Crusader land route as means of limiting Venice.

The regular defeats Crusading armies suffered crossing Anatolia pushed them into travelling by sea, to be the benefit of Venice and the others. The 4th Crusade saw this backfire terribly.

WI the Byzantines took special care to get the Crusaders across Anatolia intact? How would this affect their power and the power of Venice, Genoa etc?
 
The Venetians, Pisans, and Genoese were essential suppliers to the Crusader states almost from the beginning: the first Italian enclave was established in Acre in the early 12th century, though off the top of my head I don't know the year or remember which city was the beneficiary. So their power was already ascendant at the time of the First Crusade or shortly afterward.
 

elkarlo

Banned
The regular defeats Crusading armies suffered crossing Anatolia pushed them into travelling by sea, to be the benefit of Venice and the others. The 4th Crusade saw this backfire terribly.

WI the Byzantines took special care to get the Crusaders across Anatolia intact? How would this affect their power and the power of Venice, Genoa etc?

I dunno the I love the Byzantines, but they asked for the 4th Crusade. Bribed an Army to overthrow an unpopular Emperor, and then not pay them, and attack them.

Now if the Byzantines treated the Crusaders as actual allies, I think things would've gone a lot better.
 
I dunno the I love the Byzantines, but they asked for the 4th Crusade. Bribed an Army to overthrow an unpopular Emperor, and then not pay them, and attack them.

Now if the Byzantines treated the Crusaders as actual allies, I think things would've gone a lot better.

Don't blame the Byzantines for expecting mere mercenaries to help them recapture some territory lost to a bunch of Turks instead of a huge swathe of independent military expeditions. ;)
 

elkarlo

Banned
Don't blame the Byzantines for expecting mere mercenaries to help them recapture some territory lost to a bunch of Turks instead of a huge swathe of independent military expeditions. ;)


True, but come on they didn't need to snub the Crusaders and tell them GTFOH all the time. The Crusaders were expecting to give all the Holy Land to the Empire, but since they kept getting backstabbed, they said F you we're doing it on our own.

A real loss of potential. Would've loved to see a circa 1100 Byzantine sized country survive.
 
Yes but with their track record of causing trouble, I wouldn't blame the Byzzies. The Byzzies just wanted the Turks out, not the friggin' Holy Land.
 
I think that I've brought up (or at least thought about) the possibility of closer cooperation between Emperor Alexius and the First Crusaders. But it's important to remember that he had just fought a nasty war against one of the lead Crusaders, Bohemond, and he had no real reason to trust any of them. But if they had been able to pull together, exciting things may have happened. Alexius would have had a hard time keeping the Crusaders away from Jerusalem (which he could not have held on to), but they could really have helped him in Asia Minor.
 
True, but come on they didn't need to snub the Crusaders and tell them GTFOH all the time. The Crusaders were expecting to give all the Holy Land to the Empire, but since they kept getting backstabbed, they said F you we're doing it on our own.
I.... well... Gah.

That's not exactly how it went down in 1098 and beyond. Wow.
 
During the 1st Crusade the benefits of the capture of Nicea and battle of Doryleaum went to the Empire. But later not only did the Italians benefit from trading colonies in the Crusader states but they also were paid to transport and support the Crusaders and used as a free Army for Italain ends. If the Crusaders were able to continue to cross Anatolia the Italians would be denied this windfall and the Empire would benefit by having the Crusaders fight the Turks.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Yes but with their track record of causing trouble, I wouldn't blame the Byzzies. The Byzzies just wanted the Turks out, not the friggin' Holy Land.

True, it was a lot of miscommunication on both sides. Not too mention that the the Normans and Byzantines had been at war recently. Still if the Byzantines had send a field army with the Prices Crusade, they could've gotten some better feelings, and some better cooperation. They could've had the Holy Land in a kinda Cyprus co ruling deal with the Egyptians.
 

elkarlo

Banned
I.... well... Gah.

That's not exactly how it went down in 1098 and beyond. Wow.


Well simplified. The Crusaders expected Alexius to lead, or at least send a sizeable army to help. They got 2,000 troops who rolled out after Asia minor, plus almost no supplies from Byzantium, which was more or less promised.
I also think the Crusaders captured messages from Alexius to the Egyptians basically saying they didn't have anything to do with them, despite Alexius getting them to swear loyality and such to him.


