Battle of Dorylaeum, 1097

The armies of the first crusade are defeated by the Seljuks at Dorylaeum in Asia Minor.
 
The armies of the first crusade are defeated by the Seljuks at Dorylaeum in Asia Minor.

Yes? Was this a question or merely a delusion?

Oh, alright. I suppose if I say nothing more, I'll be reported for trolling or somesuch silliness.

Turks win, the Crusaders are delayed into the winter or the following year. It takes a long time to cross Anatolia and the crossing could be worse. They arrive at Antioch harried and humbled. The siege does not go their way. Byzantine rule isn't revitalized in the short term, and the Crusading cause takes a hit. Perhaps they find a (more) naval route, or another battle against the Turks defeats them. Either way, there's a delay and a series of butterflies that could spell doom for the Crusade. And if the First fails, who knows if there will even be others.
 
Of course that might be the point of departure that thus nets a surviving Byzantine state in the modern day, in that this turn of events might completely circumvent the damage done by the Fourth Crusade.
 
The armies of the first crusade are defeated by the Seljuks at Dorylaeum in Asia Minor.

Well IOTL the idea of crusading was actually quite a novel and controversial one when the Pope first called for volunteers. Without the successful capture of Jerusalem to vindicate the idea, we'd probably see lots of people shaking their heads and saying "Told you so," and the idea would be dropped.

Also, and because only a madman would expect an army to successfully march halfway across Europe and Anatolia and then to conquer a series of kingdoms thousands of miles away from any supplies and reinforcements, most alt-historians would probably dismiss the battle's importance, saying the Crusade was bound to fail sooner or later anyway, and that a Christian victory would just have been delaying the inevitable.
 
Top