, from Mosul, which he had taken the previous year.
Doing so fairly easily, by June 1094.
Signing a peace treaty with Berkyaruq, the border being the Zagros mountains.
Spending the rest of the year consolidating the fertile crescent.
Probably moving the capital to Raqqa/Barbalisos, the mid point of the fertile crescent. Able to control Syria and Jazira. But also Navigable via Euphrates to Baghdad, Basra and IO.
Building Nizari style castles in the passes of the Zagros, to prevent Berkyaruq marching eastwards.
Developing the region:
Especially Iraq, which had been in decline since the Anarchy in 861, and especially since 932 when the destruction of Nahrawan devastated Iraqi agriculture. Seljuk pastoralism not helping either.
But Basra has greater wealth potential via the Indian Ocean trade. Which had shifted to Fatimid Egypt and Hormuz.
So developing Basra's ports and fleets. Taking Siraf, Hormuz and the rest of the Persian gulf.
Then building strategic ports throughout the IO, in an attempt to centralise IO trade in the hands of the seljuks (somewhat like Portuguese), challenging the Fatimids.
On 21 June 1094, Badr al Jamali dies. Tutush would recognise the vulnerability of Egypt, with their major vizier gone and Mustansir being quite old. And start preparing an army to invade.
Mustansir's death on 29 December 1094, and the subsequent months of civil war, couldn't have come at a better time. Nizar in Alexandria, while Mustali is in Cairo.
Thus in late January 1095, Tutush enters Egypt, surprising the Fatimids.
After a few weeks or months of siege, Cairo is taken. Probably in March. With Alexandria towards the middle of the year.
Restoring Sunni control over Egypt almost 80 years earlier than OTL.
Uniting Iraq and Egypt properly, for the first time since the Anarchy, 230 years ago.
And providing immense wealth, fame and prestige. Perhaps moving some of the Abbasids to Egypt, where they can be more easily controlled, and can begin to remove Fatimid loyalties.
Then consolidating conquest of Egypt. Developing the postal system and road network between Syria and Egypt, to strengthen Syrian control over Egypt.
The red sea navy, when added to the Persian Gulf navy, would allow further centralisation of the IO.
Helping the Najahids of Zabid against the Shia Highlands. In doing so taking Hudaydah, Mocha, Aden. Then Zayla' and Berbera.
Then increasing Tutushid control over IO trade, the engine of the pre modern economic system.
It already was greatly influenced by individual Arab/Persian merchants.
The centralisation policy would attempt to bring these individual merchants under the influence of the Tutushids, by founding or conquering strategic points on the Indian Ocean route. Like Malacca, Chittagong, Goa, Colombo, Kilwa, Tidore, Appari, Taiwan etc.
Funneling the immense wealth of IO trade into Tutushid hands.
Maghreb:
Most importantly developing the Egyptian and Levantine navies. To slow down the Christian monopoly over the Med.
Testing the Tutushid navy on the former Zirids, who had disintegrated in wake of the Banu Hilal invasions. The region now filled with many small tribal principalities
Easily taking Cyrenaica from the Banu Sulaym in September 1095, then Tripoli from the small Banu Khazrun a few weeks later.
Then sending thousands of Syrian/Arabian Bedouin and a few hundred elite horse archer Ghuzz (later extremely prized by alMohads) to defeat the Banu Hilal tribe who dominated southern Tunisia and Algeria. With a significant battle against them November-December 1095
While the navy takes the only remaining Zirid possession: Mahdia in January 1096. then Tunis from Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd al-Haqq of the small Banu Khurasan tribe in early February later.
Finally, splitting up the Hammadids in an alliance with the pious Yusuf ibn Tashfin of the AlMoravids.
Turtush's empire taking their new capital of Bejaia by June 1096, while the AlMoravids strengthen their hold on Tlemcen and Algiers.
Ibn Tashfin had actually declared for the Abbasids, depsite them never expanding that far. And taking the humble title of amir al muslimeen, instead of mumineen.
So potentially, sending Caliph Al-Mustazhir in person to Marrakesh to reward the piety of Ibn Tashfin. Which could potentially increase the AlMoravids's loyalty to ibn Tashfin.
