A United Levant against the First Crusade?

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.
In my opinion the events would unfold like this:

Until around the Crusader capture of Konya/Reaching Heraclea, stuff would be pretty similar. Tutush's navy wouldnt interfere in a large capacity with Byzantine/Crusader supplies as the Byzantine navy was strong and there were other fleets to worry about. News in this period werent fast, but by this time the Crusaders fully start to understand Tutush's strength. The Leaders of the Crusade would gather and put what they had on the table. They would have to push through the Armenian gates. There was no was around it. They managed to convince a few Armenian christians to tell information to them, and it didnt look pretty. They could deal with mist of Cilicia but Antioch itself, already a massively strong fortress, was strenghtened even more by Tutush. The Crusaders would send a request to the Byzantines for more men and siege engines, alongside more supplies to push through.

Meanwhile, Alexios would be quite scared of commiting all or nothing to charge the Tutushid Empire. It would also be around this time that some Tutushid Vizier would convince Tutush to write a letter to Alexios, promising to recognize Cilicia/Anatolia as border and probaby massive (for Byzantines, not too much for Tutush) sum of money as a bribe to ditch the Crusaders.

Meanwhile, Tutush's enemies would also recognize the strength of the Crusaders about the same time Tutush did. Fatimid remenants and Shi'ites revolt in Southern Egypt, ironically making the Egyptian Copts dependable allies of Tutush against the Shi'ites. Berkayruq or potentially a descendant would also declare war on Tutush and try to seize Khuzestan and Iraq. Several other small revolts would happen in Yemen and Maghreb due to tribal remenants.

There is 2 options here

Option 1) Alexious pulls back support for the Crusades, Nd the Crusade leaders have to return home, while some overzeallus soldiers and knights attack the Cilician Gate and are slaugthered/captured. Berkayruq is massively slowed down by the Nizari forts in the Zagros during which time Egyptian revolt and other revolts are Crushed. Tutusb then invades Persia early or extracts concessions from Berkayruq and make peace, and if Tutush choose the make peace route Berkayruq would probably be overthrown or atleast attempted to be, creating perfect conditions for a Tutushid invasion.

Option 2: Byzantines gamble everything with the Crusaders. The Fatimids are more succesful and capture Cairo, reestablsihing the Fatimid Sultanate. Probably massacres of Copts in both scenarios, but bigger here. Antioch is sieged by a much larger Crusader force, which also has more supplies and resorts to less foraging. A large garrison is left behind them to not get encircled. Tutush either beats this Garrison and attacks Antioch or the Crusaders atack him while he is on his way to Attack the Garrison. The result would probably be either a costly Tutushid victory or a Crusader defeat. In the event of defeat, Berkayruq could advance jnto Khuzestan and the Fatimids siege Alexandria, homewer in the next battle the exhausted Crusaders, who couldnt replace their losses would be defeated by Tutush somewhere around Aleppo probably. Tutush then invades Egypt and massacres a large number of Shiites, and then marches east where Berkayruq attempts to sign a white peace. Either Tutush accepts or invades Persia.
 
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.
The Maghreb was unbelievably weak.
In 1050 the Fatimids sent a few Bedouin and they greatly destroyed settled civilization within Ifriqiyah. With the western Maghreb (Morocco) surpassing Ifriqiyah ever since.

It's major ports all became their own independent small principalities.
So if Tutush can take Egypt, then
Tutushid Bedouin and a few hundred Ghuzz, should be able to defeat the Banu Hilal Bedouin without too much difficulty.
Then helping the navy in besieging the small and weak coastal principalities.


Potentially, they could call upon the Normans of nearby Sicily. But Sicily had only been fully conquered 4 years prior to this, so I'm unsure if they are consolidated enough for an overseas campaign.
Assuming they are, Tunis and a few other ports could potentially become Norman holdings for a few years.

But the Tutushid interior of the maghreb, would likely be able to eventually take the city




As for the AlMoravids they were actual Sunnis, who surprisingly declared loyalty to the Abbasid caliph, which Tutush controls. And ibn Tashfin was personally very pious.

This is all different from the alMohads, who created their own sect, with their own Mahdi. Killing Sunni Malikis. - Also Saladin was actively supporting a Tunisian rebellion against them, so it's no wonder they didn't want to help him.

So, AlMoravid assistance is more probable ITTL. Especially if Tutush gets the Caliph alMustazhir to personally ask ibn Tashfin, by which he may feel obliged.



But overall, the main purpose of the Maghrebi navy would be to bolster and increase the size of the eastern Med navy. And occasionally attacking Christian/Crusader shipping of the western med.
Limiting the near total and unchallenged monopoly the OTL crusader navies had over the Med.

But even without the Maghreb, i still see a naval bypass of Cilicia to be quite unlikely without first taking a beachhead through land forces beforehand.
Otherwise, the coastal cities would notice 40,000 men (that number of ships would also be incredibly costly) are attempting to disembark on a random beach, at which they would be vulnerable to attack and wouldn't have anyone to support them since they don't have any land acquisitions in the Levant....





