Anyway, this timeline's going great! Just hope the Byzantines don't die. DEUS VULT!
And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace
- Thread starter Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)
- Start date
Anyway, this timeline's going great! Just hope the Byzantines don't die. DEUS VULT!
Egypt is a wealthy prize and one that would (if taken) dramatically improve the viability of any Christian state in the Levant. Long term I think it's an all or nothing prospect- either the Crusaders (or Empire) take Egypt and hold the Holy Land, or they eventually get crushed by the Egyptians.
Will the populous of the levant distinguish between the Romans and the Crusaders given that the Crusaders have already begun massacring (Antioch). Could the Romans possibly benefit from playing the Good Christian ruler in contrast to the Crusaders when it comes to biting off chunks of territory that would have otherwise gone to the Crusaders?
I would caution against overstating Crusader brutality. Generally cities that resisted were sacked, regardless of who they were and who was conquering them, indeed this was not only normal but expected and welcomed as part of the perks of being a soldier (during a Roman Civil War, legionaries in Capua were gleefully rubbing their hands over rape and pillage against fellow Romans.) When it came time to rule the Crusaders were not significantly more oppressive than any other 11th century minority elite ruling over a multi-confessional majority, indeed the crusader dynasties often "went native" and leaned heavily on eg the Armenians and other natives in the Levant out of necessity. Note also that the eastern Christians were in some places the majority at this period, and substantial minorities most places- Syria, Lebanon, upper Egypt were all heavily non-Chalecedonian Christian for instance.
This is not to diminish the very real atrocities inflicted upon the population during the conquest, but the classical image of barbaric, imperialist Franks and enlightened, peaceful Muslims is inaccurate and robs both peoples of their agency and nuance.
This is not to diminish the very real atrocities inflicted upon the population during the conquest, but the classical image of barbaric, imperialist Franks and enlightened, peaceful Muslims is inaccurate and robs both peoples of their agency and nuance.
If its that zero sum, I think the Crusaders have already lost cause the odds of taking Egypt successfully are so incredibly low.
Also one thing I've always thought was a neat idea but judging by this thread am alone in thinking so would be a Crusader state that out lives Byzantium, and actually receives a lot of refugees from the fall, becoming a center of a uniquely eastern-inspired Rennaisance.
(Of course few people and fewer threads push for destroying Rome as often as I do)
So far, going from the PoD I created, I believe we can have a more long-lived Byzantium (especially if they suceed in assimilating the Rúm Turks). I cannot predict how long the Empire will last, but its demise won't come by the hands of the Crusaders, like OTL Fourth Crusade.
The allegiance the Crusaders might have towards Constantinople owes more to the charisma and personal strength of Alexios rather than a formal submission to the Empire. Once a weaker emperor comes ahead, or a civil war, or even someone less interested in the Levantine affairs, its likely that the Crusaders will simply be left to fend off.
As of the end of the First Crusade, the KOJ will be for at least a generation bent on wars to preserve its own existence (like OTL), and Egypt and Syria will remain permanent threats until they are pacified, with the Turks in Asia Minor being a more peripheral hostile force (especially if the flow of pilgrims continues regularly through Anatolia)
This means that the KOJ is more likely to be preoccupied with the wars against the Fatimids than against the Turks.
Well the Turks in Syria will have a strong incentive to wage aggressive wars against Jerusalem or at the least try to retake Antioch and isolate the Crusaders. Whereas the Fatimids are relatively weaker. No matter what, history here will resemble a see-saw I think - Jerusalem benefits when the sporadic waves of European manpower come, but otherwise they find themselves slowly ground down by the much larger resource base of their Muslim enemies.
I'm skeptical that the Byzantines can retake Anatolia in the long run, but I'm similarly skeptical that the Turks can do much more than hang on without a major defeat of Byzantine power in the west. The Byzantine military under the Komnenoi is pretty much doomed to be a shadow of the thematic armies even if it does recover parts of the Asian interior. The Turks have a good position as well, and their endurance OTL had less to do with stunning Byzantine defeats (which were rare and often rather overexaggerated) and more to do with broad historical trends.
I'm skeptical that the Byzantines can retake Anatolia in the long run, but I'm similarly skeptical that the Turks can do much more than hang on without a major defeat of Byzantine power in the west. The Byzantine military under the Komnenoi is pretty much doomed to be a shadow of the thematic armies even if it does recover parts of the Asian interior. The Turks have a good position as well, and their endurance OTL had less to do with stunning Byzantine defeats (which were rare and often rather overexaggerated) and more to do with broad historical trends.
