AHC: First Crusade Success for Byzantines

With no PoDs prior to the Siege of Nicea, how can the First Crusade have returned as much territory as possible to the Eastern Roman Empire, with no or minimal independent crusader states emerging in its wake?

One idea: Stephen of Blois doesn't lose hope at Antioch, thus doesn't discourage the Byzantine reinforcements on the way back.
 
Your PoD could work for getting Antioch back into the Empire, which would then mean Cilicia is easily recoverable.

The main problem is always going to be that the Crusader leaders a backstabbing and ambitious. There isn't really a scenario I can see that they graciously give Jerusalem over to the Empire. However, it's possible, with a bit of luck, for the Empire to regain Antioch and Cilicia, and from there get back most of the Anatolian plateau, more or less re-creating the pre-Manzikert Empire. After that and a period of consolidating, they can do a whole lot more.
 
Your PoD could work for getting Antioch back into the Empire, which would then mean Cilicia is easily recoverable... It's possible, with a bit of luck, for the Empire to regain Antioch and Cilicia, and from there get back most of the Anatolian plateau, more or less re-creating the pre-Manzikert Empire. After that and a period of consolidating, they can do a whole lot more.
Awesome!
The main problem is always going to be that the Crusader leaders are backstabbing and ambitious. There isn't really a scenario I can see that they graciously give Jerusalem over to the Empire.
Yeah, there's a reason I said "or minimal" in the op; I suppose they could fail to retake Jerusalem, but won't pretend to know the plausibility of that in combination w Byzantines getting Antioch, say.
 
Your PoD could work for getting Antioch back into the Empire, which would then mean Cilicia is easily recoverable.

The main problem is always going to be that the Crusader leaders a backstabbing and ambitious. There isn't really a scenario I can see that they graciously give Jerusalem over to the Empire. However, it's possible, with a bit of luck, for the Empire to regain Antioch and Cilicia, and from there get back most of the Anatolian plateau, more or less re-creating the pre-Manzikert Empire. After that and a period of consolidating, they can do a whole lot more.

I agree. After all, you are the resident Komnennid Restoration expert.
 
Your PoD could work for getting Antioch back into the Empire, which would then mean Cilicia is easily recoverable.

The main problem is always going to be that the Crusader leaders a backstabbing and ambitious. There isn't really a scenario I can see that they graciously give Jerusalem over to the Empire. However, it's possible, with a bit of luck, for the Empire to regain Antioch and Cilicia, and from there get back most of the Anatolian plateau, more or less re-creating the pre-Manzikert Empire. After that and a period of consolidating, they can do a whole lot more.

I'd agree with this: though I'd add that the Komnenid Emperors still have to deal with the Siculo-Normans in the west, to say nothing of the Hungarians and Italian merchant states. Unlike in previous periods, there were serious and aggressive threats in the west to deal with at the same time as trying to recover Anatolia. This inability to focus on one front is, IMO, what doomed Komnenid attempts to restore power over the plateau.
 
I'd agree with this: though I'd add that the Komnenid Emperors still have to deal with the Siculo-Normans in the west, to say nothing of the Hungarians and Italian merchant states. Unlike in previous periods, there were serious and aggressive threats in the west to deal with at the same time as trying to recover Anatolia. This inability to focus on one front is, IMO, what doomed Komnenid attempts to restore power over the plateau.

Dont forget about lack of focus on central anatolia eg the heartland needed to keep turks out. It seems so shortsighted though how all komnenoi focused on levant ans cilica when central anatolia was more important.
 
I'd agree with this: though I'd add that the Komnenid Emperors still have to deal with the Siculo-Normans in the west, to say nothing of the Hungarians and Italian merchant states. Unlike in previous periods, there were serious and aggressive threats in the west to deal with at the same time as trying to recover Anatolia. This inability to focus on one front is, IMO, what doomed Komnenid attempts to restore power over the plateau.

That's why I said "with a bit of luck".:p

And that's why I think the Komnenos need a little more of: luck. Their system worked, it was just inconsistent. The Empire had to deal with all kinds of threats, but IMO it was strong enough to do so if things go right. There were several lulls in the fighting in the West, hell, as far as 1176 they had a serious shot of recovering the plateau on their own, even after that, a skilled statesman could maneuver the Third Crusade to help them better.

For all he's lauded and for all his reputation is deserved, Alexios had some serious flaws that added up over time. John was better, and was able to do exactly what you say: focus on one front.

The other problem was that the Komnenos had their priorities long. For the most part, they wanted to go after Syria before they took back Central Anatolia. This is understandable, Syria's much richer, but it's entirely short-sighted. They also were under the false impression that the Turks could be controlled from afar without a decisive and costly campaign.

