Crusades and Anatolia.

Crusades & Anatolia

A century of Manzikert the Turkish population of central and eastern Anatolia had become quite dense. Most of the Greeks had either been assimilated or migrated. Would'nt a strong Greek counter-attack in Asia Minor provoke even greater Turkish migration from central Asia. Even when they were in a strong position, the emperors of Nicea chose to not embark on a reconquest of Asia minor after the Seljuks had been defeated by the Mongols. They did'nt even bother to attempt to hold Laodicea, after it had been ceded to them by the Turks.
 
I need to do more reading, the problem being that I need to know in detail 2 entirely seperate histories, Byzantium AND the Crusades in order to work out the links and synergies between them. _________________ The problems within the Byzantine leadership at the time is the reason I suggest that the Crusaders do most of the work in Anatolia. While the Byz's were sqabbling Barby dealt the Turks a blow, helping the empire for free so to speak. If Barby hadn't drowned he would have added his considerable power the Dick and Phil, who despite only having 1/3 of Barby's army and internal command dissention managed a stalemate with Saladin. This was the same Saladin whom Manuel (?) made a deal with to hinder Barby en-route so Saladin wouldn't make war with the Empire. So Barby himself would tip the balance into either defeat of Saladin or a stalemate more favourable to the Crusaders and as a result the Byzantines. _____________ Here's how I see it played out, keeping in mind I don't know so much as to be considered knowledgeable on the subjects. ___________ Barby takes Iconium. He falls into the river but escapes with only his pride injured, and goes onto the holy land. The 3rd Crusade is more successful than OTL, the Crusader states make gains and the stalemate leaves Saladin less able to threaten the Empire. As the 3rd Crusade peters out the Empire takes over Iconium and thus central Anatolia by a mixture of deciet, diplomacy and fighting, there being little the Turks or Saladin can do about it at the time. This Anatolian windfall skews the politics of the Empire and region from OTL in favour of the empire, with its newfound tax income and big cavalry boost to the army from the enlisted Turks. The 4th Crusade is completely different from OTL, perhaps the Empire pays for it to go to Egypt, or to turn on Venice somehow, or the Venice backed attack on the Empire is crushed, or it just sails to Egypt as per plan: no matter, Constantinople isn't sacked and the Empire isn't dismemebered. The Empire finally starts to get it's shit together early in the 13thC with a good leadership team. ____________ That's about as far as I can go, the Empire getting to about 1210 un-dismembered from the 4th Crusade and in control of about 2/3 of the Anatolian plateau thanks to Barbarossa in the 3rd Crusade.
 
Crusades & Anatolia

Remember that the crusade of 1101 was defeated in Asia Minor. The Turks had recovered relatively quickly from the shock of the first crusade. The Germans were also defeated in Asia Minor during the second crusade. In that context, a western led reconquest of Asia Minor is not very feasible, especially in light of the religious differences between Greeks and Latins. If there was any movement from the west to really make an effort in Asia Minor, I'm sure that papal authority would be the price that the Greeks would have to pay for support. And few Greeks would have accepted that.
 
Remember that the crusade of 1101 was defeated in Asia Minor. The Turks had recovered relatively quickly from the shock of the first crusade. The Germans were also defeated in Asia Minor during the second crusade. In that context, a western led reconquest of Asia Minor is not very feasible, especially in light of the religious differences between Greeks and Latins. If there was any movement from the west to really make an effort in Asia Minor, I'm sure that papal authority would be the price that the Greeks would have to pay for support. And few Greeks would have accepted that.

Well, you see, the Germans DID beat the turks in the third crusade. They fought them through Anatolia, took Iconium (the capital of the Rum Sultanate), and then fell apart after HRE Frederick I "Barbarossa" died. So the question is not whether or not the Germans can beat the Turks, because they did, its a question of whether the Greek could keep their Empire together following Manuel's death and take advantage of the German successes.

And a reunification of the Latin and Greek Churches is ASB, IMO.
 
