you know after thinking about the geopolitics of Europe ITTL for some time now, France seems to be in a pretty weak position being very divided internally speaking and "surrounded" by somewhat powerful nation-states. The HRE has the potential under the Welfs to become much more united and centralized then IOTL, with the chance of taking Austria and Bohemia-Moravia due to proximity, the chance of taking Swabia in an event of a civil war with the Hohenstaufens, and the chance of appointing sycophants in Saxony and Pomerania with the Wendish crusades. Hispania also seems like you could unite at least most of it pretty easily. You could really turn this great German kingdom into a true and greater Holy Roman empire, like what happened to OTL's France when it was united into an "absolute" monarchy with a monarch fighting and balancing the church and nobles' desires with each other. And on internal politics, with the Aquitanians, possibly taking both Anjou and Toulouse they would become more powerful and rich with trade and wealth than the Capetians ever was IOTL, and possibly eventually become independent. whilst the Normans are focussing more on the northern portions of France and greater Britain, by taking directly, making them vassals, or just making allies out of Flanders, Brittany, Wales, and Ireland. and without the Anarchy their holdings within England could become very rich and wealthy from trade with northern France like IOTL and eventually becoming independent like IOTL. Although you could counterbalance all of these states, by having Normandy and Aquitaine becoming rivals and having a France king playing them against each other like an uneasy balance that seems temporary. And having the king forming an alliance with Scotland, Norman Naples, and the "Lombards". whilst taking Burgundy through marriage, conquest, or simply usurpation, adding a wealthy and rich land to the crown, and keeping together by turning the HRE and maybe Hispania into a boogieman like what the HRE did with its neighbors IOTL. Alternatively, you could turn the duke of Normandy, Aquitaine, and/or Burgundy, become or claim to have become the king of France. And having them fight for it in this' timeline's version of a Hundred years war between the two, three, or four of them. You could also have burgundy or the HRE become a sort of kingmaker, switching sides often enough for it to be never truly concluded who won this civil war(s) or alternative Hundred years war. You could even have foreign powers be the main participants, Aquitaine could be controlled by a united Hispania, Burgundy could be controlled by an HRE that wants to unite the Carolingian empire, and England controls northern France. You could also have the victor spread their culture and dialect of French throughout France, and have the losers spread their dialect abroad, like Occitania to northern Italy and Hispania, Norman to greater Britain, and Burgundian to the HRE. you could even split the kingdom, the HRE could take Burgundy, Hispania could take Aquitaine, and England could take the Northen parts. You could take TTL's version of France into a lot of varying and equally interesting new directions. And if you or anyone else like these ideas, please use them and take them into your own interesting and creative directions I would be very happy if someone takes my ideas and make them better and/or more unique, if someone does could you link it to me. Oh, and I have but one question to ask, what are the current circumstances of both Burgundies, I'd like to know how my ancestors' homeland is doing right about now, and you know based earlier on this reply that they could become very interesting very soon if you'd like. and these are just a bunch of ideas I have put together, I'm just trying to bring some of my own fresh creativity here to "spice things up".
 
Last edited:
@[totally a legit person] - first of all, thank you very much for the compliments. I hope I was not indirectly responsible for causing an overall lowering of your grades! But am very happy to see you are enjoying it. On my part, it also takes a lot of effort, with a varied amount of research behind every update, all with the intent of present a history that is at the same time plausible and interesting to read. So, I'm very fortunate to count with your support, and do hope that the narrative continues to be one that inspires and foments a greater interest in this historical period.

You, and all readers, are ever, ever, welcome to give suggestions, criticism, opinions (and memes, of course), it is very nice to see how many stuff we've discussed already in just this one thread. It doesn't seems like it at the moment, but there are many suggestions I intend to incorporate into the TL and experiment with it to see how the story will unfold.

Now, for your first post, you mentioned various possible butterflies regarding the WIP I mentioned about having the Cumans convert to (Orthodox) Christianity. Indeed, my idea is to conceive a very different Pontic Steppe and Balkan geopolitical dynamics with a stronger Byzantium reasserting (at least for some time) its sphere of influence in eastern Europe. I've yet to develop the premises of the Mongol invasions, as we often discuss here in this thread, but indeed it would be an interesting possibility to see the Cumans exiling into Byzantium instead of on Hungary. It is very probable, indeed, in this scenario, that we see an assimilation of the Cumans into the Byzantine culture and social mores. You can be certain that I'm now very interested to work with this idea.

Even though, again, we'll take some time to get there...

And, to your second post, there is a lot of stuff you mentioned that, curiously enough, are things I intend to see happen as well! I have an idea to see a more centralized HRE under the Welfs (well, at least a LESS messy HRE would do), and a weaker France (albeit not one that becomes insignificant in the European affairs).

