WI anyone but Bohemond...

... took control of Antioch in 1098?

He was about the worst of the bunch to take hold of Antioch. He and his father had been at war with Byzantium and yet Bo took an oath to Alexios to hand over any former Imperial territory. So he takes to closest region to Byzantium and the one most obviously belonging to the Empire in recent memory, and the trouble begins.

I'm thinking that any of the other great leaders wouldn't have been half as much trouble. They wouldn't have had the history of Bohemund with the Empire and I think had their own extensive lands and weren't quite so desperate to carve out a state for themselves.

Who would be best, and what does Bohemond do?
 
they were just regaining thier power so i guess they could, I belive they "Protected" Anticoh (Occupied it) sometime in the 12th Century
 
After Dorylaeum the Crusaders were able to walk into virtually every city they came across, they stayed in an empty Iconium for a week eating the fruit for the surrounding orchards. But the Byz didn't garrison these cities, not even Sozoplois in Pisidia.

Over the next 3 years they did capture a couple of islands in the Agean and a bit of western Anatolia. Careful bites that they could digest, unlike Iconium and unlike Antioch which were a hell of a long way from reach of Byz power in 1098. They did become within reach of byz power mid century, but there was a lot of water under the bridge by then.
 
bump for another idea.

Bohemond was captured in 1100 in a battle in Armenian Cicilia, and as a result the Crusade of 1101 strayed from the good path to try to rescue him. If he doesn't take Antioch then this is butterflied away so perhaps the Crusade of 1101 does something useful other than capture Ankara.
 
Top