AHC: Byzantines keep Anatolia, First Crusade still happens

Assuming that the Byzantines don't lose control of Anatolia to the Turks (either because the win the Battle of Manzikert, or because they don't collapse quite so spectacularly in its aftermath), is there any way you can get Pope Urban II to still call for a Crusade in 1096?
 
Not in the way I think you want, the reclamation of the Holy Land was the byproduct of sending all those holy warriors into the East, a sale's pitch to get the main objective done.

That being said, the amount of butterflies fluttering around the Roman Empire is blinding. I'm not saying that your POD is implausible, but it does ignore the power balance that an empire with anatolia creates.

I'm not an expert, so if Catilina wants to prove me wrong I'm all for it, but the ability for a levant based crusade just doesn't seem possible, especially not with the manner of the crusaders' OTL movements. The Romans were forced in their desperation to tolerate the unruly mob they had to direct towards the Turks; an able, militarily viable, economically sound empire might not be so agreeable to the whims of the westerners.


Now a large scale church-endorsed movement against the infidel is probably well within the grasp of the Papacy (Urban might not be the name of whoever the curia elects by 1096), the influence is definitely there but I'm not sure where you'd find the sort of impetus needed to push the decision. Iberia'd be my guess, but the reaction might be a bit muted compared to OTL, "Fight for the East! Gondor calls for aid!".
 

FrozenMix

Banned
Crusade on North Africa maybe? Carthage does hold some significance with Christianity.

Its doubtful that such an expedition would take on an overtly religious nature. Maybe in its justificiation and recruitment, but really, such an operation would be done probably by the Italian states with French help if the situation was favorable for it politically.

The crusades, particularly the first 3, had a genuinely spiritual aspect in how it was messaged and carried out. The Holy Land was something that could generate that kind of fervor, and Rome being captured by the Arabs would maybe also generate that fervor, but Carthage certainly would not.
 
Assuming that the Byzantines don't lose control of Anatolia to the Turks (either because the win the Battle of Manzikert, or because they don't collapse quite so spectacularly in its aftermath), is there any way you can get Pope Urban II to still call for a Crusade in 1096?
The Turks takeover Syria as per original timeline and then refuses to allow pilgrim access to the city.
 
Yes, any timeline that has him facing off for power with a rival pope means he will show power by having a Crusade of his own calling. If played right "crusade" could come to be seen as "jihad" is.
 
Calling a Crusade in 1096 ITTL? That seems quite improbable.
However, giving that the mindset for a crusade was there in the late XIth century (long story short, the fusion of the military justification of milites and the deep Christianisation of medieval society), it's possible you'd end up with something close to the First Crusade.

While a strong Byzantine Empire is going to be problematic : as Tjakari said, Constantinople wouldn't be that happy with a too great army passing by.
Now, saying they would oppose it...That's another thing : the use of Latin mercenaries in Byzantine warfare was already established then.

I could see a more decentralized (yes, even more than IOTL) *First Crusade happening, more importantly backed by Italian maritime republics (so, partially maritime, partially terrestrial) happening in the XIIth century, if the increasingly popular Yerosolemite pilgrimage are threatened, less by an active persecution, than political disorders in the region.
Now, would it work is anybody's guess (Personally, I'd think odds would be lower than First Crusade).

Depending on Byzantine interests, you may even see Constantinople supporting (at least in a first time) some kind of Frankokratia in Syria, which would be easier to dominate due to its more divided political nature.

As for North Africa, I simply don't see this happening. You didn't have the same relationship to Africa that you had with Muslim Spain or Palestine : no pilgrimages, no real affect, no major interests...
Partially or entierly religious driven expeditions, as Mahdian "Crusade" or Reconquista? Why not.

But a full-scale Crusade, I don't think there were motivations to do so.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Depending on Byzantine interests, you may even see Constantinople supporting (at least in a first time) some kind of Frankokratia in Syria, which would be easier to dominate due to its more divided political nature.

As for North Africa, I simply don't see this happening. You didn't have the same relationship to Africa that you had with Muslim Spain or Palestine : no pilgrimages, no real affect, no major interests...
Partially or entierly religious driven expeditions, as Mahdian "Crusade" or Reconquista? Why not.

