Largest Byzantine Empire during crusades

Marc

Marc

Donor
kholieken said:
I seem to remember some thread/article that blame lost of Anatolia to some plague or climate change that make nomadism much more effective in highland and reduce number of farmers in plateau ?
Click to expand...
An interesting question with only a drawled possible as the best answer. We actually have quite a bit weather data for the region. We know that Anatolia experienced a major drought in 1037 C.E, and the 10th through 11th centuries had a series of harsh winters (true through a great deal of the Eastern Med) and that means shorter growing seasons and difficulties with various kinds of crops. However, even earlier, agriculture in Anatolia was changing towards more pastoral farming and cereal production, and a lower overall level of agriculture, which would have been naturally reducing population density, particularly in the highland interior even prior to the invasions and migrations by the Turkic peoples.
 
Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)

Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)

Iron_Lord said:
Well, well, well, Let me think. A certain POD might change a LOT of things. There were a lot of things that could have gone better. Prior to the whole princes showing up, the Romans had planned to use this surplus of mercenaries to drive back the Suljuks who were driving closer and closer to Constantinople. During the seige of Antioch, Alexios lead a relief force to aid the crusaders but was intercepted by Stephen of Blois warning that the Crusades were hopeless. If Alexios had lead the entire Roman army to aid the Crusaders at the Seige for Antioch, Forced Stephen of Blois to join him and ignore his idle warning, the Romans could have reasserted there athauthority in Armenia and the levent. The Crusader Princes would be forced to give there land to the Emperor. However Alexious would never allowed the crusaders to conquer Fatimid owned Jerusalem, leaving the Fatimids as allies against the suljuks. I could imagine that in the end, Armenia, edessa, Antioch and Triopoli would fall. I would imagine that if an alliance had occured between The Roman empire, Fatimid Caliphate and the crusaders occured they could retake Antonia and even Georgia.
Click to expand...

With the risk of it seeming a shameless exibitionism, I'll just go on and take advantage of the mention done in a previous post by @ImperialxWarlord and say that this that you mentioned is the exact POD of my TL (linked in the signature). ITTL, the First Crusade is more successful due to Alexios' timely intervention during the Siege of Antioch. This prevents Bohemond from claiming it for himself, and in turn makes the Byzantines foster more amicable relations with the soon to be born Principality of Jerusalem. I've tweaked things a bit to have Raymond instead of Godfrey as leader after the First Crusade, and the story develops from there.

Generally, I'm of the opinion that the Byzantines could have very well beneffited from a lasting alliance with the Crusades, and this is the basic premise of the TL - which, indeed, sees Constantinople effectively reconquer Anatolia and even advance into Armenia by the 1150s. Of course, this makes sense into the context of the narrative, and could have very well become a different scenario. But, with an early enough POD, during Alexios' reign, I don't see why Byzantium couldn't have been more successful. The Sultanate of Rum was then very incipent and weak, and Anatolia was fragmented between various Turkish entities. It was but a matter of playing them against one another - as many say, a fixture of Byzantine foreign policy - and with gradual expansion, they could have secured at least central Anatolia, and keep the Turks at bay in the eastern provinces, likely as a buffer against other hostiles in Islamic-dominated Armenia.

EDIT: Now that I realized that the OP was banned in like, the same day he started the thread... Good grief, Batman
 
Last edited:
Iron_Lord

Iron_Lord

Rdffigueira said:
With the risk of it seeming a shameless exibitionism, I'll just go on and take advantage of the mention done in a previous post by @ImperialxWarlord and say that this that you mentioned is the exact POD of my TL (linked in the signature). ITTL, the First Crusade is more successful due to Alexios' timely intervention during the Siege of Antioch. This prevents Bohemond from claiming it for himself, and in turn makes the Byzantines foster more amicable relations with the soon to be born Principality of Jerusalem. I've tweaked things a bit to have Raymond instead of Godfrey as leader after the First Crusade, and the story develops from there.

Generally, I'm of the opinion that the Byzantines could have very well beneffited from a lasting alliance with the Crusades, and this is the basic premise of the TL - which, indeed, sees Constantinople effectively reconquer Anatolia and even advance into Armenia by the 1150s. Of course, this makes sense into the context of the narrative, and could have very well become a different scenario. But, with an early enough POD, during Alexios' reign, I don't see why Byzantium couldn't have been more successful. The Sultanate of Rum was then very incipent and weak, and Anatolia was fragmented between various Turkish entities. It was but a matter of playing them against one another - as many say, a fixture of Byzantine foreign policy - and with gradual expansion, they could have secured at least central Anatolia, and keep the Turks at bay in the eastern provinces, likely as a buffer against other hostiles in Islamic-dominated Armenia.

EDIT: Now that I realized that the OP was banned in like, the same day he started the thread... Good grief, Batman
Click to expand...
THANKYOU! Your like the only person that understands the problem of the Crusades. When good old Alexios didn't go to the aid for the Crusades the Crusaders then wen't on to attack the nearest Anti-suljuk state, Fatimid caliphate. The Crusader States would have been unified under a centralised body with a trained and standing army, preventing further loses. Even if it does go well, just go with the classic 'pit the factitious Suljuks against each other until they ignore you'. I love the Idea of advancing into Armenia. From about 1089 to 1100 we can see the Kingdom of Georgia refuse to send tribute to the Suljuks and even make gains in the Caucasus, destabilising Suljuk rule further.
 
