Skallagrim

Banned
yes in the short notice but in the future they may want to expand more and now that they have a buffer space there in a good spot. Also the mongols have taken castle a many time before by the time they reach georgia it won't be a major challenge for them

A lot depends on how regional rivals develop/consolidate. My main point is that Georgia isn't going to be doing any major expanding before the Mongols are scheduled to show up, but will be forced to fortify their borders during the interval.

Then when the Mongols do arrive, Georgia, Armenia, the ERE and the Crusaders are all in a stronger position than in OTL. Mind you, I think that georgia in Armenia are still going to get overrun. As you say: the Mongols know how to besiege a fortified city. But a siege does slow them down, and a campaign that demands siege after siege is not going to be lightning-quick by a long shot. This is vital, because it will allow the Crusaders and ERE (in particular!) to get ready for the inevitable hostilies.

My take on those hostilities is that with Armenia and georgia basically fulfilling their purpose as buffer states, the ERE and the Crusaders can get ready to act in concert. The Mongols can then either drive through the mountains of Anatolia in an attempt to reach and sack Constaninople, or move south of the mountains, driving for Jerusalem first. The former option will by definition be a grueling campaign, which not only includes many points where the Byzantines could ambush the Mongols in one of the countless mountain passes, but also leaves the Mongol flank exposed to Crusader intervention. The latter option is slightly less grueling, although the region is still not a cake-walk, with the additional fact that there's a choice to make: staying more to the north is better for crossing (less terrible desert), but leaves your right flank totally exposed to attacks from the mountains. Going further south forces you to cross the Syrian desert, which is exhausting and leaves your forces in sub-optimal condition upon arrival. And this choice, in turn, also leaves you vulnerable to Byzantine intervention when you are engaged in attacking the Crusaders.

Either way, I see the Mongols suffering a serious defeat that ends their campaign. Afterwards, when the Mongol empire begins to fracture, I think that the ERE in particular could immensely profit: the ruined remnants of Armenia and Georgia would be up for direct annexation (in fact, with the *Golden Horde to the north and the *Ilkhanate to the south/south-east, Byzantine protection would be embraced eagerly.)
 
@Gabrielico - to be fair, I didn't give a lot of thought about that specific phrase about the Pope's letter. It was supposed to be only one of these minor anecdotes that Historians like to cherrypick, sometimes without basis in reality.

But your question made me think about the repercussion this event might actually have: there is indeed a symbolic aspect in having the highest authority of the Catholic world actively supporting the Basileus against a Catholic king (of all of them, that of France). That's not to mean that the Pope sees himself or any monarch in position of genuine subservience towards the Byzantine Emperor. Rather, it would be simply that he realizes that the Empire is an important player in the Crusades and hopes the Catholic kings can be more pragmatic towards the realization of their common goal.

@St. Just - Thierry most likely will remain in the Orient. I've been trying to set up this already. I see him, in the capacity of a Frankish lord under Imperial suzerainty in the region, as a bridge between the Latin Levant and the Byzantine Syria, and in this regard he would be poised to play a larger role than that Edessa played so far.

Zengi, on the other hand, is bounded to be much less successful and relevant than IOTL. His mention is supposed to be more of a cameo than simply an anticipation of any new divergences. I figure that, given the circumstances, he won't have a chance for his star to rise as it happened IOTL.

I'm fond of the Richard Nixon the Used Car Salesman trope, so expect to see some of these off-hand mentions, at least while the TL is still young and this might have a figment of sense. But don't worry, we won't be seeing the likes of Beethoven or Napoleon if we do get to the 18th Century, for example.

@trajen777 - Indeed, even more considering that, by then, the Crusader soldiers are already in a somewhat bad shape, being fraught with disease and deprivation. And, besides, the Saracen side also has their share of veteran troops.

@galileo-034 - yeah, it will be fairly easy to have a post-Second Crusade map, since it will be more comprehensive than the mess that we had so far.