You are absolutely correct. I've studied lot of arguments in a share of old threads discussing the long term survival of the Crusader States, and all of them agreed that conquering Egypt was a necessity (which I agree) to preserve the integrity of the Latin Levantine polities.
I do think that even greater threats to the KOJ can come from Iran or Central Asia, but IOTL Egypt indeed proved to be the kingdom's eternal enemy, and its survival pressuposes the neutralization of whatever hostile force might be established in the Nile. Even more, it could provide a more solid economic and strategic base than Palestine itself.
That's an interesting observation. For now, Byzantium and the Cr. States remain allies, and the regime in Constantinople is much more concerned with restoring Asia Minor than stretching themselves deep into Syria.
On the other hand, the non-Chalcedonian peoples of the east are less likely to see the Empire as "good Christians", due to their centuries of polítical, cultural and theological divergences, so, depending on the especific circumstances, it might happen that Latins gain the allegiance of native peoples. For example, Baldwin of Boulogne was well received among the Armenians in Edessa because he proved himself a capable champion against the Turks, and the Cilician Armenians many times preferred to count on the Cr. States than on Byzantium.
Thanks, Aegis! I'll soon post another update
That's a very, VERY, pertinent observation. Now, don't treat this post as a disagreement (I honestly agree with the points you raised), but an explanation. I don't believe the Crusades, in the context of Medieval Warfare, were by themselves inherently more violent and atrocious than whatever conflicts that came before or even after it. The wars in Europe itself (as the Norman conquest of England shows, or Basil II's conquest of Bulgaria, or the Albigensian Crusade), as well as in Asia were fairly brutal (Zengi's conquests, the Ghaznavid ones in India, and let's not even get started with the Mongol Invasions), just to see some examples in the timeframe we are seeing.
Nevertheless, I hope you take my descriptions of violence in warfare with a grain of salt for the following reasons:
(1) I'm trying to paint a picture faithful to what the contemporary sources described regarding certain historical episodes. Even the Christian European authors went to lengths to write about the massacres in Antioch and Jerusalem, the ghastly episodes of cannibalism in Ma'arrat al-Numan and the violent capture of Tyre and Tripoli. Modern authors that I'm basing myself on, such as Steven Runciman, Christopher Tyeman and Amir Maalouf, are keen to point out the very points you raised, Undead Martyr, notwithstanding the very real episodes of ultraviolence perpetrated by the Crusaders and also by the Muslims.
(2) The narrative in the greatest part goes from the POV of the Crusaders (as if abstractly written by an European author), so it's natural that we, as readers, are more exposed to their activities and occurrences than on the Muslims, for example. Sometimes I'll try to bring forward the POV of the Muslim rulers, and I hope this perception can be dispelled.
You are correct that the Crusaders were not significantly more oppressive than any other 11th Century elite ruling over foreign peoples. This will be addressed in future installments (trust me, I've written it already), as will the gradual "acclimatization" with the native Oriental Christians, namely the Armenians and Syriac peoples.
And your last phrase is simply brilliant as a synthesis of how the "Crusades" are an extremely sensitive subject (and, pardon if I sound a bit flighty, but why they are fascinating, IMHO), being interwined with complex and nuanced pictures of cultural clash and religious conflicts that are many times seen through a distorted lens of the contemporary ideologies (not using this word in a pejorative sense). I imagine this movement goes back all the way to the Enlightenment prejudices that orbited around the myth of the "Dark Ages", but nowadays we see both extremes of the spectrum, depending on political (and, why not, nationalistic) inclinations - sometimes the Crusaders are seen as imperialist barbarian invaders, moved by sheer greed and depravity, and others they are portrayed as genuine champions of the faith against a destructive monolithic Islamic empire (that old argument of "the Crusades as defensive wars").
I'm aware that sometimes I'll be threading difficult ground in the assessment of the Crusades due to these concerns, but I'll try to paint a plausible narrative in the light of the sources I'm more acquainted with. I hope you trust me with this one, and, also, hope to see you around, I've really appreciated the points you raised.