While i see the Maghreb potentially being of aid and support, the eastern seljuks under Berkyaruq would be Actively Against the Tutushids.
Using Tutushid preoccupation with the crusaders to take Khuzistan, Basra and potentially Baghdad and Mosul. Though he would be too distant to make an actual Alliance with the crusaders.
Due to the instability of Berkyaruq's state, Iraq would be easily retaken after the crusades, since Muhammad Tapar starts his revolt OTL in late 1098/99.
Though instability might make the lengthy sieges needed for the Zagros castles untenable, so expansion into Iraq is questionable.....



Potentially a Fatimid/Ismaili revolt could occur in recently conquered Egypt, while he is busy with Crusaders.
But Sunnis were the majority, and would've mostly been purged from all high status positions back in 1095, making a revolt difficult. And they don't seem to have revolted in Saladin's time.

Other than that, there wouldn't be any major internal threats for the Tutushid heartland. (If the Maghreb revolts it doesn't affect anything. But urbanites and farmers would be happy to have some stability once more, instead of Banu Hilal marauding and half a dozen infighting principalities. So likely only the Banu Hilal Bedouin revolt, the AlMoravids could potentially be brought in to quell in, in exchange for Bejaia....)




In the OTL Crusades, the Levant was in its most volatile and disunited position in centuries. With every city having its own lord. All fighting one another, many of whom helping and assisting the crusaders for their own personal benefit.

A united Levant/fertile crescent, is the complete opposite of that, and would be incredibly difficult to attack. Especially with Egypt, Maghreb and Iraq which Tutush can take very easily.
Giving him the overwhelming advantage.

A miracle, like a catastrophic succession crisis, would be required to end this advantage....
 
The Maghreb was unbelievably weak.
In 1050 the Fatimids sent a few Bedouin and they greatly destroyed settled civilization within Ifriqiyah. With the western Maghreb (Morocco) surpassing Ifriqiyah ever since.

It's major ports all became their own independent small principalities.
So if Tutush can take Egypt, then
Tutushid Bedouin and a few hundred Ghuzz, should be able to defeat the Banu Hilal Bedouin without too much difficulty.
Then helping the navy in besieging the small and weak coastal principalities.


Potentially, they could call upon the Normans of nearby Sicily. But Sicily had only been fully conquered 4 years prior to this, so I'm unsure if they are consolidated enough for an overseas campaign.
Assuming they are, Tunis and a few other ports could potentially become Norman holdings for a few years.

But the Tutushid interior of the maghreb, would likely be able to eventually take the city




As for the AlMoravids they were actual Sunnis, who surprisingly declared loyalty to the Abbasid caliph, which Tutush controls. And ibn Tashfin was personally very pious.

This is all different from the alMohads, who created their own sect, with their own Mahdi. Killing Sunni Malikis. - Also Saladin was actively supporting a Tunisian rebellion against them, so it's no wonder they didn't want to help him.

So, AlMoravid assistance is more probable ITTL. Especially if Tutush gets the Caliph alMustazhir to personally ask ibn Tashfin, by which he may feel obliged.



But overall, the main purpose of the Maghrebi navy would be to bolster and increase the size of the eastern Med navy. And occasionally attacking Christian/Crusader shipping of the western med.
Limiting the near total and unchallenged monopoly the OTL crusader navies had over the Med.

But even without the Maghreb, i still see a naval bypass of Cilicia to be quite unlikely without first taking a beachhead through land forces beforehand.
Otherwise, the coastal cities would notice 40,000 men (that number of ships would also be incredibly costly) are attempting to disembark on a random beach, at which they would be vulnerable to attack and wouldn't have anyone to support them since they don't have any land acquisitions in the Levant....





While i see the Maghreb potentially being of aid and support, the eastern seljuks under Berkyaruq would be Actively Against the Tutushids.
Using Tutushid preoccupation with the crusaders to take Khuzistan, Basra and potentially Baghdad and Mosul. Though he would be too distant to make an actual Alliance with the crusaders.
Due to the instability of Berkyaruq's state, Iraq would be easily retaken after the crusades, since Muhammad Tapar starts his revolt OTL in late 1098/99.
Though instability might make the lengthy sieges needed for the Zagros castles untenable, so expansion into Iraq is questionable.....



Potentially a Fatimid/Ismaili revolt could occur in recently conquered Egypt, while he is busy with Crusaders.
But Sunnis were the majority, and would've mostly been purged from all high status positions back in 1095, making a revolt difficult. And they don't seem to have revolted in Saladin's time.

Other than that, there wouldn't be any major internal threats for the Tutushid heartland. (If the Maghreb revolts it doesn't affect anything. But urbanites and farmers would be happy to have some stability once more, instead of Banu Hilal marauding and half a dozen infighting principalities. So likely only the Banu Hilal Bedouin revolt, the AlMoravids could potentially be brought in to quell in, in exchange for Bejaia....)




In the OTL Crusades, the Levant was in its most volatile and disunited position in centuries. With every city having its own lord. All fighting one another, many of whom helping and assisting the crusaders for their own personal benefit.