@Skallagrim - I have absolutely not forgotten about the Georgians. In fact, they'll show up in next chapter for certain. In previous chapters we've already mentioned a Byzantine-Georgian alliance, so that's precisely the moment for them to appear and demand their own pieace of the cake. However, remember that between Georgia and the Islamic-dominated Shah-Ahlat, there's another Islamic polity, centered in Ani, that of the Shaddadids, so it is a scenario in which the Georgians can't simply waltz into Armenia to play the big damn heroes moment.

However, I see that you very very cleverly mentioned a possible Georgian incursion against Shirvan. A very good prediction, of course, not only because it was geographically closer, but also because they had, too, this goal of securing the southeastern Caucasus region as a "natural border".

On the other hand, I'm not sure if the Shirvan-Shahs were pushovers. I remember from the top of my head that the Kingdom of Georgia had some military successes against them, but never outright annexed Shirvan. In the long-run, it is an interesting possibility, especially because the Seljuqs are scheduled to fall in some 30 or so years at most.

BTW, I liked the idea about an alliance with the Rus. It is something I had not considered.

Now, about the Mongols... let's wait for it.

@Damian0358 - my friend, that's an excellent post. I'll be sure to contact you everytime I need intel regarding Serbia, considering it is, among all these I've mentioned so far, one I'm less knowledgeable about, and I'm in need of some serious research to adress it properly.

I see that by mentioning Zupan Zavida I've likely made some minor mistakes; as you said, the English Wiki doesn't mentions his date of death, and neither goes in detail about his struggles with Belos and the current Hungarian regency. I suppose I should have done my homework...

Now, the suggestion about having Desa as a chief of the Serbian Crusaders indeed does makes much more sense. I'll looking into it and will likely "retcon" the previous chapter to make it.

Also, Boris Kalamanos is still waiting for his attempted rebellion against King Géza II, much like IOTL. I remember reading somewhere that he actually joined one of the armies of the (historical) Second Crusade, and this provoked some friction between the armies of the HRE and the (already adult) King Géza. ITTL, however, we're somewhat early, so Boris is still hiding in some European court out there, and won't be joining the Crusade (at least not for the time being, especially considering that, as you've seen, these armies are loyal to Géza).

Finally, the mention about Helena doesn't has basis in reality, it is just something I conjured for some drama, but this does comes to favor the premise that Orthodox rulers might be as interested in joining a Crusade as the Catholic ones, even if they do not recognize the genuine universal primacy of the Pope. In this case, the Queen, in spite of not being Catholic, could very well have been convinced by the Hungarian Catholic subjects that the Crusade would bring prestige and wealth to the kingdom.

@Icedaemon - very good question! I'm not sure if the Pope would ascribe some greater legitimacy to the Byzantine Emperor, though; he's seen, by the Holy See, more as a benefactor than as a genuine leader of the Crusaders. On the other hand, the continued omission of the German Emperors is certainly bound to aggravate the distancement between the Papacy and the Imperial Crown that occurred due to the Investiture Controversy. By this moment of the TL, it was mostly solved as a dispute, but the underlying issues resulting from the distinct agendas of the Pope and of the Emperor still exist, and, of course, the idea that the Pope comes as more influential in a world where the Crusades are increasingly more successful jeopardizes the pretenses of the universal monarchy of the German Kaisers. Mind you, this doesn't necessarily changes if one or another German Emperor joins the Crusade, because, in this scenario, if he's sided by other Catholic Kings, such as those of France or England, he'll still be, according to the Papacy, another secular prince with his own army, all of them shadowed by the Pope's spiritual suzerainty.

@jocay and @TheHandsomeBrute - At the present moment, the Kingdom of Georgia is a rising star, for sure, but the Islamic polities are formidable in their own right, so I wouldn't expect for Georgia to grab Azerbaijan too easily.

On the other hand, if Armenia is politically reincorporated into the Imperial sphere, this most certainly deals a serious blow against the regional Islamic powers, and the Georgians, having a more secure southern border, will be keen on investing their resources to prosecute a conquest of Azerbaijan. We must agree, indeed, that they are in a better position to do so than any Byzantine or Frankish polity.

