WI: Malik Shah I Seljuk not assassinated

Malik Shah was the successor to Alp Arslan to the throne of the Seljuk Empire. He, however, only reigned for twenty years, before he was assassinated in 1092. It is suspected that it was the Abbasid caliph who ordered his death.
After Malik's death, many claimants to the title of Seljuk sultan sprung up, causing a civil war in the realm. The christians who were participating in the First Crusade took advantage of this political confusion to gain land in Syria and the Levant, estabilishing the first crusader states.
But what if Malik Shah had discovered the plot to assassinate him before it was too late, prompting his survival?
What would happen to the Seljuk Empire had it been more united for the beginning of the 12th century? Would the crusades even be as successful as OTL?
How further threatened would Constantinople be here?
 
Divisions among Seljuk is less the result of Malik Shah's death (altough it helped its formal aspect to be dealt with) than a feature of Seljuk politics : Malik's sons and grandsons were de facto independent governors of their respective provinces already. To not mention the whole political situation which looked like a mixmash of a wasps' nest and a game of Clue (the caliph, with the poison, under the tent) : it already took his father and his vizeer, and if it failed you can bet your life it would be attempted again.

That being said, if Malik survived this assassination attempt long enough and, in the same time, prevented his familial puzzle of an empire to split to sheer political and military skills (which isn't far-fetched at all : it's not because it was disunified that it was going to fall right now no matter survival of Malik Shah)?

Well, you could arguably see a different Crusade : but maybe not for the more obvious reasons : with a stronger and more threatening Seljuk presence in Anatolia, Byzantines could be strong-armed giving a deeper and more stable support to Crusaders even when it would become an annoyance. Furthermore, the strength of an unified Seljuk Empire might mud the Crusade into Anatolia, without real way for Crusader to go beyond the region. We could even see a Fatimid support ITTL.
I agree, of course, that it makes a Crusader advance, let alone conquest, of Syria unlikely in the immediate aftermath : I'll stress tough, that I think the Seljuk Empire is structurally going down at this point, and that Arabo-Islamic princes wouldn't really correctly asset the nature of Crusade as they didn't IOTL.
 
Top