A united Levant/fertile crescent, is the complete opposite of that, and would be incredibly difficult to attack. Especially with Egypt, Maghreb and Iraq which Tutush can take very easily.
Giving him the overwhelming advantage.

A miracle, like a catastrophic succession crisis, would be required to end this advantage....
Tutush only had 2 or 3 (I cant remember if Tutush II was his son or grandson or whatever) which is really managable. I mean, Imad al din Zengi had 3 sons, 1 died pretty quickly and the other 2 split the Empire and made one of them the superior. I would assume atleast 1 of the sons dying by this point (1100's) and thus there would either be a sole heir with a few claimants or a dominant son with the young (he was an infant when he was enthroned, so his teen years) brother being some governor of some place. Sure, it would probably not be without blood, with several claimants and also unrelated revolts, but i dont think it would be the garganuan crisis needed to end the advantage.
 
@Iam9Begea
Overall, what do you think of my TL? Particularly post Crusade?


@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.




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....
 
In my opinion the events would unfold like this:

Until around the Crusader capture of Konya/Reaching Heraclea, stuff would be pretty similar. Tutush's navy wouldnt interfere in a large capacity with Byzantine/Crusader supplies as the Byzantine navy was strong and there were other fleets to worry about. News in this period werent fast, but by this time the Crusaders fully start to understand Tutush's strength. The Leaders of the Crusade would gather and put what they had on the table. They would have to push through the Armenian gates. There was no was around it. They managed to convince a few Armenian christians to tell information to them, and it didnt look pretty. They could deal with mist of Cilicia but Antioch itself, already a massively strong fortress, was strenghtened even more by Tutush. The Crusaders would send a request to the Byzantines for more men and siege engines, alongside more supplies to push through.

Meanwhile, Alexios would be quite scared of commiting all or nothing to charge the Tutushid Empire. It would also be around this time that some Tutushid Vizier would convince Tutush to write a letter to Alexios, promising to recognize Cilicia/Anatolia as border and probaby massive (for Byzantines, not too much for Tutush) sum of money as a bribe to ditch the Crusaders.

Meanwhile, Tutush's enemies would also recognize the strength of the Crusaders about the same time Tutush did. Fatimid remenants and Shi'ites revolt in Southern Egypt, ironically making the Egyptian Copts dependable allies of Tutush against the Shi'ites. Berkayruq or potentially a descendant would also declare war on Tutush and try to seize Khuzestan and Iraq. Several other small revolts would happen in Yemen and Maghreb due to tribal remenants.

There is 2 options here

Option 1) Alexious pulls back support for the Crusades, Nd the Crusade leaders have to return home, while some overzeallus soldiers and knights attack the Cilician Gate and are slaugthered/captured. Berkayruq is massively slowed down by the Nizari forts in the Zagros during which time Egyptian revolt and other revolts are Crushed. Tutusb then invades Persia early or extracts concessions from Berkayruq and make peace, and if Tutush choose the make peace route Berkayruq would probably be overthrown or atleast attempted to be, creating perfect conditions for a Tutushid invasion.

Option 2: Byzantines gamble everything with the Crusaders. The Fatimids are more succesful and capture Cairo, reestablsihing the Fatimid Sultanate. Probably massacres of Copts in both scenarios, but bigger here. Antioch is sieged by a much larger Crusader force, which also has more supplies and resorts to less foraging. A large garrison is left behind them to not get encircled. Tutush either beats this Garrison and attacks Antioch or the Crusaders atack him while he is on his way to Attack the Garrison. The result would probably be either a costly Tutushid victory or a Crusader defeat. In the event of defeat, Berkayruq could advance jnto Khuzestan and the Fatimids siege Alexandria, homewer in the next battle the exhausted Crusaders, who couldnt replace their losses would be defeated by Tutush somewhere around Aleppo probably. Tutush then invades Egypt and massacres a large number of Shiites, and then marches east where Berkayruq attempts to sign a white peace. Either Tutush accepts or invades Persia.
@wakobear Except for the changes here i think the timeline is well tought out and well made. I would certainly read it, especially if it continues (will Tutush IV beat the Mongol Invasion? When and of the Islamic Golden Age of science and technology end? Maybe Baghdad never gets sacked, and a massive Muslim blob continues expanding the scientific works. Maybe Khazar-Bulgars become the new Golden Horde? What about the Khawarizmians and the Ottomans? So. Many. Possible. Ideas.)
 
Giving him the overwhelming advantage.
I stand by my post. When you hand him advantage after advantage with him receiving full support just about everywhere from just about everyone all the time, yes, he will have an overwhelming advantage.
 
Last edited:
@wakobear Except for the changes here i think the timeline is well tought out and well made. I would certainly read it, especially if it continues (will Tutush IV beat the Mongol Invasion?
Yee.
Though i personally don't like theorising too many decades into the future, cause it's impossible to keep butterflies in check.