Basically we have a tripolar power structure; Saladin, Crusaders/Outremer and the Empire. It was the threat of attack by the Islamic forces on the Empire which led Manuel into the deal with Saladin to hinder Barbarossa in exchange for a security garuntee. Despite this Barb. still managed to capture Iconium, the capital of Suljuk Rum, and then die in an ACCIDENT, seriously reducing the power of the 3rd Crusade. I can't imagine the addition of Barb and 10,000 Germans to the Crusade would make it less successful, at the very least they would cause casualties in Saladins Army commensurate with their own numbers, more likely the entire Crusade would have went better. If a more successful 3rd Crusade diminishes Saladin's power during fighting in the holy land then the Empire is an unwitting beneficiary, since Saladin now has less power to threaten the Empire. _____________ As for Iconium and the Empire, Iconium had fallen in 1187 and again in 1190, the Turks didn't seem to be able to hold it at the time. With the other 2 great powers fighting each other in the Holy Land for several years who would stop the Empire from taking and holding Iconium in the confusion?
 
Basically we have a tripolar power structure; Saladin, Crusaders/Outremer and the Empire. It was the threat of attack by the Islamic forces on the Empire which led Manuel into the deal with Saladin to hinder Barbarossa in exchange for a security garuntee.

Is Manuel reaching out from beyond the grave, because he died in 1180, nine years before Barbarossa began his ill-fated trip across Anatolia.

Despite this Barb. still managed to capture Iconium, the capital of Suljuk Rum, and then die in an ACCIDENT, seriously reducing the power of the 3rd Crusade. I can't imagine the addition of Barb and 10,000 Germans to the Crusade would make it less successful, at the very least they would cause casualties in Saladins Army commensurate with their own numbers, more likely the entire Crusade would have went better. If a more successful 3rd Crusade diminishes Saladin's power during fighting in the holy land then the Empire is an unwitting beneficiary, since Saladin now has less power to threaten the Empire.
no disagreement here with this
As for Iconium and the Empire, Iconium had fallen in 1187 and again in 1190, the Turks didn't seem to be able to hold it at the time. With the other 2 great powers fighting each other in the Holy Land for several years who would stop the Empire from taking and holding Iconium in the confusion?
The issue is that in 1180 Manuel died, leaving a minor (Alexios II) as the Emperor. The dowager-empress, Maria, was a Latin from Antioch. She was unpopular and five years later was overthrown in favor of her brother-in-law Andronikus. Andronikus was overthrown by Isaac Angelos, who then spent his reign fending off foreign attacks and internal rebellions.

The Empire was obviously in no shape to take advantage of any strategic opportunities offered by the Third Crusade. If Manuel had an adult son, or if Manuel had no son and Bela III of Hungary succeeded him as Emperor with Maria (Manuel's daughter, engaged to Bela III prior to Alexios II birth in 1169), then there would be continued stability within the Empire. This continued stability would allow the Empire to take advantage of the Third Crusade, and really increase the odds that the Empire is able to survive in the long-term.
 
Sorry, name wrong, deed (which of course is the most important thing) correct. It was Isaac II Agnelus who made the deal with Saladin to hinder Barb in return for a security garuntee. ___________ What effect on the 3rd Crusade would Barbarossa and his 10,000 Germans have on the 3rd Crusade in the Holy land? Specificly how much would they weaken Salaidin and his ability to mount a threat to the Empire during and after the 3rd Crusade?
 
Sorry, name wrong, deed (which of course is the most important thing) correct. It was Isaac II Agnelus who made the deal with Saladin to hinder Barb in return for a security garuntee. ___________ What effect on the 3rd Crusade would Barbarossa and his 10,000 Germans have on the 3rd Crusade in the Holy land? Specificly how much would they weaken Salaidin and his ability to mount a threat to the Empire during and after the 3rd Crusade?

