And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace
- Thread starter Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)
- Start date
[QUOTE="Rdffigueira, post: 18475504, member: 83586"
Then it came to pass that, in her frequent travels to Jerusalem, where she used to pray in Mount Calgary, and give alms to the poor in the courtyard of the Temple of Solomon, Matilde of Rethel requested private interviews with the Archbishop himself, pleading for him to be her confessor. Soon enough, exchanging concealed words in the confessionary, Gregory came to learn that the Normans intended to send emissaries to the potentates of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, as well as of Lombardy, with the intent of convincing their noblemen to partake in a new Crusade to conquer Syria. When the cogs of their stratagem were in movement, only then would they request audience with the Pope, to sanction this expedition; thusly, they expected to harness the most exalted pilgrimage as a means to fulfill their own interests to carve a kingdom in the Outremer, disregarding the interest of the Latin Patriarchate itself.[/QUOTE]
Awesome! Small typo - Mount Calgary.
Then it came to pass that, in her frequent travels to Jerusalem, where she used to pray in Mount Calgary, and give alms to the poor in the courtyard of the Temple of Solomon, Matilde of Rethel requested private interviews with the Archbishop himself, pleading for him to be her confessor. Soon enough, exchanging concealed words in the confessionary, Gregory came to learn that the Normans intended to send emissaries to the potentates of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, as well as of Lombardy, with the intent of convincing their noblemen to partake in a new Crusade to conquer Syria. When the cogs of their stratagem were in movement, only then would they request audience with the Pope, to sanction this expedition; thusly, they expected to harness the most exalted pilgrimage as a means to fulfill their own interests to carve a kingdom in the Outremer, disregarding the interest of the Latin Patriarchate itself.[/QUOTE]
Awesome! Small typo - Mount Calgary.
Great timeline - I rarely comment on here but as you're covering something I'm currently studying I thought I'd pitch in:
John is meant to have been contemplating a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1143: William of Tyre, Kinnamos and Choniates give accounts of the negotiations involved, whereby John (overwintering in Tarsus in Cilicia in 1142) sent an embassy 'of the highest nobility' to King Fulk, mentioning how he wanted to visit the Holy City for prayer and to lend aid against the enemy there, though William of Tyre mentions that these reasons were 'to disguise his real purpose' (dissimulabat mentis conceptum), with most historians assuming that that purpose was to gain recognition of his status above the crusader princes in person, pretty much exactly as you have described.
In response to his embassy, William of Tyre relates that King Fulk sent Anselm, Bishop of Bethlehem, Rohard, Castellan of Jerusalem, and Geoffrey, Abbot of the Temple of the Lord (who spoke Greek), saying that Fulk would be happy to welcome him, but due to the small size of the kingdom, could John please only bring 10,000 men as escort. William tells us that having 'only' 10,000men was not in keeping with imperial dignity and so he abandoned his intentions at that point, though we only have his word for it, and then the whole issue became moot anyway as shortly thereafter John was die in the hunting accident. Choniates, Kinnamos and the later short chronicles all mention how he dying words were that he had wanted to go to Jerusalem, and both Kinnamos and a court poem mention how John donated a lampstand made of 20 talents of gold to the Holy Sepulchre anyway.
As such, in a timeline where Anatolia is being pacified, Antioch already in his possession, and John is given the flexibility to go east most of ten years earlier, your account is pretty believable really. OTL there are court poems about the lords of Antioch, Tripoli and 'Aelia Capitolina' laying their lances at the emperors feet, which are likely fanciful but they do show the political rhetoric the empire was trying to make reality. Of course, when he does try this in Antioch OTL there is rioting (possibly stirred up by the Normans) that may be a good model for people's reaction in Jerusalem in your TL.
