Interesting POD idea for Alexios I

I know that there have been alot of outstanding "Byzantine" TLs on here lately (Orient Yourself Correctly rocks), but I had a fascinating idea for Alexios I to recapture much of Anatolia and Antioch by his death in 1118 and was wondering if it was plausible. First, I would have a POD where Alexios relieves the Crusaders at Antioch in 1098 instead of turning back with his army when he was halfway thru the march. Alexios would re-establish Roman control in Antioch and Cilicia with relative ease (aided by Raymond of Toulouse supporting Alexios' territorial claims) and would have given his Empire a strategic foothold in the Levant.

From there on out, Alexios will not focus upon depopulating the Anatolian plateau of its Christian inhabitants (as he did during his campaigns in the region OTL) but will garrison places along the route between his two prizes; Nicaea and Antioch. This would leave the interior somwhat less "Turkish" that it was OTL following his death.

Finally, I would have Alexios take advantage of the manpower and chaos of the Crusade of 1101 to capture Iconium at this juncture, before the Seljuqs had fully recovered from their setbacks in the wake of the crusades. Alexios, joining the 1101 Crusaders of Walter of Nevers with his field army, would likely end up with Anycra and Iconium held by Roman garrisons and a more secure land route to Antioch and thus Jerusalem.

Obviously John II and his successors in such a TL would still have to reduce the Danishmends of Eastern Anatolia, a task that would take much time. But Alexios, by relieving Antioch in 1098, would have left the later Komnenoi in a far better position to assert their control over the entirety of Anatolia and to absorb the Seljuqs on the peninsula. I had written 4 chapters of this TL (thru 1130 AD and John II) but was wondering if the noble minds of this forum thought that this chain of events was plausible enough.

Thanks for any feedback, this site has been such an amazing resource for my historical interests and research into the 12th and 13th centuries!
 
If Alexius keeps on marching on Antioch (and crushes the Turks) the crusaders have no other option then giving up on city. I guess in this case Alexius would capture some other cities in the region like Latakia, but after that he would have to leave the crusaders and return to Constantinople, because the situation of the empire is still unstable and his position as emperor isn't as secure as it seems (even if he has the support of the Dukai)
looking at the fate of his precedors.
Alexius concentrating on Asia isn't that likely. The core of the empire has moved to the Balkans during his time and it worked well for some time. Furthermore he would have to risk his entire army by campaigning in central Anatolia, but if you change his character from a really pragmatic one to an adventurous it might happen and you have to do that, because the pragmatic Alexius we know would never risk his army and his reign for some barbarians enclosed in a city, which isn't essential for the survive of his empire.
 
The core of the empire has only moved to the Balkans because they don't control Asia Minor. That's not a good thing, as his son's campaigning shows.
 
@ Elfwine, BG, Avitus and others: is this POD doable?

The crusade of 1101 seems to have captured Ankara and besieged Konya even in its disorganized state, if Alexios has claimed Antioch a few years prior, he would have greater incentive to lead/assist these crusaders in order to control the land route to Antioch. Considering that the crusaders and Romans often campaigned around Konya during this period (before the Seljuq state was firmly established as it was in say, Manuel's time). It really seems doable.

I had John II primarily fighting the Danishmends in the regions of Sivas, Kayseri and Niskar, but ITTL Konya and Antioch are held by the Romans after 1101.
 
I would also say that the further the Komnenian Restoration developed, the more Anatolia increased in importance. Upon Manuel I's death the former Thrakesion and Opsikion Themes were flourishing and a Roman presence had been re-established on the plateau (Dorylaeum).

The success of the Empire of Nicaea in ruling from an Anatolian base also speaks to the continued Roman power in the region.
 
The crusader expeditions of 1101 at the contrary of the First Crusade didn't have the goal to help the Byzantines.
While it's possible that they do such if Alexios helped the Crusaders further than he did OTL that they fight on his side, the Latin nobles wouldn't want to serve as mercenaries.

Their goal was Palestine, and even disorganised (that was more an issue for Byzzies than a real opportunity, as it meant more plundering of their territories by Latin armies and less possibility for Latin lords more or less benevolent to them to lead the expedition), Alexios couldn't have counted on their help undefinitly. Critically that a take over of Antioch by Alexios would have led the Crusader to expand their Latin States southern than IOTL.

This part of the POD seem doable, but maybe not as favourable for Byzantines.

For Alexios I in Asia, it does makes sense, at least politically : many of the byzantine nobles had great holdings in Anatolia before the Turks take over and the emperor had to deal with distrust after he focused on Balkans (where were most of HIS holdings). I don't have a great knowledge of his reign but couldn't have been the way for having a more important clientele?
 
@ Elfwine, BG, Avitus and others: is this POD doable?

The crusade of 1101 seems to have captured Ankara and besieged Konya even in its disorganized state, if Alexios has claimed Antioch a few years prior, he would have greater incentive to lead/assist these crusaders in order to control the land route to Antioch. Considering that the crusaders and Romans often campaigned around Konya during this period (before the Seljuq state was firmly established as it was in say, Manuel's time). It really seems doable.

I'd say its not impossible, but I would be leery of anything implying great gains are possible.

Part of the problem is that even if the Seljuks as a state aren't well established, the Turcomen as a threat to farmers and such are going to be a pain in the a**.

There's no good solution to that. It doesn't mean you can't make progress - just that it will make expansion a lot more grinding and a lot less "seizing opportunities" if its going to last.

