WI: First Crusade Defeated At Antioch

[Gosing]

For those who don't know, in 1097 the forces of the First Crusade got caught up in a protracted siege of Antioch which dragged on into 1098. The Crusaders were forced to defeat several Muslim relief forces; in the end, they only took the city with the aid of a disloyal Armenian guardsman a few days before a very large Muslim force arrived, which started an ultimately unsuccessful siege of the Crusaders.

So let's say the ruler of Antioch gets word that the guardsman is plotting witht he Crusaders, and the forces of the First Crusade are decisively defeated by the walls of Antioch. What happens next? Will there be any more Crusades, or will the bad taste of defeat make that out of the question? What effects will this have ont he balance of power in the Muslim world? And what becomes of the already-established County of Edessa?

 

[veni vidi vici]

I don't know about what effects it has on the Muslum world but it has one of two effects on the Christian world; A) either the Christians come roaring back with basically an army with most of the Nobility and a large portion of the Armies of CHristian Nations, or they break and basically give up

 

[LSCatilina]

So let's say the ruler of Antioch gets word that the guardsman is plotting witht he Crusaders,

The issue is that the communication passed trough the christians of Antioch that Yaghi expelled out of the city. It makes it more difficult, while not impossible, a discovery of the plot.

What could be more interesting would make Kerboga deciding to attack directly the crusaders in Antioch rather than choosing to attacking Edessa first.
He didn't chosen that OTL because he feared the other rulers in his army (and not really under his command) would have made it at his place, making him loose a city.

If for some reason, he decide to go directly to Antioch, it could resolves the problem.

The fact byzantines and Etienne de Blois would be still with the crusaders would not really make the battle a sure crusader victory (while a crushing islamic victory isn't that obvious as wellà.

Will there be any more Crusades, or will the bad taste of defeat make that out of the question?

The absence of Crusades isn't that obvious. After all the religious expeditions in Spain worked relativly well, and Normans in Sicily showed it was possible.

You'll have certainly a time before a new expedition, if one is set up. Now, it would be likely more the OTL II crusade and organised AND led by kings and emperors rather than great feudal nobles.

What effects will this have ont he balance of power in the Muslim world?

Not very much. It was a hell-ish mess with rivalries everywhere you looked at, making the crusaders feuds looking like kindergarden disputes. I doubt they would feel the urge of unite themselves : they didn't made it before some times OTL while the crusaders were victorious.

Now, they would probably more prone to unite themselves against byzantines raids or attacks, but as the Crusaders ITTL wouldn't have threatened really their holdings, they could just not see the threat.

And what becomes of the already-established County of Edessa?

Kaputt.

 

[freethinker]

This might be a mixed blessing for the Byzantines. with the crusaders out the way but a few cities retaken thing could go well for them, of course the big issue is whether this prevents the sacking of Byzantium.

 

[LSCatilina]

This might be a mixed blessing for the Byzantines. with the crusaders out the way but a few cities retaken thing could go well for them, of course the big issue is whether this prevents the sacking of Byzantium.

Well, without crusades to divert them, the Normans would likely resume their attack on the west of Byzantium, so I don't think it would be such a "blessing".

 

[el t]

Antioch

Since the Crusaders had already defeated the Turks in Anatolia, the Byzantines will still be able to benefit there. The Fatimids will likely continue to struggle with the Turks in Syria. Eventually the Byzantines may well be able to retake Antioch.