WI: Crusade of 1101.

Apparently William of Nevers and his highly disciplined army was trying to catch up with the combined armies of Burgundians, Germans, French, Byzantine Penchenegs with Raymond of Tolouse and a rabble of Lombard peasants. In the event he never managed it, although they must have gotten close.

The combined army was destroyed on it's idiotic journey to rescue Bohemond from captivity because the Lombard rabble demanded it. Only the mounted knights manged escape to Sinope and back to Constantinople. Nevers' army was destroyed quite close to Armenian Cicilia by the same Turk army which had just destroyed the combined army/rabble, only William and a handful of knights made it Antioch, half naked and disarmed.

WI Nevers did manage to catch up to the rest, perhaps at Ancara?

Would the Lombard peasants be able to get their way and lead the entire army into Paphlagonia?
Or perhaps would some or all of the combined army join Nevers and head directly for Outremer?
Or maybe all of the army would head for Outremer and the Lombard rabble would head off to get slaughtered?
How would the mixture of Nevers' disciplined army go if Raymond and his Penchenegs and Stephen of Blois, who had crossed Anatolia before, were with him?
Would they get to Outremer, and what could they do there?
 
For the strategic considerations, I think having Raimond with Nevers would be a bonus. Raimond already played the game "I'm more a crusader than you" in Antioch, when the other latins wanted to stay with what they conquered :
he simply have enough influence to have the armies of other nobles following him.

Another scenario would be the Lombards waiting for the third wave with Guilhèm VIII or Welf I that are aslo good commander, if inexperienced with Middle-East.

The Lombards (not only peasants, they were led by professional soldiers) wouldn't be really able to hold Paphalgonia. The better odds is to gather forces, OR to have them attacking as OTL but experiencing an earlier attack with less turkic forces, forcing the Lombard army to withdraw with important loss and waiting for others.

The first consequence would be the disapperance of turkic states in 3/4 of Anatolia.

The crusaders are most likely to go directly in Holy Land rather than stay in Anatolia that said, so the Byzantines would be the main force able to replace the Turks.

For Palestine, it means new reinforcement and if not great possibilities to expand the latin states more than they did OTL, the territory would be more well held critically in Oultrejourdain.
It means as well more latin settlers (probably more on the coast than hinterland) and a less important "ideal feudalisation" that characterized the Latin States with the existance of people used to "play" with institutions.

The coast between Jaffa and Antioch could look more like Norman Sicily or Christian Reconquista than OTL.
Not because of this wave only, of course, but with Anatolia being far more safe as a road to Palestine, you'll have more arrival of latin trough Byzantium.

For Byzantium, as the crush of Turks would mean likely return of Byzzies in Anatolia, they would have a more important influence on northern latin states than OTL, critically for Antioch. It could lead both to a more tended situation between Greeks and Latins, or (if Byzantines are clever enough to play the feudal game with Latins, and if Latins are clever enough to understand the road trough Byzantium is a vital way) at the contrary to a less tensed one.
 
IIUC Nevers could have joined with either those in front or behind, but the 3rd wave movers and shakers hated Raymond so all 3 waves couldn't combine. I suggested Nevers joining with the 1st wave because it had experienced Crusaders and a force of Penchenegs with it, so with a bit of luck wouldn't make too many stupid mistakes.
 
IIUC Nevers could have joined with either those in front or behind, but the 3rd wave movers and shakers hated Raymond so all 3 waves couldn't combine. I suggested Nevers joining with the 1st wave because it had experienced Crusaders and a force of Penchenegs with it, so with a bit of luck wouldn't make too many stupid mistakes.

The tensions between nobles aren't that problematic, the 1st crusade was made with nobles that couldn't withstand themselves as well.

Now, if Nevers, Anselmo and Raimond are able to deal with that, there's little chance that Guilhèm or Welf would have tried (or suceeded) to make their own rubble.
 
Petty bickering about who Ascalon should surrender to in 1099 meant that it was surrendered at all for another 50 years. Crusader squabbles could be very damaging.
 
Petty bickering about who Ascalon should surrender to in 1099 meant that it was surrendered at all for another 50 years. Crusader squabbles could be very damaging.

The differences with Ascalon and 1101 in Anatolia are huge.

The goal of the First Crusade was reached : the crusader leaders but aslo armies were relativly united up to have their objective fulfilled.
It's how Raimond VI (IV) managed to force the other nobles to follow him AFTER Antioch, as he threatened to go TO Jerusalem with its own forces but aslo theirs.

Battle of Ascalon was still a crusader victory, and if they didn't hold the fortress it was both because of a dispute on who should have control of it, but aslo because the crusaders didn't had enough force to control efficiently both central Palestine and the south-western coast (the dispute among nobles is a great classic of medieval litterature, or epic litterature in general, they existed but tend to be exaggerated before more...material issues)

Their goal was more to avoid a Fatimid reconquest of Jerusalem, not to go space-filling kingdom.

In the same way, the goal of the "After-Crusades" was to give support to Latin states and to reach Jerusalem as well as pilgrims. It's certain that once arrived, the disputes between nobles could have been problematic for eventual expension (it's why I indicated, among other factors such as strength of syrian states, that it's not likely that Latin States would expand further than OTL).

But, managing to have together three waves isn't unlikely at all. More likely they would have used the same way than the First Crusade : forming one column for a while, then split in three.

By exemple, quite randomly, Raimond would have taken again the coastal road and took Tripoli, Guilhèm the central one as he wasn't really interest in conquest there, and the others the one more close to syrian arab states maybe taking cities such as Alep (again, random exemple).
 
OK, but what do you think is most plausible considering the events of OTL?

From my reading the most plausible, considering the aims and actions of Nevers and how close they came to happening, is Nevers catching up with Raymond and co. somewhere in Anatolia, perhaps near Anakara.
 