Greatly developing the ports from Barqa to Bejaia. The Maghreb becoming a significant naval power once more, preventing the Norman kingdom of Africa. With the Tutushid navy overall being the largest of any individual state in the whole Med.
Using the revitalised Maghrebi navy to take muslim Pantelleria and Malta by early 1097, the former taken in 1123, while the latter seems to have only been raided in 1091, but wasn't actually conquered until 1127. Heavily fortifying both strategic islands. Using their central position to challenge Christian domination of the Mediterranean. Perhaps also supporting Muslim revolts in Sicily....
While revitalising the Agriculture of the Maghrebi interior, after the Banu Hilal devastations, using Persian Qanat builders.
Moving Turkoman pastoralists to the Maghrebi steppes, introducing horse archery to the region's warfare.
Also helping ibn Tashfin, against the Christians to increase Tutush's prestige as helper of all Muslims.
Sending some elite Tutushid horse arching mercenaries to assist ibn Tashfin since Iberians, who would've never come across horse archery.
Beyond that, convincing and helping them in a massive naval expansion, from Peniche/Lisbon to Tarragona and Balerics. As well as from Algiers to Agadir, Macaronesians and Coastal Sahara
As well as daylamite castle builders to build Nizari style impregnable fortresses all over Iberia. Making Muslim defence of Andalus much easier.
Most importantly, sending hundreds of expert siegemasters, so that the Late August 1109 (after
talavera 14th August) siege of Toledo, after Alfonso Vi's death, is successful.
Pushing the Christians north of the sistema central. Giving Andalus much more geographically sustainable and defendable......
Meanwhile, back in the east, in January 1096, Tutush would personally lead the hajj, with alMustarzhir. The first Caliph lead the pilgrimage since Harun arRashid..... Recalling back to the golden age of the Abbasids.
With Tutush personally changing the Fatimid white Kiswa to the Abbasid black.
In doing so, gaining tremendous prestige throughout the entire Muslim world, from the AlMoravids, to the Ghaznavids, Kilwa to Volga Bulgaria.
Then marrying the daughter of the Caliph alMustarzhir. Further increasing his prestige.
Finally, building many Madrasas (perhaps called Tutushiyyah) Converting Azhar to a Sunni centre. And building Bimaristans, mosques, orphanages etc in general.
Cultivating a pious image, which would make the general populace support Tutush more, and less likely to support revolts. (Perhaps if a governor tries revolting, the populace could potentially open the city gates to aid the pious Tutush. Somewhat like Yusuf ibn Tashfin)
Beyond that further consolidation. In mid-late 1096 and early 1097 campaigning against the principalities of Cilicia. Such as that of the Rubenids near Feke.
Developing the regions fortifications especially Tarsus and the Cilician gates.
Crusaders:
In late 1096, Tutush would probably hear of the victory of the Sultanate of Rum against the people's Crusade.In May, the crusader victory at Nicaea might be cause of slight alarm, but probably not.
It would be the loss at Doryleaeum which would cause Tutush to begin preparations.
By mid August the crusaders took abandoned Konya. By the end of the month reaching Heraclea. Dangerously close to Tutushid Cilicia.
But unlike OTL, the Cilician gates would be guarded, making Baldwin and Tancred unable to simply waltz in all the way to Tarsus by 21 September 1096.
Instead, they would have to force their way through the Cilician gates, and then begin a lengthy and difficult siege of Tarsus.
Assuming this succeeds, smaller Adana would probably fall without too difficult of a siege. Thereafter they would then need to pass through the Nur/Amanus mountains. Which only has 2 narrow passes: The Amanian gate or the Belen pass, the latter leading to Antioch.
Getting through these would also be difficult and costly in lives.
But assuming they also manage to breach those defenses, next comes the siege of Antioch.
Knowing it's strategic importance, Tutush would've increased it's resources and garrison, including developing its port of Seleucia Pieria, to make it easier to supply, and preventing it's use by crusaders.
Allowing the city to survive a siege for over a year.
