WI: Alexios I makes greater gains during the First Crusade?

IIRC, the First Crusade allowed Alexios I to recover territories most of Anatolia along the Aegean and Black Sea coasts, but before the Siege of Antioch, which is where the Crusaders formally renounced their oaths to the emperor, they had made it as far as Edessa and Cappadocian Caesarea. How come Alexios was unable to regain those areas in the 20 years between the siege of Antioch and his death in 1118, even if he did believe Stephen of Blois' assessment of the situation?

What is he had? Would it be feasible? I think much of Central and Eastern Anatolia was still populated by Greeks and Armenians. Any thoughts?
 

Redhand

Banned
The further Alexios advanced in Anatolia, the more resistance he ran into as the population became less and less Greek. This made advancing away from the coast a real problem as it got logistically harder to supply armies if they were in the Anatolian interior.
 

Deleted member 67076

I can't comment on the logistics of the Crusade as I don't know too much of it, but most of Eastern and Central Anatolia was Greek and Armenian at this point. Its only been 50 years-ish since Manzikert; the assimilation process took centuries to eclipse the native populations and Turcify them. That said, you're going to run into the primary breeding grounds of the various horse archers, which are a pain to dislodge. (Unless you're John Komnenos who has this down to a science)
 
The performance of the Turks against the Crusade of 1101 showed that they bounced back quickly from their defeats of a couple of years earlier. If Big Al had taken some more city areas in the wake of the 1st Crusade would have he been able to hold them? Personally I'd prefer to seem him campaign alongside the Crusade of 1101 and take some of Anatolia then, those extra couple of years and the assistance of the western armies could see him take some more of central Anatolia and hold it long term.

I'd also point out that during the Macedonian era the character of Anatolia changed somewhat. The powerful noble houses had bought up land from the common people with little to no oversight from Constantinople and changed much of the land from the mixed farming of middle class landholders to large livestock ranches. This made it semi-suitable for the nomadic Turks when they arrived, they just advanced the trend of generations of emptying the land of people and mixed farming.
 
The further Alexios advanced in Anatolia, the more resistance he ran into as the population became less and less Greek. This made advancing away from the coast a real problem as it got logistically harder to supply armies if they were in the Anatolian interior.

I don't think it should be less Greek. The Turks haven't been in control of Anatolia since manzikert. Alexios was alive when manzikert happened. It takes more than a lifetime converting the locals from Greeks to Turks.
 
I don't think it should be less Greek. The Turks haven't been in control of Anatolia since manzikert. Alexios was alive when manzikert happened. It takes more than a lifetime converting the locals from Greeks to Turks.

But the nobles had depopulated Anatolia to an extent by buying up small holdings and converting the land into livestock ranches in the proceeding 50 years or more. There were many less Greeks in Anatolia in 1071 than there were in 971, many less to chase out when the Turks came.
 
But the nobles had depopulated Anatolia to an extent by buying up small holdings and converting the land into livestock ranches in the proceeding 50 years or more. There were many less Greeks in Anatolia in 1071 than there were in 971, many less to chase out when the Turks came.

Which doesnt mean there are more Turks than Greeks. There are still millions of Greeks in Anatolia with only thousands of Turks.

Like I said, it will take time for the Turks to convert Greeks into their fold.

You should compare not 971 with Alexios reign but Manzikert time to Alexios reign. 971 to Manzikert is a century, Manzikert to Alexios reign is a decade.

There shouldnt be any immediate significant population of the Turks within a decade. Just like when the Kingdom of Jerusalem's first 10 years, were still outnumbered by the local Muslim population.
 

elkarlo

Banned
I can't comment on the logistics of the Crusade as I don't know too much of it, but most of Eastern and Central Anatolia was Greek and Armenian at this point. Its only been 50 years-ish since Manzikert; the assimilation process took centuries to eclipse the native populations and Turcify them. That said, you're going to run into the primary breeding grounds of the various horse archers, which are a pain to dislodge. (Unless you're John Komnenos who has this down to a science)

What were Johns' tactics in doing that? I am curious. Horse archers are a PIA to any civ
 

elkarlo

Banned
I can't comment on the logistics of the Crusade as I don't know too much of it, but most of Eastern and Central Anatolia was Greek and Armenian at this point. Its only been 50 years-ish since Manzikert; the assimilation process took centuries to eclipse the native populations and Turcify them. That said, you're going to run into the primary breeding grounds of the various horse archers, which are a pain to dislodge. (Unless you're John Komnenos who has this down to a science)

What were Johns' tactics in doing that? I am curious. Horse archers are a PIA to any civ
 
Top