That's why the Georgians have to conquer Azerbaijan and build a lot of castles. Make the conquest as slow, bloody and frustrating as possible when the M*ngols arrive.

The Georgians dont know that. Us in 2019 do. Building a lot of castles takes money. Mongols went that way since they were chasing Shah Muhammed II not really to conquer the Georgians in 1220s. They could have allied or kowtowed to the Mongols instead of fighting them since they had a common enemy during that time. OTL situation did not favor the Georgians since when it was the Khwarezmians who attacked the Georgians before the Mongols went back in 1230s. Even then in 1230s, war with the Mongols could easily be avoided thru excellent diplomacy. All they had to do was pay tribute which was the end result anyways.

Yeah, some good points. Again, we have a lot of spare time before the Mongols might arrive. In the meantime, who knows, maybe Georgia has already blobbed through the whole of the Caucasus region.

True, but if the Georgians do work together with the Byzantines, the Armenians and the Latins, and do manage to take control of Azerbaijan/Shirvan, then they will most assuredly recognise the need to heavily fortify their borders. Not against the Mongols, but against the certainly pissed-off Muslims to their south.


Castles_3d36ec_1869326.jpg
 
Last edited:
My friend, that's an excellent post. I'll be sure to contact you everytime I need intel regarding Serbia, considering it is, among all these I've mentioned so far, one I'm less knowledgeable about, and I'm in need of some serious research to adress it properly.

Serbian being accessible to me does make it easier, but deficiencies in overall knowledge cannot be avoided, and, well, free accessibility to research from the web isn't exactly a given. I just hope I'll be of use when you do need intel!

I see that by mentioning Zupan Zavida I've likely made some minor mistakes; as you said, the English Wiki doesn't mentions his date of death, and neither goes in detail about his struggles with Belos and the current Hungarian regency. I suppose I should have done my homework...

Now, the suggestion about having Desa as a chief of the Serbian Crusaders indeed does makes much more sense. I'll looking into it and will likely "retcon" the previous chapter to make it.

If it is any consolation, I'm not of the mind that Zavida is the unnamed Rascian prince or even a son of Vukan, as per Živković's interpretation. I'd rather lean towards him being some close relative, still being alive post-1127 and, likely now, being in Rascia with his sons, probably having gained back some influence within Serbia now that Uroš I was a proper vassal of the Byzantines and Đorđe Bodinović was finally imprisoned. In fact, maybe he's in the Serbian court right now as part of the pro-Byzantine faction, which could later lead to his eldest son Tihomir being part of Uroš II's court. Just musing based on historical vagueness. I don't blame you on not having done your homework though, I mean, I kept updating the post with more info and correcting myself as necessary, and that all was based on some articles, both from more proper research sites and from Wikipedia. It's a difficult thing.

If you do retcon it, you could refer to him as "the Serbian prince Desa of Rascia, son of the Grand Prince Uroš I Vukanović," to avoid mentioning any titles for the time being (especially as it appears that he only became Prince of Doclea, Travunia and Zachumlia after defeating Radoslav Gradišnić of Duklja [son of Gradihna Branislavljević], first taking Doclea and Travunia in 1148, becoming Prince of the Littoral/Maritime, before finally taking Zachumlia by 1150/1 - though he appeared to give up those lands back to Radoslav after becoming co-ruler of Serbia, or at least, he gave up Doclea to Radoslav, who would end up passing it to his son, Mihailo III, after his death). Desa of Rascia does seem to be a name used in some historiography, so it'd be appropriate for use here (especially considering the variations that exist on Desa's name - Desa Vukanović, Desa Urošević Vukanović, Desa Urošević Vojislavljević, etc).

Also, Boris Kalamanos is still waiting for his attempted rebellion against King Géza II, much like IOTL. I remember reading somewhere that he actually joined one of the armies of the (historical) Second Crusade, and this provoked some friction between the armies of the HRE and the (already adult) King Géza. ITTL, however, we're somewhat early, so Boris is still hiding in some European court out there, and won't be joining the Crusade (at least not for the time being, especially considering that, as you've seen, these armies are loyal to Géza).