Hispania will most likely see a different trend in Reconquist. Even if it ends more quickly than OTL, its results will be unlike those we historically saw. Likely we'll see Castillian predominance, but I'm more favorable to explore an independent Catalonia and Valencia, perhaps a Portugalicia (as some reader mentioned, I found the term excellent), and also Navarre. And, of course, we'll see more lasting penetration of the Iberian powers into North Africa.

You asked too about Burgundy, I admit I've not given it a lot of thought, besides possibly seeing a Burgundian dynasty in the French throne, perhaps. It would be interesting, considering that they would likely focus on the relations with the HRE to secure their demesne. But, for the time being, Burgundy is exactly like OTL. Do you happen to have specific suggestions or possibilities you'd like to see happening? I'm interested to hear!
 
Lots of interesting stuff on the future Komnenian succession, Cumans and Tzelepes, from a bit of study of the era a few comments on the ideas others have had, apologies in advance for the confusing number of Alexios', Johns and Andronikos':

- Tzelepes grew up while his father wandered between courts in exile between 1130-38, with most of them being Islamic courts, and then he only goes over to the Danishmendids and Islam at the siege of Niksar when he was specifically disrespected by John (ordered to give up his horse to a Latin). If there is no exile and with Anatolia being reconquered, this has to be fully butterflied away really, though naturally the exile could still happen and it not be:

- The circumstances of Isaac's betrayal of John are also hazily defined by any source, but considering it happens when Isaac had been running the show in Constantinople from 1118-30 while John campaigned, and then in 1130 was confronted with John's adult sons and a court fully bonded around John from shared war stories, it seems only then did he consider plotting against his brother - had he been that keen on the throne before then he easily could have picked a more opportune moment (anytime John was fighting the Venetians, Hungarians, Serbs, Turks and the Trebizond rebellion at the same time really - all of which has of course been butterflied away already). With the empire much larger, there are almost certainly honours, rewards and responsibilities a plenty for John to keep Isaac on side, perhaps reinstating a Megas Domestikos for both East and West rather than Axouch being both, plus with the reconquest of Anatolia and the theoretical suzerainty over Jerusalem, John's position would have been even more secure as has been described. As such, this has also been butterflied away, as has probably any internal threat to John this generation. If the betrayal does still happen, then of course we may still have the later betrayal of Tzelepes, though being Islamic friendly would not necessarily have led to going over to them - John seems quite happy to have had the Islamic Mas'ud of Konya as a client briefly, and Shaizar also agreed to give taxes and had a Roman garrison despite remaining under its Muslim emir, so John seems to have been open to the idea of having Muslim clients rulers (just as he had Latin, Armenian and Syriacs at court, and had sterling write ups from a few Jews saying the empire was great to them in letters, and indeed we have the Romany settling in Byzantium in this period and taking on a fair bit of Roman culture, so John's empire OTL was surprisingly tolerant as long as you were loyal to the emperor - heretics like the Bogomils being the big exception as in being an Orthodox heretic you also betrayed the emperor, but being a schismatic christian, Jew or Muslim appears ok as long as you acclaimed the emperor as in charge and in the schismatic Christian case, implied that you were wiling to resolve your differences with the Church).

- Succession wise, we have the adult co-emperor Alexios who doesn't die of Pneumonia (or similar) being the only option at first, as if anything it is barely a succession as he is already Emperor. Saying this, we have the intriguing lament of John II when he hears of the deaths of his two sons, where he mentions he had planned to see his sons on all the thrones of the world, specifically naming Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. This is from a 13th century chronicle, and therefore possibly entirely wishful thinking, but the note in Choniates (or perhaps Kinnamos, I forget but can check) that John had intended to make Manuel in charge of a territory consisting of Cilicia, Cyprus and Antioch, married to the princess of Antioch (before they married her to Raymond), does suggest that he intended an innovative role for his sons. Doing so would be all but unique in Roman history, but then he did other unique things too - specifically his four sons do each marry a woman from separate ethic groups, and command troops from that group, such that it seems he is linking them so as to bind the diverse ethnic groups of the empire together (Manuel commands Latin knights and married a westerner, Andronikos is renowned as a horse archer and marries a woman 'from Anatolia' who could well be a Turk, unclear, and by implication may command Turkopoles or Pechenegs - Alexios II you'll need to decide whether he married Kata of Georgia (current scholarship inclines towards the resolution that she married Anna Komnene's son) or Dobrudja daughter of Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev (current scholarships suggests so), both of whom are called Eirene in Byzantine sources). ITTL, with Anatolia recaptured, there is a lot of new territory to administer, and therefore we could easily see these sons being given spheres of influence under Alexios II in Constantinople by John, just as an imperial cousin of the Komnenoi is always Doux of Cyprus.

