And All Nations Shall Gather To It - A Crusades TL

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Rdffigueira, Mar 3, 2017.

Loading...
  1. Rdffigueira A citizen of the Southern Hemisphere

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Location:
    BR
    "And All Nations Shall Gather To It" - A Crusades TL


    Sem título.jpg


    *****​

    Hello, friends,

    This is a story I've been writing, bit a bit, for some months now, focused on the Crusaders (with a PoD in the First Crusade), and in an alt-Kingdom of Jerusalem (let's abreviate "KOJ" to facilitate). For a set of circumstances and divergences that will be explained along the way, I believe this scenario can justify a more long-lived KOJ, and also, an even more lasting Byzantine Empire. For now, I'm focused on the First Crusade and its consequences, but later I'd love to develop this into a full-fledged centuries-long thread.

    Some months ago I posted this thread discussing the possibility that another of the leaders of the First Crusade might become King of Jerusalem instead of Godfrey of Bouillon. In one of the last posts of the thread, I explained in detail the plans I had for a TL in which Raymond of St. Giles becomes the first de facto ruler of Jerusalem, and this brings very interesting butterflies, both in the Orient and in Europe. If you want to see the point I want to get to, just check the thread linked in this paragraph.

    In short, the Point of Divergence occurs in 1099, during the Siege of Antioch. IOTL, Emperor Alexios I Komnenos was marching to Antioch to assist the Crusaders in their battle against the Turkish coalition led by the Atabeg of Mosul, but decided to turn back when he was met in Tarsus by Stephen of Blois, a deserter from the Crusade, who claimed that the Crusaders were about to be annihilated. Alexios abandoned the Crusaders and, after their surprising victory over the Turks, they considered him a traitor and oathbreaker. This was but the first of a series of grievances between the Crusaders and the Byzantine Empire, out of many others that sometimes thwarted prospects of alliances between Constantinople and Jerusalem. ITTL, Stephen of Blois does not defects from the siege of Antioch, and Alexios goes all the way to relieve the Crusaders, thus preserving the seeds for a genuine alliance between Byzantium and the future KOJ. Butterflies ensue...


    I tried to use all the English versions of both persons and places' names. In other stories I've written, I always tried to use the "native" name by which the person or place would be known in the specific period and culture it is inserted (like, for example, the name "William" in Medieval Normandy was used as "Williame", but in southern France would be "Guilhèm", and in Italy "Guglielmo". ITTL, all of them will be named simply as William, and the same goes for "Toulouse" instead of "Tolosa", for example, and "Egypt" instead of "Misr"). This might sometimes get a bit repetitive, as names such as William, Henry, Conrad, and others were very common in the Middle Ages, but it will be better for reasons of uniformity.

    The only single exception to this rule is the reference to the Byzantine Empire, Byzantium and the Byzantine people. The term, as many in this board are keen to point out, is an anachronism created in the 16th Century, and the Byzantines always referred to themselves as "Romans". Nevertheless, to avoid confusion with anything related to the ancient Roman civilization or the Roman Catholic Church, I prefered to use the terms "Rhomania" to designate the Byzantine Empire, and "Rhomaioi" or "Rhomaion".

    Also, pardon the fact that I sometimes use anachronistic terms such as "knight" (the correct in the 11th Century would be Miles), or squadron and division, and, regarding place-names, Lebanon and Iran. It is purely out of convenience to facilitate reading.

