AHC: Less enmity between the Catholic and the Orthodox with minimal butterflies

SO how can we have somewhat less enimity between the Catholic and the Orthodox with minimal butterflies? More specifically:

AHC1: Can Alexios help the Crusaders at Antioch (during the 1st Crusade) with minimal butterflies? How much of adifference would that make?

AHC2: Can we (maybe as a result of AHC1 avoid the Latin Conquest of COnstantinople as a result of the 4th Crusade but still have the Byzantine Empire fall to the Turks in 1453? In analysing the Byzantine society around the 1200s Treadgold notes that this time around, rebels didn't seek to become emperors as before, but rather to carve out their own little state, their own despotate from the Empire and that this trend started even before the 4th Crusade.)
 
SO how can we have somewhat less enimity between the Catholic and the Orthodox with minimal butterflies? More specifically:

Inimity between Greeks and Latins was often exaggerated for pre (or even post) 1204. They weren't "best friends for life", but not such deadly and eternal ennemies.

AHC1: Can Alexios help the Crusaders at Antioch (during the 1st Crusade) with minimal butterflies? How much of adifference would that make?

Unlikely.

1)Alexios get back Anatolia only thanks to Crusaders (after all they were originally there to help the Byzzies) and would have enough trouble re-organising and re-occupy the land to help significantly.

2)Byzzies Generals would want to be in charge, and Latins would want to keep the lead.

AHC2: Can we (maybe as a result of AHC1 avoid the Latin Conquest of COnstantinople as a result of the 4th Crusade but still have the Byzantine Empire fall to the Turks in 1453?

There was some interesting discussion there about how the capture of Constantinople in 1204 led to a more strong and lasting empire.

It forced the byzantines elites to go in the peripherical aeras, such as Western Anatolia, and to develop them when they were almost abandoned. It allowed the Byzzies to resist better against turks later.
 
1)Alexios get back Anatolia only thanks to Crusaders (after all they were originally there to help the Byzzies) and would have enough trouble re-organising and re-occupy the land to help significantly.

I was the impression that the reason Alexios didn't help the Crusaders at Antioch was because either he or one of his armies that he sent that way was misinformed by a Crusading noble who was fleeing the fight (before the Crusaders took Antioch), and that noble told Alexios (or his general) that the Crusaders had been defeated and they had all been killed.
 
Could the Knights Hospitalers or Templars gradually develop an "Orthodox" monastic outlook and serve as a bridge of sorts between Latin and Byzantine?
After all, the orders grew estranged from the Western church, although by then the Byzantines were too weak to support them directly.
 
Could the Knights Hospitalers or Templars gradually develop an "Orthodox" monastic outlook and serve as a bridge of sorts between Latin and Byzantine?
After all, the orders grew estranged from the Western church, although by then the Byzantines were too weak to support them directly.

No.​

I do not know where do you find any trace of "estrangedment" but remember that

1)Latins in Palestine differed actually from their birth place (or the one of their ancestor) but not more than Spanish differed from Italians.

2)At least 1/3 of these orders remained in Europe for logistical and training purposes

3)That theses orders were constantly recruiting western latin members

And if you find any trace of Byzantines activly supporting Latin orders, I'll give you an internet cookie :p
 
I was the impression that the reason Alexios didn't help the Crusaders at Antioch was because either he or one of his armies that he sent that way was misinformed by a Crusading noble who was fleeing the fight (before the Crusaders took Antioch), and that noble told Alexios (or his general) that the Crusaders had been defeated and they had all been killed.

What I know about this is that Tatikios-Tatizius, a byzantine general, was present during one part of the siege, but left it because he didn't tought the Crusaders could won.

He most probably had some soldiers with him, but he was there for council more than active military support.

I don't remember of any byzantine army coming to Antioch after that.
 
AHC1: Nope he won't, because he is busy with conquering the cities along the anatolian coast and Alexios I. isn't a character who would risk erverything to help some people he didn't call for. Probably someone like Manuel I. would have done it.

AHC2: To avoid Constantinople from being sacked, you just need to create some more resistance under the folks against the crusaders. In OTL just the Varagian Guard defended the city.

The usurper aren't this dumb: they are just some regional rulers/nobles so they don't have the power to challenge the emperor in Constantinople. The empeor himself likes this because he didn't have to fear to get killed, so unless there is nothing else to do they will leave these local pretenders alone. so it was after Mantzikert and after the death of Andronikos I.

In my TL i let Andronikos running amok and killing many of the nobles, who are the ones who weakens the state.
 
Treadgold states that Alexius feared that the Crusaders might become a new threat ( vis-a-vis his troubles with the Normans) and didn't want to help them, hoping they would die off now that they've helped him re conquer much of Anatolia.

But there are sources claiming that Alexios was going to helpt the Crusaders. And now I've remembered. Stephen Count of Blois, after having deserted the Crusade before the Crusaders captured Antioch, told the Emperor that the Crusaders were as good as dead (now that the unified Muslim Army beseiged them in the city) and convinced him there is another Seljuq army in Anatolia that he should worry about (there wasn't) and thus the Emperor abandoned his plans of helping the Crusaders.

As for the 1200s Treadgold points out to the political collapse of the Empire: the fact that rebellious gov'nors wanted to carve out a part of the Empire for themselves was a symptom of an Empire was too rich for its too volatile political arrangements, which had benn based on the ruling Comnenian dynasty and which worked as long as there was a good effective Emperor in place. But once that was no longer the case, everyone tried to take whatever they could and basically carve their own kingdom, as a non-Komen would be basically from the start haunted by the perception of being illegitimate, even if he took power the old way.

Anyways what I'm looking for is how could such a scenario develop (AHC1 and AHC2) with minimal butterflies, that would leave the timeline pretty much intact or at least recognisable and that would have the effect of a legacy of much less enmity between the Catholic and the Orthodox.
 
Treadgold states that Alexius feared that the Crusaders might become a new threat ( vis-a-vis his troubles with the Normans) and didn't want to help them, hoping they would die off now that they've helped him re conquer much of Anatolia.
Alexios rather hoped they would do a buffer state in the Middle-East, enough to not disturb his Fatimids allies. But indeed, Alexios didn't wanted former ennemies as Italian normans or what was percieved as unstable mercenaries (he didn't forget the first waves of crusaders that began to plunder the Thracia) as neighbours.

told the Emperor that the Crusaders were as good as dead (now that the unified Muslim Army beseiged them in the city) and convinced him there is another Seljuq army in Anatolia that he should worry about (there wasn't) and thus the Emperor abandoned his plans of helping the Crusaders.
There was another Seljuq army in Anatolia that Byzzies should worry about.

Kilij Arslan was still in the game, and was gathering was remained after the passage of crusaders in Anatolia. It's basically why Alexios focused on re-organising the byzantine army in western Anatolia.

He had enough men to crush the Crusade of 1101 3 years after.

Finally, yes, the Byzantines were REALLY cautious about crusaders, and the sware of fidelity (Alexios was clever enough to use latin institutions against them) was only a way to be sure they wouldn't turn against him too soon.

He didn't made war with normans of Antioch for giggles, but to be sure the crusader buffer-state would be that. A SURE buffer state.
 
Top