But specifically seizing Iconium, assuming that's not just an isolated outpost in effect? Doable. What makes the Turcomen such frustrating pests does not translate into them holding ground very effectively.
 
I agree, the Roman presence in Iconium ITTL will not simply delete the Turcoman tribal elements on the plateau, but it will allow Alexios, John and Manuel to maintain better communications with Outremer and slowly extend their authority over the interior (a campaign of fortification and castle-building on the plateau would play a large role here).

ITTL the plateau would be a battleground for several decades after Alexios secures Iconium, Ankara and Antioch, but it would at least keep the battles with the nomads further from the rich coastal plains and would enure that a strong Seljuq state does not arise in the urban centers that Alexios chose not to reconquer OTL.
 
I would love someone to lay out the timings of the sieges of Antioch.

  1. When did Stephen tell Big Al that all was lost?
  2. Where was Big Al at the time?
  3. Was there enough time for Big Al to influence the sieges if he kept going? (Keeping in mind the very news of his proximity would influence the sieges.)
The Crusade of 1101 is the biggest lost opportunity of the whole era.
 
(a campaign of fortification and castle-building on the plateau would play a large role here).

ITTL the plateau would be a battleground for several decades after Alexios secures Iconium, Ankara and Antioch, but it would at least keep the battles with the nomads further from the rich coastal plains and would enure that a strong Seljuq state does not arise in the urban centers that Alexios chose not to reconquer OTL.

Castlebuilding seems to be pretty expensive not to mention the garrison.

Furthermore to keep on batteling in Anatolia you have to hope for peace in the Balkan (two-front-war isn't desirable)
 
Castlebuilding seems to be pretty expensive not to mention the garrison.

Furthermore to keep on batteling in Anatolia you have to hope for peace in the Balkan (two-front-war isn't desirable)

War is expensive. Building fortifications isn't necessarily the worse way to do it, especially given that these aren't exactly major ones.
 
I agree with Riain concerning the crusade of 1101. The goal of this TL would be to have Alexios have better established authority over Antioch and Cilicia going into the crusade of 1101. Thus Alexios will have a stronger incentive to see this crusade get across Anatolia (and potentially help him firmly establish a land route to Antioch). Furthermore, with Antioch already under their rule, John and Manuel could focus upon making the interior of Anatolia part of Empire once more.

I do not expect Alexios or Walter of Nevers to solve the problem of the Turcoman tribal levies, these will be a severe problem on the Anatolian plateau just as the Slavs were in the Balkans for the Byzantines (the Turcoman were also a pain for the Ottoman government in Anatolia).

I do expect Alexios to join the 1101 crusaders with his army in order to secure Ikonion, garrison it, and make his route to his new prizes in Cilicia and Antioch more secure by land.

Historically the Komnenoi were very successful expanding their frontiers in Anatolia through siege warfare on the offense and castle building on the defense, ITTL Alexios is a little less cautious and takes advantage of the Turkish weakness at this moment to secure more places in central Anatolia. John and Manuel would thus have a slightly easier time dealing with the Danishmends, Turcomans and Cilician Armenians. Anatolia would be returned to Roman rule, but will take many generations to fully pacify the interior. I'm up to the 1140s on the TL, going to post it in a few chunks soon.
 
I agree with Riain concerning the crusade of 1101. The goal of this TL would be to have Alexios have better established authority over Antioch and Cilicia going into the crusade of 1101

As I said above, Crusades of 1101 is likely to have its own goals, especially if Alexios already took control of Antioch earlier. While they could support his campaign in Anatolia, it would be as long it's making them closer of their destination or eventually against ravitail.
 
Here are some dates I've tried to string together.

  • Late May; Kerbogha approaches Antioch.
  • June 2; Stephen of Blois deserts Crusading army, sees Kerboha'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 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's warning him off Alexios' army has to travel 660 km in about 2 weeks and perhaps fight a major battle in the meantime. However news of Alexios' approach would precede him by some time and maybe would prompt action in and around Antioch.
 
Last edited:
When and where did Stephen meet Alexios?????

Approxymatly Mid June, while Alexios's army goes to Antioch he encounters Stephen of Blois somewhere between Tarsus and Constantinople, but I don't think chronicled say where exactly.
 
Runciman says Philomelium and that Alexios couldn't have made it to Antioch in time. But he most probably wouldn't have needed to, his approach would influence events in the same way Stephen of Blois deserted at Kerbogha's approach.
 
The messengers (including Stephan of Blois) met Alexios and the imperial army near Philomenion, in central Anatolia. He definitely could have made it in time to influence events in Antioch and stake his claim in the region.
 
The messengers (including Stephan of Blois) met Alexios and the imperial army near Philomenion, in central Anatolia. He definitely could have made it in time to influence events in Antioch and stake his claim in the region.

300 miles in two weeks? No.
 
The messengers (including Stephan of Blois) met Alexios and the imperial army near Philomenion, in central Anatolia. He definitely could have made it in time to influence events in Antioch and stake his claim in the region.

I doubt that, 660km is a long way for an army to walk, especially the baggage/siege train.
 
After a quick search, indeed, it's Philomelium.

And really, 460km (not 660, I wonder where this number comes from) isn't that hard : we're talking of a few defecters that tries to join Constantinople the fastest they can. I doubt they had much baggage left. A medieval army can walk more or less 25 km a day. It would have taken maybe 20 days to reach the city, more if they tried to go fast.

Furthermore, we have a contemporary source saying that is Philomelium : I don't see why it should be discarded only because it seems implausible : less plausible things happen.
 
Top