    All the dates below are set in the Common Era system. Particularly irrelevant years will go unmentioned.
    • 1095 – Council of Clermont. Pope Urban II calls the First Crusade;
    • 1098 – Siege of Antioch. POINT OF DIVERGENCE: Emperor Alexios I Komnenos arrives in Antioch with reinforcements and defeats the combined Muslim army led by Radwan of Aleppo, Duqaq of Damascus and Kerbogha of Mosul;
    • 1099 – The Crusaders march through Syria and Lebanon into Palestine. Siege, capture and massacre of Jerusalem. Raymond of Toulouse becomes Prince of Jerusalem/Duke of Galilee and Adhemar of Le Puy becomes (Latin) Archbishop of Jerusalem. The Crusaders defeat the Fatimids in Gaza and take Ascalon with the help of a Genoese Fleet;
    • 1100 – Pope Paschal II summons the “After-Crusade” (or Crusade of the Faint-Hearted). Armies coming mainly from southern and central France, northern Italy and southern Germany/Austria go to the Outremer.
    • 1101 – The Lombards are massacred by the Rûm Seljuks in Anatolia. The newly arrived French and German Crusaders, assisted by a “Byzantine” force, in turn inflict a decisive defeat upon the Seljuks, allowing the Empire to reconquer Cappadocia and Paphlagonia, and to reinforce the suzerainty over the Armenians of Cilicia. Later that year, the new Crusader army helps the Latin-Levantine force of Prince Raymond in expelling another large Egyptian army, led by Vizier al-Malik al-Afdal Shāhanshāh in Gaza and Rafah;
    • 1102 – The reinforced Crusader army, having previously secured Jaffa, captures Acre and Tyre;
    • 1103 – Radwan of Aleppo becomes the ruler of Homs and Mosul, and the suzerain over Tripoli in Lebanon. Duqaq raids Palestine, but fails to expel the Crusaders. In Jerusalem, Alfonso-Jordan, Raymond’s second son, is born, and Adhemar of Le Puy dies.
    • 1104 – Gerard of Amalfi becomes Archbishop of Jerusalem, and some reinforcements arrive from France, with Bertrand, the son of Raymond, arriving in the same time. Duqaq of Damascus dies, succeeded by Tutush II. In Anatolia, the Danishmends defeat the remnant of the Rûm Seljuks and slay Kilij Arslan, reducing them to a rump state in the northern part of the peninsula. The “Byzantines” form an alliance with the Danishmends’ enemies and contain them, retaking Paphlagonia to the empire;
    • 1109 – The Sunni Caliph forges an alliance between Radwan of Aleppo, Ilghazi of the Artuqids, Sökmen of the Shah-Armens and the Fatimids, with the intent of invading Jerusalem. The “Syrian Jihad”, as it becomes known, is initially successful, with the Fatimids besieging Jerusalem with the Damascenes, and the Turco-Syrians besieging Tyre after defeating Raymond’s Crusader army in Tebnine. An army of Italo-Normans and “Byzantines” arrive and relieve Tyre, later to defeat the main body of the Muslim army besieging Jerusalem. The Komnenoi fleet destroys the Fatimid navy off the coast of Egypt. The counterattack of the Crusaders expels the Turks from Palestine, but they remain in Lebanon and Syria.
    • 1110/1111 – King Sigurd of Norway arrives [Norwegian Crusade]. With this reinforcement, the Crusaders capture Sidon and Beirut and then march into eastern Lebanon, attacking Toghtekin’s newly created Emirate of Baalbek. He is defeated and the Crusaders obtain the surrender of Zahlé and Baalbek. Raymond dies in early 1101. Bohemond becomes Prince of Jerusalem by the consent of the nobles.
    • 1113 – Toghtekin is assassinated. His son Buri becomes Emir of Homs, but is soon dethroned and forced to flee to the court of the Great Seljuks. The Turco-Syrian aristocrat Al-Himsi becomes the Emir instead.
    • 1115/1116 – Bohemond leads the Crusaders to besiege Damascus, now ruled by Baktash, Tutush II’s uncle. After almost a year of failed attempts of taking it by storm, the Crusaders lift the siege, accepting tribute from Damascus.
    • 1120 - Bohemond dies. First Conclave of Jerusalem is held, electing his distant cousin Robert of the Marquisate (Marchisus or of Buonalbergo) to be the third Prince of Jerusalem and Duke of Galilee. The results are disputed by the sole surviving Hauteville nobleman in the Outremer, Humphrey of Cannae, but his rebellion in Tyre ends in failure.
    • 1121/1123 - The Latin Principality obtains the vassalage of some Syrian provinces in the upper Orontes valley, and later its noblemen orchestrate expeditions in northwestern Syria, capturing Masyaf, Maarat al-Nu'maan and Apamea, all of which are incorporated into the Bavarian March of Tortosa, but fail to take Shayzar. Prince Robert dies during a raiding incursion.
    • 1124 - Another Italo-Norman lord related to the Hautevilles, Richard of Salerno, is elected. A treaty establishes the border between the Crusaders and the "Byzantine" Empire in Laodicea ad Mare.
    • 1124/1127 - The Latin Principality annex the main cities in Oultrejordain (Amman, Madaba, Ajloun and Ma'an), consolidating their hold over Palestine.

