In the years after the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Manzikert (1071), the Byzantine Empire seemed to be breaking down at the seams. The Turks were invading Anatolia and raided all the way to the western coast, the Normans were raiding Epirus and Greece, and the Pechenegs were raiding the regions near the Danube.
The empire's overall integrity was saved by a competent emperor named Alexios Komnenos, who took the throne in 1078 and went on to win several crucial battles against the invading forces. In the 1090's, it was he who invited a coalition of western European armies intent on defeating the Muslims, kickstarting the First Crusade. Within a few decades, the empire was restored to a significant part of its pre-Manzikert borders, minus central and eastern Anatolia.
But what if Alexios had died early? Perhaps during a climatic clash with the Normans. Suppose that the emperor who succeeds him is mostly weak or incompetent.
What are the effects on the empire as a whole?
Will the Normans manage to chip away some Byzantine provinces in the Balkans? Will the Pechenegs conquer portions of Bulgaria? Do the Serbs have an opportunity here, too?
What about Chaka Bey, a Christian Turkic warlord seated in Smyrna who commanded a considerable fleet and had aspirations to the purple? And what about the Anatolian Turks as a whole?
 
Last edited:
In the 1090s, it was he who invited a coalition of western European armies intent on defeating the Muslims, kickstarting the First Crusade.

What a cool premise for a thread! I'm surprised this didn't get more response at the time.

I've highlighted "Muslims" above because I think it's important to be more specific: the Seljuks, who were a Turkic clan that managed to extend its power over a large area containing Persians, Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Christians and many others.

Muslims had ruled Jerusalem since 637. By the time Alexios Komnenos came to power in 1081, Jerusalem had been Muslim for 444 years. It had never been a problem in the west before, as the Caliphs had always allowed Christian pilgrimage and even encouraged pilgrims to visit.

However, the Great Seljuk conquests disrupted the situation. They took Jerusalem in 1065 or 1071, depending on who you believe. At the same time, they were at war against the Byzantines for control of Anatolia, which soon turned into a Byzantine civil war in which Turks participated. The chaos in Anatolia disrupted the western pilgrims, and some were attacked as they tried to pass through.

Meanwhile Palestine itself was being firecely fought over by the Shia Fatimids and the Sunni Seljuks. The Seljuks forbade repairs to churches that were damaged in the general chaos of the wars against the Fatimids. Shortly before the Crusaders arrived, Jerusalem was recaptured by the Shia Fatimids. The Fatimid Caliph sent friendly messages to the Crusaders, proposing alliance IIRC against the common enemy (the Seljuks).

Thus ironically there was no need for military action. But the Crusaders weren't interested in diplomacy. To them, all Muslims were the same. They didn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni, Arab and Turk, or even local Orthodox Christians, and they didn't care. They proceeded to massacre every living person in their path in one of the most horrific incidents of the middle ages.

Anyway, back to the point of this thread: if the Komnenoi didn't happen, I think the Byzantine Empire ends right there, with a Norman and Turk and Pecheneg/Bulgarian partition of the empire. Either Constantinople falls to the Normans, or to Chaka Bey, the Turkish warlord. Its territories are simply carved up, although it's plausible that some local dynasties might rise up too. We essentially get 1204 a hundred and twenty years earlier.
 
What a cool premise for a thread! I'm surprised this didn't get more response at the time.

I've highlighted "Muslims" above because I think it's important to be more specific: the Seljuks, who were a Turkic clan that managed to extend its power over a large area containing Persians, Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Christians and many others.

Muslims had ruled Jerusalem since 637. By the time Alexios Komnenos came to power in 1081, Jerusalem had been Muslim for 444 years. It had never been a problem in the west before, as the Caliphs had always allowed Christian pilgrimage and even encouraged pilgrims to visit.

However, the Great Seljuk conquests disrupted the situation. They took Jerusalem in 1065 or 1071, depending on who you believe. At the same time, they were at war against the Byzantines for control of Anatolia, which soon turned into a Byzantine civil war in which Turks participated. The chaos in Anatolia disrupted the western pilgrims, and some were attacked as they tried to pass through.

Meanwhile Palestine itself was being firecely fought over by the Shia Fatimids and the Sunni Seljuks. The Seljuks forbade repairs to churches that were damaged in the general chaos of the wars against the Fatimids. Shortly before the Crusaders arrived, Jerusalem was recaptured by the Shia Fatimids. The Fatimid Caliph sent friendly messages to the Crusaders, proposing alliance IIRC against the common enemy (the Seljuks).

