Ethnicity of Crusade States

Baldwin I brought his wife and children, too (both died before the Crusade made it to Antioch, though, while Baldwin was going through Cilicia). I believe there's mention that Tancred's sister went, as well. In each of the major armies of the First Crusade, there were huge numbers of non-combatants, probably more than the regular fighting strength, though the exact numbers are hard to determine, though proportions weren't as high as Peter the Hermit's. Similarly for the Crusades of 1101.

But how many of them settled, though?

Not many of the fighters who came in dribs and drabs for a campaigning season or so settled down, so I'm presuming the same reasons applied to the nonfighting pilgrims.

Not sure about the major movements given numbers on that score, but it doesn't seem to have been enough.

Nobles would have pride of birth to maintain so they stayed relatively pure. Some mixing with the Armenian nobles (Baldwin II and Morphia, etc). The commoners (retainers and infantry) had no such concerns, and freely intermarried where they could find someone.

Which unfortunately (speaking from the standpoint of good figures) makes it hard to determine how much of a distinctly Frankish identity existed in that level.

Crusades of 1101 could have brought a fair number of colonists. The land route through Constantinople and Anatolia needs to be kept open, though, for that to be viable. Byzantium needs to be strong enough to keep the Turks staying in Iconium...

Or to drive them out of Iconium, even better.

If Anatolia is in Christian hands, the main threat to the Kingdom of Jerusalem is that the Romans will prod the Franks into acknowledging that their lands are held by the grace of the Emperor, and in the case of Antioch (the most contested part), only because he can't be bothered to take them.
 
Or to drive them out of Iconium, even better.

Doh! KEEP FROM is what I meant. Yes indeed, drive them out of western Asia Minor, entirely. Given that they were unable to do so, even with the success of the First Crusade, tells me they just didn't have enough manpower and all the angst over the possession of Antioch seems so wasteful and futile given that they couldn't even keep Iconium from the Turks.

If Anatolia is in Christian hands, the main threat to the Kingdom of Jerusalem is that the Romans will prod the Franks into acknowledging that their lands are held by the grace of the Emperor, and in the case of Antioch (the most contested part), only because he can't be bothered to take them.

Speaking of which, Something I've always been curious about... From what manpower would the Byzantines have garrisoned Antioch and/or tried to enlarge it's dominion? IOW, which area would they have diluted of troops to make Antioch a place of their strength? When John campaigned there with Raymond of Poitiers, he took his whole army with him. Would he have degraded it to leave a substantial garrison or hired mercenaries?
 
I had Runciman's book which goes into Outremer demographics at some length, the most I've encountered, but sent it back last week. Spewing!

I read recently that the failure of 1101 to open up Anatolia was what doomed Outremer, because with a pilgramage route that the poor to take would provide them with a ready source of manpower from the certain proportion of crusaders and pilgrims who took service with Outremer's leaders or set up on their own. I once read that in comparison with Byzantium, the Islamic world and Europe Outremer's taxation on the commoners was very light, which opens up opportunities for pilgrims.
 
Doh! KEEP FROM is what I meant. Yes indeed, drive them out of western Asia Minor, entirely. Given that they were unable to do so, even with the success of the First Crusade, tells me they just didn't have enough manpower and all the angst over the possession of Antioch seems so wasteful and futile given that they couldn't even keep Iconium from the Turks.

If Manuel had focused on Anatolia/Asia Minor as much as John had instead of campaigning just about everywhere except Anatolia, I'd say there's a very good chance of western Anatolia returning to Byzantine hands by 1180 or so (Manuel's death, in other words). Assuming by western Anatolia we mean the western half, since Iconium is towards the center.

http://rbedrosian.com/Maps/shpha68.htm

Compare that to http://rbedrosian.com/Maps/shpha66_67.htm 43 years earlier, taking into consideration how much the Empire is busy on the north(west) and west as well as the East.

On the angst: Not particularly. Antioch was firmly in the category of "lands that belonged to the Empire that you will turn over if recaptured." Technically just about anything the Crusaders took was, but Antioch was especially clearly in that category.

