WI: Crusader victory at the battle of Harran?

At Harran, the kingdom of Antioch and the Franks were halted in their crusade by the islamic powers, and it was the turning point of the crusaders after the intnital sucess of the first crusade. However, what if the Franks had won here? Would this prolong the lifespan of the Crusading kingdoms? How would this effect the Byzantines and Armenians? And of course, what would be the eventual backlash?
 
It would mean stronger realms for the Principality of Antioch and the County of Edessa. Antioch in particular lost territories because of the aftermath of defeat, and the loss of its leader Bohemond. Without this defeat, Antioch has more lands, resources, and it has at its helm a very ambitious and talented man.

But I don't see Antioch or Edessa expanding that much more. They lack the resources to really conquer a lot more territory. What is critical is whether Antioch ever takes Allepo, and what Edessa can do. The states are simply too small to survive in the long term. There are only so many lucky breaks they can get.

For their long term survival, they need something that really changes the game. A win at the Battle of Harran won't do it unless it leads to some future victory - like taking Damascus. If they can take Syria, that may give them the breathing space and resources they need to survive. But a win at Harran only gives them the opportunity to do something later on; there is no guarantee.
 
Thank you:D

In order to win the battle itself, I'm assuming they're not going to have to fall for the feigned retreat, appreantly taking them 2-3 days. Could they counter lure the Seljuks? Perhaps by intesifying the seige of Harran or pretending to abandon the persuit somehow to lure them into a counter trap? Or maybe anticipate the attack on Eddesa which distracted the Crusaders to begin with?

I'm assuming taking Damascus, of course, woudnt hold off the backlash from the Islamic states forever, but how great a achivement would it be for the Crusaders? Are we talking about a major triumph for them or have they just managed another pin-prick which will make the inevitiable backlash that much worse? I personally think that the Crusader states were always living on borrowed time due to their lack of manpower and hostile surrounding, so I'm just looking for ways to keep them a thorn in the side of their neighbors for as long as possible.

Also, if in the aftermath of the battle the Byzantines dont retake Latkia, will they save their energy or try to enforce their will elsewhere? With the crusaders proving to be even more troublesome to the Seljuks, does this allow Alexios the chance to regain more of Anatolia?

Sorry if I'm asking a few too many questions, I'm getting quite curious about this POD. :eek:
 
Well, I am not an expert on the Crusading era, so hopefully someone else can give you a better idea. I don't know enough about the Battle of Harran to come up with explanation on how they could win.

But if you look at geography, the Crusaders taking Damascus would be a fairly big victory. First, Damascus is rich. If Antioch controls Syria (meaning Allepo, Homs, and Damascus), they have eliminated a major rival and can concentrate their forces against the Seljuks. In the south, there is only the Sinai and Egypt, which can be contained under Fatimid rule. The Syrian Desert protects the eastern flank of both the Kingdom of Jerusalem and an expanded Antioch. It is not a perfect protective boundary, but it does provide some measure of relief.

So the major rivals are now the Emirate of Mosul to the east, and the Seljuks in the north. The Seljuks are also threatened by the Byzantines and the Georgians.

So at this point, I think the Crusader states are in a much better position startegically. If they control Damascus, they have its wealth and no longer need to worry about it being in enemy hands. Antioch and Edessa can concentrate against Mosul, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem only needs to worry about Egypt.

At this early stage, the Crusader states are still fairly vulnerable. Their biggest advantage is that their Muslim rivals are still divided. But Fatimid Egypt is fairly somnolent. The big issue are the Seljuks and Mosul. Of course, simply by preventing a single power from controlling Mosul, Syria, and Egypt, you prevent the nightmare that Saladin provided when he almost wiped out the Crusader states using all those resources.

It's still possible for the Byzantines to do well against the Seljuks. John II Komenenos did very well against the Seljuks soon after this time period, and Alexius also did well before him. If they are able to ally with Antioch, the two could have some successes. Of course, it is also possible that Byzantium and Antioch would fight each other as well. Bohemond and the Norman Sicilians were always trying to do something against Constantinople. And the Byzantines are still unhappy about the Crusaders not following the vows they made.
 
Top