    Useful online Encyclopedia about the Crusades. Many characters and places I mention are referred here, in alphabetical order, so don't forget to take a look:

    https://erenow.com/postclassical/crusades/
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  2. Threadmarks: ACT I - 'DEUS VULT'

    Rdffigueira A citizen of the Southern Hemisphere

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Location:
    BR


    ACT I - DEUS VULT (1099-1100 A.D.)



    At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the LORD, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the LORD in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil heart.


    (Bible. Jeremiah 3:17)








    *****​

    Pope-Urban-II-Crusade-Clermont.jpg


    In the year of 1095 Anno Domini, Pope Urban II assembled a council in the French city of Clermont, aggregating nobles, clergymen and commoners to discuss various matters, including the excommunication of the then King of France, Phillip I, and the formalization of a series of rules and setlines to withhold the Truce of God. In the last of a series of synods held in these cold November days, facing hundreds of spectators in an expansive field outside the walled city, the Pope made an inflamed speech, describing the plight and suffering of their siblings in the distant Orient, in the land of mystical Jerusalem, in the hands of the infidels, and heeded the faithful of Christ to cease fratricide wars among themselves and to join arms against the pagans in the Orient, and to liberate the sacrosanct places from their hold.

    Pope Urban II, according to his latter correspondence with the bishops and abbots of France and Germany, admitted that, in these cold November days of 1095, even he could not have fathomed the repercussions of his summon, which sparked the very first Crusade.

    Militarized expeditions agglomerating a multitude of peoples with the single purpose of achieving a spiritual reward, the Crusades were extraordinary episodes, and would for centuries shape the worldview of monarchs, popes and peasants. The concept of a “holy war” was not new, of course, and it had been adopted as a pretext by Charlemagne in his bloody wars against the Saxons and Avars, and by various Iberian, Italian and German lords to prosecute campaigns against their non-Christian neighbors, be them Moors, Saracens or Slavs. In 1095, however, a new kind of “holy war” was conceived and developed, directly associated with the archaic concept of “just war”, and conjoined the ultimate paradox of the Christian Medieval Europe: the conciliation of the Christian theological dogmas of peace and spiritual candidness with the sociopolitical structures orbited around violence and war. For the first time in Christian history, war itself became the path to salvation and redemption. The shedding of blood of the so-called “infidels” was a righteous task that allowed both commoner and aristocrat to achieve the final reward in the otherworld.

    In this context, the First Crusade was perhaps one of the most extraordinary of these exalted expeditions, congregating at first an army of plebeians led by charismatic preachers, and, later, by highborn magnates with their private armies, that went on foot from the confines of Latin Europe all the way to the Orient, and, after years of tribulations, facing the mightiest Islamic potentates, succeeded in wrestling the Holy City by fire and sword.


    A detailed map of the First Crusade (in French). Right-click it and open in another tab to see it full size.

    Carte_de_la_premiere_croisade.jpg

    To their contemporaries, the victory of the Crusaders was nothing short of miraculous, and many believed that God himself had bestowed his favor on the pilgrims to prosecute His divine work. Indeed, whatever battle that they might have lost, whatever help that they might have not received, whatever new enemy that they might have to fight, any of these, if it had occurred differently, might have spelt the end of the Crusade. Yes, the First Crusade could have been terminated in the battlefields of Nicaea and Dorylaeum, where they triumphed over the mighty Seljuk Turks; it could have been disintegrated by petty ambitions and contempt between the magnates in their journey through Asia Minor; it could have ended with a starving and exhausted bunch of men and women exterminated by the combined armies of the princes of Syria near the walls of Antioch; it could have been finished in the very end, if they had failed to wrestle holy Jerusalem from the infidels, as the grand army of the Caliph of Egypt came from the Nile.