But Khwarezm, as other regions, would beess autonomous within the Tutushid empire.
Thus, central Asia overall would be stronger and less divided. Allowing a Seljuk victory, before the Qarakhitai can take Balasagun from the Karakhanids.
(OTL Khwarezm actually invited the Qarakhitai to defeat Seljuks.....)

The result of this I'm unsure of. The Qarakhitai remnants could just establish a small and weak state in Dzungaria and the Tarim Basin. Or perhaps pushing into Mongolian steppes.
Or perhaps running westwards into the Kazakh and then Russian steppes????

Dependant on where the Qarakhitai go, the Mongol empire could potentially be butterflied?
But even if it isn't, assuming the Tutushid empire is still strong a century after Tutush's death (unlikely) then central Asia would be stable as it would've spent over almost 2 centuries under the Seljuks.
Unlike OTL, where the Khwarezmians just made huge annexations a few years earlier and we're incredibly unstable, making a Mongol victory unbelievably fast. Which may have when they began to think of conquering the entire world, not just China.....

ITTL, the Mongol conquest would be much slower, taking decades of draining warfare, like China's conquest.
instead of ripping through the whole middle east with ease.

Though as long as they don't anger Genghis, and establish cordial trade relations, the Mongols might just focus on China alone....????



Maybe Khazar-Bulgars become the new Golden Horde?
The Cuman-Kipchaks would still dominate the western pontic steppe (Ukraine, Wallachia and west of the don.
The Rus would also still exist quite strong.
But Bulgars should be able to take everything east of the don. Somewhat like the Khazars, but much further north towards Perm and Tver.

The biggest change would be Persian high culture and science. Via Capsian Persians.
With Bolgar becoming one of the largest cities of eastern europe. As well as a great centre of learning.
Perhaps some aspects of persianate culture influencing the Rus?





As for the ottomans:
The sultanate of rum would remain intact, as vassals of the Tutushids.
The Sultanate of Rum's frontier with the Byzantines would attract ghazis from across the western Muslim world. (Eastern would be focused on India).
But 1204 sack of Constaninople wouldn't happen, so Byzantines would likely last longer than 1453......




When and of the Islamic Golden Age of science and technology end? Maybe Baghdad never gets sacked, and a massive Muslim blob continues expanding the scientific works.
By this stage, the scientific heartlands of the Muslim world had shifted away from Baghdad. More to Egypt, Khurasan and Spain.


If the AlMoravids manage to actually take Toledo in August 1109, due to Tutushid seigemasters, who would.be veterans of taking near impregnable fortresses after taking Alamut.
Unlike the OTL AlMoravids appear to not have used local Andalusi knowledge of siegecraft. And had poor logistics for their sieges, perhaps why they only besieged Toledo for a single month.

ITTL, with help from Tutushid siegemasters, and almost the majority of the AlMoravids empire's reouscres focused on this siege.
Then Toledo could be besiged for years. But would probably fall in under a year due to the civil war after Alfonso VI's death where Galicia erupted into revolt. It wasn't until 1117 that major campaigns started again.

Toledo would push the Christians north of the sistema central. Giving Andalus defendable borders once more.

From here, AlMoravids should focus almost entirely on defence.
Toledo would become the military and administrative? capital, due to its central location and natural defences. Housing the largest garrison in the peninsula.
Tudela housing the second largest. And Lisbon/Santarem the 3rd.

Using the majority of the AlMoravid empire's wealth to fortify the border extremely heavily, with hundreds of Nizari style castles all throughout the Sistema central and Ebro valley. From Lisbon all the way to Tudela

The due to lack of geographical boundaries the following are the most vulnerable regions:

  • Tudela, close to Christian heartlands with no obstacles.
  • Santarem & Leiria are mostly flat to Portuguese Coimbra.
  • And From Sigüenza, the ending of the sistema central, to the Sistema Ibérico. (Soria doesn't seem to have been conquered by Christians until 1119. The AlMoravids should be able to strengthen their hold on it, greatly improving the defensibility of this region)
Thus these regions would have the highest density of castles.
 Overall, the Andalusi-Christian border would be the most fortified border in Europe.


AlMoravid offenses would be rare, only occuring during Christian civil wars, where Muslims can take advantage of the chaos. Docusing instead on defending the border. Instead of risky offensives.

The Tutushids would assist the AlMoravids in putting down the heretical and anti-Sunni alMohads. Allowing the AlMoravids to last for decades or centuries longer

Thus, Andalus wouldn't fall. Allowing it to remain a major centre of culture, intellectual thought, science and civilization.




But more generally, science is a complex issue.


Rulers played a part, like Ilkhanate and Timurids promoted observatories, with Nasiruddin Tusi and Ulughbeg and their dozens of students making major contributions to many sciences.
But the Mamluks, didn't build observatories though still had ibn al shatir in the field of astronomy. As well as Ibn Nafis in biology. Ibn khaldun in social sciences, economics and historiography.
OTL, Europe only caught up to the middle east in Astronomy by the late 1500s. As Taqi adDin Maruf showed.