- When Alexios II comes in though, it all depends on whether he has more children. When he died in 1142 he had one daughter (Maria) who later married Axouch's son, but with him returning to his wife more often and living, there is nothing to suggest he wouldn't have had a son as well, who then would have been made co-emperor and that would be that. If for whatever reason he does not have a son, however, then yes, Ioannes III Axouchos-Komnenos would have almost certainly been an option. (On his name, double barrelled names become increasingly common in this period, and there are a few examples of men adding their higher status wife's name to theirs and of course vice versa - even John II is occasionally called Komnenos-Doukas). With so many Christianised Turks in the empire his ethnicity was unlikely to be a problem (their historical son was eventually done for consulting with a Latin sorcerer in court intrigues, so his ethnicity was not really a problem even OTL). However, another option to be Alexios' co-emperor would certainly have been his brother Andronikos, renowned as a warrior and general and also married to either an Anatolian noblewoman or a Turk as mentioned above - he has his first son OTL in 1128 (John Doukas-Komnenos) and another sometime in the late 1130s (another Alexios), who respectively become governors of Cyprus and Protosebastos (this Alexios being the reported lover of Manuel's widow who was deposed by OTL Andronikos I). John's son Andronikos himself was meant to be a devoted councilor and companion-in-arms of his father John II before he died taking his co-emperor Alexios' body back, so he was unlikely to have conspired himself against his brother, but his own children are another matter, particularly OTL Alexios appears to have had the temperament, though naturally we have a lot of butterflies by now so the narrative is relatively free by this point.

- On the Cumans and the north - going back a bit, Alexios first brokered the alliance with the Cumans in particular by marrying his son Andronikos (John II's brother) to the daughter of Volodar of Premsyl, who was the Cuman's main Rus ally. This was initially a huge diplomatic misstep as it aligned Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev against him, who was allied with Coloman of Hungary and the Normans, so this was almost a bit of nightmare coalition against Alexios, but he managed to sort it out as Coloman's wife (another daughter of Vladimir) was an adulteress so was sent home, and through Alexios marrying John II to Eirene-Piroska, and Eirene-Dobrudja likely marrying John's son Alexios to finalise it. All pre-POD, Vladimir ended up on top, coordinating with David the Builder of Georgia to defeat the Cumans, though they remain a force. By this point, it depends on whether Vladimir's hegemony breaks up after his death as OTL or not, but we certainly have a few Cuman-friendly Komnenoi about (Eirene the Sebastokratissa being one likely one from that marriage, though there are a bunch more). As such, we could easily end up with the stronger Georgia and Kiev leading to the Cumans being semi-absorbed like John absorbed the Pechenegs, and therefore Christianised, as the area between Byzantine Crimea, Georgia and Kiev would have made it more or less essential if all those states are strong, and indeed the welcomed migration into the Balkans could well happen, though others certainly settled in northern Georgia. With the empire expanding into Armenia though, tensions between Georgia and the Romans may well flare up at some point, though diplomatic marriages there are almost a certainly - whether this will lead to bitter conflict or the Romans eventually absorbing Georgia is a flip of the coin, as it was with the Armenian states.

Long post already I know, but to contribute one last thing to this excellent timeline: Alexios, John and Manuel were all very keen on an ecumenical Church Council to resolve differences that had arisen between the eastern and western churches, and at the very least to get the Armenians back in the fold too (The Armenian Katholikos' under John and Manuel were both favouring the idea, see Nerses Snorhali and others, then they more sided with the western Church rather than the eastern, then they gave it up after the failure of crusading - the Syriacs by contrast were much more anti re-unification). High profile debates took place under John and Manuel to resolve some of these issues, with the emperors being surprisingly even handed in asking the Orthodox church to change some things in favour of the Latins (Manuel in particular) though they held firm on others. ITTL, this council would almost certainly happen at some point, perhaps in Jerusalem as neutral ground. Naturally, the council could end in complete failure in some respects and cause whatever conflicts you'd like, or even be a success and cause those conflicts, particularly if you add some Copts to the mix, but either way, it would happen, either with the Armenians or with them as a separate event.

Great timeline, and discussion too everyone!
 
50. For those who live by the sword perish by the sword (1139)
2530465_orig.jpg



Painting representing a battle between the Turcoman troops of Saif al-Islam and the Armenian vassals of Edessa, a scene in the Medieval Epic "Vartan the Grey Bearded", inspired in the folkloric character Vartan Vartanyan, Lord of Romanopolis [Vartan Vartanyan]. The period after the fall of the Kingdom of Armenia, all up to the Crusader Era, is frequently depicted in modern Armenian literature and arts, and the struggles of the local Armenian lords and commoners, never subservient to either Roman or Frank, furnish various folk legends, the most notable of which is the "Vartanian Epic"



The Latins could have reasonably expected the Islamic army to depart and disband in winter, as it was usual. The cold season in Armenia was particularly harsh, with howling winds descending from the mountains and nights were usually pitch-black under blankets of dark clouds. However, only a fraction of the Seljuq force abandoned campaign - those commanded by the Shirvan-Shah and by the Atabeg of Fars -, while a sizeable contingent remained afield, now led by Buri Saif al-Islam, finally elevated to the leadership position that he aspired to. The Emir of Mosul, having proven himself a worthy champion of Allah, co-opted the allegiance of the fanatical Arabian ġhāzī, as well as of a myriad of Kurdish warlords from Jaziria, and, to him, it was as if the campaign had just started.