Ah yeah, I remember seeing this too. He initially wanted to join the German crusaders, led by Conrad III, presumably because of previous connections, but Géza II paid so much money for them not to allow Boris to join that he ended up having to look elsewhere, and looked towards the French instead. After not getting a response from Louis VII, he persuaded two French lords to help him join the crusaders' army, and after Géza II found out, he demanded Boris' extradition, but Louis VII granted him asylum and refused, though he promised he'd have Boris leave Hungary, which he did.

So, most likely, he's in some German court at the moment, though that is based in some limited research, so...

Finally, the mention about Helena doesn't have basis in reality, it is just something I conjured for some drama, but this does comes to favor the premise that Orthodox rulers might be as interested in joining a Crusade as the Catholic ones, even if they do not recognize the genuine universal primacy of the Pope. In this case, the Queen, in spite of not being Catholic, could very well have been convinced by the Hungarian Catholic subjects that the Crusade would bring prestige and wealth to the kingdom.

Well, she does appear to have been rather faithful to her husband and her state, going so far as to persuade the nobles to execute aristocrats that had plotted to blind her husband, and attended said execution to make sure they were dead. It wouldn't surprise me if, after converting to Catholicism for the marriage, she tried to be faithful too for her husband's sake if he was as "religious and pious" as you say. If he were to have pledged that he would join the Crusade, surely his faithful wife would ensure it would go through after his death, even if the rest of the court was apathetic to the notion.

So, unfortunately, the premise doesn't exactly hold up here, but it may make the notion of joining the Crusade more palatable for the Orthodox, especially if she convinced her father, Grand Prince Uroš I, to have someone join them, alongside her Hungarian Catholic, Croatian Catholic, and minimal Serbian Orthodox subjects. Like, for instance, her brother Desa. He seems like he's more into Catholic thought, genuine or not. Depending on what happens to Desa, the Serbian Crusaders may be a historical anomaly, or something that repeats in the future. Just gotta wonder if he'll be as unfriendly to John II as he was with Manuel I.
 
Last edited:

jocay

Banned
If there's any sort of alternate video game industry, I like to think there's a Kingdom Come Deliverance expy set during the devastation of Edessa and the subsequent response by the Byzantines/Crusaders.
 
If there's any sort of alternate video game industry, I like to think there's a Kingdom Come Deliverance expy set during the devastation of Edessa and the subsequent response by the Byzantines/Crusaders.
This got me thinking. Someone needs to make a historical film/show about the ERE.
 
Serbian being accessible to me does make it easier, but deficiencies in overall knowledge cannot be avoided, and, well, free accessibility to research from the web isn't exactly a given. I just hope I'll be of use when you do need intel!

If it is any consolation, I'm not of the mind that Zavida is the unnamed Rascian prince or even a son of Vukan, as per Živković's interpretation. I'd rather lean towards him being some close relative, still being alive post-1127 and, likely now, being in Rascia with his sons, probably having gained back some influence within Serbia now that Uroš I was a proper vassal of the Byzantines and Đorđe Bodinović was finally imprisoned. In fact, maybe he's in the Serbian court right now as part of the pro-Byzantine faction, which could later lead to his eldest son Tihomir being part of Uroš II's court. Just musing based on historical vagueness. I don't blame you on not having done your homework though, I mean, I kept updating the post with more info and correcting myself as necessary, and that all was based on some articles, both from more proper research sites and from Wikipedia. It's a difficult thing.

If you do retcon it, you could refer to him as "the Serbian prince Desa of Rascia, son of the Grand Prince Uroš I Vukanović," to avoid mentioning any titles for the time being (especially as it appears that he only became Prince of Doclea, Travunia and Zachumlia after defeating Radoslav Gradišnić of Duklja [son of Gradihna Branislavljević], first taking Doclea and Travunia in 1148, becoming Prince of the Littoral/Maritime, before finally taking Zachumlia by 1150/1 - though he appeared to give up those lands back to Radoslav after becoming co-ruler of Serbia, or at least, he gave up Doclea to Radoslav, who would end up passing it to his son, Mihailo III, after his death). Desa of Rascia does seem to be a name used in some historiography, so it'd be appropriate for use here (especially considering the variations that exist on Desa's name - Desa Vukanović, Desa Urošević Vukanović, Desa Urošević Vojislavljević, etc).