Thus ironically there was no need for military action. But the Crusaders weren't interested in diplomacy. To them, all Muslims were the same. They didn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni, Arab and Turk, or even local Orthodox Christians, and they didn't care. They proceeded to massacre every living person in their path in one of the most horrific incidents of the middle ages.

Anyway, back to the point of this thread: if the Komnenoi didn't happen, I think the Byzantine Empire ends right there, with a Norman and Turk and Pecheneg/Bulgarian partition of the empire. Either Constantinople falls to the Normans, or to Chaka Bey, the Turkish warlord. Its territories are simply carved up, although it's plausible that some local dynasties might rise up too. We essentially get 1204 a hundred and twenty years earlier.


Just wanted to say that this was a great and well thought out response
 
What a cool premise for a thread! I'm surprised this didn't get more response at the time.

I've highlighted "Muslims" above because I think it's important to be more specific: the Seljuks, who were a Turkic clan that managed to extend its power over a large area containing Persians, Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Christians and many others.

Muslims had ruled Jerusalem since 637. By the time Alexios Komnenos came to power in 1081, Jerusalem had been Muslim for 444 years. It had never been a problem in the west before, as the Caliphs had always allowed Christian pilgrimage and even encouraged pilgrims to visit.

However, the Great Seljuk conquests disrupted the situation. They took Jerusalem in 1065 or 1071, depending on who you believe. At the same time, they were at war against the Byzantines for control of Anatolia, which soon turned into a Byzantine civil war in which Turks participated. The chaos in Anatolia disrupted the western pilgrims, and some were attacked as they tried to pass through.

Meanwhile Palestine itself was being firecely fought over by the Shia Fatimids and the Sunni Seljuks. The Seljuks forbade repairs to churches that were damaged in the general chaos of the wars against the Fatimids. Shortly before the Crusaders arrived, Jerusalem was recaptured by the Shia Fatimids. The Fatimid Caliph sent friendly messages to the Crusaders, proposing alliance IIRC against the common enemy (the Seljuks).

Thus ironically there was no need for military action. But the Crusaders weren't interested in diplomacy. To them, all Muslims were the same. They didn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni, Arab and Turk, or even local Orthodox Christians, and they didn't care. They proceeded to massacre every living person in their path in one of the most horrific incidents of the middle ages.

Anyway, back to the point of this thread: if the Komnenoi didn't happen, I think the Byzantine Empire ends right there, with a Norman and Turk and Pecheneg/Bulgarian partition of the empire. Either Constantinople falls to the Normans, or to Chaka Bey, the Turkish warlord. Its territories are simply carved up, although it's plausible that some local dynasties might rise up too. We essentially get 1204 a hundred and twenty years earlier.

That is a gross exaggeration.
 
That is a gross exaggeration.
Exactly. The main difference between the two conquest of Jerusalem during crusades is who the first (the cristian one) was after a siege, instead the second time (that of Saladin) the city was surrended by its defenders not conquisted after a battle
 
No Byzantine rally, and it should be a matter of whether the Normans or the Seljuks get into Constantinople first, and I'd give the edge here to the Normans.

Either way, the First Crusade still goes off, either the new Norman Emperor appeals for help, or the plain Norman Kings of Sicily as well as the King of Hungary since both of them are threatened by an earlier version of the Ottoman Empire and at this point, Western Christiandom is up to the task of doing something about it.
 
If the Byzantine Empire goes under before 1100, the Russians will eventually switch their allegiance to the Pope and that is it for Eastern Orthodoxy except for maybe the Caucasus. After the Fourth Crusade in 1204, Bulgaria did go Catholic briefly. The longer the Byzantines survived, the better the Eastern Orthodox church was viewed, remember the 1054 events happened only 17 years before Manzikert, and the better it was able to survive the eventual loss of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines going under early changes the dynamic.

But you also have cut your odds of getting a Muslim empire in the Balkans, since the Western Christians are much less likely to stab the Norman successor state in the back than they were the Byzantines.
 
I can see two major options.

1) A Christian Turkish State - which is far more likely to be accepted in the West than the alternative. Which could have the unexpected twist of having the Turks be the ones who later "Crusade" to prove their piety.
2) A Muslim Turkish State - at which point we're looking at something not unlike the Ottomans, simply centuries earlier, which could make significant inroads into Europe, likely moreso than anyone else.

2 is vastly more likely, and could lead to Islam being the dominant religion in SE Europe and Hungary to this day.
 
Top