First Crusade what-if: possible handshake on the Levant and the aftermath

[Beefhammer]

So the general feeling, here at least, is that if Stephen of Blois hadn't lost his nerve the day before Antioch fell, not only would relations between the Crusaders and Emperor Alexios have not deteriorated, but there wouldn't have been a six month delay that saw many of the Crusaders, including its official leader Bishop Adhemar, die of plague.
At the same time as the Crusaders were advancing down the Levant though, the Fatimid Caliphate, taking advantage of the Turks being busy up north, launched their own campaign to regain lost ground from the Turks, including retaking Jerusalem themselves.
So, question is:
1) Since there's no six month delay while the Crusaders are trying to sort out who should get Antioch, how far south can the Crusaders get before running into the Egyptians?
2) Fatimid Egypt was a Byzantine ally against the Turks. If the Caliph's army is able to beat the Crusaders to Jerusalem, could Adhemar and any Byzantine officials accompanying the Crusader army be able to keep the Crusaders in check while they finalize the new border with the Egyptians?
3) Assuming the Egyptians manage to secure a strong claim to Jerusalem before the Crusaders can arrive, and the Crusaders can be brought to begrudgingly accept Jerusalem remaining in Muslim hands, since the Crusade is still in contact with the Byzantines, about how many of the Crusaders are liable to sign up with Alexios to campaign against the Turks on other fronts instead of going back to Europe or settling down in the Levant?
4) Since there was no falling out between the Crusaders and the Byzantines, what will the status of the territories won from the Turks be? Will they be Byzantine vassals, as was nominally the case (or initially intended to be the case anyway) IOTL? Will they be provinces directly governed by Constantinople with the Crusaders "just" getting land grants and such? Something else?
5) How much land can Alexios likely retake and secure from the Turks in this version of the First Crusade, with the Crusaders remaining friendly?

 

[Beefhammer]

Anyone?

 

[troodon2]

Anyone?

Not quite knowledgeable on this time period, all my I know comes from a few YouTube videos and low quality 19th century romance novels set in the 3rd crusade.

But I'll bite.

1) Since there's no six month delay while the Crusaders are trying to sort out who should get Antioch, how far south can the Crusaders get before running into the Egyptians?

OTL they got up till Jerusalem so I'd imagine they'd reach it too.

Also once they reach Jerusalem they'd not have a lot of motivation to go further south. The focus would be consolidation and giving away land grants.

Also I have a sneaking suspicion that they'd avoid entangling with the Egyptians at this point and try at territories in modern Syria like Damascus since they're both biblical cities and lie on important trade routes.

2) Fatimid Egypt was a Byzantine ally against the Turks. If the Caliph's army is able to beat the Crusaders to Jerusalem, could Adhemar and any Byzantine officials accompanying the Crusader army be able to keep the Crusaders in check while they finalize the new border with the Egyptians?

See above reply, I think if given the right motivation ( land, gold and some mild posturing ) they can be reasoned with.

3) Assuming the Egyptians manage to secure a strong claim to Jerusalem before the Crusaders can arrive, and the Crusaders can be brought to begrudgingly accept Jerusalem remaining in Muslim hands, since the Crusade is still in contact with the Byzantines, about how many of the Crusaders are liable to sign up with Alexios to campaign against the Turks on other fronts instead of going back to Europe or settling down in the Levant?

War! Jerusalem's importance for the crusaders can't be understated.

4) Since there was no falling out between the Crusaders and the Byzantines, what will the status of the territories won from the Turks be? Will they be Byzantine vassals, as was nominally the case (or initially intended to be the case anyway) IOTL? Will they be provinces directly governed by Constantinople with the Crusaders "just" getting land grants and such? Something else?

Highly autonomous provinces. Likely no king of Jerusalem. But the Lords there would be fairly independent.

5) How much land can Alexios likely retake and secure from the Turks in this version of the First Crusade, with the Crusaders remaining friendly?

Likely he might be able to nominally conquer all of Anatolia but wether he could hold on to these territories is to be seen

 

[Silver01]

See above reply, I think if given the right motivation ( land, gold and some mild posturing ) they can be reasoned with.

The caliph might have to add something similar to what Saladin promised Richard

 

[Andristan]

1) Since there's no six month delay while the Crusaders are trying to sort out who should get Antioch, how far south can the Crusaders get before running into the Egyptians?

Same as the other poster, they would get to Jerusalem.

2) Fatimid Egypt was a Byzantine ally against the Turks. If the Caliph's army is able to beat the Crusaders to Jerusalem, could Adhemar and any Byzantine officials accompanying the Crusader army be able to keep the Crusaders in check while they finalize the new border with the Egyptians?