It wasn't. And its not as if its a choice between Anitoch and Iconium, either (except to the extent campaigning against one means you're probably not able to campaign against the other at the same time). The Empire could have held both.

Speaking of which, Something I've always been curious about... From what manpower would the Byzantines have garrisoned Antioch and/or tried to enlarge it's dominion? IOW, which area would they have diluted of troops to make Antioch a place of their strength? When John campaigned there with Raymond of Poitiers, he took his whole army with him. Would he have degraded it to leave a substantial garrison or hired mercenaries?
The principality itself would supply some amount of it, perhaps most of it. Its mostly Greek and Orthodox (at least early on - not sure if this changed meaningfully over time). John campaigned there with his whole army because that was the main focus of Byzantine military effort in those campaigns.

Holding it would be a lot easier.

Riain said:
I had Runciman's book which goes into Outremer demographics at some length, the most I've encountered, but sent it back last week. Spewing!

I read recently that the failure of 1101 to open up Anatolia was what doomed Outremer, because with a pilgramage route that the poor to take would provide them with a ready source of manpower from the certain proportion of crusaders and pilgrims who took service with Outremer's leaders or set up on their own. I once read that in comparison with Byzantium, the Islamic world and Europe Outremer's taxation on the commoners was very light, which opens up opportunities for pilgrims.
Well, the southern coast is more or less securely in Byzantine hands from at least the end of John's reign. Call it fifty years (the 1130s) and two generations before Hattin. Or if not Byzantine, Armenian - either way, not-hostile.

That ought to have at least meant something. Not saying the failure of the 1101 crusade wasn't bad here, but there was a land route in friendly hands.
 
Last edited:
If you want the Crusader States to have a long term chance of survival then you need to have the Second Crusade take Damascus - as with it in Christian hands there is virtually no chance of the development of a stable political combination of Muslim Syria and Egypt due to the severance of reliable land communications (control of Oultrejourdain, as history shows, is insufficient for this purpose.)

Why is everybody obseesed with the Third Crusade as being the key point where change can occur?
 
If you want the Crusader States to have a long term chance of survival then you need to have the Second Crusade take Damascus - as with it in Christian hands there is virtually no chance of the development of a stable political combination of Muslim Syria and Egypt due to the severance of reliable land communications (control of Oultrejourdain, as history shows, is insufficient for this purpose.)

Why is everybody obseesed with the Third Crusade as being the key point where change can occur?

I don't know why anyone else mentions it, I mention it as the kind of scenario that (the one that provoked it) is beyond Outremer's ability to recover from...or prevent long term.
 
If you want the Crusader States to have a long term chance of survival then you need to have the Second Crusade take Damascus - as with it in Christian hands there is virtually no chance of the development of a stable political combination of Muslim Syria and Egypt due to the severance of reliable land communications (control of Oultrejourdain, as history shows, is insufficient for this purpose.)

Why is everybody obseesed with the Third Crusade as being the key point where change can occur?

I agree, the key is for the Crusaders to take Aleppo or Damascus before 1154. If Syria and Egypt are kept fragmented, they can survive.

The 2nd Crusade deciding to attack Aleppo and taking the city would be a good POD. It would keep Muslim Syria divided and likely keep the Fatamids in Egypt in power a bit longer.
 
Last edited:
Both Louis in the 2nd and Barbarossa in the 3rd stayed within the Empire until the frontier city of Laodiciea. At this point they set off through Turkish territory and their armies started to starve. Louis got to the coast at Attalia, where he abandoned his infantry. The infantry couldn't cross river at the coast, so had to go inland to find crossing, it was here they were attacked and destroyed. Barbarossa's starving army found food at Iconium.

The point being that withoin the Empire was probably only theoretically possible and not practical.
 
If Manuel had focused on Anatolia/Asia Minor as much as John had instead of campaigning just about everywhere except Anatolia, I'd say there's a very good chance of western Anatolia returning to Byzantine hands by 1180 or so (Manuel's death, in other words). Assuming by western Anatolia we mean the western half, since Iconium is towards the center.

