No Crusades

I have just finished reading a short history of Byzantium and it has left me with a lot of 'what if' questions. To name one, what if the Crusades never happened? To my mind there is nothing inherent in Christianity that would produce vast military expeditions to fight the Saracen. It's not like the kingdoms of Christendom were ever really on good terms with each other given all the wars between them. So here's the question: If there are no crusades does this ultimately help Byzantium last longer? Remember that the while the crusaders did found some states in formerly Muslim lands for a time, they also sacked Constantinople, and generally were a problem while they traveled through the Empire. Heck, they even took control of Constantinople for a over have a century.

Part of me admires Byzantium and would want to construct a timeline where they are more victorious. But a part of me would be curious about the opposite outcome. For example, what if Constantinople fell to the Caliphate in the 8th century instead of the Turks in the 15th? Byzantium was a strangely long-lived civilization as it was. This question might be impossible given the butterflies involved but would you rather live in a world where Byzantium lasted longer, perhaps without the Crusades and the disaster at Manzikert or would you rather live in a world where the seemingly invincible armies of Dar al Islam crushed Byzantium just as they did to the Sassanid Empire?
 
They would've overextended themselves. The Muslims had a really lucky break in invading when they did. It's better to go for the former.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The Caliphate would fall apart just as OTL, you'd have a number of small successors, except in this case you now have an additional successor state around Byzantium.
 
Yeah, archaeogeek is right. The Mongols would have wiped the floor with the Caliphate just as they did in OTL. From the Muslim perspective, the Mongols were very much a more serious threat than anything coming out of Europe in that time period.
 
Yeah, archaeogeek is right. The Mongols would have wiped the floor with the Caliphate just as they did in OTL. From the Muslim perspective, the Mongols were very much a more serious threat than anything coming out of Europe in that time period.

Are the Mongols even inevitable?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Are the Mongols even inevitable?

Temujin was born in 1162 so by the third crusade things were sealed, however there might be slight effects; thing is I don't think the lack of crusades gives enough butterflies for that since all the crusaders did was take away rebellious peripheral provinces of the already weakened Fatimid caliph.
 
Temujin was born in 1162 so by the third crusade things were sealed, however there might be slight effects; thing is I don't think the lack of crusades gives enough butterflies for that since all the crusaders did was take away rebellious peripheral provinces of the already weakened Fatimid caliph.

Well, I was operating under the Caliphate takes Ctown idea, but even then I don't consider Temujin's achievements to be inevitable.
 
I have just finished reading a short history of Byzantium and it has left me with a lot of 'what if' questions. To name one, what if the Crusades never happened? To my mind there is nothing inherent in Christianity that would produce vast military expeditions to fight the Saracen. It's not like the kingdoms of Christendom were ever really on good terms with each other given all the wars between them. So here's the question: If there are no crusades does this ultimately help Byzantium last longer? Remember that the while the crusaders did found some states in formerly Muslim lands for a time, they also sacked Constantinople, and generally were a problem while they traveled through the Empire. Heck, they even took control of Constantinople for a over have a century.

Part of me admires Byzantium and would want to construct a timeline where they are more victorious. But a part of me would be curious about the opposite outcome. For example, what if Constantinople fell to the Caliphate in the 8th century instead of the Turks in the 15th? Byzantium was a strangely long-lived civilization as it was. This question might be impossible given the butterflies involved but would you rather live in a world where Byzantium lasted longer, perhaps without the Crusades and the disaster at Manzikert or would you rather live in a world where the seemingly invincible armies of Dar al Islam crushed Byzantium just as they did to the Sassanid Empire?

Western Europe did end with new ideas and technologies from the crusades, so this might be somewhat slowed down ITTL.

And the reltionship between the crusader and Eastern Romans was difficult, the Eastern Romans could have treated the crusders differently. Eastern Romans and crusaders were different and they didn't exactly trust eachother.
 
Last edited:
Western Europe did end with new ideas and technologies, so this might be somewhat slowed down ITTL.

And the reltionship between the crusader and Eastern Romans was difficult, the Eastern Romans could have treated the crusders differently. Eastern Romans and crusaders were different and they didn't exactly trust eachother.

Especially since the Great Schism was still fresh when the First Crusade was launched.
 
Especially since the Great Schism was still fresh when the First Crusade was launched.

Yes, and that combined by the fact that the Eastern Romans and the Westerners had different attitudes. Westerners were considered rude (or even barbarian) by the Eastern Romans and the Westerners fought that the Eastern Romans had become weak, were arrogant and couldn't be trusted.

The Eastern Roman Empire initially wanted help, but they weren't thinking about anything like the crusades.
 
Yes, and that combined by the fact that the Eastern Romans and the Westerners had different attitudes. Westerners were considered rude (or even barbarian) by the Eastern Romans and the Westerners fought that the Eastern Romans had become weak, were arrogant and couldn't be trusted.

The Eastern Roman Empire initially wanted help, but they weren't thinking about anything like the crusades.

Isn't a common belief that Alexios I wanted to kill two birds with one stone by having the crusaders beat the Seljuks up for him?
 
The bit about the Westerners getting new ideas and technology is interesting. We don't really know to this day what exactly Greek fire was. The West got Aristotle back from the Muslims in Spain, not the Byzantines, right? The Byzantines did preserve a lot of ancient texts so perhaps they got some of those. What exactly did they gain? Also, I've heard the theory that without Aristotle, the West had to think on its own and was able to better correct some of Aristotle's faulty thinking when they got him again.

I wholly agree about the relationship better crusaders and the Eastern Romans. They were suspicious of each other to say the least. Hostility was often simmering beneath the surface.
 
Yes, Byzantium had lots of trouble with Serbia and the Bulgars. Venice was often a very uneasy ally as well. Reading Byzantine history makes me wonder if perhaps the Greeks spent too much time worrying over Europe and not enough time defending their eastern flank.
 
Top