What is also true is that John was by the late 1130s in negotiations with the Italian city states (Pisa, Genoa and Venice at least), the Papacy and the German Emperor (who is given the slightly ambiguous title in their dealings of 'ῥὴξ of elder Rome', which is technically accurate as 'King of the Romans' was one of the western imperial titles - remembering also that Piroska-Eirene was if anything as German as she was Hungarian through her mother, and being second cousins with Emperors Henry V and Conrad) in order to form an alliance against the Norman King Roger. Emperor Lothar extensively campaigned against Roger with Byzantine support in 1137, which is phrased in such a way in the sources that this could mean either money, or possibly even troops or naval support (there is another poem mentioning a new fleet being constructed in Cyprus for the purpose of taking on the Normans, as well as impressing the Germans). Manuel's engagement to Bertha-Eirene was part of these negotiations, though how exactly they were going to divide southern Italy was always the sticking point they didn't really get around to sorting. As such, very much looking forward to your next update.
Only nitpicks are that Frangoi, Latinikoi and Normanoi are all later terms (though Muslims use 'Franj' a lot of course) - Byzantine authors almost always call people by the land they are from rather than the people they are at this point, thus Turks are always Persians, etc. Normans are usually referred to as "Ἰταλοὺϛ" for those of southern Italy, or Roger as: "ὁ τῶν Σικελῶν ἀρχηγέτης" (the ruler of the Sicilians, ish), whereas Genoese knights at one point are "Λιγούρων ἱππέων". General terms for westerners include everything from Keltoi, Alamanoi, etc to just calling them westerners (δυσμικοῦ παντὸς γένους- all the western peoples) to just barbarians, Barbaroi, of course.
There is also the eschatological dimension here that may be worth mentioning. The prophecy of the last Roman Emperor, who would lay down his crown in Jerusalem, ushering in the second coming and all that was very common at that point, with some versions possibly even referring to John or the Crusaders, and with Anatolia reconquered that would be an even stronger narrative. May be worth weaving in somewhere? Also whether Sanjar, the Great Seljuk Sultan, would get involved? OTL he only sends a few letters and is too busy out east, and he and his authority is gone by the OTL 2nd Crusade, but with an earlier Crusade he might be forced to step in as both sides escalate their forces? Can post more info if you're interested in that. As I said, great TL and looking forward to the update either way!
John is meant to have been contemplating a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1143: William of Tyre, Kinnamos and Choniates give accounts of the negotiations involved, whereby John (overwintering in Tarsus in Cilicia in 1142) sent an embassy 'of the highest nobility' to King Fulk, mentioning how he wanted to visit the Holy City for prayer and to lend aid against the enemy there, though William of Tyre mentions that these reasons were 'to disguise his real purpose' (dissimulabat mentis conceptum), with most historians assuming that that purpose was to gain recognition of his status above the crusader princes in person, pretty much exactly as you have described.
In response to his embassy, William of Tyre relates that King Fulk sent Anselm, Bishop of Bethlehem, Rohard, Castellan of Jerusalem, and Geoffrey, Abbot of the Temple of the Lord (who spoke Greek), saying that Fulk would be happy to welcome him, but due to the small size of the kingdom, could John please only bring 10,000 men as escort. William tells us that having 'only' 10,000men was not in keeping with imperial dignity and so he abandoned his intentions at that point, though we only have his word for it, and then the whole issue became moot anyway as shortly thereafter John was die in the hunting accident. Choniates, Kinnamos and the later short chronicles all mention how he dying words were that he had wanted to go to Jerusalem, and both Kinnamos and a court poem mention how John donated a lampstand made of 20 talents of gold to the Holy Sepulchre anyway.
As such, in a timeline where Anatolia is being pacified, Antioch already in his possession, and John is given the flexibility to go east most of ten years earlier, your account is pretty believable really. OTL there are court poems about the lords of Antioch, Tripoli and 'Aelia Capitolina' laying their lances at the emperors feet, which are likely fanciful but they do show the political rhetoric the empire was trying to make reality. Of course, when he does try this in Antioch OTL there is rioting (possibly stirred up by the Normans) that may be a good model for people's reaction in Jerusalem in your TL.