Ah yeah, I remember seeing this too. He initially wanted to join the German crusaders, led by Conrad III, presumably because of previous connections, but Géza II paid so much money for them not to allow Boris to join that he ended up having to look elsewhere, and looked towards the French instead. After not getting a response from Louis VII, he persuaded two French lords to help him join the crusaders' army, and after Géza II found out, he demanded Boris' extradition, but Louis VII granted him asylum and refused, though he promised he'd have Boris leave Hungary, which he did.

So, most likely, he's in some German court at the moment, though that is based in some limited research, so...

Well, she does appear to have been rather faithful to her husband and her state, going so far as to persuade the nobles to execute aristocrats that had plotted to blind her husband, and attended said execution to make sure they were dead. It wouldn't surprise me if, after converting to Catholicism for the marriage, she tried to be faithful too for her husband's sake if he was as "religious and pious" as you say. If he were to have pledged that he would join the Crusade, surely his faithful wife would ensure it would go through after his death, even if the rest of the court was apathetic to the notion.

So, unfortunately, the premise doesn't exactly hold up here, but it may make the notion of joining the Crusade more palatable for the Orthodox, especially if she convinced her father, Grand Prince Uroš I, to have someone join them, alongside her Hungarian Catholic, Croatian Catholic, and minimal Serbian Orthodox subjects. Like, for instance, her brother Desa. He seems like he's more into Catholic thought, genuine or not. Depending on what happens to Desa, the Serbian Crusaders may be a historical anomaly, or something that repeats in the future. Just gotta wonder if he'll be as unfriendly to John II as he was with Manuel I.

Excellent points. I liked the suggestions very much, thanks! When I considered the idea of having Serbian Crusaders joining the Hungarians, I just cared about looking why might be of some significance and alive in the period, but did not look into the actual details. Your intervention, in this regard, was very insightful, not only because you demonstrated interesting tidbits of research, but also because it puts into spotlight a bigger picture of the region.

The point about Desa Urošević, in particular, is a great one, and it indeed convinced me that it would make much more sense, in the context of the TL, if, in the least, due to his closer relationship to the Árpad dynasty.

I'm very positive about developing the idea of Orthodox peoples being more interested in Crusading in comparison to IOTL, but then, I need to face the basic premise, which I'll now put as a question, if anyone wants to think together: Why weren't the Orthodox Christians so enthusiastic about the Crusades in relation to the Catholic nations?

I believe there are, besides the lack of religious identification with the central Papal authority, likely some underlying economic and social questions, but, this doesn't explains why one or another Orthodox Slavic prince couldn't join a Crusade out of sheer opportunism.

This TL is like crack, I can't get enough of it.

yes, but, unlike crack, this can fuck your mind up to more for the same price.


When I am the producer and distributor of this. Feel kinda like Walter White in the latter seasons.

300px-Monkey_Puppet.jpg



I don't know why, but I have the strange feeling that the Mario Bros. are Crusaders too... EDIT: If this is true, then somebody get on that. This may be the single greatest silly idea ever conceived.

LOL, that's definity one of those things too batshit insane to be true, but you've given me an interesting idea... what about Mario and Luigi as Victual Brothers' expies operating in the Mediterranean?

If there's any sort of alternate video game industry, I like to think there's a Kingdom Come Deliverance expy set during the devastation of Edessa and the subsequent response by the Byzantines/Crusaders.

It would be awesome indeed. In fact, any open world situated in the Crusader Era would be interesting in it own right. I envision the Mount and Blade series as being the most faithful to the idea of being an adventurer carving his own kingdom.

This got me thinking. Someone needs to make a historical film/show about the ERE.