    Yet, the Crusaders triumphed in every of these clashes, their indomitable will and their spiritual resolve unshaken by famine, deprivation, tiredness, and so forth.

    Perhaps the most miraculous of these episodes was the victory in Antioch, after the Crusaders withstood a protracted and exhausting siege, only to be, afterwards, besieged by a vast army of Turkish barbarians. In these fateful days, in 1098, the Crusade might have ended, if it was not for the fortuitous arrival of a relief army led by Basileus Alexios I Komnenos, the Caesar of Constantinople, and greatest ally of the Crusaders.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2017
  3. DracoLazarus Ouroborus Cataphractus

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2015
    Location:
    Isola Electris, Empire of the Sky Isles
    This looks interesting, I'll keep an eye on it.
     
    Rdffigueira likes this.
  4. St. Just STOP BUMPING STOP BUMPING STOP BUMPING THREADS

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    The DMV
    Oh ho I am here for this
     
    Rdffigueira likes this.
  5. ImperatorAlexander Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Definitely an interesting POD, subbed.
     
    Rdffigueira likes this.
  6. Rdffigueira A citizen of the Southern Hemisphere

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Location:
    BR
    Thanks for the support, I appreciate it, and hope that it achieves your expectations, my friends :)

    Now, we'll see the details about the PoD itself.
     
  7. Threadmarks: 2. The Siege of Antioch and the Battle on the Orontes (1097-1098)

    Rdffigueira A citizen of the Southern Hemisphere

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Location:
    BR
    Battle of Antioch.jpg


    The mighty and proud metropolis of Antioch, cradled in the gentle flow of the Orontes River, for eight arduous months withstood a siege conducted by these Frankish invaders, between October 1097 and June 1098.

    The Crusaders, in two amazing victories attributed to the charismatic leadership of the Italo-Norman prince Bohemond of Taranto, had surprised and routed a relief force led by Abu Nasr Shams al-Muluk Duqaq, the Emir of Damascus [Dimashq] (31 December 1097) and afterwards vanquished an army led by his older brother, Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan, the Sultan of Aleppo [Halab] (9 February 1098).

    The greatest battle of the whole Crusade, however, had yet to come. In the month of May 1098, the ambitious Atabeg of Mosul, a lowborn Turkish warlord named Kerbogha, arrived with a vast army from Mesopotamia, allied with Radwan of Aleppo and Duqaq of Damascus, his former rivals.

    By then, the Crusaders had successfully entered Antioch, because of the deceit of an Armenian traitor named Firouz, who had contacted Bohemond weeks earlier and agreed to open the gates in exchange for a prize. The Crusaders, heeded by a gleeful Bohemond, penetrated the city and slaughtered its inhabitants, leaving the streets and house walls stained with blood. The bloodied head of the governor, Yaghi-Siyan, was given to the triumphant Italo-Norman prince.

    Now, however, the Crusaders saw themselves forced into a defensive position, trapped inside the walls of Antioch like easy preys, and Atabeg Kerbogha, confident in his numerical superiority and in the dwindling resources of the defenders, simply erected a camp for his troops and encircled the metropolis, expecting the Latins to starve to death. Alas, after months of hardships and tribulations, and the violent delights exacted upon the hapless citizens of Antioch, it appeared that the ancient city founded by Antiochus the Great would also become the cemetery for the whole pilgrimage.

    What the Turkish warlords did not know, however, was that the Rhomaion Basileus Alexios I Komnenos – to whom the Crusader princes owed nominal vassalage – was coming from Cilicia to assist his Latin allies and relieve the siege.