Mathematics seems to have been a little earlier, with al Qalasadi being the last major Muslim Algebraist, who pushed for symbolic representation of algebra in the late 1400s, but this went nowhere.
Whereas Europe kept developing algebra from Nicole Oresme of the mid 1300s onwards



Industrially, the Europeans would surpass the Muslims of the middle east even earlier in the late 1400s, with Egypt importing Italian paper, depsite it having anti-islamic watermarks, since their paper industry was so poor. Similarly to sugar processing, with 1400s European sugar plantations producing much cheaper sugar than Muslims.
This seems may be due to the endless civil wars of the Mamluks. And perhaps greater watermill use of Europeans?

Though Muslim Bengal was the most industrialised place on earth, with English textiles being unable to compete. Which is why they deindustrialised the whole region after conquering it in the late 1700s.


Over all, it's hard to say how a Tutushid empire would affect science.
But, if the crusades are prevented, and Toledo is retaken, the Arabic-Latin translation process of Europe would be greatly slowed down. With only Norman Sicily being a major proponent of this.
Thus Greco-Arabic science would take centuries longer to reach Europe, making their scientific backwardness over the Muslims last longer also. Thereby delaying or perhaps even preventing their technological superiority of the Muslims....
 
I stand by my post. When you hand him advantage after advantage with him receiving full support just about everywhere from just about everyone all the time, yes, he will have an overwhelming advantage.
He shouldn't even need external support. Just having his governors not outright surrender without a lengthy siege and not ally with the crusaders should be enough to prevent a crusader victory. (OTL, most of the Levant surrendered without a fight. And offered guides and resources to the crusaders. If that doesn't happen, they would have to take each and every city they come across, an incredibly grueling and difficult feat)

Saladin and his successors managed to offensively push back the crusaders out of the Levant.
Why couldn't Tutush achieve the easier task of defending it?


What advantage do the crusaders have?
What disadvantage would Tutush have?
 
Last edited:
Why couldn't Tutush achieve the easier task of defending it?

I think this is believable:

Until around the Crusader capture of Konya/Reaching Heraclea, stuff would be pretty similar. Tutush's navy wouldnt interfere in a large capacity with Byzantine/Crusader supplies as the Byzantine navy was strong and there were other fleets to worry about. News in this period werent fast, but by this time the Crusaders fully start to understand Tutush's strength. The Leaders of the Crusade would gather and put what they had on the table. They would have to push through the Armenian gates. There was no was around it. They managed to convince a few Armenian christians to tell information to them, and it didnt look pretty. They could deal with mist of Cilicia but Antioch itself, already a massively strong fortress, was strenghtened even more by Tutush. The Crusaders would send a request to the Byzantines for more men and siege engines, alongside more supplies to push through.

Meanwhile, Alexios would be quite scared of commiting all or nothing to charge the Tutushid Empire. It would also be around this time that some Tutushid Vizier would convince Tutush to write a letter to Alexios, promising to recognize Cilicia/Anatolia as border and probaby massive (for Byzantines, not too much for Tutush) sum of money as a bribe to ditch the Crusaders.

Meanwhile, Tutush's enemies would also recognize the strength of the Crusaders about the same time Tutush did. Fatimid remenants and Shi'ites revolt in Southern Egypt, ironically making the Egyptian Copts dependable allies of Tutush against the Shi'ites. Berkayruq or potentially a descendant would also declare war on Tutush and try to seize Khuzestan and Iraq. Several other small revolts would happen in Yemen and Maghreb due to tribal remenants.
where Tutush might end up holding the Crusaders off - given the difficulty of the OTL siege of Antioch, it failing is not implausible.

Egypt being 100% totally loyal to him without any problems worth noting he has to deal with as part of maintaining control, expanding further west than Egypt like he has no issues whatsoever with his existing territory, getting naval support from the Magreb while practically no hostile fleets worth mentioning are even addressed etc, is asking the reader to believe a lot more than simply accepting him "achieving the easier task of defending (the Levant)".
 
Egypt being 100% totally loyal to him without any problems worth noting
Salahudin took Egypt almost a century later, that's a century more of fatmid rule, but didn't have any major revolts.
Why would Tutush?
In fact in 1070 Nasir Hamdani, a general of the Fatimids, initiated a Sunni revolt in Egypt, but failed. This is only 24 years later, The Sunnis are the majority, who would love to not be second classes.
Finally the Ismailis just had a massive split between Nizaris and Mustalis.
Their might be a few plots and conspiracies, but there would be no mass revolt, since the population is majority Sunni.



expanding further west than Egypt like he has no issues whatsoever with his existing territory
OTL Saladin also expanded west. In 1172 sending Sharaf al-Din Qaraqush to invade the Tunisia (which he accomplished). Only 3 years after attaining the vizierate, and depsite the enemies of the crusaders and a tense relationship with NurudDin.

