WI Successful Crusader transits of Anatolia?

I've been reading Charles Oman's books on war in the Middle Ages and was struck by the fates of the armies that crossed Anatolia to get to Palestine. The 1st and 3rd seemed to do alright, despite the starvation issues both faced, but some 5 armies in the Crusade of 1101 and the 2nd Crusade were virtually destroyed.

Oman lays some blame on the Byzantines, who attempted to use the crusades for their own ends. He also lays some blame at the unfamiliar type of warfare that these westerners faced, against highly mobile horse archers that they were most not equipped to deal with. But he lays most of the blame at the crusaders themselves; their impetuos stupidity, lack of discipline, inability/unwillingness to make adequate supply arrangements and an unwillingnees to take advice and learn from the mistakes of others.

But what if this wasn't the case, WI the 1101 crusaders learned some of the lessons from the 1st crusade, took advice from Byzantines, 1st Crusaders and other knowledgeable locals and did what they could within their means to withstand the Slejuk Turks as the crossed Anatolia. I thinking of; choosing the best route, keeping the disparate armies together, concentrating the available infantry archers to keep horse archers at arms length, using the non-combatant pilgrims as laborers to entrench camps, that sort of thing.

Similarly WI the 2nd crusade learnt from both earlier crusades about crossing Anatolia and dealing with the Seljuks? They had the Grand Master of the Templars with them and Byzantine guides as well as having Byzantium in control of considerably more of the route in 1147, so in my mind have less excuse for their failure.

Could these 2 crusades have crossed Anatolia succesfully (without the stroke of luck that Dorylaeum provided for the 1st crusade) if they did what else they could with the information and resources available to them, or are they bound to harried into oblivion during their long transit? By successfully I mean as an intact fighting body of at least half of the original fighting strength, although perhaps minus a lot more horses in proportion.

If these 2 crusades did arrive in strength in Outremer what would be the result?
 
If the Crusaders had learned from their mistakes and did some of the things that you suggest here, then I see no reason why they shouldn't cross Anatolia all in one piece, and indeed do serious damage to the Turkish occupiers of the region which was still in the 12th century largely Orthodox Christian. If they are allied with the East Romans then their chances are even greater, since there was only one occassion when a Roman army met a similar catastrophe in Anatolia, in 1176 (and even then, the damage done was minimal due to effective "mopping up"). I would suggest that if the Crusaders can get their act together and behave sensibly, they stand a real chance of being very successful.

However, I do wonder if getting them to behave in this manner, respect their infidel foes as dangerous opponents and listen to the advice of the "schismastic Greeks" is a bit ASB.

Edit: 700 posts!
 
Anatolia

Actually the army of the emperor Frederick was successful at getting through Anatolia during the Third Crusade. They even made a successful attack on Iconium (Konya.). I don't see a stronger Jerusalem kingdom with more western crusaders in Syria-Palestine. Instead I see more western knights attempting to set up states for themselves. If they are able to capture inland cities such as Damascus, Aleppo, Hama and Homs, then they would probably all become separate kingdoms or principalities.
 
Yes, Barbarossa had his cavalry in the van and arbalesters/archers in the rear, which is about the best combination to fight the Seljuks with.

Oman says that the 1101 and 2nd crusade were very low on archers/crossbowmen, so they would have struggled to emulate Barbarossa's feat in earlier days. However I do wonder if other good planning and execution could have largely covered this lack of missile troops.

BG, it could be seen as ASB, but on the other hand the crusades did at time bring out the outstanding qualities of western forces on numerous occasions.
 
Another thought crossed my mind, what about the effect on Byzantium if these two crusades had successfully crossed Anatolia? Could the empire have taken even grater advantage of these crusades than they did IOTL, assuming that these crusades would weaken the Seljuks in the process?
 

Philip

Donor
It seems to me that they would certainly try. Their ability to exploit the Crusaders' victories is not a given. Among other problems, Constantinople could be too busy bickering with the new Crusader states to make real gains against the Turks.
 
However, I do wonder if getting them to behave in this manner, respect their infidel foes as dangerous opponents and listen to the advice of the "schismastic Greeks" is a bit ASB.