Yeah! I believe Byzantium suffers a peculiar case of obscurity, because it is relatively ignored in the West as are Medieval polities as whole, in the context of the post-Romanticist Anglocentrism that effectively monopolizes western media since the beginning of the 20th Century. It tells something that you see some many movies about Robin Hood and King Arthur instead of, say, Charlemagne, which had a much more significant impact in European history, only because it is expected that audiences will be more familiar with the former, and not with the later.

On the other hand, I believe it might have been perhaps rehabilited by the Russian (or East Slavic as a whole) cinema, had not the Soviet regime made an active effort to distance themselves of "foreign" influences (and of Orthodox religion altogether) to emphasize the Russian nationalism, so it is odd that even the "Third Rome" nowadays fails to acknowledge the "Second Rome". Now that I think about it, we'd have some "meta alternate-history" here: in an alt-TL in which Tsarist Russia survives and modernizes, we could see directors and producers interested in making Ridley Scott-like big productions depicting Byzantine history, perhaps, to emphasize the Orthodox progeny.
 
I'm very positive about developing the idea of Orthodox peoples being more interested in Crusading in comparison to IOTL, but then, I need to face the basic premise, which I'll now put as a question, if anyone wants to think together: Why weren't the Orthodox Christians so enthusiastic about the Crusades in relation to the Catholic nations?

I believe there are, besides the lack of religious identification with the central Papal authority, likely some underlying economic and social questions, but, this doesn't explains why one or another Orthodox Slavic prince couldn't join a Crusade out of sheer opportunism.

While I can't exactly provide a good answer to this, thinking about the question reminded me how, much later on, the Serbian Emperor Stefan Uroš IV Dušan, before his death in 1355, was in contact with the Pope as to assemble and organize a crusade against the Turks that were encroaching.

One thing to consider is the fact that, at the time (and something that would intensify after the Ottomans took over, with non-ecumenical archbishops/patriarchs basically being the representation of the people in a socio-religious sense), the religious and the social went hand-in-hand, and not just in terms of religious affiliation. Consider the point of, for instance, autocephalous archbishoprics - from my understanding, until the regions within the Balkans obtained their own autocephalous churches, the bishops and monks who were at those churches and monasteries were largely Greeks (unless forced out, as happened with the Archbishopric of Ohrid, when Kaloyan expelled the Greeks and installed Bulgarians in hopes of uniting it with the newly-formed Tarnovo archbishopric/patriarchate). Obtaining your own autocephalous church meant that the bishops and monks now spoke your tongue, they were Serbs, Bulgarian, what have you! And returning to the IRL example of the Ottomans, during the periods when they shut down the local archbishoprics, the jurisdiction of those areas fell under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, meaning that, in the churches at least, it was once more Greeks and not Serbs who were the head brass. This even led to the dislike of Greeks in some areas, just because they had the power over the church.

Going back to Dušan, parallel to those talks of organizing a crusade, he was also apparently negotiating the formal acceptance of papal primacy, not just merely to crusade, but to also stop Hungarian attacks from the north. And even then, the Serbian court ultimately rejected the notion of papal primacy after a Papal envoy came to discuss it. By the mid-14th century, I'd suspect we had gotten to the point where the social circumstances of Orthodoxy were deemed more appealing than those of Catholicism, because of its locality - the Ecumenical Patriarch is the First Among Equals, but the Autocephalous do not report to him. Similarly, the Autocephalous churches were arguably closer tied to the local monarchies than the local Catholic churches found elsewhere that had close ties to their rulers, so sacrificing that sort of influence could also be a factor (see the autocephalous Church of Greece as an inverse example, as, while much later than anything else mentioned here, played a role in power as the Ecumenical Patriarch was still under Ottoman control while Greece had declared its independence).