Well if Barbarossa survives, then I don't think that you would have the feuding between Richard and Philip that you did OTL. Fred I, as the HRE, would hold the senior most position, and would in overall command of the operation. Thus I think that you could see a recovery of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The thing is that unless Saladin is killed in this recovery, then I think that as soon as the Kings and Emperor leave then it will all fall to ashes. Perhaps Richard is able to convince Frederick of the importance that Egypt plays in the whole equation and they attack Egypt first. If Egypt falls, then perhaps a more successful Latin East could be created. But I doubt it.

If it happens, then Saladin is removed as a threat to the Empire. The thing is that if you look at a map it becomes clear that Saladin was not really a big problem for the empire. Much more pressing was their primary enemy, the Turks of the Rum (or Iconium) Sultanate. With control of central Anatolia, these Turks remain the existential threat to the Empire.

Again I would point to the main issue being that Isaac II was in a weak position because of the struggles that the Empire had and continued to endure. He made that alliance from a position of weakness. In the case of an Empire that hadn't spent the last 4 years mired in civil conflict and foreign invasions, then the Eastern Emperor would not have so hard a time dealing with the Western Emperor, and probably would not purposely sabotage his trip across Anatolia. In light of the potential strategic gains, that stable Emperor may assist Barbarossa.
 
Jerusalem and Egypt? That's a pretty big call, however either one would be a major blow to Saladin's unified kingdom. At the very least he would have to re-raise another powerful army, and that will take time and money. Added to this could be an array of internal problems which could re-split the Muslim forces and make a recovery impossible in the short term. Certainly Saladin would be in no position to threaten the Empire after the 3rd Crusade, despite its internal problems. Speaking of those problems, were they worse than the Turks who had their capital fall twice in 3 years?
 
Jerusalem and Egypt? That's a pretty big call, however either one would be a major blow to Saladin's unified kingdom. At the very least he would have to re-raise another powerful army, and that will take time and money.

The reason I hold those two out is because of the opportunity that having the HRE in the Holy Land represents. If Frederick I is there then he is without a doubt the senior man. He would be the commander of the Third Crusade, and with that unity of command and with his added forces, then I could very easily see this Crusade as just as successful as the First Crusade. I say Egypt because Richard the Lionhearted became a bid advocate that Egypt was the key to the Holy Land, a conclusion that I share. If that unified force decided to attack Egypt then I could see the possibility of actually taking the country.

The question that I see for any gains that the *Third Crusade makes is who gets them? I think the d'Lusignans have shown their inability to rule, so perhaps we see Conrad as the King of Jerusalem? I think that he would be a great candidate, and with Frederick I thrown into the mix, then maybe he actually gets tapped as the next King of Jerusalem, instead of being murdered by Richard via the Assassins.

Added to this could be an array of internal problems which could re-split the Muslim forces and make a recovery impossible in the short term.

And by array of internal problems you mean opportunistic Muslims on Saladin's borders? I agree. I think that Saladin could easily survive the loss of the Holy Land (ie what had been the Kingdom of Jerusalem), and even the loss of Damascus and Aleppo, though that would box him into Egypt. However, should the *Third Crusade go after Egypt and be successful there then Saladin is done. His Syrian territories would not be enough to oppose a Latin East that holds Egypt.

Certainly Saladin would be in no position to threaten the Empire after the 3rd Crusade, despite its internal problems. Speaking of those problems, were they worse than the Turks who had their capital fall twice in 3 years?

The Rum Sultanate had two big advantages when they were hit. They were not really all that urban based. The Rum Sultanate was still pretty strong elsewhere, and so the loss of the capital city was not a game-ending defeat. The other big advantage they had vis a vis Saladin is that no one was there to follow up on the losses that the Turks suffered. The Empire was in shape to exploit the Turks' losses, and the Lesser Armenians didn't have the strength to exploit it. If someone was there to occupy Iconium and start the process of resettlement and fortification that would have probably been necessary to neutralize the Turkish threat, then they would have been facing a serious threat.

Saladin was facing an enemy who would take advantage of his losses, and facing the possibility that his Muslim rivals would take advantage of his losses. The Rum Turks were the strongest of the Turk polities even sans Iconium so they were able to survive its fall.
 
