So far the crusaders/byzantium are in their preparing phase, and must build fortifications, defenses, and armies to protect itself from the next apocalypse......
And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace
- Thread starter Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)
- Start date
Ah the good old Mongols. Genghis Khan won't be born for another 60 years but the Mongols are already preparing to conquer half the known world because they are the exception to everything.
Byzantine Crusader relations should be pretty solid at least during the rest of Alexios' and John's reigns and whatever atl Manuel succeeds him down the line. The Komnenians, comparatively speaking, were pretty tolerant/ friendly with the Western Christians, with the exception of the Normans. They hated the Normans with a passion. Should another dynasty take power in Constantinople that is not as amicable or capable as the Komnenoi, then the Crusaders might jump ship and turn on them to gain some concessions or to increase their autonomy, however nominal it currently is.
Last edited:
16. The Two Armenias (1101)
Representation of the "Lion with the Cross", symbol of the Armenian Dynasty of Ani, the last independent Armenian polity in the Medieval Era, which would later be reused by the Rubenid princes of Cilicia
The country of Cilicia in the late 11th Century became home and refuge for the Armenians, a hardy race coming from the highlands and plateaus south of the Caucasus Mountains and north of Mesopotamia, whose heart was the country between Lake Van and Mount Ararat, the very place where the Ark of Noah had docked after the waters of the Deluge drained. For millennia, the Armenians had fashioned their homes and traditions in these primeval valleys and daunting crags, ever since the age of the Babylonians and Assyrians.
Throughout the centuries, their fortunes waxed and waned, but wise monarchs ensured the survival of their customs and lineages even in during the eternal wars between the great empires of the Occident and of the Orient, from the age of Alexander the Great to the reign of the Abbasids. Even when the kingdom were to disappear from the maps, cannibalized by hungry monarchies such as those of the Persians or of the Romans, Armenian civilization still existed, in the minds and hearts of these indomitable clans and families.
In 1045 A.D., the lands of Armenia had been incorporated into Rhōmanía, whose Emperors deposed the proud Bagratuni dynasty, taking their last King Gagik II as a hostage to Constantinople. In less than a generation, however, the mighty Seljuks came from Persia and collapsed the whole of Asia east of Anatolia and south of Georgia. The legendary Armenian capital of Ani, with its thousand churches, was razed by Alp Arslan (1064), with so much violence that the dead bodies came to block the streets, and one could not go anywhere without stepping over them.
Yet, even as their homeland became a ghost kingdom, without a Christian crowned prince to pass laws and judgments, the Armenians migrated, conquered and thrived. Linked solely by their common language and ancestry, by their elder customs and by their devoutedness to the oriental Christian doctrine of Miaphysitism, the Armenians in bands, clans and caravans, went to seek new kingdoms and settlements in Anatolia, in Syria, in Georgia and in the Levant.
*****
The western European media, even to our days, likes to portray this period of Armenian History in dramatic overtones of “exile”, usually associated with the Biblical narratives of the Hebraic enslavement by the Egyptians, or the Babylonian captivity, as well as with the apocalyptic ideology of perdition and salvation that became so popular during the Crusader epoch. However, we must understand that this crystallized picture of the Armenian diaspora is mostly exaggerated by contemporary sources. We can hardly conceive a full-fledged migration of Armenian from their homeland, but rather small-scale establishments of landless nobles, accompanied by their retinues and kinfolks, as well as pulverized bands of adventurers and freebooters who sought to increase their own standing in the lawless eternal and turbulent frontier between Oriental Christendom and Islam, with a notable example being Philaretos Brachamios [Pilartos Varazhnuni], who had established a principality stretching from the Taurus range to the Euphrates basin.
Among these conquerors, the most successful were certainly the Rubenids [Roupenids], a noble dynasty descended from the vanquished Kings of Ani, which, in the late 11th Century, was headed by a nakharar named Ruben [Roupen]. He had coalesced a faction of disgruntled lords against the regime of Constantinople, and, after the collapse of Philaretos Brachamios’ state, established himself in the citadel of Vahka [Feke], in the former Rhōmaîōn province of Cilicia, just in the southern fringe of the Taurus mountains. Indeed, Cilicia had become a no-man’s-land during the centuries of conflict between Rhōmanía and the Umayyad Caliphate, but during the Macedonian renaissance, they had reannexed it, only so it could be lost to the hordes of Turcomans brought by the Great Seljuks. Now, as the Great Seljuk empire was collapsing, Cilicia (as well as Syria, Mesopotamia, and Armenia itself) became disputed grounds in the conflicts between the Turkish invaders, the native Greek-speaking Anatolian peoples, as well as Armenian, Syrian and Kurdish adventurers.