Once again, the Mahometans traversed along the Euphrates valley, but this time Saif al-Islam ventured deep into the hinterland to the west, weaving a path of destruction all the way to Aintab [Turkish: Antep]. There he quickly expelled a warband led by local Armenian ruler after a quick skirmish, and, inspired by his seemingly tireless soldiers, marched to Doliche, which the Franks called “Tulupa” [Turkish: Dülük], a walled town whose countryside was wholly pillaged. Disregarding keeps and fortified cities, he desired solely to prey upon the defenseless peasantry, his impetus sustained by the insatiable bloodlust, as well as by the growing hoard of booty. He made no prisoners; either the locals were slain or expelled from their homes, and this would force them to seek refuge in the lordly keeps, which would soon become overcrowded, a very problematic situation in winter season. This, in turn, would jeopardize the Frankish rule in the region, seeing that the native Armenians and Kurds would lose the faith in their feudal lords to protect them.

Saif al-Islam’s campaign in the western provinces of Edessa was put to an end by the timely arrival of a ten thousand strong force from Rhōmania, led by John Axouch, coming from Paphlagonia. The Turcomans avoided battle and retreated all the way to the Euphrates valley, trusting that the Greeks would not engage in pursuit. Indeed, Axouch had orders to prevent a Turkish incursion into Imperial territory, but he did not chase Buri.

Now, being likely that the County of Edessa was liable to collapse under the insurmountable pressure of the invaders, the Rhōmaîon forces “invited” themselves into Germanicia [Turkish: Kahramanmaraş], a fortified settlement that had only recently been conquered by the Crusaders from an insignificant Turcoman chieftain. The locals, mostly Armenians, led by a Francophone baron, were delighted to see John Axouch’s men, and scantly realized that they had come to actually stay. Using Germanicia as an advanced base, the Rhōmaîoi also militarily occupied the Frankish holds of Aintab and Ravendel. Baldwin II could not give himself the luxury of being malcontent with this situation, considering the circumstances; it was the last hope of his falling principality.


*****​


Between January and February, in 1139 A.D., a host of Latin-Levantine nobles finally arrived to relieve the hapless province that had been so rapaciously devastated by the Saracens.

They were led by Roger of Syria, Prince of Jerusalem, by the Archbishop Gregory and by the other magnates of the Princely Court, and accompanied by the Crusaders from Flanders, Lorraine and England. It is possible that this army had been one the Normans had intended to muster to, once again, invade Egypt; now, however, the emergency of Edessa’s situation demanded immediate action. Assembled hastily in the height of winter, the native Levantine levies were poorly prepared to conduct a dedicated campaign; fortunately for them, the Flemish, Lorrainer and English Crusaders were mostly professional and ever ready for battle, and thus evened the scales of the balance.

Once they established a headquarters in Turbessel, the first act was to attempt to attract Saif al-Islam to a more convenient battlefield. The Muslims, however, did not intend to give one. Instead, the Emir of Mosul, coming from the western frontier of Edessa, simply bypassed Turbessel, and took the road to the Euphrates. The Latins attempted to check his retreat in the bridge-town of al-Bira, but Buri, sacrificing his rearguard, mostly comprised by Kurdish and Arab mercenaries, successfully escaped, plunder included. The Flemish and English knights even attempted to pursue the Turcomans all the way to Saruj [Turkish: Serugh], but were forced to retreat under heavy assault of their horse archers.

Afterwards, expecting that the Christians would follow him to Harran, Saif al-Islam departed back to Mosul, finally satisfied with the results of his campaign of havoc.


*****​


The Latins made only a feeble attempt of reducing Harran - which had been granted as a reward by Shirvan-Shah to a minor Azeri warlord, but, now that Edessa had been reduced to rubble, there was no purpose in expanding east beyond the Euphrates. They were too far from their logistical and manpower bases on the Levant, and had no desire of persisting in these operations.

This might explain, in fact, why they seemingly did not oppose the occupation of the western castles by John Axouch, even though Roger was surprised by the justification: the Emperor argued that Rhōmanía ought to be compensated by the fact that the Crusaders had made themselves the masters of Damascus. Besides, according to the Rhōmaîoi, it was much more sensible to have Edessa under Imperial protection, considering the geographic proximity, lest it would most certainly fall to the “Tourkoi”, and thus invite a hostile power in the region, to threaten the whole of eastern Christendom.

The fact that Edessa’s fall and the subsequent Rhōmaîon takeover was so abrupt created uneasiness among the Franks, who, despite not really caring too much about Edessa, regarded it as a right of conquest. After some time, though, realizing that it was a faît accompli, even more after Count Baldwin II himself, out of desperation, welcomed the Rhōmaîon armies to reinforce Samosata, the Franks decided it was better to accept it for the better. The western provinces of the County of Edessa, those on the nearer side of the Euphrates River, would soon be incorporated into the Imperial dominion, although John II Komnenos confirmed the local rule of the Frankish lords who were there established. Baldwin was created “Doux Edessos” and ceremoniously recognized as the guardian of the eastern frontier, but now his effective demesne was reduced to Samosata and Turbessel.