    *****​


    The Rhomaioi vanguard, led by the emperor’s trusted general Tatikios, came in middle June to harass the besieging forces, and successfully dislodged them from their position, buying the Crusaders some time until the main Rhomaioi column arrived. The Franks themselves were unaware about Alexios’ approach, and were surprised by the sudden departure of the Turkish besiegers.

    In late June 1098, the Turks under Atabeg Kerbogha, now assembled in a promontory near the shore of the Orontes River, gave battle to the combined Latin and Rhomaioi forces, and were soundly defeated. The Muslims were expecting to fight against exhausted and starving bands of Crusaders, but were instead attacked by veteran Tagmata of the Empire, whose mobile forces, assisted by the mercenary Pecheneg horse cavalry, cut off the enemies’ retreat and permitted the heavy infantry to prosecute a massacre against the disorganized Turkish and Syrian spearmen. In the shores of the Orontes, the Rhomaioi gleefully avenged the humiliation suffered in Manzikert, barely a generation earlier.

    Radwan of Aleppo deserted his allies in the fray, and later would benefit from a convenient truce with the Christian enemies, and Duqaq of Damascus escaped, while Atabeg Kerbogha of Mosul was made prisoner, and forced to accept the emperor’s suzerainty. He would soon lose his throne in a coup orchestrated by the elite of Mosul – whose aristocrats despised him for his barbarian origins and invited the deceitful Sultan of Aleppo to become the ruler of the province – and would die in 1100, after failing to restore his rule over Mosul against Radwan’s troops.

    Some revisionist interpretations – mostly critics of Anna Komnena’s chronicle that describes her father Alexios I as the ultimate guardian of the Crusade – have questioned the strategical purpose of the emperor’s campaign to Syria. It seems, indeed, that he was tempted to leave the Crusaders to their own fate, feeling that they had already outlived their usefulness to the Empire. It is almost certain that the whole expedition would have been bloodily terminated in the shores of the Orontes River if they did not receive relief from Constantinople [Konstantinoúpolis]. The odds against the Latins were overwhelming, even more than in Nicaea, Dorylaeum and later in Gaza.

    At the time, Rhomanía was struggling to recover its lost territories in Asia Minor, which had been conquered and settled by the Turkish nomads led by the Seljuk warlords. Alexios’ military and diplomatic efforts warranted the recovery of Bithynia, Ionia, Lycia and recently Pamphylia, with Cilicia inhabited mostly by non-hostile Armenians in nominal vassalage (but de facto independence). Thus, a thin stretch of disintegrated land along the coast of Anatolia held the connection between Constantinople and Syria, the transport, communication and supply lines preserved only by the incessant activity of the Imperial navy. The destruction or subjugation of the Turks in Asia Minor was a much more urgent necessity for the welfare of the empire than the recapture of Antioch, whose geographic situation made it more of a liability than an aspiration.

    Nevertheless, this assessment is not entirely correct. In fact, it glosses over some points brought forward by the contemporary sources.

    First of all, we must never forget that Alexios I Komnenos, much like his predecessors who wore the purple toga, was very serious about his self-ascribed role as protector of the eastern Christians (including the Antiochene and Jerusalemite churches), and the preservation of stability in the pilgrimage routes to the Holy Land (which invariably put Antioch in its path) was a genuine political and religious concern of his. Besides, western Syria, even after the generations of warfare and destruction caused by the Turkish invasion, was still a prosperous and fertile region, and a focal point of the commercial routes coming from Persia and Arabia, thus making it convenient to have a politico-administrative presence in the region. Finally, one must take notice that the Turkish power in Asia Minor was rapidly deteriorating, in the wake of the dynastic quarrels between Alp Arslan’s successors. By employing shrewd diplomacy and bestowing promises and fictive support among the contenders, Alexios ensured a state of grave division between the Turks, and their weakness permitted him to steadily resume the Rhomaion hegemony over western Asia. This also means that solidifying his hold over Syria and pledging support for a friendly Christian army in the Levant created a very convenient state of turmoil in the Near East.

