Interesting POD idea for Alexios I

I just banged in Askehir to Antakya into Google maps and it comes up with 660 or so km. The route looks direct enough, there certainly isn't 200km in the diversions through the Taurus.

If Alexios' army could travel 25km in a day and he left Philomelium in mid June in 2 weeks he would have travelled 370 or so km, putting him in the Taurus on the 28th of June. Even he pushed his army to 30km a day and we give an extra day or two he only gets Armenian Cicilia in 2 weeks.
 
I just banged in Askehir to Antakya into Google maps and it comes up with 660 or so km. The route looks direct enough, there certainly isn't 200km in the diversions through the Taurus.
That's weird, I used viamichelin, paying attention to respect roughly crusaders roads and obtained slighty less than 450km.

Mind if I try another calculation?
 
I suspected we were getting our wires crossed.

I've never bothered to work out the timings and distances before, I think it is a profitable exercise.
 
I suspected we were getting our wires crossed.

I've never bothered to work out the timings and distances before, I think it is a profitable exercise.

Speaking as someone merely observing, I'm glad to have seen it worked out. Shows more clearly what Alexius's position is when he's making the decision.
 
Alexios would have known that the Crusaders were actually in Antioch. I wonder what would have happened if he hadn't been given the news of a Turk army heading to intercept him.
 
Alexios would have known that the Crusaders were actually in Antioch. I wonder what would have happened if he hadn't been given the news of a Turk army heading to intercept him.

Presumably similar to what he did at Nicaea. But I'm not sure.
 
It took about 10 days for the news of Antioch's fall and Kerbogha's approach to reach Aleixios in Philomelium. Presumably if Alexios had decided to march onto Anticoh the news would have taken at least 8 days to get to the besieged Crusaders and Kerbogha, about the 23rd or 24th of June. Both sides would know that Alexios wouldn't physically influence events for another 2 weeks after that.

In the meantime the Holy Lance had been found, the Crusaders were starving and had already decided to ride out on the 28th. I could see both side at Antioch wanting to force the issue before Alexios arrived on or about July 7th or 8th if he really hurried, or about the 15th if he kept his army fresh.
 
Now, I think unlikely that Kerbogha's army wouldn't have news of Alexios' army coming to help the Crusaders. He won't be able to physically save the day, but it would certainly give some worry to the besieging army.

And as the army of Kerbogha was particlarly divided (you could even say there is distrust between Syrians and Irakians). Actually, if the syrians emirs didn't let Kerbogha deal with the last charge of the Crusaders, they might have won the battle.

I would be encline to think that news of Alexios' coming would more likely make parts of the Syrio-Irakian abandoning the siege than trying to force the battle : they could have taken the city, but could have they sustained a siege by Byzantines?
 
Both sides at Antioch have time to decide on what to do and act on it, much like the Crusaders did when they took Antioch while Kerbogha approached. I don't doubt that news of Alexios' approach would weigh on the calculations of both sides, but there was still 3 or 4 weeks between hearing the news of Alexios' approach and his actual appearance on the scene.
 
Both sides at Antioch have time to decide on what to do and act on it, much like the Crusaders did when they took Antioch while Kerbogha approached.

I don't doubt that news of Alexios' approach would weigh on the calculations of both sides, but there was still 3 or 4 weeks between hearing the news of Alexios' approach and his actual appearance on the scene.

While Crusaders remained relativly united up to Antioch (after where the main part of the noble leaders wanted to remain because they had an hard time enough), Kerboga's army was really disunited and himself having a quite bad reputation among the other Muslims leaders.

Their biggest fear (with some reason) was Kerbogha wanted to take back Antioch for himself and hearing news of Byzantine army is likely to put thi question on the calculations weigh : "Are we going to fight the Roumi for Kerbogha's benefit?"

You'll certainly agree that is really different from beating the hell out of a wandering army that had little if not rear bases.

Admittedly, Kerbogha couldn't have all the time the strategic skills of a dead mussel : he may have tried to storm the city as he did the 7 June but I don't think it would be easily won. And, as he couldn't have really tought preserving the city against a Byzantine army, even him could have asked the wisdom of such move.

Now, do we have more precise elements about Alexios' forces? They were apparently considered as "huge", but that's a bit vague.
 
On December 29th at night, when Bohemond was away on a raid for food, the Turks sallied out and attacked Raymond's troops. They were alert and pushed the Turks back onto the fortified bridge and looked like they were about to fight their way into Antioch. But a horse who'd lost its rider went nuts and pushed into the Crusaders and disorganised them, pushing them back to camp with the Turks in pursuit.