If its that zero sum, I think the Crusaders have already lost cause the odds of taking Egypt successfully are so incredibly low. Also one thing I've always thought was a neat idea but judging by this thread am alone in thinking so would be a Crusader state that out lives Byzantium, and actually receives a lot of refugees from the fall, becoming a center of a uniquely eastern-inspired Rennaisance. (Of course few people and fewer threads push for destroying Rome as often as I do)
Well, I don't believe the Crusaders were a lost cause, perhaps not if we play the right cards here. With the divergences I'm proposing, we can conceive a joint Byzantine-Crusader block able to cooperate against commons enemies. Egypt, in time, will become a necessary strategic target (as it became IOTL, being the purpose of the 4th, 5th and 7th Crusades), and, depending on the circumstances - of course, more about Egyptian weakness than Crusader strength - the conquest of Egypt might be possible. In strategic terms, the capture of the Nile Delta and of Cairo would severly handicap whatever Caliphate is based in Egypt. The problem, then, of course, will be how to preserve the kingdom. But that's something we'll adress in the future
I personally don't know if its feasible to have a Crusade state outliving Byzantium... the Byzantines at least have a strong base in Europe (granted, if the Bulgarians revolt like OTL, the house of cards will crumble), but the Levantine polities were entrapped between the Mediterranean and the Islamic powers in Mesopotamia, Iran, Arabia and Egypt bent on their destruction. I agree, though, that an "eastern-inspired Rennaissance" would be fascinating!
You are correct. I have not forgotten about the Syrian Turks, they will be addressed in future installments, especially Radwan of Aleppo and Duqaq of Damascus. For now, the Byzantine control of western Syria is fairly secure, as they have a sizeable military presence there. Alexios will make an effort to push the Rûm Turks deeper into Cappadocia, creating a more reliable line of transport and supplies connecting Syria and Thrace.
I won't disagree with your assessment about the state of the Byzantine military, but I trust they can still muster resources to reconquer Asia Minor, especially if they take advantage of the fractured state of the Turkish polities after Malik-Shah's death.
Is Bulgaria really that essential to the Empire (provided they retaken Anatolia)? They survived for centuries and eventually started making major gains with a large powerful Bulgar entity right on their doorstep.
On of the topic of the Byzantine reconquest of Anatolia I always thought it as almost inevitable but was derailed by the unfocused, unnecessary ventures of Manuel I (Egypt, Italy, Hungary) and the complete incompetency of the Angeloi. But then again divergences happen.
That's a good point, especially regarding Manuel Komnenos and the Angeloi, and I agree that Byzantium had reasonable chances of reconquering Anatolia (even if I don't belive they would go much further), but it always seemed to me that the Second Bulgarian Empire proved to be a more formidable foe in Europe than any other, even greater than Hungary, the Normans in Italy and the Steppe peoples coming from the Pontic Sea. So, the failure of a Bulgarian revolt like the 1185's would do wonders to preserve the integrity of the Empire.
Well, IOTL the HRE emperors played a role in some of the Crusades, mainly the Second and the Third (well, Frederick Barbarossa died in Asia Minor, but he at least beat a Turkish army), and Frederick II Hohenstaufen obtained Jerusalem by diplomatic agreement in the Sixth Crusade. I think with the right butterflies we can conceive a Crusader State with a HRE influence.
TBH from the perspective on the ground one would plausibly expect Byzantium to reconquery western and central Anatolia (just look at a map of pre 1204 Byzantium, they were at the gates of Iconium!) and a more long live Christian presence in Syria. Indeed Armenian Cilicia, and the "eastern" Christians (excepting Byzantium to a degree...) were perhaps the most immediate beneficiaries from the Crusades and collapsed almost immediately afterwards...
Egypt OTL is a core of Muslim-Arab culture so we naturally see it as an immutavable bastion and to an extent his is true, however there are at least two potentially three occasions where it can fall to a foreign power, first to the Normans (if they focused wholly on it and we're allied to Byzantium... which is the difficulty) second to the Crusades, third to the Mongols. The Fatimid Sultanate was a house of cards in the 11th and 12th centuries- which helps explain the massive successes of the 1st Crusade- and as a shiite elite ruling over a roughly 50/50 split of Coptic and Sunni peoples is not in any way immune to a Crusader army, no more than the various Persianized Turkish dynasties were precariously perched in northern india, or the Normans in England, or the Mongols I China, Persia and Russia.. power politics in premodern society both handicap such a conquest, by limiting power projection, and enable it, via enabling a tiny military-political elite to easily rule over a vast swathe of pexpression of radically different culture and/or creed.