But a full-scale Crusade, I don't think there were motivations to do so.

Oooh, Frankokratia - loving the idea. There are so many ways the history of the region could go if the area stabilizes - independent centralization, byzantine absorption, long-lasting independence/alliances, Egypt/Byz split (Assuming that Egypt becomes a successful crusade target). So many possibilities.

Though, regarding some of your comments on the militant nature of Europe at this time, I'd expect a 2nd/3rd crusade to almost be an inevitability if the first is successful and perceived to be stable.

Targeting Spain/Egypt, then N.Africa would probably be the order as I'd see it, but if the Frankokratia is stable, I can't see a situation where the Pope couldn't endorse or support similar action elsewhere, if the right reasons are provided by some land-hungry europeans. For example - Protecting the pilgrims to North Africa to Saintly Tombs around Carthage, or Mount Sinai and Desert Monasteries in Egypt. So there are other pilgrims that could be protected - and entire christian communities if you need your propaganda/excuses. Funding could be an issue, but if it wasn't insurmountable for the Reconquista, an ATL Frankokratia, and OTL Northern Crusades, then I think an ATL crusade should be affordable.

Another factor is that as much as the Pope is still widely supported, refusing to support another Crusade to "Protect Pilgrims" could be a political blow against the Pope at this point. Opening the door to power plays over the idea of crusades to protect Christians in the Patriarchate of Rome (which includes Spain and N.Africa). I doubt the Pope wouldn't support it considering that the Northern Crusades were taking place in this time period (even with only a Bull), but power plays, and an unwillingness to protect Christians (when challenged to) could certainly weaken the Papacy if they refuse.
 
For example - Protecting the pilgrims to North Africa to Saintly Tombs around Carthage
Which pilgrims? Again, the religious relation between North Africa and Latin Christianity was extremly reduced : there was no important pilgrimage there, neither secondary or lesser. None, nada, que dalle.

Heck, the only exemple he have past Egypt is about a possible Catalan pilgrim in Makuria, not Carthage of Ifriqiya, and we're more about a Latin using a more eastern-based pilgrimage.

Funding could be an issue, but if it wasn't insurmountable for the Reconquista
Reconquista was a long process, not a ponctual effort, that beneficied from close reinforcement and ressources. Eventually it was halted several times (especially in the XIVth century), but thanks to be close of Latin cores and being about an identitarian matter, it managed to advance.
All things that weren't present in Levantine Crusades, and wouldn't be in African Crusades that, as IOTL expeditions point out, mostly interested Italian maritime republics and not for religious reasons.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Which pilgrims? Again, the religious relation between North Africa and Latin Christianity was extremly reduced : there was no important pilgrimage there, neither secondary or lesser. None, nada, que dalle.

Infuriatingly, this thread is the first google result when looking :mad: - a worrying sign, but I did find reference to this being new scholarship, so certainly not the prevailing view - but there is evidence of churches and communities throughout the Maghreb.

Sadly my french isn't great, but if yours is any better -

http://rhr.revues.org/5401

Reconquista was a long process, not a ponctual effort, that beneficied from close reinforcement and ressources. Eventually it was halted several times (especially in the XIVth century), but thanks to be close of Latin cores and being about an identitarian matter, it managed to advance.
All things that weren't present in Levantine Crusades, and wouldn't be in African Crusades that, as IOTL expeditions point out, mostly interested Italian maritime republics and not for religious reasons.

Well, yes - I'm not disputing that at all - though irritatingly I'd left out a disclaimer regarding italian states in my last post :mad:

However, if it is shown that ambitious nobles can form their own states, then I think alongside those who joined the various knightly orders, you'd see flat-out greedy plunderers, or Bohemond-types getting involved. This would likely speed up the conquest aspect of the reconquista, even if the colonisation part doesn't speed up - IMO certainly one of the reasons it was very slow going, besides the lack of sheer military might.