Edit: 700 posts!
WI: Emperor Alexius I does not turn back and instead arrives at Antioch in time to join the Crusaders in their victory? Turning back did a lot to poison already tenuous relations.
 
WI: Emperor Alexius I does not turn back and instead arrives at Antioch in time to join the Crusaders in their victory? Turning back did a lot to poison already tenuous relations.

I believe that he'd already recieved information that they'd been defeated. If somehow this can be changed, then this is a very good idea for much closer Crusader-Roman relations.
 

Philip

Donor
WI: Emperor Alexius I does not turn back and instead arrives at Antioch in time to join the Crusaders in their victory? Turning back did a lot to poison already tenuous relations.

Didn't the Crusaders use this as an excuse not to return captured land to the Byzantines? Changing that would unleash flocks of butterflies. Or, at least, the Crusaders would need to invent another excuse.
 
I believe that he'd already recieved information that they'd been defeated. If somehow this can be changed, then this is a very good idea for much closer Crusader-Roman relations.
My understanding of this is that Stephen of Blois fled (June 2), ran into Alexius somewhere in SE Anatolia who was en-route to Antioch during the siege, told him everything was coming apart and Alexius returned home to strengthen his own position. But I have also heard that the "Blois fled" narrative is likely to be exaggerated though I do not know what exactly happened.

So say intead SoB does end up running, but is ashamed to face Adela and decides to man-up and convinces Alexius to hurry to Antioch to join in against Kerbogha (June 28). I don't know if that's feasible, maybe SoB flees earlier? Just to re-iterate, better relations with the Byzantines = greater chance to succeed in Anatolia.
 
Last edited:
If the Crusaders had learned from their mistakes and did some of the things that you suggest here, then I see no reason why they shouldn't cross Anatolia all in one piece, and indeed do serious damage to the Turkish occupiers of the region which was still in the 12th century largely Orthodox Christian. If they are allied with the East Romans then their chances are even greater, since there was only one occassion when a Roman army met a similar catastrophe in Anatolia, in 1176 (and even then, the damage done was minimal due to effective "mopping up"). I would suggest that if the Crusaders can get their act together and behave sensibly, they stand a real chance of being very successful.

However, I do wonder if getting them to behave in this manner, respect their infidel foes as dangerous opponents and listen to the advice of the "schismastic Greeks" is a bit ASB.

Edit: 700 posts!

In this case, it would be very difficult for Crusader armies to achieve much success in Anatolia. The area held by Turcomans was the central plateau, which is fairly arid (it's not desert, but it would be tough going for a Western army in terms of provisioning and disease), and well-suited to horse nomad armies. Vastly superior in speed and mobility, the Turcomans could not be brought to battle by superior forces and could harass and raid a slower army with impunity. The Byzantines were much better equipped and disciplined to handle this sort of foe - that is pre-Manzikert where their old army was totally destroyed.

Where Crusader armies would be useful is in the coastal areas and perhaps in assaulting strongholds. That, however, was not the key to solving the larger strategic problem.
 
AFAIK the coast roads between Constantinople and Cicilia were not practicable for an army; too many large rivers, mountains coming right down to the sea etc. So inland routes were the only real option according to Oman.

The Turks created a devastated belt next to the Byzantine border so armies couldn't live off the land for some time, and beyond this devastated zone Anatolia is no garden of Eden and living off the land is difficult at the best of times. However these problems were not insoluble if a good, direct (read: fast) route was chosen and sufficient food/water were packed on the advice of the Greeks and Master of the Templars.

But this is only half of the problem, the Turks themselves being the other half. Can the crusaders, as they were made up, survive the Turks if the do what they can; fortify their camps with pilgrim labour, concentrate what archers they do have, and aviod the worst indiscipline? I'd imagine that if the camps were stronger then the Turks would have to expose themselves more to attack them, and be more vulnerable to a charge. A further problem as I understand it is the Turks recognised the danger of a Crusade and temporarily put aside their own differences to attack it while it was crossing Anatolia.

These two halves of the problem have to go hand-in-hand, there's no point in packing more supplies and choosing a direct route if the army/pilgrims still get defeated piecemeal by harassment. Similarly there's no point in taking the sensible military precautions available to the crusaders if the result is that they are an intact force when they starve to death miles from help.
 
Top