Egypt is an area that would be difficult to take but easy to hold, and once conquered would permanently reshape geopolitical raities, indeed the loss of Egypt to the Arabs is perhaps the single most monumental result of the initial Arab conquests (North Africa's fall is second, and notably this happened nearly a century later). Egypt, as the breadbasket of the Mediterranean and gateway to the Orient, was the pillar that made Rome, both east and west, from a great power to a superpower.
Byzantine crusader relations will, even if fraught with their issues, nonetheless be no less acrimonious than typical relations between a great power and a regional player. Byzantium may claim suzerainity, and the Crusaders will generally Pay homage to them- but whether this acts more as a NATO style alliance between a major power (with Rome standing in for the US here, and Jerusalem being, say Germany or Britain) and and quasi-independent player or a more formal/explicit power/tributary relationship... well, all of the above, as power politics, especially medieval power politics, are less a CK2 style formal relation,and more a fast and loose "arrangement", a continual renegotiation between contentious powers and impulses... Byzantium will view Christian Syria as within their sphere of influence and an eventual vassal/subject to be annexed or subjugated formally, but even a more successful reconquest of Anatolia will likely preclude a more explicit vassal relationship, as Syria will naturally enjoy considerable autonomy even as she pays tribute and/or homage to Constantinople, to say nothing of Jerusalem or the like. In the long term? All depends on the degree Byzantium is willing and able to enforce her claims to dominion over Syria et al, but in time even if Constantinople never formally abandons her claim to dominion the Crusaders will probably act more as regional allies/satellites than full fledged subjects.
Egypt OTL is a core of Muslim-Arab culture so we naturally see it as an immutavable bastion and to an extent his is true, however there are at least two potentially three occasions where it can fall to a foreign power, first to the Normans (if they focused wholly on it and we're allied to Byzantium... which is the difficulty) second to the Crusades, third to the Mongols. The Fatimid Sultanate was a house of cards in the 11th and 12th centuries- which helps explain the massive successes of the 1st Crusade- and as a shiite elite ruling over a roughly 50/50 split of Coptic and Sunni peoples is not in any way immune to a Crusader army, no more than the various Persianized Turkish dynasties were precariously perched in northern india, or the Normans in England, or the Mongols I China, Persia and Russia.. power politics in premodern society both handicap such a conquest, by limiting power projection, and enable it, via enabling a tiny military-political elite to easily rule over a vast swathe of pexpression of radically different culture and/or creed.
Egypt is an area that would be difficult to take but easy to hold, and once conquered would permanently reshape geopolitical raities, indeed the loss of Egypt to the Arabs is perhaps the single most monumental result of the initial Arab conquests (North Africa's fall is second, and notably this happened nearly a century later). Egypt, as the breadbasket of the Mediterranean and gateway to the Orient, was the pillar that made Rome, both east and west, from a great power to a superpower.
Byzantine crusader relations will, even if fraught with their issues, nonetheless be no less acrimonious than typical relations between a great power and a regional player. Byzantium may claim suzerainity, and the Crusaders will generally Pay homage to them- but whether this acts more as a NATO style alliance between a major power (with Rome standing in for the US here, and Jerusalem being, say Germany or Britain) and and quasi-independent player or a more formal/explicit power/tributary relationship... well, all of the above, as power politics, especially medieval power politics, are less a CK2 style formal relation,and more a fast and loose "arrangement", a continual renegotiation between contentious powers and impulses... Byzantium will view Christian Syria as within their sphere of influence and an eventual vassal/subject to be annexed or subjugated formally, but even a more successful reconquest of Anatolia will likely preclude a more explicit vassal relationship, as Syria will naturally enjoy considerable autonomy even as she pays tribute and/or homage to Constantinople, to say nothing of Jerusalem or the like. In the long term? All depends on the degree Byzantium is willing and able to enforce her claims to dominion over Syria et al, but in time even if Constantinople never formally abandons her claim to dominion the Crusaders will probably act more as regional allies/satellites than full fledged subjects.
You are right! Mea culpa, I'll get this train moving now. It has been stopped in this station for too long
That's a perfect, and exactly what I had in mind for the long-run development of this TL, especially regarding the relationship between Byzantium and the new Crusader State. Egypt will be a much later issue to tackle on, but I agree with your points.