Failure of the First Crusade

Using the search function I found a somewhat old thread, but there were few replies, so I see no harm in bringing this topic, although I imagine it might have been discussed already.

So, the First Crusade by modern assessments was an unexpected game-changer for Western Christendom and Islam. Yet, it had some close calls which could have spelt the defeat of the entire expedition. Indeed, the so-called People's Crusade failed miserably, while the Nobles' army was marred by internal rivalries.

For the sake of convenience, let's put the PoD on the Siege of Antioch (1097-1098 A.D.). The Crusaders had advanced through Anatolia, and now had less support from Alexios Komnenos. After an extremely lenghty and exhausting siege of the metropolis of Antioch, a large Muslim army under Kerbogha arrives to take the city. Let's suppose the Muslims gain a decisive victory and the Crusade is effectively defeated.

So far there were no Crusader States established (forget about the County of Edessa), and the "pilgrims in arms" failed their purpose of reaching the Holy City. Now what?
 
So, the First Crusade by modern assessments was an unexpected game-changer for Western Christendom and Islam.
Yes...and no, at least for Western Christiendom. Most of what is associated with Crusades, reinforcement of pontifical legitimacy, more important clericalisaion of political life, rise of Italian maritime dominance, self-identification of western Christiendom, etc. was already present at this point (and eventually made Crusade possible in first place).

Not that you won't have changes, of course, but these would be essentially cultural and institutional (no use of Crusade as a political motivation); *maybe* a stronger focus on Spain, Italy and Africa?
Remember that organized expeditions against Islam already existed by then, but I could see them being less a pontifical thing and more tied up to to nobiliar agreements.

As for Eastern Arabo-Islamic world, arguably, it would have more important changes.
I'd say that you may see Fatimids still declining, but doing so less harshly by being less targeted by assassinations and revolts tied to a situation of almost constant struggle.

As for Anatolian Seljuks, you could have the Sultanate expanding eastwards more importantly than IOTL, including part of northern Iraq. The butterflies would be huge for the region, of course, so it's hard to get a real idea of what would happen long term; but I think it's a given that Byzantine Empire would sooner or later take back coastal Anatolia, would it be only to inner politics matters

The big changes would be the absence of a real motivation for political unity and for helping the appearance of regional takeover à la Saladdin; and of course, an at least really different jihad's revival in Eastern Arabo-Islamic world.
 
So far there were no Crusader States established (forget about the County of Edessa)

I'm not sure you have to forget about the County of Edessa. Baldwin essentially installed himself as an Armenian ruler who happened to be of Frankish extract. He played politics with the Armenians, married an Armenian, had Armenians for subjects, and likely would have been almost indistinguishable from the other Armenian princes of the region had the other crusader states never been established.

The point is that Edessa was on its own not really the same kind of "revolutionary" state as the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and if the rest of the crusade had been smashed at Antioch, Baldwin would probably be a small oddity of history, a somewhat more successful version of Roussel de Bailleul who attempted a similar feat in central Anatolia in the wake of Manzikert 30 years earlier.
 
I'm not sure you have to forget about the County of Edessa. Baldwin essentially installed himself as an Armenian ruler who happened to be of Frankish extract. He played politics with the Armenians, married an Armenian, had Armenians for subjects, and likely would have been almost indistinguishable from the other Armenian princes of the region had the other crusader states never been established.

The point is that Edessa was on its own not really the same kind of "revolutionary" state as the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and if the rest of the crusade had been smashed at Antioch, Baldwin would probably be a small oddity of history, a somewhat more successful version of Roussel de Bailleul who attempted a similar feat in central Anatolia in the wake of Manzikert 30 years earlier.

I agree with the points you raised, Carp. What I had in mind when I said that was the fact that it was the first principality to fall to the Muslims, due to its rather precarious geographical position, it would sooner or later fall to the Turks, due to its strategical relevance.

As you said yourself, I believe that the formation of the County of Edessa would hardly impact on the geopolitical purpose of Crusading if the entire Crusade had been destroyed at Antioch.
 
Top