The First Crusade and mending the Great Schism

[how]

Sorry if this subject has been done to death but I was thinking about the First Crusade and how the intentions to reconquer territories of the Roman Empire that had been lost to the Seljuks aligned very neatly with the desire for the Latins to be able to have safe passage to Jerusalem and how it was in the interest of both parties to mend the schism. This is of course well known but the dramatic deterioration in relations between the crusaders and the Romanoi did not have to occur as suddenly as in our timeline, so what would happen if the first crusade was different meaning that there was full co-operation between the Latins and Romanoi with every Latin leader swearing the oath to the reclaimation of the Roman Empire's lost territory. That the earlier peoples crusade had not occur thus the Latins do not suffer from a smeared reputation in the Romanoi court and lands. That the Romanoi do not abandon the Latins at any point in the campaign thus preventing the establishment of entities such as Edessa, Tripoli, Armenia Cilicia and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Could all of these lands be taken by the Roman Empire in an inital 'Crusade' (some rebranding might be required unless the idea of crusading in the alternate timeline is very different to ours), with subsequent crusades aimed at the Danishmends and Syria having a greater chance of success with a reconquest of Armenia occuring independently to the Crusading movement. Is it even possible for the leading figures of the first crusade to show constraint on the Latin side or to have trust on the Romanoi side. I understand that the Crusade of 1101 was a complete failure and wasted opportunity so is it possible that in this world that this event could be a mere continuation of the initial crusade and with full co-operation have a greater chance of success or would the Latins shrug and say 'well looks like our job here is done' and bugger of home with the pope waiting for a dm from Alexius of his realms imminent return to "true" Catholicism and the mending of the Schism. Is it possible that the crusaders of this timeline are less successful due to having less of a drive to succeed, meaning they were isolated with effectively no allies in 1098 so had no choice but to see out their mission without this need to succeed it could be possible that they do not even reach Jerusalem in this timeline and if they did the population will not be attack in the same fashion.

Key:
Dark Purple: lands prior to First Crusade
Medium Purple: lands following First Crusade
Light Puruple: lands following Danishmend and Syrian Crusade
Very Light Purple: lands following conquest of Armenia and Colchis

 

[Italian Sock Monkey]

so what would happen if the first crusade was different meaning that there was full co-operation between the Latins and Romanoi with every Latin leader swearing the oath to the reclaimation of the Roman Empire's lost territory.

You would really need a strong pro-Eastern/Roman leader of the Crusade for this to work, and the West was pretty ambivalent about the "Empire of the Greeks." Their goal and that of the majority of the crusaders was an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The only way I see 'full cooperation', and let's not kid ourselves this is the West acting purely on behalf of Byzantine interests, would be a total reunion of the churches. A reunion, that would be the dissolution of Orthodoxy and the ERE submitting to Rome. I don't think that could ever happen. If Manuel Komenonos couldn't do it Alexios doesn't have a chance.

I suppose you could write out a scenario where Alexios has a crisis of faith and converts to Catholicism despite the objections of the populace. Then the 1st Crusade goes as well if not better than OTL and he uses this as 'proof' that Orthodoxy is astray leading to mass conversions by the population. Though I highly highly doubt such an event would occur. He'd likely face a popular uprising and be swiftly deposed by a good Orthodox noble the second he utters a latin prayer.

 

[Evil Crusader]

The main problem is that behind the umbrella of this whole 'Crusade' project there were many parties, each with their own agenda, some definitely hostile to each other.
The Popes sought to consolidate themselves as the spiritual (and to some extent, temporal) leaders of Christianity; the Byzantines sought the return of lands they saw as theirs and theirs alone; the Norman leaders definitely wanted independent slices, and had not long ago tried to invade the ERE; other leaders came for Christianity, but they certainly perceived the Greeks as odd practitioners.
Maybe if you avoid the events of Antioch things would go better, though hardly to the scale your post suggests.

 

[NotAMyth]

The deterioration of latin-roman relations started way before the Crusades. Roussel de Bailleul for instance, was a cautionary tale that Alexios would have remembered very vividly, as well as the later Norman invasion.

All Alexios wanted was some mercenaries for the reconquest of Anatolia. No way he is going to exchange subjugation for a bunch of ambitious and unruly adventurers looking to carve up some independent principalities, who may or may not make him nominal sovereign over Syria and Palestine. It's simply more than what he was asking, in return for more than what he was offering.

 

[Silver01]

so alexios helps the crusaders to antoch so all nation shall gather to it

 

[how]

Perhaps a fix could be to have less crusaders show up or perhaps more of the mercenary calibre rather than ambitious adverturer type, maybe if the pope does not add the addition that those who participate will have there sins forgiven and that it was just divinely sanctioned war?

Those this will make the crusaders weaker they ultimately were able to succeed in numerous engagements outnumbered and with the support of the Roman army this will be nullified.