The Seldjuk Mas'ud is seated in Iconium/Konya by 1118 at Alexios' death. Byzantium beat the Turks at Philomelion in 115, but the Turks recaptured Phygrian Laodicea and the Danishmends were pushing to Paphlagonia, as well. John recaptures Laodicea in 1119. The Danishmends take Akara, Gangra, and Kastamuni by 1124, well into the reign of John. In 1129, their Emir Ghazi is moving in on the Roupenians and kills Bohemond II in 1130. By the time John is ready is campaign in Syria in the late 1130s, Ghazi is dead and his son Mohammed is much weaker. I argue Byzantium would be better off focusing on getting Iconinum back from the Seldjuks of Rum and on the Danishmends, instead of diverting their resources against the Armenians in Cilicia or the Normans in Antioch. John does push the Turks out of Phygria in 1139, but they're back in 1142 and John pushes them out again. Then moves on Cilicia and Antioch again. John dies and sure enough the Turks are back again after. It goes steadily downhill under Manuel.

Seems to me lots of wasted effort that would have been better spent on a definitive defeat of the Turks.

On the angst: Not particularly. Antioch was firmly in the category of "lands that belonged to the Empire that you will turn over if recaptured." Technically just about anything the Crusaders took was, but Antioch was especially clearly in that category.

Undoubtedly it was part of the oath of the Normans... though the oath went both ways and Alexios' failure to come to Antioch himself is directly the cause of those problems. Not that the oath meant anything to the Autokrator, but Frankish oaths of fealty went both ways and by failing to come to their aid against Kerbogha, he arguably broke his end first.

It wasn't. And its not as if its a choice between Anitoch and Iconium, either (except to the extent campaigning against one means you're probably not able to campaign against the other at the same time). The Empire could have held both.

They're not mutually exclusive, no, but they couldn't hold either. They lost Antioch to the Turks when they were in a much stronger position. All the back and forth over Antioch happens while the Seldjuks rule from Iconium the whole time and no serious effort to besiege or eject them, just contain them.

The principality itself would supply some amount of it, perhaps most of it. Its mostly Greek and Orthodox (at least early on - not sure if this changed meaningfully over time).

Seems like there were more Heretics/Syrians than Melkites, but certainly a decent sized population, but seems relatively worthless from a military perspective. No Kataphractoi, that's for sure.

That ought to have at least meant something. Not saying the failure of the 1101 crusade wasn't bad here, but there was a land route in friendly hands.

The Nivernais were annihilated between Iconium and Heraclea. They lacked the strength to besiege Iconium so moved on where they were overwhelmed by the combined Seldjuk and Danishmends. The Aquitaine-Bavarian Crusade of 1101 is much larger and the Turks abandon Iconium (I'm not sure why the Greeks didn't retake it), but ambush them in the same area between Iconium and Heraclea.
 
How would manpower be affected if the Pope only granted Crusader status to those going to the Holy land instead of anyone wishing to capture random muslim/pagan territory as IOTL?
 
Riain said:
Both Louis in the 2nd and Barbarossa in the 3rd stayed within the Empire until the frontier city of Laodiciea. At this point they set off through Turkish territory and their armies started to starve. Louis got to the coast at Attalia, where he abandoned his infantry. The infantry couldn't cross river at the coast, so had to go inland to find crossing, it was here they were attacked and destroyed. Barbarossa's starving army found food at Iconium.

The point being that withoin the Empire was probably only theoretically possible and not practical.

Well if you attempt to cross Anatolia through the inland regions rather than following the coast as specifically advised by Manuel (not sure what's up with Fred - trusting the Turks to not assault, I think)...