Whilst also burning all foodstuffs in the environs, forcing the Crusaders to venture dangerously far out in search of sustenance.
It's here where the crusaders would fall. Having already lost significant numbers of men and resources siege of Tarsus, and to the defences of the Cilician and Amanian gates.
Turtush would wait for them to start the siege. After a few weeks, in which they would've needed to forage quite far, often being ambushed by Tutush's nearby forces.
He would attack them with a massive army over 60,000 strong, from all over Tutushid domains Berbers to Kurds to Yemenis. And most importantly some survivors from Dorylaeum, familiar with Crusader tactics.
ITTL, Tutush would be able to hold the army together, since he had campaigned with for years and accomplishments great feats. And his piety likely meant he had god on his side....
Thus the OTL desertions wouldn't happen.
The overall larger army, without desertions, better commanders and smaller more fatigued crusader army due to Cilicia, Tarsus, Amanus and Antioch.
Would allow a victory ITTL.
Probably occuring in mid 1098. Due to
Completely defeating the crusaders.
If Tutush can secure the Amanian gates, before fleeing crusaders can reach it, they would have no escape. Thus many of them would be captured as prisoners of war.
Ending the first crusade outside Antioch.
These Crusader prisoners of war were quite skilled fighters. And thus, Tutush could put them to good use.
But only in a region where Christians are a minority, to prevent them from building up a powerbase.
Thus, moving many of them to Iraq, Khuzistan and the Zagros border. Where they could be of use in upcoming campaigns against Berkyaruq. A few even to Yemen and the southern and western Maghreb.
Where they would be loyal to, and dependant on, the state that put them in that position, instead of to locals. The locals would resent this small but dominant minority, for having taken their rightful high status positions. Making the foreigners unable to establish a local powerbase, and even more loyal to the state, since if the state ever falls, the locals would exact tremendous vengeance on their minority rulers.
Similar to what the Mongol empire did. Using Persians to rule China and Chinese to rule Persia. Or what the French did in using minority Alawites to rule over Sunnis. Or Belgium with Tutsi minority etc.
As for native middle eastern Christians, they would be treated the same as always. With no especially good or bad treatment, since they were seen as different to foreign Christians, well integrated and somewhat Arabised.
Beyond that, Egypt may have been more than 50% Christian (majority Muslim was in Mamluk times), Armenia was still majority, Syria still had a large Christian minority, especially on the coast. Northern Iraq, around Nineveh and Assyur also had significant Christian minorities. These also provide higher taxes than Muslims, making them an important economic asset.
So it really wouldn't be possible to massacre them, without crippling Egypt and causing mass unrest, amongst both Muslims and non Muslims.
This is also not allowed in Islamic law, so scholars would prevent it.
(When the Byzantines took Cilicia, Antioch, Aleppo, pushed all the way to Damascus and almost Jerusalem, in the 960s, mass massacres of Christians didn't happen)
In another scenario, where the crusaders aren't defeated until the southern Levant, causing great destruction, would probably cause more reprisals. But this would generally be to Christians who supported the crusaders, not Copts or Assyrians...
Post Crusade:
After defeating them, Tutush's prestige would increase a little, but not that significantly, since they weren't that big of a threat ITTL. Probably seen as an abnormally large Byzantine force of some sort..?In any case, Tutush would now be able to continue expanding.
Spreading influence into the weakened Sultanate of Rum under Kilij Arslan, making them a vassal of the Tutushids.
Developing Konya and other Anatolian cities by moving Egyptian, Iraqi, Maghrebi and Persian Intellectuals to make it a major centre of learning.
While carrying out a joint land-sea campaign with Kilij on Antalya, via the Tarsus navy. Giving the Tutushids most of the southern Anatolian coast.
Isolating Cyprus, which would be invaded next, for total domination of the eastern Med.
In the east pushing against his nephew, Berkyaruq. With Egypt, Fertile crescent, Maghreb and IO trade, Tutush would be far richer than his nephew. With a larger manpower base and a massive amount of prestige.
In the south, using the Persian Gulf navy to take Bushehr and Bandar Abbas, then pushing into Fars and Kerman - of the weakened Kerman seljuks - respectively.