But honestly, I think the biggest point is just pragmatism - Dušan wanted to organize a crusade because of a threat that was approaching, but likely otherwise wouldn't have even considered it. The Byzantines, if they hadn't needed military aid, likely wouldn't have spoken to the Pope for help. In both instances, the Pope was approached not due to a religious wish, but out of pragmatism, because he could theoretically mobilize a larger force because there was no autocephaly for him to deal with. And it would be the Pope (likely too in Dušan's case had it gone through) that propelled it to the status of "crusade". For the Orthodox, whose church bodies didn't necessarily have to cooperate, fighting a war against an approaching threat wouldn't have been a "crusade", it would've been a war with an alliance of convenience. The monks and priests of the Bulgarian Autocephalous Church at the time (that being, the Archbishopric of Ohrid) likely cared not for what was happening with the Byzantines' eastern border, for the national character of the church was still preserved even if the higher clergy had become invariably Byzantine, and its power and influence reduced to an archbishopric. And if the local church cared not, why would the people? This explains the point on opportunism too, to some extent, because why go out of your way to get involved with a crusade if no one else you can affiliate to is there? What do you stand to gain? You'd just be surrounded by Catholics who'd have a wider base of allies, who'd see you as second- or third-rate. Better to stay home and play the court game there instead.
 
Last edited:
I'm very positive about developing the idea of Orthodox peoples being more interested in Crusading in comparison to IOTL, but then, I need to face the basic premise, which I'll now put as a question, if anyone wants to think together: Why weren't the Orthodox Christians so enthusiastic about the Crusades in relation to the Catholic nations?

There seems to be have been a number of scholarly articles on this subject, but they generally seem to be behind paywalls and the like.
Examples: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44172480 and https://www.academia.edu/1946896/Jihād_and_Crusade_Byzantine_positions_towards_the_notions_of_holy_war_Byzantina_Symmeikta_21_2011_
http://deremilitari.org/2013/06/the-byzantine-background-to-the-first-crusade/

I get the impression that for Byzantium, the behaviour of the Crusaders may have been a factor. Also, it seems that the Pope supported the idea of Holy War and Crusades more than the Orthodox clergy.
 
@Damian0358 - another excellent and fascinating contribution. I must thank you for the support. It has been great to explore your insights in History. Have you considered making a Medieval Serbia TL? I'd be the first reader, I assure.

The autocephaly of the Orthodox churches is an interesting detail, but I think you nailed the question when you pointed out that not even "opportunism" would work because any non-Catholic ruler simply wouldn't have that much of opportunity in a Catholic Crusade. This makes me think that I perhaps can make the idea of Orthodox sympathies for Crusades work if Byzantium as a whole is more integrated into the Crusading macro-activity. It will take some time for us to get there, of course.

@JamesFox - thanks for the input! Depending on the content, I don't mind paying for it.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Now, for another matter altogether, I've been doing some research on Georgia for the next chapter, and I realized I've made an incoherent deduction in some previous chapters, where I mentioned the Shirvanshahs (especifically, Manuchehr III the Great) as vassals of the Seljuks, and the fact that Georgia might in the future attempt an invasion of Shirvan. Now, I've read that King David IV did invade and apparently subjugated Shirvan as early as the 1120s, but the local Muslim rule would be restored by his son Demetrius, with Manuchehr III as a Georgian vassal. I'll need to revise the previous few chapters, then, and, also, I'll have to concede to the posters that mentioned a possible Georgian conquest of Shirvan. I had said that it wouldn't be happening so soon, but, actually, it did! However, it was historically reversed much later, in the 1160s, when the Georgians lost definitely the control over Shirvan.

TL;DR: by 1142, Shirvan is a vassal of Georgia, and I'll retcon the mention to Shirvan to substitute them for the Eldiguzids of Azerbaijan, who were in fact related by kinship to Seljuk Sultan Mas'ud. It makes much more sense, now that I see it.

Also, I'll try to upload the next chapter today. It is a bit larger than I had expected, but I believe it will be an interesting addition.
 
Another excellent and fascinating contribution. I must thank you for the support. It has been great to explore your insights in History. Have you considered making a Medieval Serbia TL? I'd be the first reader, I assure.