I don't know enough on the terrain of the coast in regards to river crossings, but its something. Certainly more in this period (1140-1180 or so) than before or after in the crusading period.
The Seldjuk Mas'ud is seated in Iconium/Konya by 1118 at Alexios' death. Byzantium beat the Turks at Philomelion in 1115, but the Turks recaptured Phygrian Laodicea and the Danishmends were pushing to Paphlagonia, as well. John recaptures Laodicea in 1119. The Danishmends take Akara, Gangra, and Kastamuni by 1124, well into the reign of John. In 1129, their Emir Ghazi is moving in on the Roupenians and kills Bohemond II in 1130. By the time John is ready is campaign in Syria in the late 1130s, Ghazi is dead and his son Mohammed is much weaker. I argue Byzantium would be better off focusing on getting Iconinum back from the Seldjuks of Rum and on the Danishmends, instead of diverting their resources against the Armenians in Cilicia or the Normans in Antioch. John does push the Turks out of Phygria in 1139, but they're back in 1142 and John pushes them out again. Then moves on Cilicia and Antioch again. John dies and sure enough the Turks are back again after. It goes steadily downhill under Manuel.

Seems to me lots of wasted effort that would have been better spent on a definitive defeat of the Turks.

The problem is that Cilicia is very much part of the efforts to rebuild the Empire, as is Antioch.

You could say they're less threatening that the Turks, but securing them is also a source of strength against the Turks. Its not an easy situation.

Undoubtedly it was part of the oath of the Normans... though the oath went both ways and Alexios' failure to come to Antioch himself is directly the cause of those problems. Not that the oath meant anything to the Autokrator, but Frankish oaths of fealty went both ways and by failing to come to their aid against Kerbogha, he arguably broke his end first.

This is where I'd want to see what the wording said, and I trust the Alexiad about as far as I can throw a fully armored cataphract. Anna is to put it charitably partial to her father.

They're not mutually exclusive, no, but they couldn't hold either. They lost Antioch to the Turks when they were in a much stronger position. All the back and forth over Antioch happens while the Seldjuks rule from Iconium the whole time and no serious effort to besiege or eject them, just contain them.

The Empire can't do both things at once, and Antioch is more vulnerable.

Seems like there were more Heretics/Syrians than Melkites, but certainly a decent sized population, but seems relatively worthless from a military perspective. No Kataphractoi, that's for sure.

Antioch as a theme seems to have supported 5,000 or so men.

And the cataphracts were never a large part of the army - if memory serves we're looking at a total of hundreds in the Imperial army.

The Nivernais were annihilated between Iconium and Heraclea. They lacked the strength to besiege Iconium so moved on where they were overwhelmed by the combined Seldjuk and Danishmends. The Aquitaine-Bavarian Crusade of 1101 is much larger and the Turks abandon Iconium (I'm not sure why the Greeks didn't retake it), but ambush them in the same area between Iconium and Heraclea.

Lack of a real opportunity?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Fun fact, from an economic pov, I seem to have read somewhere that one of the problems may have been Sicily siphoning off the lion's share of colonists from overpopulated regions in France and Lombardy. Figuring out a way to keep Jerusalem around would probably lead to a quite different ethnic makeup in Sicily too.
 
Oman says "For those who wish to march from west to east there is no good road either along the Euxine shore or the shore of the Sea of Cyprus. On the north the mountains of Pahplagonia and Pontus, on the south those of Lycia and Isauria, come down to the water's edge at many points, and cut the practicable routes in so many places, that it is for all intents and purposes impassable for an army. No traveller in his senses would attempt to use the coast-roads."

A look at terrain map shows that old Charles is on the money.

It's a trade-off of speed, provisions and money. Taking a direct route means you take less time which costs less and requires less provisions. But it takes you through enemy territory, and they're more than willing to conduct a scorched earth and harrasment policy before engaging in battle. Both Louis' army when under the charge of the Templar Everard de Barres and Barbarossas army managed to hold off the Turks well enough during the journey but they got to Attalia and Iconium respectively in a starving state after not having taken enough food. But of course taking a ship costs a fortune so isn't attractive either.

BTW I've got Runcimans book again which spells out who was living in Outremer if anyone is still interested.
 
Last edited:
Riain: By all means.

I've never seen a terrain map showing the roads of the era and the coast in enough detail to argue with Oman here, but it looks rugged enough for me to want detail rather than to argue.
 