While further north, helping the vizier Mu'ayyid al-Mulk and Berkyaruq's half brother Muhammad in their rebellion against Berkyaruq in 1099 Azerbaijan.
OTL, it was fairly close, with Muhammad even taking Isfahan, but the overall result, after 5 years, was indecisive. Berkyaruq died soon after. Allowing Muhammad to rule for a few years, until Ahmad Sanjar of Khurasan killed him, and took over. After a few decades, the Qarakhitai invaded and took all Khurasan basically ending the Seljuks.
ITTL, Tutush's massive advantage would allow Muhammad and Tutush to defeat Berkyaruq in a landslide. With Crusader POWs being a significant part of the army.
17 year old Muhammad becoming a semi vassal of Uncle Tutush. Or perhaps just assassinated/imprisoned allowing unchallenged annexation of the entirety of Iran.
Isfahan could remain capital, or perhaps Hamedan - more controllable from the west, as the closest city on the Iranian plateau to Baghdad.
With Ahmed Sanjar, governor of the Seljuk east, becoming vassal of the Seljuk west, as OTL.
But ITTL, the stability and might of the Tutushids would be able to reduce Sanjar's autonomy. (Unlikely the Chaos of Muhammad Tapar's rule)
Establishing greater central control over Khurasan.
As well as the karakhanids of Transoxiana - increasing trade and cultural contact with the Song Dynasty. Ideally allowing some of its brilliant administrative and industrial reforms to flow into the Seljuk state, greatly improving it.
Nizaris:
The most immediate problem would be the Ismaili Nizaris, in 1090, Hasan-i Sabbah took the near impregnable Alamut castle in Northern Iran. Expanding to Rudbar and Quhistan.
Malik-Shah attempted to campaign against them in 1092, but died.
Using the civil war between Tutush and Berkyaruq expand throughout western Iran and even Iraq.
Tutush's conquest of the Fatimids in 1095, would likely send many more Ismailis flocking to the Nizaris.
Then in 1096/7, the Nizari Ahmad b. ‘Attash, managed to take a Shahdiz, only 6km from Isfahan, Berkyaruq's capital, though Berkyaruq was quite lenient with them. Even influencing neighborhoods of Isfahan itself.....
Thus, after having annexed western Iran in early-mid 1099, Tutush would begin the siege of Shahdiz.
OTL, Muhammad Tapar managed to take it soon after starting his reign, despite the weakness and instability of his state. Tutush would have a much easier time, taking it towards August.
From there, comes the much more difficult Alamut. Unlike Shahdiz, which was easy to besiege due to its proximity to Isfahan, Alamut was isolated, deep in the steep mountains of the mighty Alborz. Making it incredibly difficult to even access, let alone attempt to besiege.
By heavily garrisoning the major cities of Qazvin and Karaj, located on the southern foothills of the Alborz, Nizari operations in the Iranian plateau would be stunted.
But to the north, they would retain major control over Gilan and Tabaristan of the Caspian region. Which had little Seljuk control.
So after taking Shahdiz, Tutush would march north, to the territories of Manuchihr II of the Shirvanshahs, semi vassals of eastern Azerbaijan.
Increasing central control over them. Perhaps building a new more strategic capital at Suqovusan, at the confluence of the Kura and Aras rivers.
Then, building a Capsian navy at Baku. Whilst also increasing the Navigability of the Kura river making the Emirate of Tbilisi more navigable. Strengthening the Muslim hold on the city in wake of David IV's beginnings of a Georgian resurgence. Thus also giving Tbilisi a larger garrison and improving its fortifications, preventing its fall in 1122.
The Caspian navy would be used to strengthen control over Gilan, Tabaristan and Gurgan. Since no one else had a navy in the region.
Strengthening control over Rasht. Then Tonekabon/Chalus - the closest cities to Alamut on the northern foothills.
Then taking Amol, which Hasani Sabbah took in 1090. With assistance from Ahmad Sanjar, who would've been simultaneously campaigning from Khurasan into Gurgan, and then into Tabaristan to help in taking Amol.