And then you have Manuel, who decided to go on a new adventure every year and emptied a full treasury left to him by John. But even he could have recovered Anatolia, too, if things had just gone his way a few more times.

I agree. After all, you are the resident Komnennid Restoration expert.

Eh, BG still knows more way more about it than I do. I'm just reaching the end of High School and have barely taken any college courses yet, while BG is, well, BG. I might contest him when he was writing Isaac's Empire 1.0, but not now.

Dont forget about lack of focus on central anatolia eg the heartland needed to keep turks out. It seems so shortsighted though how all komnenoi focused on levant ans cilica when central anatolia was more important.

Easy to say with a full understand of the situation and hindsight on your side. Remember that at many times the Sultanate of Rum or the various Turkish chieftains did swear fealty to the Byzantines; sending money in tribute and reining in the raids against them. To clear out the Turks you'd have to eradicate a whole way of life that had sprung up in Central Anatolia, and it was going to be very costly. The Levant was much richer and had crusader states which the Komnenoi decided they could manipulate and the Balkans and by extention Italy could threaten Constantinople, so it's no wonder these fronts were given as much attention to.

It was a mistake, but one that they were expected to make.
 
Your PoD could work for getting Antioch back into the Empire, which would then mean Cilicia is easily recoverable.

The main problem is always going to be that the Crusader leaders a backstabbing and ambitious. There isn't really a scenario I can see that they graciously give Jerusalem over to the Empire. However, it's possible, with a bit of luck, for the Empire to regain Antioch and Cilicia, and from there get back most of the Anatolian plateau, more or less re-creating the pre-Manzikert Empire. After that and a period of consolidating, they can do a whole lot more.

IMHO the relationship between the Crusader leaders and the Byzantine Emperor (and other high ranking officials) was one of mutual distrust and they had different expectations; both sides were to blame that relations only got worse.
 
IMHO the relationship between the Crusader leaders and the Byzantine Emperor (and other high ranking officials) was one of mutual distrust and they had different expectations; both sides were to blame that relations only got worse.

While it's true the various Romans weren't exactly the straightforward types and wanted to use the Crusaders to their own ends, it's pretty safe to safe that the Crusaders were the ones who were most to blame for this dysfunctional relationship.

Remember how they promised to return all land to Imperial control before they even started Crusading? Or how they spent time massacring civilians, or tricking the Byzantines to go away so they could have prizes all to themselves (as in Antioch)? True, the Byzantines only wanted to use the Crusaders, but that was what they signed up for, at least ostensibly. An apt comparison would be the Soviet Union and United States post-WW2: both sides were to blame with starting the Cold War, but the Soviet Union was by far the main instigator.
 
While it's true the various Romans weren't exactly the straightforward types and wanted to use the Crusaders to their own ends, it's pretty safe to safe that the Crusaders were the ones who were most to blame for this dysfunctional relationship.

Remember how they promised to return all land to Imperial control before they even started Crusading? Or how they spent time massacring civilians, or tricking the Byzantines to go away so they could have prizes all to themselves (as in Antioch)? True, the Byzantines only wanted to use the Crusaders, but that was what they signed up for, at least ostensibly. An apt comparison would be the Soviet Union and United States post-WW2: both sides were to blame with starting the Cold War, but the Soviet Union was by far the main instigator.

I've never heard of the Crusaders "tricking" the Byzantines into leaving them alone at Antioch, more that Stephen of Blois despaired of their chances and advised Alexius to cut his losses and leave them to their fate. The reason the Crusaders didn't return this land to the Byzantines was because, from their perspective, Alexius had already broken the bargain: the Byzantines were supposed to aid the Crusaders in their pilgrimage, but instead had abandoned them to die outside Antioch. Also, whilst there were no doubt problems keeping the Crusader army in good order, "they spent time massacring civilians" is putting it a bit strongly.
 
I've never heard of the Crusaders "tricking" the Byzantines into leaving them alone at Antioch, more that Stephen of Blois despaired of their chances and advised Alexius to cut his losses and leave them to their fate. The reason the Crusaders didn't return this land to the Byzantines was because, from their perspective, Alexius had already broken the bargain: the Byzantines were supposed to aid the Crusaders in their pilgrimage, but instead had abandoned them to die outside Antioch. Also, whilst there were no doubt problems keeping the Crusader army in good order, "they spent time massacring civilians" is putting it a bit strongly.

What would you call it, if not tricking? They were quite literally told the Byzantine contingent there was a plot to kill them. It was all a set-up so the various crusader leaders could justify taking Antioch and other parts of the Levant for themselves.

When you have an army that's harsh by medieval standards, it's pretty damn bad. Before the Prince's Crusade had even arrived in Constantinople, various contingents of the People's Crusade had already pillaged their way through Hungary and fought with the Empire in Serbia.
 
Last edited:
Top