Wonder how Byzantium would do without the Crusades? Perhaps they would have done some serious reforms and be able to meet the Turks in battle, perhaps getting a good part of Asia Minor back.
 
Back to the orignial topic of breaking the power of the Italian merchant states.
Even a land route through Asia Minor would be impossible for the Crusaders to control, as it would require the capture of Constantinople, which didn't happen until the mid 13th century and still didn't guraantee control of the Hellespont. Asia Minor was plagued by Turks, pirates and bandits and was politically unstable, so it's unlikely.
Maritime resupply was necessary as it was far quicker than land travel and the risk of storms and pirates was less than those inherent in travelling by road, especially if your convoy had a military detachment like the Italians could muster.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Back to the orignial topic of breaking the power of the Italian merchant states.
Even a land route through Asia Minor would be impossible for the Crusaders to control, as it would require the capture of Constantinople, which didn't happen until the mid 13th century and still didn't guraantee control of the Hellespont. Asia Minor was plagued by Turks, pirates and bandits and was politically unstable, so it's unlikely.
Maritime resupply was necessary as it was far quicker than land travel and the risk of storms and pirates was less than those inherent in travelling by road, especially if your convoy had a military detachment like the Italians could muster.


Agreed, it's just too rugged of a terrain for it to be condusive to a military launching point/resupply. Sailing took about 6 weeks from Venice one way, while marching would prolly add months if not a year.

Get Genoa more heavily involved with Pisa as an ally, and not use Venice so much.
 
Agreed, it's just too rugged of a terrain for it to be condusive to a military launching point/resupply. Sailing took about 6 weeks from Venice one way, while marching would prolly add months if not a year.
Dates i can find put Barbarossa at leaving Bavaria in May 1189 and died in Cilicia on June 10, 1190, so it took about year to march across Austria, the Balkans, and most of Asia Minor. As best i can remember, crossing Asia Minor was one of the easier bits, compared to getting supplies in the Balkans.

Even a land route through Asia Minor would be impossible for the Crusaders to control, as it would require the capture of Constantinople,
Why?
 
Well simplified. The Crusaders expected Alexius to lead, or at least send a sizeable army to help. They got 2,000 troops who rolled out after Asia minor, plus almost no supplies from Byzantium, which was more or less promised.
I also think the Crusaders captured messages from Alexius to the Egyptians basically saying they didn't have anything to do with them, despite Alexius getting them to swear loyality and such to him.


Wonder how Byzantium would do without the Crusades? Perhaps they would have done some serious reforms and be able to meet the Turks in battle, perhaps getting a good part of Asia Minor back.
And Crusaders were morons to do so after carving a swatch of destruction through the Byzantine Balkans (the only real heartland they had left). Alexius was actually marching to Antioch to help the Crusaders when he was mistakenly informed that they had been crushed. The only reason the 2000 troops left Antioch (and it was actually their commander, the troops deserted which cannot be blamed on the government) was to inform the emperor and get more help from him. The only reason the Crusaders through the Byzantines had left was because of some chicanery on their part when the commander left to get reinforcements/inform the emperor of the situation.

The Crusaders had no intention what so ever of "giving" the land to the Empire. They never got back-stabbed, they're the ones who did the stabbing.
 
The Balkans weren't really a problem because they were onstensibly Christian friendly territory and the Crusaders could buy supplies as they progressed. The French in the 2nd Crusade did this until they left Byzantine territory in Anatolia, when they were harried by the Turks back to Byzantine territory on the coast. The beauty of transiting Anatolia is that instead of buying supplies and passage from the Italians they can live off the enemy for free.
 
The Balkans weren't really a problem because they were onstensibly Christian friendly territory and the Crusaders could buy supplies as they progressed.
I thought i remembered something about Barbarossa's army not really bothering with buying supplies, with attendant resentment, but i can't find anything like that so i guess i was wrong.
 
The Balkans probably would have served the Crusaders well as a supply base, if they weren't being pillaged by the Normans or by various steppe barbarians/ uncooperative Crusaders.

What did you expect the Byzantines to do? They feared from the start that the Crusaders wanted Constantinople, and their fears proved completely true.

They had every reason to be pessimistic and hedge their bets (a la making deals with various Muslim powers during and in between the Crusades).
 
Top