Conquering all Hyrcania by mid-late 1100
Developing the fertile region. Increasing its Silk and rice production. Ideally even introducing Chinese Tea as a major cash crop, since it's one of the most western regions of Eurasia able to grow the crop.
This would surround Alamut with Qazwin in the south and Chalus to the north. Starting the siege of Alamut in late 1100.
Alamut was still and incredibly difficult to besiege fortress, and could potentially last a decade or longer (like Gerdkuh's 17 year siege in 1270).
But Hasani Sabbah had only taken it 10 years prior, so it's fortifications and supplies probably wouldn't have been improved enough to withstand a decade long siege.
Ideally taking only a few months, but more likely falling within 5 years by 1105 to a few thousand besiegers, occasionally surging to 10k in summers.
Thus Hasan Sabbah would be sent to Baghdad for execution. While Nizari castle builders would be employed throughout the Tutushid empire, improving defence all around. While Alamut would likely be demolished, due to the threat it would pose if it fell into hostile hands again, whilst not being worth the effort and cost to garrison.
Creating peace in Iran unseen for generations.....
Conclusions
Other than that, the Caspian navy would also be used to go up the Volga. Strengthening ties with the Muslims of the Volga Bulgars. Introducing Persian high culture and science to the region. Allying with them against the Cuman-Kipchaks and to a lesser extent the Rus.
Volga Bulgaria soon dominating almost the entire Volga, from the delta almost to Tver in the west and Perm in the east. With Volgograd founded as the second capital due to its proximity to the Don river and thereby the Black sea.
Bulghar domination of the kipchaks, preventing them from assisting the Georgians at Didgori 1121.
Finally, with the Nizaris defeated, the last campaign would be against Mas'ud iii of the Ghaznavids. Ibrahim died in 1099, after having revitalised the ghaznavids, with Indian raids as far as Kannauj.
Mas'ud was a much weaker ruler, so Tutush would use this to reassert their vassalage to the Seljuks. Perhaps even taking Ghazi, forcing them to 2nd capital Lahore, so that they are more focused on lucrative Indian campaigns.
Of which they would have to forward substantial sums to the Seljuks.
Many Ghazis from across the Tutushid empire would travel to Lahore to partake in the Indian campaigns. With Tutush, encouraging the Ghaznavids to aim at annexing Kannauj, instead of raiding it year after year. Allowing raids into deeper, richer regions of India, bringing in more wealth.
Funding the development of most regions of the empire, as well as funding campaigns against Byzantines in western Anatolia and further naval expansion in Med and IO.
(Perhaps a joint AlMoravid-Tutushid campaign in assisting a Muslim revolt in Norman Sicily in the early 1100s?????)
Overall, most of the Muslim world would be reunited.
With a revitalised great Seljuk empire at the helm, ruling directly from Algiers to Transoxiana. With influence over AlMoravids and Ghaznavids.
I'm not well aquatinted with European history, so I'm unsure of the effects of the total defeat of the first crusade on their respective kingdoms back home....
Last edited:
So what is the Crusader response to the circumstances of TTL?
Because it seems that despite things being significantly different, no one really acts in response to what he's done and doing that didn't happen OTL. Everything just plays effortlessly into his hands.
The only way to the holy land from Anatolia is through the Cilician gates.
Or much further east, towards Melitene and Diyarbakir - which is very far from Byzantine zones of control and completely surrounded by enemies.
So if they want to continue, they'll somehow have to get through the Cilician gates.
And besiege Tarsus, at the foothills of the Cilician gates. At which Tutush could potentially defeat them.
(There is a reason why the Abbasid-Byzantine border at the Cilician gates didn't move for almost 200 years until Abbasid disintegration in 960s. The area is highly defendable.)
Otherwise, the crusaders stay in Anatolia for longer, definitively ousting the seljuks of rum. Reconquering all central Anatolia.
But this wouldn't achieve their aim of reaching the holy land.
Potentially they could establish principalities within Anatolia. But this would likely cause the hostility of the Byzantines, surrounding them on both sides by enemies.