*****​


Now, the Christians expected that they would enjoy a respite from the war.

They would not.

In the midst of the year of 1139, just as the King of France was arriving in the Balkans with his grand army, Saif al-Islam captained another bold offensive against the Crusader State. To fulfill his objective, and knowing that his own Mosuli soldiers were tired from campaigning, he obtained the cooperation of the Shah-Armens [Turkish: Ermenşahlar], a Turkish dynasty situated in the former Armenian stronghold of Ahlat. He convinced Nāṣir al-Dīn Sökmen II, the (self-proclaimed) “Shah-î-Arman”, to join him in campaign, remembering that their fathers, Toghtekin and Sökmen I al-Kûtbi, had fought together against the infidels some 30 years previously, and almost had reconquered al-Quds. And now, by their negligence and impiety, the infidels had grown tenfold, like an infestation of vermin, and threatened the safety of Allah’s faithful. The Shah-Armens, seeing that an alliance with Mosul, and, by extension, with the Seljuqs, might ensure their growth against the neighboring Christian and Islamic polities, agreed to join him. Buri also procured the cooperation of the Bedouin groups that had become entrenched in Diyar Mudar, fully aware that those were, however, nothing above greedy mercenaries.

Thus, with some of improvisation, he devised a double-pronged attack upon the Crusaders that would most certainly jeopardize their defensive positions:

  • The combined Turcoman, Kurdish and Muslim Armenian forces, led by Buri’s eldest son, Shams-ul-Mulk Isma'il [Turkish: Şamalmülk Ismail], going from Sinjar to ar-Raqqah, would advance deep into northwestern Syria, skirting the border of Rhōmaîon Aleppo, with the intent of attacking the territory of Homs, whose Emir was a feeble client of the Crusaders. This would serve to weaken the Latin dominion over northern Syria;

  • A smaller, but more mobile force of cavalry and light infantry, would retrace the same path that Buri did only a few years ago when he went to Damascus: going to Qarqūsyōn, called “Circesium” by the Greeks, the city where the Khabur River discharges into the course of the Euphrates, and from there onward to Palmyra and then to Damascus once again.

*****​


The plan worked as well as Buri could expect.

In the region of Homs, the surprising appearance of the Turcoman companies forced the desperate Emir of Homs, Abu Fadl ibn Rahman Zayd as-Salih al-Himsi to plead for the assistance of the Latins. This time, Roger wasted no time, and rapidly assembled the levies and the retinues of the lords to meet the Turks in battle. With him came, once again, the Counts of Flanders and Hainaut, as also the Toulousains and the Lorrainers of Tiberias. The host of the English, though, had already returned to Europe.

The Saracens avoided engagement, inasmuch as the Latins tried to force them into a pitched battle. They were pushed away to Hama, and from there they retreated to Mesopotamia, but the Latins, seeking retribution, pursued them as far as the remote fort of Resafa [Arabic: ar-Riṣafa], an ancient Roman stronghold. With a good disposition to march due the arrival of autumn, the Franks knew that the derelict fort had been occupied by Bedouin bandits, and immediately besieged it. To their surprise, the Turcomans had evacuated the walled town in the previous night, leaving their pursuers empty-handed, and stranded in the midst of a desolate country.

Meanwhile, Saif al-Islam himself conducted the cavalry column into the offensive against Damascus, arriving there just couple days after the main Latin army had began their march to northern Syria. Once again, he had no intention of prosecuting a siege, but, rather, of devastating the whole land around it. And this he did: his numbers were sufficient to allow for a comprehensive swarm-like spread of the cavalry and camelry warbands, whose cells acted autonomously, and united in their single-minded purpose of wreaking destruction and pillage. The fertile plains neighboring Damascus were torched with such a ferocity that, according to one chronicler, the city itself became entirely black , covered by clouds of ashes from the hinterland. The fertile Goulta plain, ransacked by the Turkic barbarians, would take years to recover from the depredation.

To be fair, the recently-established Frankish barons attempted to orchestrate a resistance, but their efforts fell short, as the main body of the Latin army was by then operating in northern Syria. They could only react by launching counteroffensives against the isolated foragers and groups, but this hardly prevented the destruction of the country. Count Baldwin of Tiberias, who had remained in Galilee as a reserve in the case the Fatimids attempted to invade from the Sinai, arrived in a few days with Italian conscripts and with his own cadre of knights, and attempted to organize the defense of the County of Syria, but, by then, it was already too late.

Far in Resafa, Prince Roger only received the news about the pillaging of Damascus a few days later after Saif al-Islam’s arrival, and thus they hurriedly returned to Homs, and from there the Latins conducted a forced march that brought them in less than two days to Damascus. By the time they arrived, the Turcomans had regrouped in a position further to the east of Damascus, but escaped by the desert route all while avoiding to give battle.