In 1181, after a 9 year detour deep into the Libyan Saharan region of Fezzan, Qaraqush entered Ifriqiyah. Where he would assist the Banu Ghaniya (AlMoravid remnants) rebels against the powerful alMohad Caliphate. By 1185/6, most of Ifriqiyah (Tunisia and western Algeria) was in Qaraqush's hands.
Accomplishing this with only 700 Ayyubid soldiers. Though picking up a few thousand Bedouin tribes on the way, as well as Banu Ghaniya.

In 1186, the alMohad caliph himself campaigned against Qaraqush, defeating him and Banu Ghaniya in battle of Hamma 1187, who fled to the desert losing all Ifriqiyah.
But Yahya ibn Ghaniya managed to reconquer Ifriqiyah briefly in the 1190s.



ITTL, Tutush isn't merely governor of Egypt, beholden to his Zengid overlord.
But ruler of the entirety of the fertile crescent. Thus he would be able to send more than a few hundred Ghuzz. Probably a few thousand, perhaps 5k.

Beyond that, ITTL, there is no alMohad Caliphate. The AlMoravids barely went past Tlemcen or Algiers at the farthest.
In 1050 the settled civilization of Ifriqiyah was devavsted by the Banu Hilal bedouin. Now with half a dozen tribal Emirates ruling the few coastal cities outside Bedouin reach.
These would be incredibly easy to defeat, and the local settled population would be thankful for defeating the bedouin menace and restoring settled rule.


The Bedouin might occasionally revolt but as OTL showed, they aren't difficult to put down. With the local governor of Ifriqiyah with his 5k Ghuzz being more than enough to keep the peace, if Qaraqush could do it with 700.......





getting naval support from the Magreb while practically no hostile fleets worth mentioning are even addressed
These Maghrebi navies would follow the north African coast..... Which is definitively in Muslim hands.
Only the Sicilians could potentially attack this, probably only as far as Tripoli.
But the reunified Ifriqiyah should be on par with the Sicilian navy, and defend its shipping.


As for the eastern med, the Byzantine navy plus Venice, Genoa and Pisan fleets, would be stronger than the Tutushid navy.
But i still think an attempt at creating a beachhead wouldn't be possible, since they haven't got any land forces to support the landing....
 
Why would Tutush?
Because "Saladin did X, therefore Tutush can do more." is a really unconvincing argument.

It's not like "Tutush might have to actually care about making sure Egypt stays loyal instead of having as large an army as he likes fully concentrated on Antioch." even means "Tutush can't defeat the Crusaders.", but every step of this giving him natural 20s on everything is - as stated before - hard on my suspension of disbelief.

Given his OTL problems in 1094, I would not expect him to be suddenly having everything become that easy instead of that while he has a for-now united empire he does have to make sure it stays together before going beyond the Levant.
 
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.
Because the TL is plainly implausible and has a butterfly net to prevent the Crusaders and their allies from adjusting to their opponents' moves like they did IOTL.
 
Because the TL is plainly implausible and has a butterfly net to prevent the Crusaders and their allies from adjusting to their opponents' moves like they did IOTL.

It's weird. I mean, if Tutush really did manage to unite the Levant - looking at wikipedia's map, let's say just the dark green area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant to make a point - he'd certainly be in a strong enough position for that to be something, especially if we assume that the Crusaders benefited enormously from OTL divisions as much as any actual strengths on their part.

But it wouldn't be Tutush the Invincible, greatest conqueror the region has seen in centuries, and thus something they could probably have a response to other than "die" and "be taken prisoner".
 
You could take the other way around, given the OTL performance of the post Tutushid armies against the 1st Crusade, like Kerbogha and Radhwan at Antioch, the Crusade lays siege to Antioch, Tutush gathers his large army and trusting too much in his massive army and previous victories, is overconfident and is crushed utterly in a surprise upset. this would make the 1st Crusade have an even easier time, with all the governors scared witless and surrendering as soon as the fearsome destroyers of Tutush the (formerly) Invincible come swinging by.
 
Given his OTL problems in 1094, I would not expect him to be suddenly having everything become that easy instead of that while he has a for-now united empire he does have to make sure it stays together before going beyond the Levant
He personally would never leave Levant/Egypt, until the 1099 campaign against Berkyaruq.
Staying mostly in either Cairo or Damascus. Frequently moving between the two to keep both in check.

It would be only a few hundred to a few thousand Ghuzz under a somewhat low ranking general that would take the Maghreb.
Just like Qaraqush, but easier since the Maghreb is at one of its weakest points in centuries before or since.




And He wouldn't really be seen as invincible at all, since he had to recognise his nephew's suzerainty over the eastern seljuks.... Which was richer and more vibrant than the east.
And Egypt wasn't taken because of his skills and tactics, but because of civil war. Maghreb is just easy. Then Berkyaruq had a civil war.

He hasn't really done much himself. He's just lucky to live in a time, where weak enemies surround him. A mere opportunist.

  • If Egypt didn't have a civil war in 1094/5, it can't taken without years and decades of extensive efforts - like what the Zengids did.
  • If the Maghreb was still ruled strongly by the Zirids, it wouldnt be able to be taken.
  • If Berkyaruq didn't have a civil war with Muhammad Tapar, Persia couldn't be taken.
But all these did happen, and aren't too difficult to capitalise upon.



