So I don't really have to say that the first crusade was a fustercluck, both due to shear logistics and due to the... personalities so to say whom are involved. What PODs can you concieve that could be done to make it more successful? By successful I mean;
-More land returned to the Byzantines rather then turned into Crusader states
-Fewer riots/raids/pillage against fellow Christians
-Creating stability: Usually the Crusader States are considered doomed, is this necassary going to be the case no matter how they are created/administered?
-Limit Euro/Christian losses/deaths while maximizing Muslim losses
-Pope Urban and Alexis Komenos both consider the Crusade to be a victory
I had a few neat ideas, but personally I think it would be hard to make it much more successful with the same people in charge; Many of the Crusaders were more interested in personal gains of wealth and kingdom then to aid the Byzantines, thus the Crusader states. However I am curious; since a lot of the peasants in the Crusader States were mostly at least a pluarlity Christian and Greek, would they be easier to integrate into the Byzantine Empire? Would doing so aid Byzantine survival, or contribute to a quicker end?
I'm also curious what the board's opinion on the Peasant's Crusade is; Though it was an utter disaster for the peasants, Hungary, and the Byzantines, the initial Turkish victory against the peasants put them into a false-sense of security, thinking that the entire Crusading army was just some peasants, and this greatly aided the Crusaders in taking Nicaea; could removing the peasants crusade abort the first crusade in Anatolia? I don't think most of the Crusader leaders would stick around for that.
Sorry for such a wall of text, I'm not very familiar with the period it just seems like a big potential divergence. What if Cilisia was actually handed back to the Byzzies? Could the Crusading army have been put together from the beginning in a way didn't allow the princes to carve up their own short-lived kingdoms and instead work towards longterm victory? What is actually feasible to change without screwing up whatever luck the Crusaders got?
-More land returned to the Byzantines rather then turned into Crusader states
-Fewer riots/raids/pillage against fellow Christians
-Creating stability: Usually the Crusader States are considered doomed, is this necassary going to be the case no matter how they are created/administered?
-Limit Euro/Christian losses/deaths while maximizing Muslim losses
-Pope Urban and Alexis Komenos both consider the Crusade to be a victory
I had a few neat ideas, but personally I think it would be hard to make it much more successful with the same people in charge; Many of the Crusaders were more interested in personal gains of wealth and kingdom then to aid the Byzantines, thus the Crusader states. However I am curious; since a lot of the peasants in the Crusader States were mostly at least a pluarlity Christian and Greek, would they be easier to integrate into the Byzantine Empire? Would doing so aid Byzantine survival, or contribute to a quicker end?
I'm also curious what the board's opinion on the Peasant's Crusade is; Though it was an utter disaster for the peasants, Hungary, and the Byzantines, the initial Turkish victory against the peasants put them into a false-sense of security, thinking that the entire Crusading army was just some peasants, and this greatly aided the Crusaders in taking Nicaea; could removing the peasants crusade abort the first crusade in Anatolia? I don't think most of the Crusader leaders would stick around for that.
Sorry for such a wall of text, I'm not very familiar with the period it just seems like a big potential divergence. What if Cilisia was actually handed back to the Byzzies? Could the Crusading army have been put together from the beginning in a way didn't allow the princes to carve up their own short-lived kingdoms and instead work towards longterm victory? What is actually feasible to change without screwing up whatever luck the Crusaders got?