Crusaders fall at Antioch and Byzantines finish the job

Hi! I'm reading a book on the Crusades and am curious what would have happened if the First Crusade failed. Could the Byzantines have finished the job and revitalized the Empire?

In OTL, the crusaders left Constantinople and conquered Nicaea (returning it to Byzantine control because Alexius Comnenus had enforced the crusaders' oath of allegiance to him). They then proceeded to besiege Antioch. After a grueling siege, they break into the city only to be besieged in turn by a Turkish relief force. They were in dire straits and were very fortunate to keep the city. They had hoped to get reinforcements from Constantinople but none arrived (Alexius had thought about sending men but I believe he got the impression that it was too little too late).

ITTL, the Turks defeat the crusaders and retake Antioch. Shortly after they wipe out the last of the crusaders, Alexius (who had hoping the crusade would succeed and add more territory to the Empire) has his reinforcements besiege the Turkish relief force trapped in the city. The Turks are defeated (suffering the same fate as the crusaders ITTL and having even a lower chance of survival due to fatigue and the crusaders having left even fewer resources in the city) and Antioch is controlled...by Alexius.

With Nicaea and Antioch under his control, he finds himself in a position where he can finish the crusade and reconquer Jerusalem. Many of the Muslim towns between Antioch and Jerusalem were so scared of the invaders IOTL that they surrendered without a fight. The Byzantines face little resistance en route to Jerusalem (spreading rumors that their troops are going to be as barbaric and frightening as the lost crusader forces) and conquer the city. Pope Urban's mission seems to be a success in that the conquerer of Jerusalem is Christian...or is it?

What would all of the major leaders have thought of this situation?

ALEXIUS: He's got a strong presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Islamic kingdoms are in disarray, having been decimated by the crusaders. He may have some time to mop up what's left and reinforce his positions. He may very well be in a position to expand his empire.

URBAN: In for a big surprise! The crusade did what it was supposed to do in that it reinforced the Byzantines. He may have never expected for Jerusalem to be retaken by the West. But what does he do now? The head of the Catholic Church isn't going to let the Greek Orthodox get away with running Jerusalem, is he? Would he be content with a half-victory? There's no way he could declare a crusade against the Greek Orthodox because with the Muslims temporarily out of the way the Byzantines would demolish him.

VARIOUS HEADS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES: God ensures that Catholic soldiers fail to conquer Jerusalem (even with a possible holy relic in their midst). Yet the Greek Orthodox soldiers seem to not have a problem. Obviously, God prefers Greek Orthodoxy to Catholicism! Are conversions to Orthodoxy going to start taking place among Western Europe?

ISLAMIC LEADERS: You can imagine what they're thinking: "These infidels declared a holy war against us and took our third holiest city. Well, two can play at that game! We beat up on the Byzantines before, we'll do it again!"

I can almost imagine Alexius populating the area with lots of Greek Orthodox and daring the Pope to kick them out. Getting rid of crusader states is probably going to be a lot harder if they're more closely tied to Constantinople.
 
I'm not sure that the Byzantines had the manpower to finish the job alone, even if the Crusaders boost their strength right up to the last hurdle. However, imagining that they did, I would suggest that there could be small changes in theology, but I doubt they would be vast. It's important to remember that the Great Schism was only recent at this point, most Christians considered East and West to merely be having a tiff which would heal in time - the Crusades were a good way of doing this. If the Byzantines are seen as being victorious at this point where the Crusaders aren't then it's unlikely any huge comparisons in righteousness will be drawn, but if any are then to the most religious of people all it's likely to do is imply that the Popes should listen to the Patriarch's suggestions of removing some practices seen as "Judaistic", but really this is a very minor point IMO. The other thing is it may reduce the Pope's power a little, giving a minor victory to the Patriarch over the authority of the Pope, but seeing as the Patriarchs could be quite dominating themselves, I think the Popes would likely be able to easily regain any confidence lost in their leadership - I can't see the Popes being essentially turned against, or the West mass-converting to following the Patriarch of Constantinople, anyway. On a less religious note, you wouldn't be looking at East-aligned Crusader states as the Byzantines, rather than establishing little states ruled by Eastern princes a la the Kingdom of Jerusalem et al would rather simply reinstall Byzantine control of the Levant. It'd just be the swift recreation of the Theme of Antioch as was a few decades before, etc. And I doubt it would last anyway - by this point, the Byzantines were seeing the Turks approach almost to Constantinople. The Levant would just be too far away for them to defend successfully more than a couple of times. The Levant would fall either way - whether a new Western Crusade would work ITTL is entirely a matter of chance.

Then again, the Byzantine Emperors often had a tendency to go against their Patriarchs anyway, and side with the West if so inclined, so maybe it would actually be seen as just another victory for the Catholics anyway.
 