What is also true is that John was by the late 1130s in negotiations with the Italian city states (Pisa, Genoa and Venice at least), the Papacy and the German Emperor (who is given the slightly ambiguous title in their dealings of 'ῥὴξ of elder Rome', which is technically accurate as 'King of the Romans' was one of the western imperial titles - remembering also that Piroska-Eirene was if anything as German as she was Hungarian through her mother, and being second cousins with Emperors Henry V and Conrad) in order to form an alliance against the Norman King Roger. Emperor Lothar extensively campaigned against Roger with Byzantine support in 1137, which is phrased in such a way in the sources that this could mean either money, or possibly even troops or naval support (there is another poem mentioning a new fleet being constructed in Cyprus for the purpose of taking on the Normans, as well as impressing the Germans). Manuel's engagement to Bertha-Eirene was part of these negotiations, though how exactly they were going to divide southern Italy was always the sticking point they didn't really get around to sorting. As such, very much looking forward to your next update.
Only nitpicks are that Frangoi, Latinikoi and Normanoi are all later terms (though Muslims use 'Franj' a lot of course) - Byzantine authors almost always call people by the land they are from rather than the people they are at this point, thus Turks are always Persians, etc. Normans are usually referred to as "Ἰταλοὺϛ" for those of southern Italy, or Roger as: "ὁ τῶν Σικελῶν ἀρχηγέτης" (the ruler of the Sicilians, ish), whereas Genoese knights at one point are "Λιγούρων ἱππέων". General terms for westerners include everything from Keltoi, Alamanoi, etc to just calling them westerners (δυσμικοῦ παντὸς γένους- all the western peoples) to just barbarians, Barbaroi, of course.
There is also the eschatological dimension here that may be worth mentioning. The prophecy of the last Roman Emperor, who would lay down his crown in Jerusalem, ushering in the second coming and all that was very common at that point, with some versions possibly even referring to John or the Crusaders, and with Anatolia reconquered that would be an even stronger narrative. May be worth weaving in somewhere? Also whether Sanjar, the Great Seljuk Sultan, would get involved? OTL he only sends a few letters and is too busy out east, and he and his authority is gone by the OTL 2nd Crusade, but with an earlier Crusade he might be forced to step in as both sides escalate their forces? Can post more info if you're interested in that. As I said, great TL and looking forward to the update either way!
Wow look at John flexing those purple muscles. He is arguably the greatest of the Komnenian Emperors and if his death by hunting accident is butterflied we should see much more of him.
In the event of a joint Imperial-Crusader invasion of Egypt I could see a split where the Romans take the major cities of the Delta (Alexandria should be nonnegotiable), with the Crusaders taking the rest. And I agree with prior ideas that any Egyptian kingdom (especially one conquered during a Crusade) should be an independent kingdom.
In the event of a joint Imperial-Crusader invasion of Egypt I could see a split where the Romans take the major cities of the Delta (Alexandria should be nonnegotiable), with the Crusaders taking the rest. And I agree with prior ideas that any Egyptian kingdom (especially one conquered during a Crusade) should be an independent kingdom.
Normans, wrecking shit and trying to make kingdoms since 1066.
Last edited:
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
Successful crusades going to make many butterflies towards the modern world.
-there is no need for the search of the new road toward India.
-Muslim king is going to fight a war in crusades which going to decrease the power of Sultanate of India and South Indian marine empire Chola going to use this vacuum to established their rule in the north going to start Hindu rescission period.
-In the west After the crusade a Pan-European society is going to form, and an early Renaissance in the west also
- When Mongol crusade comes they going to end all Muslim destiny in the middle east.
-Mongol going to fight a strong pan-European army in the field which can defeat a Mongol army with a severe loss like 1.5 to 3 lakh man in a war.
What you people think about what happens when crusading is successful.
-there is no need for the search of the new road toward India.
-Muslim king is going to fight a war in crusades which going to decrease the power of Sultanate of India and South Indian marine empire Chola going to use this vacuum to established their rule in the north going to start Hindu rescission period.
-In the west After the crusade a Pan-European society is going to form, and an early Renaissance in the west also
- When Mongol crusade comes they going to end all Muslim destiny in the middle east.
-Mongol going to fight a strong pan-European army in the field which can defeat a Mongol army with a severe loss like 1.5 to 3 lakh man in a war.
What you people think about what happens when crusading is successful.
I am personally interested in Buddhist revival India, Hinduism does not have evangelical mindsets like Buddhism or Islam. It is far better to use Buddhism as a rival due to the weakening of Islam. China, India and south-east Asia can serve as a counterpoint for the Christian world.