    _______________

    The PoD is this, then. IOTL, Aléxios was marching to Antioch to relieve the Crusaders, but was informed by Stephen of Blois, himself a deserter, that the Crusade was undone. ITTL, Stephen remained in Antioch – after all, he departed back to Europe a single day before Bohemond successfully obtained the entrance of the Crusaders with the collaboration with Firouz. Thus, Aléxios, who had designs on Antioch and trusted the Empire would benefit from the weakening of the Turkish princes in the Near East, arrives just in time to save the Latins.

    Also, IOTL, the Crusaders fought and defeated the Egyptian Fatimids in the battle of Ascalon, barely a week after the bloody capture of Jerusalem. ITTL, due to the diverging circumstances, the decisive battle against the Egyptians will occur near the fort of Gaza (so far a Fatimid outpost), as we’ll see later.

    And, for those who don't know, the Christian peoples of Western Europe were usually put in the same bag as "Franks" in the point of view of the Byzantines and the Muslims in general. So, don't be surprised if you see Italians, Germans and English called "Franks". The name went well beyond the French people.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2017
  8. Balaur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    This is quite interesting so far.
    I appreciate recapping the period beforehand so that people not that familiar with the period can follow what's going on.
     
    Rdffigueira likes this.
  9. MERRICA No More Talk! WE.BRING.WAR!! Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Location:
    Michigan
    Quite interesting, watched!
     
    Rdffigueira likes this.
  10. takerma Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2015
    Very interesting. Great POD. Subscribed!
     
    Rdffigueira likes this.
  11. Zulfurium Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    This is certainly interesting.

    Have you considered what the impact of Stephen of Blois not deserting might have further down the line. IOTL he ended up joining the minor 1101 crusade and died at the Battle of Ramla. His son would go on to become Stephen I of England with the Anarchy and all that. If he stays till the end of the crusade without the shame of deserting, which was given as the cause for him participating in the 1101 crusade, he might end up messing with things in France. It seems like Stephen was closer to his oldest son William and with him potentially living a while longer you might end up with William succeeding him instead of his younger brother Theobald who was put forward by his mother. Lots of potential shenanigans in France and England
     
  12. Yanez de Gomera notorious procrastinator

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Location:
    il bel paese là, dove 'l sì suona
    Very interesting!
    (Could we see a marriage between Bohemond and Anna Komnene? Not very serious, but it could be something to see.)
     
    Rdffigueira likes this.
  13. Rdffigueira A citizen of the Southern Hemisphere

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Location:
    BR
    Thanks for the input, that's a very interesting observation. One of the worst things about writing a TL is that many times we simply fail to consider interesting divergences that might spring about from the PoD. I certainly had not forgotten about Stephen of Blois and, indeed, he goes all the way to the end of the First Crusade. Afterwards, as we'll see soon enough in future chapters, the Crusade of 1101 will have a lot more significance than IOTL (where it basically failed after the battles against Kilij Arslan in Asia Minor), but Stephen of Blois will not be participating on it, so, indeed, his death in Ramla is avoided altogether. From there onwards, I must confess I hadn't considered how this might affect the feudal succession in Blois, and much less the succession in Norman England. One thing we can be certain: the sheer distance and timeliness of the PoD will not prevent William Adelin's death, and so Anarchy might happen similar to OTL.

    Now, my approach in writing this TL is to point my absolute focus in the Crusading expeditions, in the KOJ itself, and, if necessary, on the affairs of their neighbors (Byzantium, Egypt, Syria and Armenian Cilicia). I'll try to avoid going into deep details about European feudal politics, only if they are necessary to understand the developments in Jerusalem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not discarding the points you raised (on the contrary, I'm really thankful for it) it's just a matter of narrative focus for me. I tend to get really bogged down in details if I indulge myself (as my first abortive TL atests), and I've found out that creating a more focused path helps in creating a more stable narrative. But I'll surely take in consideration your suggestions, as I liked them very much.