Said Anatolian principalities would be able to take advantage of a potential succession crisis on Tutush's death a few decades? later. Using the chaos to finally conquer the Cilician gates and advance into the Levant.
Perhaps also taking Antioch. But assuming the potential succession crisis isn't catastrophic, in a few months or years, one person would inherit Tutush's united Egypt+Syria, making any permanent Levantine Crusader state untenable. (After restoring Sunni rule to Egypt, i find it difficult to see a Fatimid resurgence, thus Egypt wouldn't be independent of syria)
Otherwise if the middle east is total anarchy after Tutush's death crusader states would be easy, just as OTL.
The crusader prinxipalit
Militarising the Armenians and then linking up with David IV of Georgia.
If Tutush's death results in an asuccession crisis, the alliance with the Georgians could potentially be existential for the Muslim middle east.
The Georgians with crusader support, might be able to rip through western Persia, and then take Mosul and Baghdad. Centre of the Caliphate.......
(Basically Tamar's 1211 campaign but further south and then into Iraq)
While the rest of the Crusaders take Jerusalem. Gaining almost the whole fertile crescent.
If Egypt were to fall, the Christians win....
The crusader principalities could take eastern Anatolia, somehow thwarting Tutush and Beyliks combined attempts to stop them.
Militarising the Armenians and then linking up with David IV of Georgia.
If Tutush's death results in an asuccession crisis, the alliance with the Georgians could potentially be existential for the Muslim middle east.
The Georgians with crusader support, might be able to rip through western Persia, and then take Mosul and Baghdad. Centre of the Caliphate.......
(Basically Tamar's 1211 campaign but further south and then into Iraq)
While the rest of the Crusaders take Jerusalem. Gaining almost the whole fertile crescent.
If Egypt were to fall, the Christians win....
Last edited:
If they are defeated they are done,the ere might want them to fight in Danube and they would refuse so desertions will happen and Will be a mess
The only way by land, sure.
But the point isn't them going through the Cilician Gates. The point is this:
This is the point that I would expect something - anything - indicating how the Crusaders and the Byzantines react to how Tutush has prepared Antioch and surrounding for attack, other than stumbling around in search of food while he gathers a very large for the period (logistics are an issue even if raw manpower isn't) army from all over his domains.
To be clear it's not that I think he can't win here. It's that his opposition is treated as utterly inconsequential while he has every possible advantage that could possibly come to him, which is a little hard on my suspension of disbelief.
Last edited:
They don't have any beachheads without first establishing the crusader states.
I suppose they could march to Antalya, and sail to Cyprus. And then attempt a landing somewhere on the Levantine coast....?
But Tutush has the Alexandrian and Levantine navies of the Fatimids, which would be attacking them all throughout this.
And potentially Maghrebi navy - which can restrict Sicilian straits. And perhaps getting ibn Tashfin to restrict/block? the straits of Gibraltar. (Saladin asked alMohads to but they refused.....)
Basically I have no idea what would happen.
But i feel like their would be a battle around here in northwest Levant.
In retrospect, they prob wouldn't try to besiege Antioch, until they have defeated Tutush in the field.
So they would try to find a region where they have the advantage, and could potentially defeat Tutush's superior army.
How they manage to force Tutush into fighting them at a disadvantage to himself is unknown to me, since he is the one with time and resources.....
Regardless, if it does occur, Tutush could potentially lose, retreating to Egypt and reform an army, like Saladin OTL. But in Saladin's time, the crusaders had territories, massive naval support and knew the land. These Crusaders had just stepped foot into Levant for the first time...
They would probably be able to take Antioch and a few northern cities, beginning to push southwards. But then coming across Tutush's reformed army somewhere in central Levant. Who wouldn't make the same mistakes twice.
But overall I find Tutush to have the overwhelming advantage...
Last edited:
I mean, take the navy thing:
If he's getting help from everyone who could possibly help him, it's pretty easy to give him an overwhelming advantage. But that's not so much the united Levant as "What if the Crusaders of the First Crusade faced a Muslim power able to call on things as far away as the Maghreb without any difficulty and had no countermeasures of their own?", as far as weighing this scenario.