Alexios didn't have either the manpower or the interest in going after Jerusalem, much less most of Anatolia. (Kinda weird how the Komneni never really concentrated on Anatolia as much as they could have. I never really understood that.) Anyway, it's estimated that in the late 1090s Alexios' army was some 20,000-30,000, which is not even remotely near what would have been required to send an expeditionary force to go hassle the Fatimids and grab the Levant.
 
If the Byzantines get Antioch in the wake of the First Crusade failing in front of that city, then there will be significant butterflies. Antioch was a target of Komneni ambitions from the time it fell to the Crusaders until the dynasty was overthrown. The city would have anchored the Byzantine's (very successful) reconquest of the Anatolian litteral, and allowed the Komneni to permanently subdue Lesser Armenia. With that kind of an eastern base, later campaigns against the Rum Sultanate in the interior of Anatolia would have been considerable easier to launch and supply.

There is also the possibility that with the Byzantines holding Antioch, an attempt might be made to capture Aleppo, the city that controlled most of the carrying trade that would next go th Antioch. That city had chaotic internal politics until it was subdued by Zengi, and thereafter became the base for both Zengi and his son Nur ad-Din.

Alexios would not march south on Jerusalem upon Antioch's fall, his empire had enough problems, and in OTL used the opportunity of the Crusades to reconquer most of the Anatolian litteral. The Crusaders attack on Jerusalem ended up netting them a slim and almost indefensible strip of land along the Mediterranean, with none of the really important regional cities (namely Damascus and Aleppo). There is not way Alexios is going to bring his army south, expose it to danger and possible destruction, when he could instead subdue Lesser Armenia, and create an important bulwark for the eventual reconquest of Anatolia.
 
Antioch

This was little more than 20 years after Manzikert. The Byzantines had little or no interest in Palestine at this point. It was too remote from Asia Minor and too poor economically to be held. I agree that control of Antioch would have strenghtened the Byzantine position in Cilicia and south-west Asia Minor.
 
Personally I think the Empire could have made greater play from the Crusades than they did. While I don't think the Empire could have taken over from a crusade that failed at Antioch I think that even a half-arsed relief by Alexios at this seige could have had important positive consequences for the Empire. The falling out between the cursaders and the Empire started with this seige, and as such may have been delayed, or changed the relationship between the Empire and crusaders permanently for the better.
 
Personally I think the Empire could have made greater play from the Crusades than they did. While I don't think the Empire could have taken over from a crusade that failed at Antioch I think that even a half-arsed relief by Alexios at this seige could have had important positive consequences for the Empire. The falling out between the cursaders and the Empire started with this seige, and as such may have been delayed, or changed the relationship between the Empire and crusaders permanently for the better.

The Empire and Crusaders had excellent relations under Baldwin III and Amalric I, both had Byzantine wives, while Manuel I was emperor. Manuel I's only son was born to Manuel and his Latin wife, the sister of the Prince of Antioch.

The Empire needs to directly control Antioch, which is the basis of this thread, and then I think that *Manuel would be able to score the game-winning victory that secures Byzantine control of the whole of Anatolia.

The Latin Outremer was doomed from the get-go pretty much. A Byzantine Empire that makes a come-back was a real possibility.
 
AFAIK the failure of Alexios to assist the Crusaders at Antioch was the excuse for Bohemond to break the oaths he made to Alexios. If Alexios had done something then this excuse would not have exsisted, or have been accepted if it was raised. IOTL Raymond disagreed with Bohemond and they argued for a year, in my opinion if there was some Imperial cavalry on the scene and Bohemond acted up I don't think it would have gotten very far, as Bohemond would be wedged between the Empire and Raymond.

I don't think this is the best start to a movement which eventually saw the Empire agree to Saladin's demand to hinder the 3rd Crusade and Constantinople captured by crusaders and the Emperor in exile.
 

trajen777

Banned
Here are 2 possibilities –

1. With the current state of affairs I believe that Alexis could have taken Antioch and as others have said created a base to capture Lesser Armenia and then the Rum sultanate. They never followed steps 2-3 because of the large focus on Antioch. As to Palastein I do not believe he had the manpower or lack of strategic thought to capture an undefenceable objective with his limited manpower. If he had captures the unproductive Rum sultanate he would have recreated a sound eastern base of defense and make the coastline much more profitable from outside attacks.
2. Alexis used the time from the Norman attacks 1085 – 1097 to focus on building a stronger army (an idea which most historians ponder why this did not happen). If you take his standing army in 1085 at lets sat 25,000 and create a typical (Basil had 250,000) growth rate of themes of 5,000 per year you would have an additional 12 years x 5,000 = 60,000 troops. This would leave somewhere around 85,000 troops. Considering the Balkans free of war since his victory over the Pechanes. And if you changed your TL a little and have him saving ½ of the Crusaders you could have him add 20,000 troops to the attacks south and end up with the Crusader states under a Byz protectorate. Take 1099 – 1115 to capture the Rum area and you have a stronger Crusader / Byz state. Also you would have a less feudal crusader kingdom=m and a more strategic castle defense system.
 
Top