I highly doubt it, in fact going past Antioch would be outside the ERE's border as per the Crusaders original agreement with Alexios back in Constantinople so I would imagine that the Crusaders would not be content with any agreement leaving Jerusalem under the sway of the infidel, seeing as that was the whole reason for the crusade in the first place, plus in OTL they refused the Fatimids peace deal of free passage of pilgrims, so no reason to do so now.

3) Assuming the Egyptians manage to secure a strong claim to Jerusalem before the Crusaders can arrive, and the Crusaders can be brought to begrudgingly accept Jerusalem remaining in Muslim hands, since the Crusade is still in contact with the Byzantines, about how many of the Crusaders are liable to sign up with Alexios to campaign against the Turks on other fronts instead of going back to Europe or settling down in the Levant?

Very few if any, one of the major problems for the Crusader states was always how few crusaders wanted to stay in Outremer. The focus for the crusade was reclaiming the Holy Land, if they failed to do that, due to Byzantine diplomacy, then i cannot see any crusaders taking service with Alexios.

4) Since there was no falling out between the Crusaders and the Byzantines, what will the status of the territories won from the Turks be? Will they be Byzantine vassals, as was nominally the case (or initially intended to be the case anyway) IOTL? Will they be provinces directly governed by Constantinople with the Crusaders "just" getting land grants and such? Something else?

1st, there would be no princedom of Antioch, that city would be returned to the ERE as per the deal struck in Constantinople, where territory that had been ERE turf recently would be given back. Edessa might be the only Crusader state in this circumstance, in a TL where Jerusalem stays under the Fatimids, I dont see Syria, Lebenon submitting to the ERE but as soon as the Crusaders leave switching allegiance to the neighboring Muslim power.

5) How much land can Alexios likely retake and secure from the Turks in this version of the First Crusade, with the Crusaders remaining friendly?

Alexios will probably remain focused on Anatolia, might retake the same amount as per OTL, though it might be much less now that he has to garrison Antioch and maintain sovereignty over the Cilician Armenians as well, strains he did not have in OTL.

 

[Beefhammer]

in a TL where Jerusalem stays under the Fatimids

What about if the crusaders continue past Antioch and take Jerusalem? Would we still see a separate County of Tripoli, or would it be a full part of Jerusalem? Or of the Byzantije Empire, if the Wikipedia article on Alexios is correct and the crusaders were resupplied by the Byzantines up to Tripoli?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

So the general feeling, here at least, is that if Stephen of Blois hadn't lost his nerve the day before Antioch fell, not only would relations between the Crusaders and Emperor Alexios have not deteriorated, but there wouldn't have been a six month delay that saw many of the Crusaders, including its official leader Bishop Adhemar, die of plague.
At the same time as the Crusaders were advancing down the Levant though, the Fatimid Caliphate, taking advantage of the Turks being busy up north, launched their own campaign to regain lost ground from the Turks, including retaking Jerusalem themselves.
So, question is:
1) Since there's no six month delay while the Crusaders are trying to sort out who should get Antioch, how far south can the Crusaders get before running into the Egyptians?
2) Fatimid Egypt was a Byzantine ally against the Turks. If the Caliph's army is able to beat the Crusaders to Jerusalem, could Adhemar and any Byzantine officials accompanying the Crusader army be able to keep the Crusaders in check while they finalize the new border with the Egyptians?
3) Assuming the Egyptians manage to secure a strong claim to Jerusalem before the Crusaders can arrive, and the Crusaders can be brought to begrudgingly accept Jerusalem remaining in Muslim hands, since the Crusade is still in contact with the Byzantines, about how many of the Crusaders are liable to sign up with Alexios to campaign against the Turks on other fronts instead of going back to Europe or settling down in the Levant?
4) Since there was no falling out between the Crusaders and the Byzantines, what will the status of the territories won from the Turks be? Will they be Byzantine vassals, as was nominally the case (or initially intended to be the case anyway) IOTL? Will they be provinces directly governed by Constantinople with the Crusaders "just" getting land grants and such? Something else?
5) How much land can Alexios likely retake and secure from the Turks in this version of the First Crusade, with the Crusaders remaining friendly?

1. The Crusaders would be focused on Jerusalem, maybe the Kingdom of Jerusalem gets pre-Saladin borders sooner but the best choice is to not try anything after Jerusalem
2. If the Crusaders get something out of it then they wouldn't really be bothered as they would see it like he is trying to negotiate peace not betray them.
3. Not many the whole point was to take the Holy Land back from the infidels they wouldn't be very motivated to have to risk their lives again after being assured to go to Heaven
4. I think the Eastern Romans would govern everything except for the Duchy of Edessa which isn't created and the Kingdom of Jerusalem which due to its important significance would get a special status.
5. Alexios's campaigns wouldn't really be changed by this what would be is the relationship between the Greeks and Latins which is a little bit better although it can get worse later on
Another consequence is that there is no Second Crusade as the County of Edessa doesn't exist