Overall, the Saracen campaign was a success, in the sense that it did not devise to capture any settlements, but rather to reduce the availability of resources and manpower to the Crusaders. This episode, coupled with the occurrence of another destructive quake in the region of northern Edessa, and with the almost complete disruption of the commercial venues linking Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean, ushered a period of significant economic decline in the Near East as a whole, something that serves to demonstrate the extent of the chaos of warfare.

However, as the Latins, hardened by the conflict and for once united in their resolve to exact revenge against the Saracens, reorganized their available resources in preparation for the next campaign, they received the best of news: the Crusader armies of Francia had finally arrived in Antioch, and were sided by another vast Rhōmaîon host, led by the Basileus John II Komnenos. It was, by all accounts, the most numerous force ever come to the Orient ever since the days of the Romans.

Now, it was time for payback.
 
@[totally a legit person] - first of all, thank you very much for the compliments. I hope I was not indirectly responsible for causing an overall lowering of your grades! But am very happy to see you are enjoying it. On my part, it also takes a lot of effort, with a varied amount of research behind every update, all with the intent of present a history that is at the same time plausible and interesting to read. So, I'm very fortunate to count with your support, and do hope that the narrative continues to be one that inspires and foments a greater interest in this historical period.

You, and all readers, are ever, ever, welcome to give suggestions, criticism, opinions (and memes, of course), it is very nice to see how many stuff we've discussed already in just this one thread. It doesn't seems like it at the moment, but there are many suggestions I intend to incorporate into the TL and experiment with it to see how the story will unfold.

Now, for your first post, you mentioned various possible butterflies regarding the WIP I mentioned about having the Cumans convert to (Orthodox) Christianity. Indeed, my idea is to conceive a very different Pontic Steppe and Balkan geopolitical dynamics with a stronger Byzantium reasserting (at least for some time) its sphere of influence in eastern Europe. I've yet to develop the premises of the Mongol invasions, as we often discuss here in this thread, but indeed it would be an interesting possibility to see the Cumans exiling into Byzantium instead of on Hungary. It is very probable, indeed, in this scenario, that we see an assimilation of the Cumans into the Byzantine culture and social mores. You can be certain that I'm now very interested to work with this idea.

Even though, again, we'll take some time to get there...

And, to your second post, there is a lot of stuff you mentioned that, curiously enough, are things I intend to see happen as well! I have an idea to see a more centralized HRE under the Welfs (well, at least a LESS messy HRE would do), and a weaker France (albeit not one that becomes insignificant in the European affairs).

Hispania will most likely see a different trend in Reconquist. Even if it ends more quickly than OTL, its results will be unlike those we historically saw. Likely we'll see Castillian predominance, but I'm more favorable to explore an independent Catalonia and Valencia, perhaps a Portugalicia (as some reader mentioned, I found the term excellent), and also Navarre. And, of course, we'll see more lasting penetration of the Iberian powers into North Africa.

You asked too about Burgundy, I admit I've not given it a lot of thought, besides possibly seeing a Burgundian dynasty in the French throne, perhaps. It would be interesting, considering that they would likely focus on the relations with the HRE to secure their demesne. But, for the time being, Burgundy is exactly like OTL. Do you happen to have specific suggestions or possibilities you'd like to see happening? I'm interested to hear!

well, the whole lowering grades was a joke even if a very bad one, well at least I think and hope it hasn't that would've been an unknowable consequence but it if it has don't worry I have pretty good grades right now. I guess you could say "great minds think alike", but I do have some suggestions to suggest to you but I don't know if they're any good to you because you might've already thought of it. Well, you see if they do become king of France, the Welfs could become kings of France through a very simple or complicated serious of wars and/or marriages with them. They could become the reason for a three/four-way war for the throne that results in the independence of Aquitaine and Normandy in an attempt of supporting a claimant in order to become like Karls Martel and the Merovingians or claim it for themselves directly. In this timeline with a more splintered Hispania that leaves room for alliances with various factions, even with cordoba. castile could become very influenced by Occitanian, leone-Castile by burgundy, and the Portu-Galicians by the Normans all, through an attempted nullification of Arab influence of the various languages, through trading, as a luxury language by the nobles, and the language of their "crusaders". English and the Norman dialect might become one and the same over time, as they develop dependently on each other over time. the Burgundian and/or Paris dialect might become very influential in the Holy Roman Empire. And finally, with the Lombards and Italo-Normans, they will most likely be taken advantage of by the Byzantines in the confusion of a very complex war between the French, Germans, Aquitanians, Normans, and Burgundians. this could get very, very complicated, very, very quickly, you might just want to give passing mentioning throughout many various posts, to avoid going down that very deep rabbit hole but this isn't my timeline.
 
Well, it might be the end of indipendence for Edessa, but for Baldwin and his successors there might be still a future career in the Empire if would play they cards well.

