During First Crusade's first fight the siege of Nicaea Byzantine Emperor Alexios I made the city surrender to him separately from the Crusades. This alienated them from him. That distrust led the Crusaders into a separate path of not helping Byzantium. Eventually when Alexios refused to relieve the Crusaders from the Seljuk siege of Antioch they invalidated all of their oaths to him. But What if he let them plunder Nicaea ? This keeps the Crusaders under his command. That allows the combined Byzantine-Crusader force to push the Turks entirety out of Anatolia. They go on to conquer Syria and Palestine. The Crusader forces are given fiefs in these reconquered lands. Later his son Emperor John II uses this new power base to conquer Famitid Egypt during it's collapse and restoring Byzantine Empire to it's original borders.
Byzantine Alexios with Crusaders reconquers all Anatolia,Antioch, Jerusalem and John reconquers Egypt
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
Not sacking Nicaea was not as big a deal as people have made it out to be. Crusader-Byzantine relations remained warm, as Alexios simply paid them directly afterwards (it's worth remembering that the reason they'd wanted to carry out a sack was because they needed funds to pay their soldiers and pay for provisions) and the Crusaders upheld their oath to Alexios throughout the rest of the campaign all the way up to the Siege of Antioch. Even after the Siege of Antioch, things weren't as bad as have been said.
Then, finally Anna wakes up and goes back to writing her magnum opus, the Alexiad.
Less sarcastically: total Byzantine dominion would never be accepted by anybody, nor is Alexios going to be able to control his erstwhile allies for long or with any meaningful level of support beyond Antioch. Even with perfect outcomes, the Crusader States become this sort-of-kinda-pseudo-Byzantine protectorate that is and is not at the same time, depending on who you ask and the situation in which you do; they inevitably turn against Byzantium when possible and Alexios is busy elsewhere, something which is bound to happen fairly soon. Byzantium still majorly benefits compared to OTL, but we aren't going to see Byzantine Egypt as an immediate prospect.
And there's absolutely zero chance that when the next expedition to Egypt happens, people do it explicitly for Byzantium. Turning back Anatolian cities that had a dominant Greek "Orthodox" (the success of this endeavor may push the full schism later on) populace made plenty of sense - but Egypt is something rich to be converted back, Reconquista-style. Rhomania doesn't really have a claim there, as far as Crusaders care.
Less sarcastically: total Byzantine dominion would never be accepted by anybody, nor is Alexios going to be able to control his erstwhile allies for long or with any meaningful level of support beyond Antioch. Even with perfect outcomes, the Crusader States become this sort-of-kinda-pseudo-Byzantine protectorate that is and is not at the same time, depending on who you ask and the situation in which you do; they inevitably turn against Byzantium when possible and Alexios is busy elsewhere, something which is bound to happen fairly soon. Byzantium still majorly benefits compared to OTL, but we aren't going to see Byzantine Egypt as an immediate prospect.
And there's absolutely zero chance that when the next expedition to Egypt happens, people do it explicitly for Byzantium. Turning back Anatolian cities that had a dominant Greek "Orthodox" (the success of this endeavor may push the full schism later on) populace made plenty of sense - but Egypt is something rich to be converted back, Reconquista-style. Rhomania doesn't really have a claim there, as far as Crusaders care.
Last edited:
Given most crusaders belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, and the Byzantines belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church, it’s very possible for a split to form between the Crusaders who are Catholic and the Byzantines who are orthodox. If that happens, then I can see the Levant and Egypt to diverge into two different religious factions, one Egyptian and Catholic, although the Copts would still have to be considered, and the other Levantine and Orthodox.
RousseauX
Donor
Nicaea wasn't that big of a deal
Antioch though absolutely was, from the Crusader's PoV Alexios used them and then left them to die
A better situation is alexius ignores the crusaders fleeing from the seige of Antioch and relieved their seige.
Then
1 Antioch turned over to alexius.
2 alexius becomes a hero to the west.
3 crusade happens as it happened
4 after conquest of Jerusalem and the majority of the crusaders return home a close relationship depens
5 with Antioch captured byz looks to reconqor more of anatolia to protect Antioch and coastal conquests.
Then
1 Antioch turned over to alexius.
2 alexius becomes a hero to the west.
3 crusade happens as it happened
4 after conquest of Jerusalem and the majority of the crusaders return home a close relationship depens
5 with Antioch captured byz looks to reconqor more of anatolia to protect Antioch and coastal conquests.
Okay, let's look at the best case scenario for the Romans during the 12th Century (fun fact: the Romans aren't conquering Egypt; I mean, they struggled to hold on to Cilicia during this time, which was significantly closer to Constantinople than Egypt).
Starting with Alexios, basically the reconquest of Western Anatolia goes about as well as it could possibly go so no need to change this. The important PoD is that the Roman contingent under Tatikios chooses to remain at Antioch throughout the siege and at the end of it the Romans are rewarded with Antioch. This means the resources poured into taking Antioch from the Normans OTL can be poured into more important efforts, like the reconquest of the Anatolian Plateau. Of course, this doesn't happen over night, but without Alexios and John spending significant parts of their respective reigns dealing with Antioch, it means Anatolia receives the attention it deserves much earlier and much more thoroughly.
Which is the key. Like I said, the reconquest of the Plateau isn't happening over night. It's going to take decades of effort, involving almost yearly campaigns into the Plateau beating up the Turks, wearing down the Sultan's authority until it finally breaks and the Sultanate disintegrates into dozens of Beyliks. Before you say anything, this is entirely possible. It's basically what happened in the late 13th century (except it was the Mongols, not the Romans that did it), except now it happens in the mid to late 12th century.
From here the Romans basically do to the Turkish Beyliks what they did to the Armenian statelets in the 10th and early 11th centuries, basically working to plug the various Beys into the Roman system, and over time the Beys will begin to see the value of letting the Romans inherit their lands on the Plateau and retiring to an estate in the Balkans. It's a lot easier to live on a luxurious estate than it is to govern a bunch of unruly nomads.
It's a lot easier to do this to a bunch of small states than one big one. In short, the Romans would be creating a power vacuum and then filling in that vacuum with themselves.
Starting with Alexios, basically the reconquest of Western Anatolia goes about as well as it could possibly go so no need to change this. The important PoD is that the Roman contingent under Tatikios chooses to remain at Antioch throughout the siege and at the end of it the Romans are rewarded with Antioch. This means the resources poured into taking Antioch from the Normans OTL can be poured into more important efforts, like the reconquest of the Anatolian Plateau. Of course, this doesn't happen over night, but without Alexios and John spending significant parts of their respective reigns dealing with Antioch, it means Anatolia receives the attention it deserves much earlier and much more thoroughly.
Which is the key. Like I said, the reconquest of the Plateau isn't happening over night. It's going to take decades of effort, involving almost yearly campaigns into the Plateau beating up the Turks, wearing down the Sultan's authority until it finally breaks and the Sultanate disintegrates into dozens of Beyliks. Before you say anything, this is entirely possible. It's basically what happened in the late 13th century (except it was the Mongols, not the Romans that did it), except now it happens in the mid to late 12th century.
From here the Romans basically do to the Turkish Beyliks what they did to the Armenian statelets in the 10th and early 11th centuries, basically working to plug the various Beys into the Roman system, and over time the Beys will begin to see the value of letting the Romans inherit their lands on the Plateau and retiring to an estate in the Balkans. It's a lot easier to live on a luxurious estate than it is to govern a bunch of unruly nomads.
It's a lot easier to do this to a bunch of small states than one big one. In short, the Romans would be creating a power vacuum and then filling in that vacuum with themselves.