What if Roussel de Bailleul successfully created a Norman Catholic state in Turkey?

Roussel de Bailleul was a Norman adventurer who fought for the Byzantine empire, deserted at the Battle of Manzikert, was re-hired out of necessity, and then forged his own short-lived principality in Anatolia before dying in the suppression of a rebellion in Byzantine Greece.

What if he had successfully created a Christian home of the Franks in Anatolia, and ally of the Byzantines against the Seljuks? I suppose the POD would be him staying loyal to the Greeks rather than betraying them.

How would the Crusades be affected by the survival and consolidation of this independent state?
 
It's going to have a similar experience to the other Catholic buffer between the Byzantines and the Ottomans the County of Edessa and get ground down by one or the other after a fairly short period.
 
It's going to have a similar experience to the other Catholic buffer between the Byzantines and the Ottomans the County of Edessa and get ground down by one or the other after a fairly short period.

But in this case, its population is almost 100% Christian.
 
As I recall, Edessa was also predominantly Christian; it was basically an Armenian state that happened to have a Frank as its ruler.

This. Which was partly why it had such a hard time. The Catholic-Armenian Orthodox religious divide seriously limited it's ability to mobilise resources. Bailleul's state is going to have similar issues and is going to be in a more difficult location without other neighbouring Crusader States. Also as it's not in the Holy Land or a traditional pilgrimage destination like Antioch it's going to have to rely on it's own limited resources with the aid of a constant stream of European knights doing a pilgrimage of a year or two of Crusader duty. Basically it and he is screwed.
 
What if at first, he swore fealty to the Byzantine Emperor and ruled his principality without any particular religious inclination (except as a Christian barrier against the Seljuks), but opportunistically sided with Crusader armies later?

If he tolerates Orthodox customs and doesn't bring in Catholic clergy, I don't see why the Orthodox populace would mind (obviously, siding with the Frank newcomers would change that).
 
Well then it isn't an independent state it's a part of the Byzantine Empire that happens to have a Catholic Norman as the local Magnate.
 
A Norman ruled state in Central Anatolia would probably be a good gathering spot for Crusader armies travelling by land. They'd be more likely to behave themselves (as best as armies of that era could), and it'd be a safe spot to rest and meet other Crusaders before going on.

It seems to me there'd be an established road network. First Constantinople. Then cross the sea and travel to Norman Anatolia. Then the Armenians in Cilicia (assuming that still happens). It would reduce the amount of Seljuk territory the Crusaders need to cross.

Perhaps more important, it might make it easier for migrants from Europe to reach the Holy Land. Especially in the earliest years when the fervor to migrate was greatest. IOTL, many migrants never made successfully made it to the Crusader states, and thus they were lacking a good population.

A long term friendly Norman Anatolia boosts the survival chances of the Outremer considerably. Whether it can last long term is a good question. And whether a Saladin scenario ever happens (with the same ruler in both Syria and Egypt) is another one.
 
A Norman ruled state in Central Anatolia would probably be a good gathering spot for Crusader armies travelling by land. They'd be more likely to behave themselves (as best as armies of that era could), and it'd be a safe spot to rest and meet other Crusaders before going on.

It seems to me there'd be an established road network. First Constantinople. Then cross the sea and travel to Norman Anatolia. Then the Armenians in Cilicia (assuming that still happens). It would reduce the amount of Seljuk territory the Crusaders need to cross.

Perhaps more important, it might make it easier for migrants from Europe to reach the Holy Land. Especially in the earliest years when the fervor to migrate was greatest. IOTL, many migrants never made successfully made it to the Crusader states, and thus they were lacking a good population.

A long term friendly Norman Anatolia boosts the survival chances of the Outremer considerably. Whether it can last long term is a good question. And whether a Saladin scenario ever happens (with the same ruler in both Syria and Egypt) is another one.

If true this also reduces the importance of Venice (and Genoa) as transporters of the Crusaders. So likely nothing like the 4th "Crusade" against Zara and Constantinople.
 
Top