But they would most likely not be able to defeat the Nizaris in their impregnable mountain fortresses.
Or even attempting to expand from Zabid into the Yemeni Highlands would be difficult.
 
Last edited:
Because the TL is plainly implausible and has a butterfly net to prevent the Crusaders and their allies from adjusting to their opponents' moves like they did IOTL.

Northwest Levant is quite defensible, which is why the Byzantine-Arab border didn't budge for over 300 years, after which the Abbasids and middle east disintegrated.

But even after the disintegration, the small principality of the Aleppan emirate of Sayf adDawla, managed to fend off the entirety of the ascendant Byzantine empire for almost 20 Years, between 944 and 962.
In spite of the fact that his territory was incredibly small, the Arabs were disloyal, seeing him as an upstart. He received no external aid from anyone, neither Abbasid remnants nor Ikhshidids, His armies were usually only 10,000 strong, the maximum he ever amassed was 30,000 and he had no navy.
Whereas the Byzantines campaigned against him with up to 70,000 men. They'd also already taken Melitene and the Muslim fortresses of eastern Anatolia and Western Armenia a decade prior in the 930s, Thereby invading both Cilicia and the upper Jazira.
Giving the Byzantines the overwhelming advantage, yet Sayf adDawla's small principality was able to go toe-to-toe with the might of the Byzantine empire for 20 years.
With Tarsus only falling in mid 965, after he had become gravely ill and exhausted his resources. And Antioch falling in late 969, after year long siege, despite only having the city garrison, since Sayf adDawla was dead.


If Sayf adDawla could accomplish that with such a disadvantage, then why couldn't Tutush similarly defend the upper Levant?
Since he'd have more resources in wealth and manpower, even just a united Levant, let alone Egypt.
As well as greater loyalties, due to being from prestigious Seljuk origins, not a bedouin upstart needing to prove himself.
And his enemies are weaker - much of Anatolia was hostile, straining Christians supply lines unlike 900s. And the Christians didn't have access to Melitene or Western Armenia, to simultaneously attack upper Jazira.



Of course the crusaders would treat the different circumstances in a different way to OTL. How they would do that is unknown to me.

But if the Byzantines needed 20 years, despite the advantage, why would crusaders do so much better, depsite being disadvantaged?


@Elfwine Sayf adDawla didn't have a navy whatsoever, but it doesn't seem that the Byzantine navy was used to much effect.
I can't find anything referring to such, but I assume John Tzimiskes' 975 coastal campaign from Antioch to Ceaserea (unable to take Tripoli) did make use of the navy. But 975 is well after taking Antioch and even Aleppo itself.
Meaning it was probably unfeasible to attempt a naval invasion, before establishing yourself on land.
 
Last edited:
He hasn't really done much himself. He's just lucky to live in a time, where weak enemies surround him. A mere opportunist.

Lucky is one way to describe the author saying he always has the best possible outcome, yes.

All his opponents have at least as many problems to face as OTL. He never has problems consolidating his position, because he's just that "lucky".

I am pretty sure I am not the only one in this thread who thinks that while it might be possible for him to take Egypt, it is a) not absolutely guaranteed to fall into his hands and b) would not be 100% behind him from the start, to underline that.
 
Last edited:
Lucky is one way to describe the author saying he always has the best possible outcome, yes.

All his opponents have at least as many problems to face as OTL. He never has problems consolidating his position, because he's just that "lucky".

I am pretty sure I am not the only one in this thread who thinks that while it might be possible for him to take Egypt, it is a) not absolutely guaranteed to fall into his hands and b) would not be 100% behind him from the start, to underline that.
This isn’t actually a meaningful response. Luck in this context quite blatantly refers to a favourable geopolitical environment for Tutush to expand in. Either you agree that geopolitics are favourable for Tutush to the level the poster you’re replying to believes or you disagree and I’m genuinely interested to hear why because I follow threads like these because I like the historical debates and I like learning.

You might have a point about Tutush facing domestic issues from such widespread conquests. But maybe it’d be better to actually talk about them instead of just alluding to them and saying the author is only just bringing up best possible yet unrealistic outcomes. Because I agree the extent of expansion suggested isn’t something I’m sold on but this currently doesn’t feel like much of an actual counter factual historical discussion.
 
This isn’t actually a meaningful response. Luck in this context quite blatantly refers to a favourable geopolitical environment for Tutush to expand in. Either you agree that geopolitics are favourable for Tutush to the level the poster you’re replying to believes or you disagree and I’m genuinely interested to hear why because I follow threads like these because I like the historical debates and I like learning.

I do not think they are, and I do not think his position is good enough for what the poster is proposing as far as him going even further than Syria and immediately surrounding as far as "the Levant".