To really counter Venetian (and other Italian) influence in the Byzantine economy you need to head back to the very beginning of John II's reign. Perhaps even earlier into Alexios'.

In the first few years of John's reign (so, 1119-1123, IIRC) the Venetians engaged in regular raiding of Aegean Islands in response to John II's suspension of the 1082 commercial treaty which gave Venice (and a few other Italian cities, but Venice got even more special treatment out of it) elevated trading rights within the Empire's cities. John, having completely neglected naval affairs (reasoning that he could not both fund an army in Anatolia against the Turks and fund a navy to fight the Venetians), simply gave in after a while and re-instated the treaty, which led to a century of Italian dominance of the Roman economy.

A few things can counter-act this. Keep Alexios from getting rid of the naval tax in the 1100's (Not exactly sure which year it went, but it was early on in the decade IIRC), so that Romania maintains a strong navy, strong enough to counter-act the Venetians when they start troublemaking.

Another one is to forgo the treaty entirely. This would require a rather early POD for a late 12th century timeline (1080's, actually, nearly a full century prior to the proposed timeline). Of course, there are further implications. I'd actually have to start digging through books to find the exact nuances, but the 1082 treaty was signed in response to Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and a few other Italian city-states raising a ruckus for the Romans at exactly the right time (for the Italians) as the Romans were dealing with a Pecheneg invasion across the Danube at the time. I think the Byzantines also got a hefty forced naval loan, at the time, too. I'm not entirely sure how the cities would have reacted had the Byzantines simply said, "No".

The final one is to have John II figure he could pay for both army and navy, re-institute the naval tax, and have him fight the Venetians off (or at least win one big battle to make them leave him alone while he dealt with the Turks). This is the preferable PoD, in my point of view, as it is closest to the desired events.
 
Manuel maintained a large fleet, but the disorders following his death led to an abandonment of this naval strength. I feel like the 4th Crusade was extraordinarily opportunistic, done at a time when the Byzantine Empire was at a very very low ebb. If you don't have the disorders in the 1180's, and then the disorders caused by Isaac II's seizure of power, then I don't think that you would have that low ebb. In fact, I think one could make an argument that after Manuel's successful heir then the dice can't stay loaded for the Komnenos.

So Manuel's successful heir gets central Anatolia, and fortifies it. He doesn't have an heir, or has an infant heir, and some talented general is able to seize the throne. Maybe there is a foreign connection, perhaps the successful general is even a Latin. Anyway, the Empire, with control of central Anatolia, and with the fortresses built by Manuel's successor, is able to get by with a smaller army, and with the losses that the Crusader states will take they are able to extend authority over the Latin Outremer, and maintain Manuel's fleet, which if the general is able to quickly consolidate power, won't suffer too badly.

If the Empire does have control over central Anatolia, then it might have the opportunity to extend its control to Egypt, and challenge the Italians by gaining control over their trade routes.
 
The reason I suggest that the Empire profit from the actions of others is because they were in one of those ruts they went through after every high period. Post Basil the result was Manzikert, post Manuel the result was the 4th Crusade. It doesn't take tax reform, stable govt, secure succession, naval construction and army reorganisation to snap up a city someone else captured and vacated. Did the Turks fight very hard to stop the capture of Iconium, or the passage of Barb's army? If not why would/could they stop an Imperial mission to snap up Iconium in the confusion?
 
The reason I suggest that the Empire profit from the actions of others is because they were in one of those ruts they went through after every high period. Post Basil the result was Manzikert, post Manuel the result was the 4th Crusade. It doesn't take tax reform, stable govt, secure succession, naval construction and army reorganisation to snap up a city someone else captured and vacated. Did the Turks fight very hard to stop the capture of Iconium, or the passage of Barb's army? There were a lot of Turks in the holy land as mercenaries. Would the Seljuks be able to stop an imperial mission to capture Iconium and a chunk of Anatolia if it was launched while the crusade was in full swing?
 
Top