WI : Tancred de Hauteville, Despot in the Levant

So after a quick rewatch of Extra Historys first crusade, I had an idea about an approach for Alexios Komnenos to take regarding the Levant after the first Crusade, and the capture of Bohemond de Hauteville.

Marry one his daughters (my first instinct is Eudokia, but I don't know old she is, and the internet hasn't helped), to Tancred de Hauteville, as part of a deal.

The deal being that Tancred de Hauteville is named Despot in the Levant, and Prince of Antioch (rather than regent) - essentially the Romans enforcer in the Levant, and granted a level of freedom within the traditionally accepted bounds of the Holy Land (i.e. West of the Euphrates, south of Anatolia, down to the Sinai, including Damascus).

The Despot would be responsible for enforcing and expanding Roman rule in the Levant - in exchange they'd get 60% of Roman tax revenues in the region, at the expense of paying for the tax collectors and their protection. He'd be responsible for his own troops, but if invaded getting backing from the Roman Army and backing when pushing the frontier of the Despotate. In addition, Alexios would authorise the presence of a Catholic Patriarch in Antioch, equal to a Greek Patriarch. (Essentially to counter Rome).

(Admittedly, I haven't got a solution to the Bohemond problem - I'm torn between essentially supporting Tancred in stealing Bohemonds land as part of the deal, or offering to back Bohemond in invading beyond the Euphrates as an ally - either works IMO).

So assuming this happens (I can't see Tancred refusing, and it is a win for Alexios by any measure), what happens next?
 
The question becomes what happens to Jerusalem, as this despotate is by definition a rival to the Crusader Kingdom and will exacerbate tensions with the Latins, to the point of possibly nipping further eastern Crusades in the bud (or perhaps not... North Africa, Spain, and Egypt are all still targets here). I can't see this despotate maintaining control all the way to Sinai, certainly not unless Egypt remains hostile to whatever power controls Mesopotamia, for similar reasons as to why the KoJ was doomed unless the Crusaders could have secured Egypt or at least prevent a Saladin from uniting it with Syria...
In the long run Tancred's line might well marry into the Cilician Armenians, convert to the Armenian Church and basically claim all of old Armenia for themselves- (plus northern Syria, down to Damascus at the utmost) as a Byzantine vassal- such a client state would IMHO be an exceedingly valuable buffer for Byzantium, especially if they can reclaim the rest of Anatolia.
 
The question becomes what happens to Jerusalem, as this despotate is by definition a rival to the Crusader Kingdom and will exacerbate tensions with the Latins, to the point of possibly nipping further eastern Crusades in the bud (or perhaps not... North Africa, Spain, and Egypt are all still targets here). I can't see this despotate maintaining control all the way to Sinai, certainly not unless Egypt remains hostile to whatever power controls Mesopotamia, for similar reasons as to why the KoJ was doomed unless the Crusaders could have secured Egypt or at least prevent a Saladin from uniting it with Syria...
In the long run Tancred's line might well marry into the Cilician Armenians, convert to the Armenian Church and basically claim all of old Armenia for themselves- (plus northern Syria, down to Damascus at the utmost) as a Byzantine vassal- such a client state would IMHO be an exceedingly valuable buffer for Byzantium, especially if they can reclaim the rest of Anatolia.

Well, it might cause tension with the King of Jerusalem, but it might be able to avoid it with the lords - especially those who get into a fight with Jerusalem, at which point the Despotate is their best option. It might force the KoJ to become less centralised to keep the lords on hand - which would certainly hurt the KoJ. At the same time, the Despotate would probably pick up part of the effort the Romans had to put in IOTL - helping keep the KoJ alive in much the same way John had to.

I won't lie, didn't see the Armenia idea (I actually had an amusing way to bend this PoD to the AIMA prophecy). It might be interesting considering Tancred did bring Armenians into his army during the First Crusade. That could lead to some complexities if Alexios or John (Assuming he still comes into play) object - as technically it isn't in the Despotate.

Regarding the Mesopotamia/Egypt issue - I think that comes into the role of the Emperors - it is in their interest to have the Levant under the Despotate - simply because it is friendly territory that pays taxes. If they need Egypt and Mesopotamia to not be united against the Despotate, the easiest solution in my mind is for the Emperor to make their own move into Egypt without Crusader support, and if Jerusalem gets in the way, then they can be forfeit to the Despotate. That is something I can see Manuel doing, assuming that he was the same ITTL as IOTL.

Interestingly IMO - with the Despotate in play (Which is easily the equal in size to the KoJ looking at the combination of Galilee and Antioch) - it does free up John at numerous points in his reign, which could lead to him adding the equivalent of the last 7 years of his reign into taking Anatolia - making life much easier for his successor, and making the Despotate more secure in the meantime.
 
Top