Prince Ruben was de facto a sovereign ruler – he likely sought one day to resurrect the defunct Armenian monarchy – and increased his own fief by aggregating a constellation of towns and strongholds protected by the giant shield of the Taurus mountains, such as Pardzepert [m. Andırın], Sis [m. Kozan], Anazarbus [m. Anavarza] and Pendhòsis [m. Pozantı]. His popularity and his following increased tenfold due to his victories over the Rûm Turks and the preservation of his realm against the greedy Danishmends, so that by the end of the 11th Century, the framework for what would be called the “Armenian Realm of Cilicia” had already been established – also named “Lesser Armenia”, while their homeland in the Caucasus region became retrospectively known as “Greater Armenia”.
By the time of the First Crusade, however, Ruben had been submitted by the sole unconquerable enemy – time – and anguished in senile daydreams in his palace in Vahka while his son and heir, Constantine [Konstandin], who fashioned himself a purple-born despot because of his marriage to Theophano, the grandniece of the deceased Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas, conducted actual administrative and military affairs.
*****
In the eternal war against the Muslims – namely the Turkish conquerors which disputed pieces of the wreckage of the great Seljuk kingdom – the Armenians would find a common cause with the Crusaders. As it usually happens in circumstances of conflict, bonds of friendship and esteem are forged by those fighting in the same side of the battlefield; in this case, the Christian faithful, even if centuries of dogmatic factionalism had preserved a stark distinction between the Latin and the Oriental creeds. As the Crusaders arrived in their new realm (since 1097 A.D.), the Armenians would give them moral and material support, even if they did not believe these mad adventurers and pilgrims could truly succeed in vanquishing the mighty Islamic monarchies. In fact, resources brought from the Armenian coast and valleys had assuaged the suffering of the exhausted Crusaders as they wasted their miserable lives before the walls of the great Antioch that sat upon the Orontes River.
If the Crusaders might be seen as convenient allies by Armenian eyes, the Emperor in Constantinople was certainly not. Despised out of his haughtiness in proclaiming himself the regent of God in Earth, out his greed in exacting tribute from a people suffering from deprivation, and out of his patronage for a rejected theological doctrine (Chalcedonianism), this abstract and distant personage, “the Basileus and Autokratōr”, was always regarded as a self-indulgent tyrant ruling over a debauched court of many vices, while the Armenians regarded themselves the tireless champions of the true faith in the desolate frontier against the heathens.
For these reasons, the approach of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, coming from Iconium together with the Europeans, panicked the so-called “Lord of the Mountains”, Constantine I Rubenid, as he, like his father, had become used to his independence, and had spent resources and efforts to quench foreign invasions by Turks and Kurds alike.
*****
Alexios took the very existence of the Rubenids in Cilicia as a direct threat to his power. Not due to their geographic extent or disponible resources – in 1101, they were a minor princedom clinged to the collapsed remnants of Rhōmaîōi administration like leeches parasiting a moribund man – but, in fact, by their potential to grow in the lawless frontier as a greater threat to the Rhōmaîōi restoration. The memory of the usurpation of Philaretos Brachamios was very recent (he had died in circa 1090), and Alexios, now that his throne and his succession had been secured and his prestige elevated by triumphs not seen since the age of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer, sought to curb any expansionist designs that might threat the divine monarchy of Constantinople. The Rubenids ought to be contained, lest they might seize the whole of Cilicia, jeopardizing imperial interests in Cappadocia, Greater Armenia and Syria, much like the Danishmends and the other Turkic polities.
The Crusaders had expected that Alexios would return to Constantinople after the peace treaty with Kilij Arslan was signed, and were thus surprised when he explained that first and foremost he must voyage to Cilicia as well.
The Emperor arrived with the Crusaders in Tarsus already in the month of September 1101 A.D. The Cilician-Armenian court had been established in the stronghold of Vakha, as we have seen, but Constantinople only recognized Tarsus as the official gubernatorial seat. Prince Constantine of Armenia, realizing he was in a precarious position now that the Rhōmaîōi had triumphed over the Rûm Seljuks, dared not test the good will of the former suzerain, and thus voyaged to Tarsus to meet the Basileus.