There was a period in time where I was thinking about writing a timeline on the First Serbian Uprising - the WI thread in my signature likely being the basis of the POD - but that would've required me to do some detailed research to make sure I didn't misrepresent any of the figures involved nor have them act 'out-of-character', and with how awful my own scheduling and organizing is, it just didn't work out. And recently I had a thought on a TL with a more liberal Communist Yugoslavia, which only manifested into a wikibox.

In regards to a Medieval Serbia TL, it had been quite some time since I looked into the time period in detail, as when you speak of the Nemanjić family, generally only a number of names pop up when you think about them, such as Nemanja, Stefan the First-Crowned (whose actual name seems to also be debated), Uroš I, Dušan and Uroš V when regarding rulers, and obviously Saint Sava. I'd have to look through my old high school history books, and research online, for anything that could be interesting for a TL that I'd want to write (aside from the standard "Dušan lives" timeline, since there are plenty of options, though not as many that I'd do beyond just a wikibox, which I have done).

I'm more than happy to just be on the sidelines and help others with their timelines, whether it be providing actual insight or just providing some fun facts. Iluvatar, SealTheRealDeal, Earl Marshal, varyar, and especially LeinadB93 would know!

The autocephaly of the Orthodox churches is an interesting detail, but I think you nailed the question when you pointed out that not even "opportunism" would work because any non-Catholic ruler simply wouldn't have that much of opportunity in a Catholic Crusade. This makes me think that I perhaps can make the idea of Orthodox sympathies for Crusades work if Byzantium as a whole is more integrated into the Crusading macro-activity. It will take some time for us to get there, of course.

Perhaps! But that could similarly work against it, though mainly for those in the Balkans, associating crusading with the blasted Greeks and Constantinople. Considering how declaring an empire in Orthodoxy was tantamount to declaring yourself the empire at the time, at least to Constantinople whenever the Bulgarians did it (and the one time the Serbs did), it wouldn't be entirely too surprising. But we do have a good first step in involving non-Greek Orthodox bodies in the form of Helena convincing her father to send Desa to join the Hungarian Crusaders - as said, it all depends on what happens with him.
 
Last edited:
. And recently I had a thought on a TL with a more liberal Communist Yugoslavia, which only manifested into a wikibox.

Somewhat off topic, but frankly, I would really like to see a Yugoslav TL, especially one where it does not end up in blood and broken up several extremely weakened countries all with grudges against each other. I never really considered that removing Rankovič early on would curb some of the centralisation SFRJ had in its later period, but I would definitely read that TL. Ko nas bre rastavi? ;)
 
Somewhat off topic, but frankly, I would really like to see a Yugoslav TL, especially one where it does not end up in blood and broken up several extremely weakened countries all with grudges against each other. I never really considered that removing Rankovič early on would curb some of the centralisation SFRJ had in its later period, but I would definitely read that TL. Ko nas bre rastavi? ;)

We'll quit the off-topicness here but, maybe I should make a WI thread on my speculative thoughts on such a TL and inspire (if not personally form) a Presidium of users who could achieve such a TL. Niko neće nas rastaviti!
 
We'll quit the off-topicness here but, maybe I should make a WI thread on my speculative thoughts on such a TL and inspire (if not personally form) a Presidium of users who could achieve such a TL. Niko neće nas rastaviti!

One of the main reasons I love this site is situations like this, where you go from talking about Alt. Crusader State to discussing Alt. Yugoslavia. I would like to see that, and see what ideas you might have, and if the discussion ever strays into realm of Military I would gladly volunteer my aid. Then Uz maršala Tita, junačkoga sina nas neće ni pakao smest? :)
---------
As far as this TL is concerned, I do wonder what is the state of Jerusalemite naval forces? Are there any actual ships under their command, or are they completely reliant upon goodwill of their Italian and Byzantine allies in that regard? They really could do with some sort of a navy, if only for the fact that they are still very much dependant on European based forces to bulk up their numbers, and ensuring that they cross the Med as quickly and safely as possible should be in their interest. Not to mention that with Eastern Med technicaly becoming almost completely safe, trade between various factions there could be worth quite a lot, so there could be an additional reason for Jerusalem to get into naval game.

Great work @Rdffigueira , keep it up.
 
Top