From my reading the most plausible, considering the aims and actions of Nevers and how close they came to happening, is Nevers catching up with Raymond and co. somewhere in Anatolia, perhaps near Anakara.

And then Raimond can ask to wait the others while staying in Anatolia. He was one of the crusader leaders the less hostile to Alexios, and can keep use of Petchenegs, know more the terrain and have the prestige of an original crusader that took Jerusalem.

Critically if Nevers had big trouble to join Raimond, just less than OTL, he can be more cautious and stay in the byzantine Anatolia (it would be less problematic for Alexios than having them staying in Constantinople).

Now, I doubt they will be able to stay in Ancyre. For that you'll need the expedition for resucing Bohemond of Tarent being sucessful, but it was BEFORE the arrival of Nevers.

So, rereading your OP, didn't you confused two waves?
1)Etienne and Eudes of Burgundy and Etienne of Blois join with Raimond commending Turcopoles and Pechenegs
2)Guillaume of Nevers tries to join the remanents of this army, particularly Raimond.

In the case of you meant first wave fail, but Nevers manage to join Raimond, they would be more likely to wait for Guilhèm and Welf to take Ancyre and maybe Iconion.
 
From what I can gather the first wave was made up of;
  • Lombards who were akin to the People's Crusade
  • Stephen of Blois, the failed first Crusader, with Stephen of Burgundy and French nobles and an army
  • Germans, a small force under Conrad, the Constable of Emperor Henry IV
Once in Constantinople Raymond was made their leader and given 500 Turkish mercenaries (Penchenegs?) and other Byzantine troops under Byzantine General Tzistas.

This group travelled to Ancara and captured it by assault and handed it to the Byz. At this point it all turns to shit as the Lombards bullied the weak Raymond and the discredited Stephen and everyone headed north to their destruction at Mersivan.

Willliam of Nevers probably expected to join the forces of his nieghbour at home, Stephen of Burgundy, so hurried from Constantinople to Ancara. Nobody at Ancara knew where Stephen of Burgandy and the rest were so Nevers went south to Iconium.

I would have Nevers catch up with Burgundy, including the experienced but weak and discredited Raymond and Stephen as well as the Byzantine Tzistas, at Ancara or thereabouts. So what happens then?
 
I'm not sure Raimond can be called "weak". Alexios had enough faith in him to give him a part of Byzantine forces. Considering the mutual caution that characterized the relations between crusaders and byzzies, that's telling.

(By the way, the non-byzantine propers seems to have been mainly Pechenegs with 500 Trucopoles).

I would add he was considered (thanks to his prestige, both for being one of those who took Jerusalem and because of his own skills).

For the Lombards, they actually wanted to wait in Constantipole originally, just that Alexios more or less forced them to leave, and only Raimond managed to calm the Lombards.
So, "bullied" seems to be a "bit" exaggerated there. He didn't managed to convince the leaders to follow the coast, yes. But few medieval army (even in Arabo-Islamic world) have an undisputable leader that had to be obeyed in all things (that would appear with the modern state and modern chain of command).

(Talking of that, the choice of going trough central Anatolia isn't that absurd. Alexios gave them relativly few food, and such an army had to be ravitailed. Living on the country of byzantines allies would have been stupid, while the capture of turkish cities gave ravitailment).

Discredited? In 1101 Raimond wasn't really. There was a dispute between Bouillon and him, but he was still well enough considered to be in byzantine court, helped by the fact he helped the byzzies against Bohemond.
So, probably discredited for Bouillon, for Bohémond of Tarente...But that's hardly discredited "short" for the rest of the world.

Guillaume de Nevers planned, as said, to join Lombards in Constntinople then in Ancyre. If by some way, the Lombardo-Byzantine army or wait in Ancyre (it would need a byzantine ravitailment as the Turks practiced the scortched land) or (even if not that likely) Iconion (and would allow them to have a more safe acess to Eregli river), things would be easier at first.

(The main issue is the capacity of Lombardo-Byzantines to make a quick siege against a well walled city, with a scorched land and with turkish raids against them)

Other solution would be to split the first wave and to have part going to Sinope and one part going south.

The issue of uniting Lombardo-Byzantines and Franks would be that army would have been a hell to ravital, and likely to have to split it in two or three columns working in parallel to advance in the east. (Let's say Nevers, Sant Gèli and Hugues de Pierrefond). The scenario of 1097 is likely to be repeted with turkish raids against crusader columns.

Now, it's possible for crusaders to not only resist relativly well, but aslo (with these united forces) take cities as Iconion, Heraclée up to join Little Armenia and/or Edessa.

But again, it depend of Alexios giving more ravitailment to crusaders in first place, and you have more odds of sucess if Raimond manage to convice the basileus to accept having the Lombards in western Anatolian coast living on the country to wait for Nevers and Bourgogne.

Main issue : food and water, water and food.
 
Runciman considers Raymond weak and ineffectual, he was unable to impose his will on his own forces often and wasn't nearly a match for the likes of Bohemond, or even Tancred and Baldwin. Stephen of Blois, not Raymond, was discredited because he deserted the army in the face of the enemy at the siege of Antioch, he went on Crusade again because his wife badgered him into it. These aren't the sort of men who will be able to make a reluctant Lombard contingent take the best route to Jerusalem.

IOTL the huge army of Turks was able to defeat the 3 waves of crusaders in detail. However I wonder if the 1st and 2nd waves had combined how the Turks would have fared? As mentioned Raymond and Stephen, for all their faults, were experienced in this sort of warfare, as were the Byz forces. William's army was noted for it's exellent discipline. I can't help but think that between them they could have organised a crossing between them including better organised food and water.
 
Top