Did Alexios lose Anatolia?

I'm reading Peter Frankopan's book 'The First Crusade'. He says that the likes of Suleiman and Malik Shah were Alexios' allies and held part of Anatolia on behalf of the Empire. But when they died their successors were a different breed, and by the early 1090s these successors had abrogated the treaties made with Alexios and held their parts of Anatolia themselves.

This is why Alexios pushed Urban for the Crusade, because current events weren't going well, not to reverse a 20 year occupation of Anatolia.

Does this ring true or does it sound like bullshit?
 
Does this ring true or does it sound like bullshit?

I thought it rang true. Frankopan is a great writer, in my view, and I found his theory pretty convincing. It's certainly backed up by stuff in the "Byzantinists' Bible", the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, which points out inconvenient facts for the "Anatolia fell in 1073-75" camp, such as the fact that Ikonion did not fall until 1084, and Caesarea and its hinterland not until 1089!

I'd thoroughly recommend Frankopan's book on the First Crusade to anyone interested in the period.
 
There would be some significant AH fodder in there, especially since it flies in the face of the accepted wisdom.
 
Top