First Crusade: Stephen of Blois remains

Stephen of Blois gave up on the siege of Antioch - and the First Crusade in general - in May 1098, one day before the city fell to the Crusaders. His decision would be a classic example of the butterfly effect, with all sorts of problems for the Crusaders caused by it. Plus, when he got back, his family was so shamed by him that he was forced to go back in the stupid Crusade of the Faint-Hearted (three guesses where it got that hame) a few years later, and got himself killed for the trouble.

So, lets say that Stephen is a bit braver. Or maybe less decisive. Or Bohemond or one of the other leaders of the Crusade puts him under house (tent?) arrest and refuses to let him leave. Whatever the case, Stephen stays in Antioch, sees the city fall to the Crusaders, and then sees out the siege by the Muslims.

I'll outline the plausible best case scenario of the immediate aftermath:

- Alexios Komnenos has no reason to turn back from relieving the Crusaders and, instead, marches to relieve them. We'll assume this helps the Crusaders in their battle that broke the Siege, though that particular battle was a decisive victory for the Crusaders anyway, so not much directly changes. A few more Muslim deaths, a few fewer Christian deaths, and an earlier date for the battle, perhaps.

- With a Byzantine army present, the city will revert back to the Byzantine Empire as was the official plan anyway. It was Byzantine absence that gave the more ambitious Bohemond the opening to seize it for himself. Without that opening, much of the disputes between the Crusaders that delayed them at Antioch for half a year is dissolved, and the Crusade might continue earlier.

- With the Crusaders not lingering in Antioch, the plague that broke out there might not have happened. Bishop Adhemar, the official leader of the Crusade, might not die of disease. This helps keep the Crusaders united, keeps the Crusaders and the Byzantines on better terms. Yay. Minor Bonus: With Adhemar still alive, Peter Bartholomew might not get too big for his britches, and the Crusader faith in the Holy Lance that he found might not be diminished.

So, Byzantine-Crusader relations are better. The Byzantines have Antioch. The Crusaders aren't devastated by disease, and their leadership is more united. Thoughts?
 
IIRC Al had gotten word that a Turk army was in the field while he was with Stephen. It was both pieces of news that made Al decide to turn back.

Without Stephen perhaps Al decides to risk a move toward Antioch despite the news of a Turk Army.

There is a thread floating around somewhere where we worked out the timings of these events.
 
I thought it was a westerner in Al's service rather than one of Stephen's crew. The supposed Turk army was in the east but Stephen approached Al from the southern coast, a little to the west of where Al was.

It's bothering me, I'll have to find the thread.
 
OK.

Late May; Kerbogha approaches Antioch.
June 2; Stephen of Blois deserts Crusading army, sees Kerbogha's army encamped near Antioch
June 3; Antioch captured by Crusaders
June 5; Kerbogha arrives at Antioch
June 7 & 9; Kerbogha attempts to storm Antioch, besieges Antioch
Early June; more deserters join Stephen of Blois at Tarsus (220km from Antioch), convincing him all hope is lost. Stephen begins to travel to Constantinople by sea
Mid June; Stephen hears of Alexios' whereabouts when in Attalia, Stephen travels to meet Alexios at Philomelium (660km from Antioch) and tells him that all is lost. Peter of Aulps (from Comana, east of Cesaria) informs Alexios that a Turkish army is moving to attack him before he reaches Antioch.
Mid June; Alexios weighs his options and turns back to Constantinople
28 June; Crusaders emerge and defeat Kerbogha outside of Antioch, raising the siege.

So without Stephen you still have Peter of Aulps coming from the east with news of a Turk army, however Al may decide to move toward Antioch for a couple of days to confirm this news. If true he could still turn back, if false he could continue to Antioch.
 
Top