Siege of Nicaea (1097)

The siege of Nicaea which was undertaken by Byzantines and Crusaders fails. Various Turkish emirates unite and defeat the besieging armies.
 
Sounds like Alexios has his work cut out for him.

Even it the siege fails, numerous other Seljuk towns and cities were captured in other places it's only a matter of time before Big Al takes back his rightful clay.
 
Various Turkish emirates unite and defeat the besieging armies.
That's not going to happen, at the very least, not that soon.
Turkish emirates and sultanates (and neither other Muslims states in the region) really grasped the Crusader motivation, or even distinguished them from the various Latin mercenaries of Byzantines.

They simply didn't see that the whole expedition was going its way East and South, possibly threatening them, and even when they did see the danger (as in Antioch), it didn't prevented them to maintain a political and strategical disunity.

Asking them to unite, after the first expedition was crushed easily and while Kiliç Arslan is in an ongoing war in Eastern Anatolia, would be really pushing it.

The siege of Nicaea which was undertaken by Byzantines and Crusaders fails.
It would be really hard. There, you have the maximum number of both Latin Crusaders and Byzantine reinforcement you'd ever had in the First Crusade.
The only thing I could imagine would work would be an epidemic in the Christian camp, but even that would take simply too much time (the city was taken in one month) and could weaken besieged as well.

Another way would be to butterfly away entry of Latins in Anatolia, making troubles among them going to a whole new brand level. It wouldn't prevent Crusaders to advances (Raimond of Saint-Gilles would probably pull the same trick than when he left Antioch), but could reduce numbers.

That plus epidemics could *maybe* do it if you remove Byzantine assisstance as well.

For the latter, it's being complicated. Latin forces were something Alexios needed bad, to take back at least token parts of Anatolia in order to not piss too much anatolian elites that already frowned up on his abandon of Asia at the benefit of Balkans.

Him being replaced in the late 1090's could be a good PoD.

The consequences would be interesting.
- Byzantine Empire would sooner or later take back coastal Anatolia, would it be only to inner politics matters

- Rum Sultanate could expand its influence eastwards more importantly than IOTL, including part of northern Iraq. The butterflies would be huge for the region, of course, so it's hard to get a real idea of what would happen long term

- Fatimids could have a better decline, comparativly to IOTL, less plagued by assassination and revolts.

- Changes in Latin Christiendom would be limited, at best. The changes would be essentially cultural, and institutional (no use of Crusade as a political motivation); and *maybe* a stronger focus on Spain, Italy and Africa?
 
Why is it only a matter of time? Lots of Anatolia was lost to the Byzantines permanently.

You're right, but Nicea is incredibly close to Constantinople. In order to make further conquests into Anatolia it would have to be captured.

It's been considered the "second city" of the Empire. Alexios would try again.


EDIT: The second city may also be considered Thessaloniki, but Nicaea was very important nonetheless.
 
Why would it take back coastal Anatolia? Lots of the empire was lost in the 11th century for good.

I'm not sure I understand your point : because the territory was lost, it was never to be recovered?
It's not as Byzantium didn't have ressources of its own, and didn't demonstrate its capacity to reconquer lost territories : in Anatolia, in Balkans, etc.

As for the reasons, I'm sure that BG could precise far much as I, but let's try :

- I mentioned them before : inner politics. Alexios rise to power was bloody and far from consensual.
Face to two dangers, Normans and Turks, he choose to deal with the first, hence frustrating Constantinople's elites and families whom roots and wealth were based on Anatolia.
Without pressure on Balkans, not trying to get some of coastal Anatolia is doom to provoke tentatives of usurpation as in 82.

- Strategical purposes : It's not like Nicea (even without considering what ByzantineMan said, not that it's wrong) didn't dominated the passage to Constantinople, and Smyrne the Aegean Sea.
In a simple matter of strategical safety, controlling these regions on a hugely divided* Turkish Anatolia would be necessary

* It was actually a consistent policy of Alexios to favorise as much as possible this division, as his war against Tzakhas and his agreement with Arlsan point out.

I'll point, incidentally, that we're not talking of a possible strategy : not minding the diplomatical activity going in this sense (including the Crusaders that were used as such), part of the Pont was still under Byzantine hands, and the effort made to take back Damalis (face to the capital) are to be understood in this perspective.

- - -

Just to correct my previous post.
Thinking about it, it may have some consequences on Norman Italy. They never really abandoned their balkanic focus, at the expense of Byzantines, but without Crusades and Latin States, they may keep it more consistently.
That said, the political division in southern Italy should prevent a takeover after their previous defeat. But you can have a Roger II-like situation there sooner.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I understand your point : because the territory was lost, it was never to be recovered?

I supposeyou're right, 1097 is probably too late. but I think the Byzantine empire came very close to collapse after 1071, and rather than viewing the Turkish conquest of Anatolia as the high water mark, we should see it as noe possible outcome. Presuming that just because the Turks were ultimately beaten back that they would probably have been beaten back seems a bit much. Does that make sense?
 
I supposeyou're right, 1097 is probably too late. but I think the Byzantine empire came very close to collapse after 1071
I agree, but we're talking of a PoD more than 25 years later, after that Alexios managed to rebuild a strong empire, get rid of western issues (Normans, Pechenegs), in a far better shape than 1071, and with an historical policy on Anatolia.

Presuming that just because the Turks were ultimately beaten back that they would probably have been beaten back seems a bit much. Does that make sense?
I think I see what's the issue : but I'd point that I mentionned coastal Anatolia. Or if you want something more precise, something akin to this.

Giving the policies of Alexios, I think Smyrna would be more the focus ITTL, would it be only because it was important in the defense of Balkans that became in the XIIth century the hinterland of the empire instead of Anatolia.
The Emirate of Smyrna, with its fleet, was enough of a threat to push IMHO Alexios to make a move there as soon he could (as he already did IOTL).
Pont and Sinope could be another focus afterwards (well, if Trebizond doesn't fall that is), as well Nicea but that would ask for a weakened Sultanate (giving the IOTL unstability of Seljukids states, it wouldn't take that long).
Eventually, taking on the western Anatolian hinterland (Empire of Nicea style) wouldn't be that surpriging, would it be only to have a buffer region, but that's out of the immediate scope.

Rather than picturing Turkish advance as a high-mark or as doomed to withdraw, I'm more thinking about balance of power and borders between a Byzantine Empire that get its shit together since Manzikert, and a non-Crusader Middle-East (with a stronger Rum).
 
Top