And I guess a period of duress for the Latins after the triumph of Damascus would be necessary. At least they would hold well. So, Homs is expected to be the new contended area between Crusaders and the Islamic coalition now...
 
The sword of Islam may have reaped the booty of swift plunder, but I bet a good fortress and staging point would've been of more use against the Christian armies. Wonder if Homs will end up in Christian hands after all is said and done...
 
Didn’t John II launch a campaign around this time IOTL? I’m guessing that with full crusader cooperation (and the fact that the campaign IOTL was seeking to conquer cities that had already been conquered here) that John will have a much better time than IOTL.

It’s a damn shame that Edessa suffered such a cruel fate, at least part of it will live on in the empire.
 
Next post has to be titled THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK.

I didn't fully realize until this TL, that the survival of the Roman Empire would have been dependent from the Crusader survival.

But I also wonder, once neutralized the Sunni threats (Turks, Iraqi and Egyptians), maybe passed the Mongol wave (always if they would even arrive... probably yes because if in the 1220's there would be news of a rich Roman Empire and a rich Kingdom of Jerusalem, they may be interested to seize them, especially if in a century from the current age of the TL, Baghdad would be reached by Christian armies and well plunder it)... Well, they may turn against each other. Just image a Latin conquered Egypt, if would ever be in the cards... Don't you think an ambitious Basileus would try to unite the Eastern Roman Empire for good?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I didn't fully realize until this TL, that the survival of the Roman Empire would have been dependent from the Crusader survival.

But I also wonder, once neutralized the Sunni threats (Turks, Iraqi and Egyptians), maybe passed the Mongol wave (always if they would even arrive... probably yes because if in the 1220's there would be news of a rich Roman Empire and a rich Kingdom of Jerusalem, they may be interested to seize them, especially if in a century from the current age of the TL, Baghdad would be reached by Christian armies and well plunder it)... Well, they may turn against each other. Just image a Latin conquered Egypt, if would ever be in the cards... Don't you think an ambitious Basileus would try to unite the Eastern Roman Empire for good?

I have some doubts on these prospects.

The Mongols are probably still coming in some form, although that depends on how you treat the butterflies. With a POD as early as this TL's (1099) you can easily maintain that the brith of Temüjin (1162) is butterflied. 163 years is enough to affect the destiny of individual trade caravans etc. -- which would all cause minor buuterflies, causing all sorts of people to be in slightly different places at slightly different times in their day-to-day lives (even if the general arc of their lives remains similar). This means that even if the guy's parents get together, a different sperm fertilises a different egg, probably at a different date. Thus: different kid. Given how unique Genghis Khan was, this then basically means a "no Genghis Khan" scenario. One may argue that the time was right for someone to unite the Mongols (and I'd agree: Genghis Khan had rivals who sought to do the same thing he did), but I think few of them could have done it on his unprecedented scale. So: you get massive raids into Persia, but not a Khanate that comes to reach Baghdad and even beyond.

Naturally, @Rdffigueira can also deliberately go a but more conservative on the butterflies, and keep distant events largely or entirely unchanged until a demonstrable causal change would result in changes. Then you keep Genghis Khan. But even then, I have my doubts about the abilities of the Khanate to by really effective against the Byzantines and the Crusaders. Against such a foe, those two would be united. The Khanate was already operating near its limit of effective action when it reached Baghdad in OTL. That it could so effectively crush Baghdad has more to do with several underlying factors. For starters, once you already have Persia knocked out, Baghdad is far more vulnerable. For another thing, Baghdad itself is not in a very good position for a defence against such a foe. And finally, the Abbasid Caliphate -- though eagerly reforming at the time -- had not yet had the time needed to really finish any of those reforms. The state was weakened. If the attack had come 50 years later, things would have been a bit different...

Similarly, the Mongols had great results when penetrating into eastern Anatolia, because they found a mess of warring statelets. Against a united Byzantine Empire (quite possibly with a united, bulked-up Armenia to its east, if I'm predicting the TL correctly), things would not be that easy. And the Byzantines, Armenians and Latins could all co-ordinate their efforts. What are the Mongols going to due? Grueling mountain warfare against well-prepared, well-entrenched foes who have some strategic depth? Or a grueling attack on Jerusalem straight across the Syrian desert? Neither sounds like the set-up for a brilliant success.

And in OTL, the Mongols offered peace and alliance with the Crusaders against the Muslims. That may come up here as well, since Crusaders in in a stronger position will be able to profitably exploit such an alliance in order to increase their own holdings. And by the time the Muslims have been thoroughly dealt with... well, if they could, the Mongols would then turn on the Christians, but my guess is that by then, the Mongols will be in the early stages of fracture/collapse already. New offensives won't be in the cards.


The idea that Baghdad will be reached by the Crusaders is also iffy to me. I doubt they'll get that far. Such a campaign would be more costly than can be justified. But then, I, a decided proponent of the "secure western Syria, then secure Egypt, then go all-out on a North African Reconquista" strategy for these ATL Crusades. Reconquer the old Roman borders, and make Islam a purely eastern religion. That would be my goal, in the Crusader position.


