alternatehistory.com

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?
Top