In addition, the Northern Crusades certainly didn't use Merchant republics, and succeeded (over time), and I'm more than happy to say that it'd be slow going in N.Africa. But if the Iberian Kingdoms IOTL were happy to attempted to conquer in N.Africa without Italian assistance, then I don't see why Iberian Crusaders, and Iberian Kingdoms wouldn't sponsor the same ATL. Success - questionable, but the republics aren't needed when the largest logistical problem would be crossing the Straits of Gibraltar.
 
This is an interesting idea, but I'm inclined to think that any 'Crusade' will be of limited independence from Byzantine. That is, Emperor Alexios or his equivalent in TTL will demand an oath of fealty as per OTL, but TTL be in a position to enforce it. There might even be an insistence from the Emperor that a portion of the Byzantine army accompanies the crusaders to ensure compliance.

If managed properly this need not be of significant detriment to the crusaders, especially among landless nobles or second/third sons of significant Lords. Provided they are successful in battle they could potentially acquire new estates in the East, albeit on behalf of the Byzantine Emperor. Conversion to the Orthodox rite would need to be handled very carefully, but I suspect a clever Emperor could postpone any controversy by only insisting on conversion by the second or third generation of the "new nobility".
 
but there is evidence of churches and communities throughout the Maghreb.
Sadly my french isn't great, but if yours is any better -
http://rhr.revues.org/5401

I think you may be mislead there : this article is about native Christian communauties, which existence let little doubt and that vanished by the XIIIth century.

It should noted that the article points the really delinquescent state of North African Christiendom.

In 1076, Gregory VII regrets that there is no longer in Africa the three bishops necessary to ordinate a new one : there's only one in Carthage and one in Bougia, recently named on the request of hammadid ruler al-Nasir for its new capital

It less disappeared trough persecution (the article point again that the alleged Almohad persecution is dubious) than the usual acculturation you can find as well in Egypt or Syria, without great clanic feature to support a small remaining communauty in the coast or immediate hinterland.

It says nothing about pilgrimages, and only mention by passing a relation with papacy (which should have been close to the reduced relationship that it existed with Mozarabs in Al-Andalus) as broader relationship with Latin Christiendom.

This would likely speed up the conquest aspect of the reconquista, even if the colonisation part doesn't speed up - IMO certainly one of the reasons it was very slow going, besides the lack of sheer military might.
Which would be wrong : Reconquista wasn't accompanied with a settlement effort (I choose to understand colonisation as settlement there), but this one was subsequent, without too much trouble (would it be only the presence of Neo-Mozarabs in the Xth from Christian States faciliting it).

Note that the process wasn't slow, but long which is not the same thing. Basically, between the early XIth century and the mid XIIIth century, almost all Al-Andalus was conquered safe Nasrid holdings (which were basically sattelized by Castille even then).

The problem was essentially
1) Military and being tied up with the desintegration of unitary structures in Al-Andalus and their reconstruction by Berber dynasties
2) Stability in Christian States : Grenada basically survived so long because Castille infighting and succession crisis.

In addition, the Northern Crusades certainly didn't use Merchant republics, and succeeded (over time)
The comparison isn't really fitting. As far as I know, Northern Crusaders didn't have to cross a large body of water to advance, their cores being closer and ways almost entierly terrestrial.

For what mattered Levantine and North African Crusades, Mediterranean Sea wasn't going to vanish : the support from Italian maritime republic for supply and transport is mandatory, or, at the very best, a strong royal maritime policy as Louis IX's (which carry some other issues to the creation of Crusader States in Africa such as not fitting the royal plans).

But if the Iberian Kingdoms IOTL were happy to attempted to conquer in N.Africa without Italian assistance, then I don't see why Iberian Crusaders, and Iberian Kingdoms wouldn't sponsor the same ATL.
Which wouldn't be a Crusade per se, but a continuation of the Reconquista effort. Incidentally, it was generally tought that the Reconquista had to continue on the other side of Gibraltar's sraight but that went butterflied away by the discovery of Americas.

