That, by itself, would be a huge butterfly, with massive implications for (Chalcedonian) Christiandom.
You did say 100 years
That, by itself, would be a huge butterfly, with massive implications for (Chalcedonian) Christiandom.
It's possibly the height of AH irony -- around the time in OTL when Latin Crusaders were sacking Constantinople, TTL could have Constantinople sidestepping Rome entirely in their command of them.You did say 100 years![]()
This is sort of what I meant (more or less) with the idea of on paper and in practice before. Alexios has the advantage of having an army loyal to him at his back, whilst the Crusaders are allies, and still isolated in the east between the Romans, their rival Crusaders, and the Muslim world. Their position isn't that strong, certainly not as strong as Alexios'.
Plus, the Crusaders did tend to agree to make peace with local rulers for supplies rather than fight. This suggests less interest in taking territory compared to getting to Jerusalem. Meanwhile Alexios is there, with an army - and doesn't have to agree to the peace, letting the Crusaders take their supplies and move on, and then lay siege to towns and cities that are now lacking in supplies - all the while keeping the Crusaders on side with more supplies on top. The Crusaders willingness to just move on to the end goal serves Alexios quite well in his own campaign to take control of the region, even if it is mostly small towns and hinterlands. He has Crusader oaths, and his continued backing in supplies, and rearguard security, largely protecting him from any Crusader attempts to seize his newly captured territories. Losing a few large cities and towns that are effectively isolated within his territory isn't the worst loss.
the whole "Hang on, where does my city end and Alexios' territory begin" argument happens - at which point Alexios' would (I expect) have the general goodwill of the Crusaders themselves, regardless of the leadership. This is a good position in which to offer "This border and independence", at which point suddenly most of them are isolated city-states reliant on the Roman Empire economically, or "Dux of [Your City] and [All This Land]" that sets them up quite happily.
If we're honest here, this isn't Crusader Kings where suing for peace for a barony gives you a castle and its land, its the real world where if you haven't taken the town, you better be willing to trade/fight to get it.
Plus, excluding Raymond. Whilst they only agreed to hand over Turk land, they DID swear fealty. At which point Alexios can call on that oath to be like "Oi, buddy, you're my vassal remember?" - which as people who took their oaths seriously, gives Alexios' more leverage.
My concern is that you may be significantly overestimating both the power and boldness of Alexios.
Unlike the Crusader princes, Alexios has a whole empire to protect. Anatolia, which was his #1 priority, is still mostly in Turkish hands. When he encountered Stephen of Blois, it was near Philomelion in west-central Anatolia; while Alexios presumably had some ships at this time, they evidently didn't allow him to move the whole imperial army to Antioch directly. That means every time he wants to show up with an army at Antioch, he has to go by land, through territory which is still contested or in Turkish hands. As the Crusaders were to find out on later crusades, marching through Anatolia to the Levant through hostile territory often ends in disaster. Alexios is very much aware that Romanos lost Manzikert by marching off optimistically into the east only to be destroyed by the Turks - although we assume Stephen's "bad news" was the reason for Alexios to turn around, it may have just as well been what Alexios wanted to do anyway. Without the benefit of hindsight, Antioch looks like a disaster waiting to happen - a disorganized, starving army of Franks besieging Antioch while the powerful emir of Mosul gathers an army to destroy them. And let's not forget, too, that even if Bohemond is his "vassal," the rest of Norman Italy is still assumed to be hostile, and historically at this point the Norman invasions of Greece are far from over.
Holding Antioch is one thing - with sympathetic local Christians and supply routes by sea you can manage it. Actually fielding a big ol' imperial army in Syria, however, is massively expensive, logistically challenging, and quite dangerous to even get it there in the first place. It also removes the emperor and his army far from the center of the empire, placing Greece and the empire's fragile gains in western Anatolia at risk. It's not the sort of thing someone like Alexios is going to do for no serious strategic gain, and I really doubt it's going to allow him to exert the sort of long-term "I have an army hanging over your head" kind of pressure that it seems like you're suggesting he possesses.
Firstly, it depends on who you mean by "Crusaders." Princes like Raymond, Godfrey, and Bohemond absolutely did want territory. The rank-and-file, in contrast, strongly wanted to move on to Jerusalem, as everyone who wasn't a prince was more interested in salvation than which noble got which town.
For reasons already mentioned, even if Alexios decides to support the Crusaders post-Antioch, I don't think he's going to stay. I feel like his maximal exertion is what he did pre-Antioch - send a loyal subordinate like Tatikios with a detachment to follow the Crusaders around, assist them as needed, and ensure that the interests of the empire are being looked after. That gives Alexios a seat at the table, but I don't think he's going to be sticking around for months on end with the bulk of the army besieging the various cities which the Crusaders are passing by in their haste to get to Jerusalem.
I don't mean just Roman Antioch, I was putting forward that Alexios was taking control of the countryside and smaller towns too - at which point he controls the overland routes, isolating the Crusaders (in theory) from the coast, and therefore Venice and Genoa. Plus, he's also been supplying their forces in the scenario. That is pretty reliant on both the Roman Empire for secure supplies and supply routes.Why does Antioch being Roman make them "reliant on the Roman Empire" any more than they were IOTL? Venice and Genoa are still right there to give them support (Genoa especially, Venice was a little late to the party IIRC).
I agree, and in this real world Alexios is unlikely to be willing to fight for what is for him an exceedingly low priority, vulnerable plot of land far from his center of power and which requires considerable expense, time, and risk to reach. This is the sort of situation where buffer states are just ideal - he can let a bunch of zealous Latins pay in their own blood and treasure for the security of recently re-acquired Antioch. Does the cost of "intervention" in the Levant actually offer him greater returns?
Fealty, as opposed to homage, doesn't necessarily entitle Alexios to all that much. As for what the Crusaders actually did swear to do for Alexios, that's as far as I know still a subject of scholarly debate - part of the problem is that the Frankish and Byzantine vocabularies of oath-taking and military service weren't all that close. While their oaths might be strong enough to dissuade them from doing something like actually attacking the empire, to say that the princes will feel bound to actually rush off to his aid might be reading a bit too much into the promises they actually made the emperor and their cultural understanding of those promises.