Iron_Lord

Iron_Lord

Rdffigueira said:
With the risk of it seeming a shameless exibitionism, I'll just go on and take advantage of the mention done in a previous post by @ImperialxWarlord and say that this that you mentioned is the exact POD of my TL (linked in the signature). ITTL, the First Crusade is more successful due to Alexios' timely intervention during the Siege of Antioch. This prevents Bohemond from claiming it for himself, and in turn makes the Byzantines foster more amicable relations with the soon to be born Principality of Jerusalem. I've tweaked things a bit to have Raymond instead of Godfrey as leader after the First Crusade, and the story develops from there.

Generally, I'm of the opinion that the Byzantines could have very well beneffited from a lasting alliance with the Crusades, and this is the basic premise of the TL - which, indeed, sees Constantinople effectively reconquer Anatolia and even advance into Armenia by the 1150s. Of course, this makes sense into the context of the narrative, and could have very well become a different scenario. But, with an early enough POD, during Alexios' reign, I don't see why Byzantium couldn't have been more successful. The Sultanate of Rum was then very incipent and weak, and Anatolia was fragmented between various Turkish entities. It was but a matter of playing them against one another - as many say, a fixture of Byzantine foreign policy - and with gradual expansion, they could have secured at least central Anatolia, and keep the Turks at bay in the eastern provinces, likely as a buffer against other hostiles in Islamic-dominated Armenia.

EDIT: Now that I realized that the OP was banned in like, the same day he started the thread... Good grief, Batman
Click to expand...
My Goodness, Your Timeline, 'And All the Nations Shall Gather to it' is brilliant! Almost exactly what I had in mind when theorising about a longer living Roman Empire!

Hypothetically, to avoid the whole annoying Fatimids in Jerusalem thing, another certain POD could be in order. You could either make the Fatimids fail to invade Jerusalem from the Suljuk empire (one year before the Crusaders invasion of Jerusalem, or you could make the Roman Lead Crusaders agree to the alliance the Fatimids had offered.

(sorry, can't remember research)
 
Last edited:

John7755 يوحنا

Rdffigueira said:
With the risk of it seeming a shameless exibitionism, I'll just go on and take advantage of the mention done in a previous post by @ImperialxWarlord and say that this that you mentioned is the exact POD of my TL (linked in the signature). ITTL, the First Crusade is more successful due to Alexios' timely intervention during the Siege of Antioch. This prevents Bohemond from claiming it for himself, and in turn makes the Byzantines foster more amicable relations with the soon to be born Principality of Jerusalem. I've tweaked things a bit to have Raymond instead of Godfrey as leader after the First Crusade, and the story develops from there.

Generally, I'm of the opinion that the Byzantines could have very well beneffited from a lasting alliance with the Crusades, and this is the basic premise of the TL - which, indeed, sees Constantinople effectively reconquer Anatolia and even advance into Armenia by the 1150s. Of course, this makes sense into the context of the narrative, and could have very well become a different scenario. But, with an early enough POD, during Alexios' reign, I don't see why Byzantium couldn't have been more successful. The Sultanate of Rum was then very incipent and weak, and Anatolia was fragmented between various Turkish entities. It was but a matter of playing them against one another - as many say, a fixture of Byzantine foreign policy - and with gradual expansion, they could have secured at least central Anatolia, and keep the Turks at bay in the eastern provinces, likely as a buffer against other hostiles in Islamic-dominated Armenia.

EDIT: Now that I realized that the OP was banned in like, the same day he started the thread... Good grief, Batman
Click to expand...

It should be mentioned, that the more important crusader lords were at least somewhat loyal to the Eastern Emperor. My opinion is firmly that the Papacy truly wished to assist the Eastern Empire. Surely, if things had worked more as you place them, the Eastern Empire would almost surely have drifted back into the Papal web of alliances and influences. Simply with the Papacy having distributed a strong and warlike nobility to be utilized by Alexios I would create incentive for the Empire to use Papal religious edicts alongside Imperial ones to subdue rebellious lords. The relationship between a renewed and pro-Papal Byzantium with a Pontiff who resembled Innocent III, would frankly be a recipe for disaster for many Muslim realms.

EDIT: Mind you, Alexios I could finally resolve the issue that caused much of the Imperial frontier woes; namely after the disarmament of the Armenians, the Empire was reliant upon field armies, who if defeated in the field, left an entire realm to be captured. With a system more resembling an expanding frontier of colonizing Latin and Greek settlers as vassals of the Emperor, would at least begin to rescind some of these issues related to population. Byzantium was even familiar with these tactics; after the decimation Islamic armies wrought upon Anatolia, the Empire often took to deporting and settling as state villages, many clans, villages and towns of Slavs and other Balkan peoples into Anatolia.
 
Last edited:

Alkmaion

snerfuplz said:
I was thinking about defendable borders and I believe a separate Armenia would be better equipped to deal with the Turks. Or probably not but at least Byzantium would have some room and would not have to expend treasure maintaining them (or providing stipends to Armenian nobles)
Click to expand...
At that time a successful Byzantine Empire would have had still the ability to integrate the fiefdoms of the Armenian people at former cilicia. They were from the same religion, fought the same enemies and celebrated the same culture.
 

kholieken

Banned
Armenia belong to different church, and had centuries-long history of war and persecution under hand of Byzantine Empire, resisting Imperial government and conversion to Orthodox Church is part of national myth. They wouldn't be easily integrated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top