WI: Alexios Komnenos relieves the crusaders at Antioch?

While the first crusaders were being besieged at Antioch, Alexius was moving to relieve them with his army. Deserters informed him the city was on the verge of surrender and the situation was hopeless, so he turned back to Constantinople. The crusaders somehow managed to break the siege, and felt betrayed by the emperor, thus finding it a convenient excuse to ignore their oaths about returning any land they conquered to the Byzantine Empire.

So, what if Alexius continued on, and relieved the besieged Crusaders at Antioch? What effects would this have? Would the crusade leaders still go back on their oaths, or would the land fall into Byzantine hands as promised?
 
They would fall back on their oaths but not this time, mostly since theres not much they can do with Alexios there completely fresh and ready to start sieging them. They will probably betray him later when he doesn't bother helping them take Jerusalem (most likely because he doesn't care about Jerusalem, with Antioch and probably more of Anatolia than OTL he got exactly what he wanted out of the crusade).
 
What are the timings? IIRC there wasn't enough time between hearing from Stephen of Blois that all was lost to when the Crusaders rode out to battle for Al to make it to Antioch to actually lift the siege. Was there time for the news of Al's approach to reach the besiegers and besieged before the Crusaders decided to ride out to battle on 28 June?

If there was time for either news or actual arrival Al would have had a huge effect. Perhaps the Crusaders wait for Al and he rescues them, or perhaps they decide for political reasons to sally earlier and get defeated in battle outside the walls, or perhaps Kerbogha redeploys/withdraws on hearing of Al's approach and the Crusaders raise the siege. Whatever happens there will be an Imperial Army in the area to enforce the oaths the Crusaders made in Constantinople, which is always the best means to ensure oaths are kept.

Afterward I think that perhaps Adhemar doesn't die and the bulk of the Crusaders head south to Jerusalem since there is nothing for them to squabble over in Antioch. The extra strength of the Army and extra powerful leaders and Adhemar would lead to a very different Kingdom of Jerusalem.
 
Alexious Komnenos

What are the timings? IIRC there wasn't enough time between hearing from Stephen of Blois that all was lost to when the Crusaders rode out to battle for Al to make it to Antioch to actually lift the siege. Was there time for the news of Al's approach to reach the besiegers and besieged before the Crusaders decided to ride out to battle on 28 June?

If there was time for either news or actual arrival Al would have had a huge effect. Perhaps the Crusaders wait for Al and he rescues them, or perhaps they decide for political reasons to sally earlier and get defeated in battle outside the walls, or perhaps Kerbogha redeploys/withdraws on hearing of Al's approach and the Crusaders raise the siege. Whatever happens there will be an Imperial Army in the area to enforce the oaths the Crusaders made in Constantinople, which is always the best means to ensure oaths are kept.

Afterward I think that perhaps Adhemar doesn't die and the bulk of the Crusaders head south to Jerusalem since there is nothing for them to squabble over in Antioch. The extra strength of the Army and extra powerful leaders and Adhemar would lead to a very different Kingdom of Jerusalem.
I agree. Considering the weakness of the principality for most of it's existence, it would have been better for that city to be under Byzantine control.
 
I think it would have been better for both Antioch and Jerusalem, both would have had more powerful armies to protect them.
 
Probably, by the time the Crusaders reached Jerusalem they were as hard as diamonds and razor sharp. After 3 years of travel, hunger and battle I doubt these remaining elite men would think twice about slaughtering anyone they perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an enemy.

Timing is everything. As the Crusaders were capturing and then being besieged in Antioch the Fatimids were capturing Jerusalem from the Seljuks. Perhaps there is some causal link there, maybe someone with more knowledge of Muslim strengths could confirm if this is more than coincidence.

Now to throw Alexios into that mix in mid 1098 would alter what happened next quite drastically I think. I doubt the Crusaders would hang around Antioch from its capture in June 1098 until January 1099, I think the Imperial Army would shoulder them out of the area almost immediately. Perhaps this would push them toward Jerusalem much sooner than OTL, not giving the Fatimids the year of grace to establish themselves in the city.
 
This POD really fascinates me. Alexios would likely have reclaimed Antioch and Cilicia by completing his march to Antioch, he also would have made himself a bit more popular among (at least some) of the crusaders.

Furthermore, on his return journey, and in his later campaigns in Anatolia, Alexios could have been in a better position to seize Konya and nip the nascent Seljuq state in the bud while it was disorganized. At the very least John II would have been spending more time in Anatolia and less in Syria, which is likely good for Byzantium long-term. Antioch would have certainly profited from being under the protection of the Basileus as well.

I was starting to turn this POD into a TL and had gotten thru the reign of Alexios I, does anyone think Alexios reconquering Konya in such a TL is plausible by 1118?
 
So, what if Alexius continued on, and relieved the besieged Crusaders at Antioch? What effects would this have? Would the crusade leaders still go back on their oaths, or would the land fall into Byzantine hands as promised?

The first effect would be probably a more important tendence of the crusaders to fulfill their oaths. Not by gratitude (even if it can plays) but because Alexios would have likely the control of Antioch and able to oversee places like Edessa, Tripoli, etc.

A second effect would have been to make the Anatolian roads more safe against the Turks : it would likely mean a sucessful Crusade of 1101, and therefore more Latins in Syria/Palestina (kind of a twist, I know). Places like Ascalon could even be taken in this decennial.

A third effect would be that Raimond of Saint-Gilles, that was one of the most important leaders of the 1st Crusade, would be more likely to be chosen as King of Jerusalem. See, IOTL he wasn't for several reasons (mostly because he was kind of powerful already) but being the only one not having gave his oath in Constantinople, it would gave him more room (and for his vassals consequently) in Palestine.

To resume : better byzantine control in Anatolia and northern Syria, more important Latin presence in Middle-East, Raimon as King of Jerusalem.

After 3 years of travel, hunger and battle I doubt these remaining elite men would think twice about slaughtering anyone they perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an enemy.
It is why Raimon of Saint Gilles, managed to enter in Jerusalem managing to let the Muslim garrison run free and actually trying to protect what he could of the population?

Look, I'm not saying they were chivalrous angels. No invading army is, critically in a quite violent era. But we could maybe cut a little the "they'll kill everyone in sight", situation being a bit more complex.
 
Last edited:
Would Jerusalem had still been sacked?

All cities that resisted were sacked;rules of engagement,not only in 11th century,but the same applied even 500 years later!(see 30 years war-Magdemburg!).You see,the defenders could thwart a campaign in process
with their defence(money spent,preparations wasted etc) and here add religious fervour to fanaticism against the unbeliever,it was enough to exacerbate the situation;I don't know what would have happened if Jerusalem
opened its gates after negotiations that respected the holly city...(a situation rather unlikely to occur!)
 
Top