I haven't either, but I did a google terrain map search of Turkey focusing on Louis' trek from Laodicea (Denzili) to Attalia (Antalya) and it looks like a piece of scrunched up paper. I looked at my part of the world on the same scale as a comparison and the mountains I know are mere hills in comparison, and the winding nature of the Great Ocean Road where the little Otway Ranges meet the sea is famous.

I'll read the Runciman chapter and put a bit of a description up later.
 
The problem is that Cilicia is very much part of the efforts to rebuild the Empire, as is Antioch.

I think the problem is clearly illustrated that the Turks are persistent and that minor defeats won't make them go away, they need a few Dorylaeums and need to be ejected from Iconium and other places of strength ASAP. Really, the main problem is that without Anatolia and a stable population to draw a native loyal military force, the Empire is dead. It's just a matter of the body beginning to stink. Everything after Manzikert is a shell game.

You could say they're less threatening that the Turks, but securing them is also a source of strength against the Turks. Its not an easy situation.

Less threatening than the Turks is putting it mildly. As long as the Turks are fragmented, they can probably stay that way indefinitely, but are always relying on various mercenaries. Possession of Antioch is a distraction and brings conflict with the Turks in the Aleppo region and further conflict with the Armenians in Cilicia. The Seldjuks of Rum aren't threatened one bit by Byzantine possession of Antioch, and neither are Danishmend movements in the north. The Danishmend princes are, but I think it looks clear that the weaker that individual Turkish emirs get, the worse it is for the Empire since the hordes of Turcoman are even less restrained and coordinated. The Greeks are in quite the nasty box, that's for sure.


Lack of a real opportunity?

I'm thinking it has to be a lack of permanent fortifications or available forces to garrison. Otherwise, the Byzantines just need troops to garrison it and it's a situation like Nicaea in the First Crusade... Unlike the First Crusade, there is no Tatikios following on their heels. There's no Byzantines to garrison and by the time the Seldjuks and Danishmends wipe out the Crusades of 1101 separately, they reclaim it before any Byzantines can get there.
 
Runciman, and I haven't come across any other description in detail, says that in the KoJ there were not 1000 knights, barons etc resident and their non-combattant relatives not much more than 1000, so the entire lay upper class was about 2-3000. Antioch, Edessa and Tripoli probably had about the same in total. In the north there was some intermarriage with Greek and Armenian aristocracy but further south there was no local Christian aristocracy but there was a strain of Komnenes in the royal family bloodlines.

The sergeants settled on their lords fiefs and by 1150 were beginning to form the class of poulains, by 1180 there were about 5000 of them and they were intermarried with local christians. Runciman considers Turcopoles were probably recruited from 'half-castes' who spoke their mother's language, so they were part Frank as well.

There were colonies of Italians in virtually every coastal city and town, but apart from Acre these were only a few hundred stong and didn't mix with their neighbours.

The majority of the population was composed of native Christians. In KoJ almost all were Orthodox and CoT had some Maronites. Further north the Christians were mainly Jacobites with large colonies of Armenians and large groups of Greek Orthodox in Antioch, Cicilia and Lattakieh.

In the 1st Crusade large numbers of Muslims emigrated, including virtually all the large landowners, but there were Muslims around Nablus. In many districts conquered later the Muslims didn't leave, this is important since much of the coast wasn't incorporporated until many years later, Sigurd of Norway helped capture Sidon as late as 1110 and Tyre didn't fall until 1124. In northen Gallilee the locals were Muslim and further north heretical Muslims acknowledged Frankish rule.

Runciman says that the crusade of 1101 affected the whole crusading movement. The road across Anatolia remained unsafe, even the Byzantines had to operate at the end of long and exposed communications. Instead of the thousands of useful colonists this crusade should have bought only quarrelsome and discredited leaders arrived, and Outremer had plenty of quarrelsome leaders already. Pilgrims and potential immigrants were afraid to travel by land but couldn't afford the fares to come by sea, and those who could strengthened the Italian maritime states.
 
Top