A Castille/Aragonese/Portuguese takeover of Morroco, for instance, isn't too much improbable because it partially happened (Portuguese hegemony on Maghrib's coast, Spanish outposts on Mediterranean southern coast).
Which is far more debatable would be the characterisation of Crusade (would it be only because it would be tied to a proto-modern state, and not a whole social class) and possibility to go deeper than coastal control (the aforementioned exemple never went really this way, in spite of IOTL efforts).
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting idea, but I'm inclined to think that any 'Crusade' will be of limited independence from Byzantine...

Remember we're talking on an era that while Latin and Greek Christianities are clearly defined, are not wholly separated.
A "conversion" there may be redundant, and wasn't actually asked from Latin rulers, even when managed to vassalize Antioch or Jerusalem (the latter under Manuel I)
 
Remember we're talking on an era that while Latin and Greek Christianities are clearly defined, are not wholly separated.
A "conversion" there may be redundant, and wasn't actually asked from Latin rulers, even when managed to vassalize Antioch or Jerusalem (the latter under Manuel I)

Good point, the impression I get is that the Orthodox Christians were less worried about the distinction than the Latins. It might be a problem for Rome but not Constantinople.
 
Good point, the impression I get is that the Orthodox Christians were less worried about the distinction than the Latins. It might be a problem for Rome but not Constantinople.

Well it did counted in the Crusaders/Byzantine relations, IOTL, but more politically than really on the individual level. A good exemple being the maintain of the Greek Patriarch of Antioch as requested by the Basileus.

As long Latins doesn't try to takeover Orthodox structures (and giving a more important dependence from Byzantium being probable, I'm not too sure they would attempt that easily), or ignoring them, I don't think the Latin/Greek separation would be that deep that it would require a formal conversion.
 
OK, how's this for an idea:

Byzantium loses the Battle of Manzikert, as per OTL, and its court collapses in infighting, again as per IOTL, allowing the Turks to raid deep into Anatolia. Crucially, though, the Byzantine ruling elite manages to get its act together more quickly, allowing the Empire to more successfully combat and, eventually, drive out the Turks from Anatolia. Nevertheless the conflict is long and destructive, and the army and treasury are left severely depleted. When the Turkish Empire starts to fragment, the Emperor is eager to take advantage, increasing the size of his own realm and securing Anatolia from future incursions. Nevertheless he does not feel he has the resources left to mount a proper campaign. Accordingly he writes to the West, asking if they could possibly spare a few thousand knights for a campaign against the Turk. Pope Urban reacts much as he did to Alexius' OTL request, and the rest, as they say, is history.
 
That's actually a good idea. Manzikert on its own was not the game changer. It's what happened afterwards that really screwed the Byzzies. I can fully see something like that scenario happening. The logistics and resources problems are somewhat resembling the problems of Belisarius in Italy.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
OK, how's this for an idea:

Byzantium loses the Battle of Manzikert, as per OTL, and its court collapses in infighting, again as per IOTL, allowing the Turks to raid deep into Anatolia. Crucially, though, the Byzantine ruling elite manages to get its act together more quickly, allowing the Empire to more successfully combat and, eventually, drive out the Turks from Anatolia. Nevertheless the conflict is long and destructive, and the army and treasury are left severely depleted. When the Turkish Empire starts to fragment, the Emperor is eager to take advantage, increasing the size of his own realm and securing Anatolia from future incursions. Nevertheless he does not feel he has the resources left to mount a proper campaign. Accordingly he writes to the West, asking if they could possibly spare a few thousand knights for a campaign against the Turk. Pope Urban reacts much as he did to Alexius' OTL request, and the rest, as they say, is history.

This is an interesting idea, but I'm inclined to think that any 'Crusade' will be of limited independence from Byzantine. That is, Emperor Alexios or his equivalent in TTL will demand an oath of fealty as per OTL, but TTL be in a position to enforce it. There might even be an insistence from the Emperor that a portion of the Byzantine army accompanies the crusaders to ensure compliance.

If managed properly this need not be of significant detriment to the crusaders, especially among landless nobles or second/third sons of significant Lords. Provided they are successful in battle they could potentially acquire new estates in the East, albeit on behalf of the Byzantine Emperor.

Either of these ideas work and would make a damn fine christendom wank
 
Top