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
Buddhism does not go to take a weapon in India because ahimsa is strong, only a strong central Hindu state like Chola can defeat Delhi sultanate whose main army is fighting in Arab
I'm not quite so sure a "pan-European" society is anywhere near forming yet. The Holy Roman Empire is still very much a thing and each of the Kings of Europe has their own ambitions.
And on the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery was not solely triggered by the fall of Constantinople. The Mamluks of the time still held a sizable portion of the Eastern trade via the sea route to Alexandria and it still flowed to Europe. Portugal had even been exploring since 1415 which also yielded them many riches in the form of slaves and gold that would be their main interest in exploring instead of an Indian route.
Also the Renaissance was not entirely based off of Greek interaction in the wake of the fall of Constantinople. Sure it might hit a bit earlier with the right cultural incentives but it doesn't necessarily get here THAT much quicker.
And on the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery was not solely triggered by the fall of Constantinople. The Mamluks of the time still held a sizable portion of the Eastern trade via the sea route to Alexandria and it still flowed to Europe. Portugal had even been exploring since 1415 which also yielded them many riches in the form of slaves and gold that would be their main interest in exploring instead of an Indian route.
Also the Renaissance was not entirely based off of Greek interaction in the wake of the fall of Constantinople. Sure it might hit a bit earlier with the right cultural incentives but it doesn't necessarily get here THAT much quicker.
Outside southern India all of those territories were not directly controlled.
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
they controlled by the governor which follow the direct interest of the Chola empire, also by this sea route chola control silk cloth business and wootz iron which makes them wealthy, so if they trade high-grade steel with the world that they have enough industry to going with war with Delhi Sultanate which only situated in the 100 KM area around Delhi after sending his army in Arab
In addition, you can also see the Iberian explorations as a Genoese attempt to bypass Venice - obviously not clearly affected by the TL so far. And it worked too, it's just that Genoa went down even harder and faster when the trade shifted to the Atlantic.
Thanks very much for the input, friend, this piece was highly informative and I do confess I wasn't aware about the details of John's possible pilgrimage to Jerusalem. It is indeed curious that sometimes we imagine that something might have happened IOTL without even having enough historical information to reach the conclusion, but this doesn't seems to be the case.
That's a good point about the "Byzantine" terminology towards the Franks, I supposed that at least "Frankoi" was already commonplace during the period (altough I don't read Greek, so I never actually saw a contemporary source, barring the English translations of The Alexiad. I'll have this in mind in next updates.
I have read something about the famous "AIMA prophecy", but this is one thing that I considered to be a rather minor detail in the grand scheme of things, but, indeed, you raised a good point, this is a very interesting element to be explored here ITTL, as it represents well the "Byzantine" worldview.
Finally, I have not forgotten about the Great Seljuks, and the answer to your question is yes, they will play a large role in this alt-Second Crusade. I'm sparing details right now because it is a work in progress, of course, but I'm very interested in your ideas. Every suggestion is very much welcome.
Unless the Mongols (if you're still set on them appearing) devastate the Byzantines, it seems that in this timeline the most dangerous foes for the Empire will be from the west.*
*Though the Mongols could be a western threat too
*Though the Mongols could be a western threat too
Even if the ATL Mongols reach the Empire, they’d have to cut through many of the Empire’s foes to reach them. And the prospect of forcing their way through the Taurus mountains seems far less attractive than blasting through the Levant and Egypt. The Crusaders are easier targets.
Last edited:
Hopefully this does not end up biting the Komnenoi in the arse too much. Ioannes II did surely know that the norman families could and likely would have reasons to mistrust and mislike him just as he mistrusts and mislikes them. At the very least, he did not go down with his ship and should be able to continue this alt-Komnenian restoration.
I mean, the AIMA prophecy is kinda important, if only for the sheer dynastic mess it created in Constantinople
Well nonetheless never underestimate them.
Now, on a matter of territorial claims, Alexios isn't wrong to pretend an oath of vassallage and the Crusaders, who didn't have - yet - a king as well, simply didn't have the possibility to resist this.
But certainly, the Byzantine aptitude would sour relations between Outremer and the Empire, which could change only when the two sides will clash, and the latter will lose.