To his surprise, the Komnenos Emperor presented himself not as a conqueror or a triumphator, but rather as a mentor, or even as a father embracing an estranged son, whose smooth words spoke of trust, friendship and alliance against the “darkness of the crescent”. Yes, the Emperor, distant and solitary as he was in the Throne of the Caesars, had heard about and applauded the victories of Ruben of Ani against the cursed “Scythians”, while he, Prince Constantine, was deserving also of praise, his own name bringing a promise of Christian rebirth in the eastern frontier.
Indeed, during the week’s Sunday prayers in Tarsus, the metropolitan prelate retold the Biblical parable of the prodigal son, an obvious inference that left Constantine unquiet. The Emperor did not seek war, and seemed willing to recognize the Armenian regime in Cilicia, but it was clear that he would not tolerate dreams of reconquest and glory, but solely the fulfillment of the duties to the Empire. Even if the Emperor was, at heart, a soldier, he knew that most of the times the interests of the Empire were better safeguarded by diplomacy and ceremony than by war. The tour de force in Cilician Armenia served this purpose: Alexios for the time being had no resources to spare in the military reconquest and occupation of such a perilous region, and considered the Seljuks in Asia and the Cumans and Normans in Europe to be much more immediate threats. Nevertheless, his mere presence in Cilicia right after a victory against the Turks would demonstrate to both Christians and Muslims that the country of the Armenians – both Lesser and Greater Armenias – was still an integral part of the empire, and would be safeguarded by Constantinople.
Constantine was savvy enough to see through the masquerade, but, realizing that it was not the time to show strength, he decided to play his role in the farce, prostrating himself at the feet of the monarch and proclaiming undying loyalty to the defender of the faith, gladly receiving precious gifts, as a vassal was expected to receive from the liege. In return, Constantine was recognized as “Doux of Cilicia”, and granted the right to levy troops and collect taxes in the Emperor’s name, an arrangement supposed to avoid frictions for the time being.
These solemnities also catered to Imperial interests by impressing the recently arrived Crusaders, as they, coming a society that put enormous value in the divinely ordered relation between a suzerain and his subordinates, were left overawed by the sheer aura and puissance of the Constantinopolitan monarchy, whose kings were always clad in gold and silk and purple. From whichever destitute village from France or pig-farm in Germany each of these pilgrims had come, he would certainly be stupefied and dazzled by such a gilded display of authority.
Alexios did not remain for long, however. With the communications and transport routes through western Asia Minor secured for now, he intended to employ his resources to rebuild and repopulate the settlements in Anatolia, fortifying Iconium and Ancyra as bases from whence other expeditions could be undertaken against the Turks in the next campaigning seasons.
The Crusaders followed their way, crossing the Amanus Mountains – the range that separates Cilicia from Syria – in October 1101, arriving in Antioch in the same month.
______________________________________
Comments and Notes: First of all, I know that the flag I posted above is NOT the one that effectivelly used by the Armenian Roupenids in Cilicia. In fact, they used the red lion rampant motif (link), but it seems that this symbol would only be used in earnest by King Hetoum, who founded the Hetoumid dynasty (and would later by also used by the Lusignan family of Cyprus). The Lion with the Cross was a symbol of the monarchy of Ani, and, considering that Ruben himself claimed heritage from the Kings of Ani, even if he did not repeat their heraldry (and heraldry was very informal in these days anyway...), it could be a fitting imagery for a legitimate successor to the Kingdom of Armenia.
The mention about the Ark of Noah in Mt. Ararat is actually based on the Bible. The Book of Genesis (KJV 8:4) says that the ark came to rest there after the Flood; this also explains why, much later, the term "Caucasians" was used in race-definitions, side by side with "Semitic" and "Hammite" (in analogy to the sons of Noah), because supposedly mankind would have spread from the Caucasus.
The description of the massacre of Ani by the Seljuks is quoted word-by-word from the eyewitness account of Sibt ibn al-Jawzi, just so you know I'm not trying to demonize the Turks or the Muslims in general. On the other hand, as I said in the chapter itself, even if the Armenian Kingdom ceased to exist as a sovereign polity, it is certain that the Armenian proto-national identity - based on ethnic and traditional ties - still remained, but there was a trend for military adventurism in the nearby regions by Armenian warlords, taking advantage of the chaotic state of the Seljuk conquest of the Near East.