WI that horse went the other way and crashed into the Turks, so Raymond's troops could fight their way into Anticoh on 29th December 1097?
 
SS,

The concept is good,but I am certain Alexios would not have reached Antioch,in time,by land and...he knew it!(so,his aim was different!) if he wanted to really assist Antioch,he would have done it by sea,carrying supplies and his infantry
and machinery on ships that would certainly have covered the distance in a very quick time and Alexios would be moving with his fast elements(all types of cavalry and light mounted infantry) by land,confusing the Turks to say the least...let's not forget that at that time he was the most experienced campaigner in the east with a lot of successes in his name.

The capture of Iconium and Ankyra would certainly straighten the Anatolian front for Alexios,it would relieve Nikomeidia and of course secure Constantinople...good as the first aim;certain fortifications(not permanent-not castles) controlling thematic and commercial roads wold be helpful as concentration and jumping off points,but mainly observation posts and mobile petroling would be better insurance until a second fase of the offensive...

Someone tried to show Alexios as a cautious campaigner,but quite the contrary,he was a very risky one;his campaign against Bohemund and his father proved that along with his operations in the Danube;but his risks were well taken even if he had to pay for them in the Danube...
 
Last edited:
Alexios was in Philomelium in mid June 1098 because he was campaigning to retake western Anatolia, not because he was heading to Antioch, that was a bit of an afterthought. So I don't think heading to Antioch by sea was a realistic option. Besides, the really big armies such as his and later Barbarossa's went by land across Anatolia.
 
Hmmmmmmm, so if Alexios could not reach Antioch in time for the battle itself, could his arrival at the head of his army still lead to Antioch and Cilicia coming under Roman rule? What I'm thinking here is that he arrives in early to mid July, soon after the Crusader victory and intending to stake his claim to Antioch as he did with Nicaea.
 
When John and Manuel made appearances later in the period the Franks couldn't bow down low enough to them and their big armies. Perhaps it would be different in 1098 because the big Crusading army was still on the scene, but I doubt it. It was his total non-appearance that gave Bohemond the leeway to claim Al hadn't lived up to his obligations.

News of Als approach would reach Antioch before the Crusaders broke in, so his intention to help would be clear before the opportunity for Bohemond to break his oath arose.

Back to the OP, I don't think that having Cicilia and Antioch in Byzantine hands would make much difference to the Crusade of 1101 unless it stopped Bohemond getting captured, as this was the reason the Lombards went to their destruction Mersivan.
 
Indeed it also seems that the Turkish force rumored to be shadowing Alexios' forces (Peter of Aulps carried such news from Antioch) was just that - a rumor. To those on the board of the Byzantinist perspective, does it seem likely that Alexios would have broken through to Antioch by mid July? In that timeframe he could also have deployed a vanguard force by ship while he was marching thru Cilicia. Even if he misses the battle he will arrive will a large army and claim Antioch in the same manner as Nicaea.

If Alexios was attacked by Turks en route, it does not seem likely that they would have stopped him considering the disorganized nature of the Turkish forces in the area in the wake of the Crusader advance, it seems as though Big Al got cold feet at a bad moment. Angold discusses this issue as well in his splendid history, and explicitly states that Alexios made the wrong choice not completing his advance on Antioch, the implication being that Byzantium would have had a stronger eastern policy and better relations with the crusaders (Raymond as King of Jerusalem and a Byzantine ally could be a major butterfly here).
 
Indeed it also seems that the Turkish force rumored to be shadowing Alexios' forces (Peter of Aulps carried such news from Antioch) was just that - a rumor. To those on the board of the Byzantinist perspective, does it seem likely that Alexios would have broken through to Antioch by mid July? In that timeframe he could also have deployed a vanguard force by ship while he was marching thru Cilicia. Even if he misses the battle he will arrive will a large army and claim Antioch in the same manner as Nicaea.

If Alexios was attacked by Turks en route, it does not seem likely that they would have stopped him considering the disorganized nature of the Turkish forces in the area in the wake of the Crusader advance, it seems as though Big Al got cold feet at a bad moment. Angold discusses this issue as well in his splendid history, and explicitly states that Alexios made the wrong choice not completing his advance on Antioch, the implication being that Byzantium would have had a stronger eastern policy and better relations with the crusaders (Raymond as King of Jerusalem and a Byzantine ally could be a major butterfly here).

I'm not an expert on this time, but something to consider is that Byzantine military tradition is not to push into engagements with an iffy or unknown chance of success.

So its possible, but from Big Al's perspective: At what cost? A costly win is worse than pulling back.
 
Top