Finally, the notion of the Byzantines trying to re-unite the old ERE's holdings: forget it. Okay, a moron on the throne may try. But it wouldn't work. The Byzantines are between the Catholic Crusaders and the Catholics of Europe. An attempt to conquer the former would cause a two-front war wit the other. And the Byzantines would lose that war. It would be terrible for all involved, but they'd lose in the end. A sensible ruler knows that. Better to exploit good relations and make a smart play for profitable trade concessions all over the place. Byzantine emporia in Egypt, baby!
 
Finally, the notion of the Byzantines trying to re-unite the old ERE's holdings: forget it. Okay, a moron on the throne may try. But it wouldn't work. The Byzantines are between the Catholic Crusaders and the Catholics of Europe. An attempt to conquer the former would cause a two-front war wit the other. And the Byzantines would lose that war. It would be terrible for all involved, but they'd lose in the end. A sensible ruler knows that. Better to exploit good relations and make a smart play for profitable trade concessions all over the place. Byzantine emporia in Egypt, baby!
while I agree with a large part of this I not so sure on the last. I don't think it be a 2 front war at all because of ultimatly it just some state across the ocean and why get into a massive war to protect a sea across the sea especially if you have your own stuff to do and wars to prosecute. So if the Byzantines do delcare war on the crusaders I don't see as realistic to suddenly except all of christodem to jump in arms for the crusaders especially if it between fellow christians. There are no formal alliance and the main reason crusades happen is out of religious zeal and as church influence start to wain there become less reason and has attention start to move to focus on other areas with leveant being seen as Christian hands.
 
Anyway, without the power vacuum created in the aftermath of the Komnenoi's fall from power and the sack of Constantinople, peoples such as the Cumans, the Vlachs and remaining Pechnegs will remain under Byzantine influence, and Hungary won't have as much room to expand its hegemony as it did IOTL.

it will possibly be much more than that, the cultures of the "barbarians" would be assimilated and then be used to defeat Hungary and not only reverse its growth and outside influenced, but with the talent of the Komenoi turn it into an effective "client-state" or an "forced alliance" to protect the northern flank.
 
Would the Romans really want to risk creating a truly imperial power? Last two times they did that the Arabs and Turks respectively took it from them. In fact the last emperor who was dead-set on expansion into the Middle East was Nikephoros II Phokas.

At least with Alexios's recovery of Anatolia they had help and there were even people who remembered Constantinopolitan rule. Egypt hasn't known it for almost 500 years, Syria slightly longer. Furthermore if Egypt is ruled by Latin Christians then they'll likely have allies.

Historically speaking the Romans couldn't handle the Latin powers and while there's not nearly as much bad blood as historically, trying to seize Egypt and the Levant is a surefire way to do just that.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
while I agree with a large part of this I not so sure on the last. I don't think it be a 2 front war at all because of ultimatly it just some state across the ocean and why get into a massive war to protect a sea across the sea especially if you have your own stuff to do and wars to prosecute. So if the Byzantines do delcare war on the crusaders I don't see as realistic to suddenly except all of christodem to jump in arms for the crusaders especially if it between fellow christians. There are no formal alliance and the main reason crusades happen is out of religious zeal and as church influence start to wain there become less reason and has attention start to move to focus on other areas with leveant being seen as Christian hands.

Will Church influence start to wane? I don't just see that happening on short notice. Maybe in the long term, but not "[shortly] after the Mongols", which is the broad time-frame under discussion. If you are suggesting some Byzantine neo-Imperialism centuries down the line, sure. That could certainly happen. But that's just guesswork at this stage, because of the butterflies...

If an Orthodox power seeks to take control of a lot of hard-won Catholic lands at any point in pre-modern times, then that will be grounds for a Crusade, and damn big one. For religious reasons (losing Jerusalem without a fight would be unthinkable), but also for economic and strategic ones. If you do take Egypt, and are busy re-taking North Africa, do you want that "Empire of Christendom"-ideal to be shattered by some interloper? I think not. Especially not since they'd be aiming at Egypt (which is still pretty vital to Indian ocean trade and therefore economically valuable).
 
I think a key question is going to be the balance of naval power. At this time, and from the story, it seems the Byzantines and Italians are on fairly even footing; OTL however, it wasn't very far from the Venetians and Normans freely sailing anywhere that wasn't the Aegean against Byzantine opposition (and of course, eventually even the Aegean wasn't safe).

If a similar balance of naval power develops, Syria and especially Egypt will be well beyond the Byzantine ability to hold, even if they may seize it for a time a local ambitious governor could easily just declare independence, in fact if not always in name.

Similarly no Catholic power could hold Egypt, but then they're not looking to hold Egypt themselves - just the vague 'Catholic Europe' holding it will be their (actually possible) target.
 
Top