Philaretos Brachamios is an interesting historical character, and is a fascinating example of the "spirit of the ages" in the Orient during the eve of the Crusading/Komnenoi era. He went unmentioned so far because he died just a few years before the First Crusade, and his large principality did not survive him. In fact, the Crusader County of Edessa, founded by Baldwin of Boulogne, was built from the "wreckage" of Brachamios' monarchy, now partitioned between the Turkic conquerors and minor Armenian lords.
Last edited:
@Rdffigueira Didn't the crescent come to be associated with Islam only in the 19th century, because of the Ottoman flag?
It is true that the "crescent" as a symbol for Islam only became popularized in the 19th Century, but its actual usage in Islamic imagery predates it. The Mamluks of Egypt, for example, already used a crescent-shape on a gold banner, in the 13th - 14th Centuries. Of course, is still somewhat out of our timeframe, but I don't think is too out of place to be considered anachronistic.
For both parties involved, indeed it is. "Byzantium" surely knew how to do diplomacy, and its arguably a feature that ensured their long-term survival.
It's nice to see some diplomacy at work enough if it is just lip service on both sides. At the very least it allows the Armenians and the Byzantines to direct their energies elsewhere at least for the time being.
So where is the frontier for the crusaders at this time being in Anatolia and in Levant?
I'm not sure if I understood your question. If you were refering to the geographic boundaries of the Crusader States, so far we have basically very small and remote territories:
1) the County of Edessa (in modern Turkey, its right in the southeast, near the border with Syria, with the modern city of Sanliurfa being ancient Edessa, and Samsat being Samosata) is still a tiny and disjointed bunch of border strongholds, with the local Armenians having accepted Baldwin of Boulogne as their chief.
2) the *Kingdom of Jerusalem itself (whose official name would be something like the Principality of Jerusalem or just Duchy of Galilee to avoid monarchist trappings), which for the time being consists of the historicall regions of Galilee, Samaria and Philistine (corresponding more or less to modern south half of Israel and the whole of Cisjordania), including Gaza Strip.
2) the *Kingdom of Jerusalem itself (whose official name would be something like the Principality of Jerusalem or just Duchy of Galilee to avoid monarchist trappings), which for the time being consists of the historicall regions of Galilee, Samaria and Philistine (corresponding more or less to modern south half of Israel and the whole of Cisjordania), including Gaza Strip.
Add to that the "Byzantine" Province of Antioch, which corresponds roughly to the modern strip of Turkey southeast of Adana, including Antioch itself (m. Antakya).
As you see, the Crusader States so far are geographically isolated, and the territorial "spaces" are filled by Islamic polities. In the Near East as a whole, however, the political scenario is very fragmented, with larger Turkish and minor Kurdish and Armenian leaderships in northern Syria, and a greater native Syrian and Arabic presence in Lebanon and Palestine, formerly under the control of the Egyptian Fatimid Caliphate. The great cities of Lebanon (that is, the ancient Phoenician emporia) are de facto independent after the crumbling of Egyptian hegemony in Palestine, but they are also isolated and mutually inimical.
They could possibly get some soldiers from Europe via ships/land route, but they still could build some defensive castles like the ones in OTL. The crusaders should be stocking up on resources now to be ready for another muslim incursion.
Ah, now I see I really misunderstood your original question, friend. Well, the current border of Byzantium roughly follows the Halys/Kızılırmak River, excluding the parts north of modern Çankiri. Nevertheless, the central region of Anatolia is fairly underpopulated during these years.
I know, it's very hard to find good historical maps of the period, they usually give only a piece of information you need to complete a puzzle of the complex geopolitical situation of the Near East in the 1100s. Some maps go to the egregious point of just putting bold letters "Seljuk Empire" without specifying where is where and who is who. I posted some maps some posts ago to give you a picture, but then I'll try to make something myself from what I've collected throught the Web.
Now, I'd really appreciate if someone could help with maps. I suck at doing it (I only know how to use Paint, even Inkscape is still beyond my reach
), and resort to using in-game blank maps like those of Victoria 2 or CK2. Do you have any recommendation of someone who could give a hand in this regard?
Well, those are difficult questions. I'm afraid I won't be able to give you a definitive answer, considering most of the numbers, until recent history, are based on various estimates and, in Middle Ages, we can only work with either what would be probable considering the available resources of a certain region or wild guesses. Steven Runciman in the end of his first volume goes a long way to show how we could estimate numbers for the First Crusade, and his calculations are indeed convincing, but, considering that the sources either don't give numbers or give too much exaggerated ones, they are as good as any.
