WI: Crusades with a stronger Byzantium?

The Byzantines lose the Battle of Manzikert as they did historically, but manage to get their act together a few years earlier than IOTL, after the Turks have penetrated deep into Asia Minor but (just) before the Byzantine situation becomes irrevocable. Consequently the Byzantines are able to retake the central Anatolian plateau, but at a heavy cost: the Empire's manpower and treasury are left drained, and the Imperial heartland is left devastated by years of warfare. When the Seljuk Sultanate starts to show signs of splitting apart, Emperor *Alexius recognises that this is a golden opportunity to counterattack against his Empire's enemies, and to avenge the years of trouble Byzantium had in fighting them off -- but he also recognises that his realm still hasn't fully recovered from the Anatolian wars. Accordingly he sends a message to the Pope, asking if he could possibly send a few mercenaries to help the Empire in its campaign against the heathen. Pope Urban instead preaches a Crusade as he did IOTL, and the noblemen of Europe soon start heading off east, on an armed pilgrimage to the city of Jerusalem.

So, how do people think things will develop from here? The Byzantine Empire ITTL hasn't yet recovered from Manzikert and its aftermath, but it's still in a much stronger position than it was IOTL. With the Empire in a better state to aid the Crusaders, I think the Crusade would be at least as successful as it was in real life, so Antioch, Jerusalem etc. would still be captured. Would the Byzantines then be in a position to force the Crusader States to recognise Byzantine overlordship, in fact as well as in name? And what effect would this have on the subsequent history of the region? Would, e.g., a Christian reconquest of Egypt and North Africa be on the cards? And would Byzantium be able to survive up until the present day? Any ideas and suggestions are welcome!
 
I really don't see this working out in the long run. As you say, Anatolia is devastated. There will, however, be less inclination to reform if it is retained, and so we might well see a Byzantine army still fettered by massive overdependence on Latin mercenaries. The alt-Crusade you posit is not in the Byzantine's best interests unless they control it utterly. More likely rather than an army, we'll see Latin adventurers signing up with the Byzantine army and being typically unreliable at best.

Without Turks at the gates of Europe, the first Crusade won't see as much enthusiasm. The Byzantines certainly will never ask the Pope for aid. It's impossible to tell what will happen up until the present day. If the Byzantine gain Jerusalem, they'll probably lose it soon after, since their focus will always be on retaining Anatolia and Syria and the real heartlands of the Empire. Manpower will continue to be a problem for a while until Anatolia gets back on its feet. Once it does, I expect the Middle East will return to a rough status quo not dissimilar to pre-Manzikert.
 

Art

Monthly Donor
You have to look at the situation in Europe around the time of the First Crusade. The Peace of God was being broken by feudal lords and knights who wanted and needed lands, money and peasants to work their lands. A call to fight pagans in a land so distant not 1 in 100 had ever been there appealed to knights, men-at-arms and peasants alike. And the indulgence that would get them out of purgatory drove them toward the idea of wealth and glory even faster.
 
And that's how its been for centuries prior and there were no crusades to reclaim it.
There's an important catalyst.The Turks have taken over Jerusalem and refused Christian entry.Given how this is a Turkish screw,if the Turks have still taken over Jerusalem,things might not change for the Christians.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
There's an important catalyst.The Turks have taken over Jerusalem and refused Christian entry.Given how this is a Turkish screw,if the Turks have still taken over Jerusalem,things might not change for the Christians.

Except the Pope still needed a means to get his Crusading Army to the Holy land. There are, in broad strokes two paths, by Sea or by Land. Sea transport was mostly controlled by the Merchant Republics and expensive and if the Emperor in Constantinople, who ever he may be, refuses him, there's not much the Pope can do.
 
And that's how its been for centuries prior and there were no crusades to reclaim it.

The Turks had recently started making things difficult for pilgrims, though, which represented quite a change from the centuries preceding.

Except the Pope still needed a means to get his Crusading Army to the Holy land. There are, in broad strokes two paths, by Sea or by Land. Sea transport was mostly controlled by the Merchant Republics and expensive and if the Emperor in Constantinople, who ever he may be, refuses him, there's not much the Pope can do.

ITTL, as in OTL, the Emperor initially asked for aid, only to find that he got a bit more than he bargained for. Sure he could try and fight them off, but it would probably be easier just to ferry them across the Marmara, point them in the direction of the Holy Land and just let them head out of the Empire of their own accord.
 
The Turks had recently started making things difficult for pilgrims, though, which represented quite a change from the centuries preceding.



ITTL, as in OTL, the Emperor initially asked for aid, only to find that he got a bit more than he bargained for. Sure he could try and fight them off, but it would probably be easier just to ferry them across the Marmara, point them in the direction of the Holy Land and just let them head out of the Empire of their own accord.
I think Alexios will still try to capitalize upon this venture.He was prepared to join the crusade in person during the Siege of Antioch and was marching his army to Antioch when he heard the new from King Stephen's father that the crusaders have been defeated.
 
Would Antioch be in the hands of the Byzantines in this TL? iirc it was quite some time after Manzikert that it was taken by the Turks. Crusaders who don't have to navigate a hostile Anatolia and Antioch would surely be in a much better position when entering the Holy Land.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
ITTL, as in OTL, the Emperor initially asked for aid, only to find that he got a bit more than he bargained for. Sure he could try and fight them off, but it would probably be easier just to ferry them across the Marmara, point them in the direction of the Holy Land and just let them head out of the Empire of their own accord.

But why, though? Assuming it's Alexios Komenos on the throne (a fair sized assumption; it's not guaranteed), Byzantine Anatolia is far better off than OTL where it was a few scattered holdouts. ITTL Komenid Anatolia before the start of OTL 1st Crusade is now roughly where it was at the height of Komnenian Power. Even with Anatolia devastated, without the sense of urgency of the Turks right across the straits, and with some of the needed Byzantine triumphs before his rise to power, there's no feeling of desperation that was there OTL.

The Emperor in Constantinople can merely play the waiting game with the Turks.
 
Top