    Also, this post goes for any of the readers: any interesting divergences and implications you can bring to improve the narrative, will be very much welcomed. I have a general timeline sketched, but the filling of the details is extremely important, and I'd love to depend on you guys for it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2017
  14. Rdffigueira A citizen of the Southern Hemisphere

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Location:
    BR
    I have some plans for Bohemond, and, like OTL, it involves the attempt of establishing a personal realm for himself in the Orient, but it will take some time. His warpath won't be as destructive as OTL, and won't make him a persona non grata in Byzantium because of the fact that he never becomes Prince of Antioch. Nevertheless, his relationship with Alexios isn't really good, and the Byzantine emperors as a rule will seek alliances directly with the rulers of Jerusalem. In this regard, a marriage between Anna and Bohemond doesn't yields a lot of fruits for Byzantium.

    About Anna Komnene herself, that would be harder... she was married to Nikephoros Bryennios (the Younger) since she was 14 years-old (in 1097, shortly after the PoD), and after he died, in 1137, she retired to a convent. Unless I kill off poor Nikephoros (which I confess it's not something I considered so far), there wouldn't be a window of opportunity allowing a marriage between Bohemond and the Byzantine princess.
     
    Gladsome likes this.
  15. Avalon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Awesome story. Subbed. One question though are you going to be using the Chaos Theory Butterfly Affect or the Cause and Effect one?
     
    Rdffigueira likes this.
  16. JohnSmith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Great start. It'll be interesting how you balance a even more resurgent ERE with a stronger Crusader states. Even in OTL the Emperors always held designs on the Holy Land and Egypt, providing the Empire a stronger foothold in the levant will more closely intertwine them with the KoJ.
     
    Gladsome, Hidden and Rdffigueira like this.
  17. King of the Uzbeks Charles Curtis is my Baby Daddy

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Location:
    Not-Tashkent (sadly)
    Wweeeeeeeeeeeeeee
     
    Rdffigueira likes this.
  18. ImperatorAlexander Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Legionaries? I think the Empire is centuries removed from using that language to describe its troops. But for stylistic/narrative purposes I think Tagmata sounds just as cool :)
     
  19. Rdffigueira A citizen of the Southern Hemisphere

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Location:
    BR
    There we have the million-dollar question, my friend.

    Well, in short, I intend to use the "Cause of Effect" theory, even if I personally believe that the Chaos Theory makes more sense from a philosophical perspective (my opinion, I know many members don't agree). My point is that things are likely to stay the same as IOTL unless a divergence is mentioned, and, at least in the few centuries more close to the divergence, the impact of the PoD remains fairly contained.

    From a narrative standpoint, I'd like to have a TL where we see similar patterns of historical developments (like many scientific discoveries such as that of gunpowder, ocean-worthy sailing, etc.), and world-changing events (such as the Mongol Invasions, the discovery of the Americas, and so forth), even if they happen due to different set of circumstances. As Practical Lobster uses to say in his excellent "White Huns" TL, the more interesting about Alt-Hist is to have a world that is at the same time recognizable due to the existence of some patterns and premises, but at the same completely alien due to a series of accumulated divergences.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2017
  20. Rdffigueira A citizen of the Southern Hemisphere

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Location:
    BR
    For now, the Empire is still in dire straits, with the Turks roaming in Asia Minor, and the threat of the Cumans looms in Europe. Even if I suppose that Alexios would be favorable to adopting a policy of establishing a minor occupation in Syria - at least in Antioch, St. Symeon and Latakya - he for now has no purpose of wasting the Empire's resources to prosecute wars in the Levant and Mesopotamia (excepting naval operations in the eastern Mediterranean), so the Crusaders are, for the time being, in their own in Jerusalem.

    I do not believe that a resurgent Empire will necessarily be hostile towards the Crusader States, but I see that once both powers become safer from foreign threats, complications might appear in their relationship. As long as the Latins don't alienate the native Orthodox populations in Asia, the Empire won't see them as a concern, but as an asset against the Muslims.

    I supposed that "legionaries" even outside of a Roman context might be a convenient sinonym for "soldier", but yea, you are right, it does sounds a bit anachronistic. I'll change the text above, thanks for the suggestion.
     
    Gladsome and Soverihn like this.
Loading...