The County of Edessa is really undermanned. When Baldwin of Boulogne accepted to become its lord, he had but a handful (less than 50, probably) knights and some infantry, and from there onwards would depend more on the available Armenian manpower to join his wars.
The KOJ still has some European manpower - not just combatants, but "civilians" too - going up between 5.000 to 10.000, and perhaps some 200 to 600 knights (the sources usually put the number of armored knights separately). You will realize these numbers have great intervals, and I stress, again, that it's difficult to give an accurate portrait. Now, ITTL the Crusaders are in an apparently better shape in comparison to OTL, having suffered less deprivation after the ordeals of the siege of Antioch.
"Reinforcements" will be always sporadic, and, much like OTL, the largest numbers will come from new Crusades, mostly those undertaken by powerful leaders such as the Kings of France, or the HRE. There will be, nonetheless, a substantial (but fluctuating) influx of Italian navigators, as well as Greek ones and, from the Near East, Christian Armenians and Turks (usually called Turcopoles).
The neighboring Islamic polities have differing degrees of military power projection. Fatimid Egypt is obviously the strongest and most populous (their armies apparently could go up to 20.000 men from the OTL battles I've looked up about). Syria is divided mainly between the polities of Damascus, Aleppo and Homs, each one of them doesn't have a lot of manpower (nothing that could greatly overpower the Crusaders, at least), but they can depend a lot more on mercenaries, mainly Turcomans and Arabs. The Turkish emirates in Greater Armenia and Anatolia don't have a lot of manpower; their forces are mostly based on the equestrian Turkish elite and some levies. On the other side of Mesopotamia, the disputing Seljuk kingdoms can field a lot of troops, especially those from eastern and central Iran. Finally, in Arabia itself, the polities are too divided and insular to present an existential threat (so far) to the KOJ, but they have a lot of raiding potential, and Bedouin attacks will be a constant military threat in the frontier.
That's about it. Castle-building will begin soon enough, and you'll see some words about it, don't worry.
It could even be downplayed from a crusade to just another invasion that was caused by Denmark and Sweden.
Indeed, that's a direction I considered taking, TBH. If for some reason the Germans get more focused on the Orient than on the Baltic, this likely means that the Nordic kingdoms will rise to fill the vaccuum. It is safe to assume, as you did, that Denmark and Sweden will have an important role to play in this new circumstances. Since we are on the subject, I must confess I always found fascinating the power projection and durability of the Teutonic Order; they alone among all the military-monastic orders succeeded in having an entire country in their hold, and arguably their action produced more substantial long-term consequences for the Baltic than, for example, the Hospitallers in Malta or the Templars after their destruction in France. ITTL, we can think of new patterns of Crusading spearheaded by Denmark and Sweden.
@thestickfigure, you raised a good point, but perhas we can think of another scenario as well, that is, the overall greater success of the Crusades, allows the very concept of religious warfare to grow and be used as a convenient pretext (much like OTL, where it survived as well as into the 15th Century), and this will include the Nordic Christian polities in their expansionist projects through the Baltic region.
Speaking of the Teutons and the other Knightly Orders, will they still emerge in TTL? By my recollection the Knights Hospitaller formed around the end of the First Crusade and the Knights Templar were a couple years later and while some of the conditions surrounding their founding has changed many factors are still present in the Levant.
Also if we don't have a Teutonic Order and Livonian Order crusading away in the Baltics might we see a longer lasting Pagan state in the Baltics or a more westerly spread of Eastern Orthodoxy?
Also if we don't have a Teutonic Order and Livonian Order crusading away in the Baltics might we see a longer lasting Pagan state in the Baltics or a more westerly spread of Eastern Orthodoxy?
More long-lasting pagan states, I would wager. This corner of Europe was the last to fall under the cross. Denmark and Sweden do not have sufficient numbers and power projection to completely force their will on Estonia, let alone the rest of the baltic pagan peoples, as quicky and forcefully as the Teutons did historically. Novgorod never managed more than forcing Tartu into tributary status, that only more or less until their forces withdrew. No matter whose crown these lands end up under by the 15th century, there will likely be far more nobles who still identify as some variety of Estonian or Curonian and a more pagan-influenced, syncretic form of christianity.