OTL: "Tutush took control of Syria in 1092, following the death of his brother, Malik-Shah, naming himself sultan.[3] He marched towards Upper Mesopotamia, in which he managed to capture Nisbis, Amida, Mayyafariqin and Mosul, but he had to return in December 1093, as two Seljuk rulers, Bozan of Edessa and Harran and Aq Sunqur al-Hajib of Aleppo, had switched allegiance and declared their support for his nephew, Sultan Barkiyaruq. However, Tutush along with Yağısıyan of Antioch launched an attack against the dissidents, whom he managed to defeat at Tell Sultan in June–July 1094.[9] Bozan and Aq Sunqur were killed,[10] meanwhile Kerbogha was taken prisoner to Homs. " (quoting wikipedia, I am open to better sources if anyone has one to reference)

This does not strike me as someone who is so good at inspiring loyalty and dealing with his enemies as to not have to spend more time and more attention on establishing a loyal administration and on making sure that his rivals (like Barkiyaruq) don't undermine his position when his back is turned, than the "everything goes his way" suggests. Even if we assume that TTL Bozan and Aq Sunqur didn't change allegiances.

And the more he conquers, the more he's going to have to deal with that being even more of an issue, instead of it seeming to get even less difficult.

It comes down to that Ifriqya or Egypt being weak does not equal him being able to do anything about that, and that people are going to be reacting much more to what he does - as RedSword12 notes here:
If Tutush had still been in power, the Crusaders and the Byzantines and the Fatamids would have acted differently. The leaders of the First Crusade were experienced soldiers, and with such overwhelming odds against them it's more likely they would maneuver more carefully, diplomatically and militarily.

Maybe they fail, maybe they succeed, but the idea of that he has everything fully under control and is able to counter everything is inadequately supported for me to find it believable he can do so much better than OTL.
 
Last edited:
I do not think they are, and I do not think his position is good enough for what the poster is proposing as far as him going even further than Syria and immediately surrounding as far as "the Levant".

OTL: "Tutush took control of Syria in 1092, following the death of his brother, Malik-Shah, naming himself sultan.[3] He marched towards Upper Mesopotamia, in which he managed to capture Nisbis, Amida, Mayyafariqin and Mosul, but he had to return in December 1093, as two Seljuk rulers, Bozan of Edessa and Harran and Aq Sunqur al-Hajib of Aleppo, had switched allegiance and declared their support for his nephew, Sultan Barkiyaruq. However, Tutush along with Yağısıyan of Antioch launched an attack against the dissidents, whom he managed to defeat at Tell Sultan in June–July 1094.[9] Bozan and Aq Sunqur were killed,[10] meanwhile Kerbogha was taken prisoner to Homs. " (quoting wikipedia, I am open to better sources if anyone has one to reference)

This does not strike me as someone who is so good at inspiring loyalty and dealing with his enemies as to not have to spend more time and more attention on establishing a loyal administration and on making sure that his rivals (like Barkiyaruq) don't undermine his position when his back is turned, than the "everything goes his way" suggests. Even if we assume that TTL Bozan and Aq Sunqur didn't change allegiances.

And the more he conquers, the more he's going to have to deal with that being even more of an issue, instead of it seeming to get even less difficult.

It comes down to that Ifriqya or Egypt being weak does not equal him being able to do anything about that, and that people are going to be reacting much more to what he does - as RedSword12 notes here:


Maybe they fail, maybe they succeed, but the idea of that he has everything fully under control and is able to counter everything is inadequately supported for me to find it believable he can do so much better than OTL.
I generally agree with your statement. Altough the part you quoted is slightly misleading (Tutush was already in control of most of the Levant as a Seljuk vassal before 1092) The general thing remains. We know Tutush had military experience and at the very least had dependable commanders (Defeating Suleiman of Rum Battle, defeating the rebellion and advancing deep into Persia). Homewer, he was pretty average on most accounts. He wasnt a legendary administrator, nor did he have the charisma and the will to keep up loyalty. If you do one of those ISOT things and give Tutush that knowledge? Sure. But, on his position Tutush would spent time consolidating his gains in Mesopotamia. At most maybe he would send a raid into Egypt to get some payment during their civil war, and that would be it. That also means less drastic changes to the overall Crusader thinking, since they arent encountering a Mass-Conquering blob that extends from Algeria to Khuzestan. Also, i sincerely doubt Tutush would be interested in naval buildup. If Tutush's descendents still kept Levant and Mesopotamia for a century or two, maybe they would extend control to the Indian Ocean Arab cities and establish vassal relations. otherwise, Tutush would probably focus on building Castles and public works (to gain loyalty) in his territory rather than building anything larger than a defensive fleet (which would be incredibly small and probably just Personal Fleet of the local commander). We have debated back and forth if he would win or not, and i would say both cases are plausable and we really cant determine which is more likely. Massive lack of sources + many assumptions we simply cant pinpoint (HOW would Crusader actions differ than ours?). I believe wakebear's timeline is an interesting but unlikely brain excercise to think over. I mean, it shows how divided the Muslim world was and how easily it could have been unitied with the right man at the right time. In general, this entire discussion was both visually and intellectually pleasing. We all learned stuff here, and that's what that counts.

I extend my thanks to everyone who participitated in this discussion.
 
Top