Kilij Arslan I doesn't underestimate the First Crusade?

[Vinization]

The sultan of Rum from 1092 until his premature death in 1107, Kilij Arslan I was the first Muslim monarch to face a crusade, easily defeating the disorganized peasant army led by Peter the Hermit in October 1096. Unfortunately for him, the scale of his victory made him think the sultanate's western frontier was secure, and so he embarked on a campaign against the Danishmends of eastern Anatolia. He was, as a result, caught by surprise when the First Crusade laid siege to Nicaea, which surrendered after a month.

So what if Kilij Arslan either decided to wait until the western threat was well and truly over before attacking the Danishmends, or got word that this new crusader army was far more formidable than the one he bested a few months earlier? Would his army be in better shape to repeal the Crusaders and their Byzantine allies early on, and thus prevent Nicaea's fall?

A direct consequence of this POD is that the Seljuks won't be forced to move their capital to Iconium/Konya, which means their center of gravity is much further west than IOTL. How could the sultanate's culture and politics be affected by this in the future? Kilij Arslan was a capable leader, and his early death at the age of 27 will almost certainly be butterflied. Could he cross the Dardanelles and invade Thrace, or would it be better to capture the few territories the ERE (Sinope, Trebizond and probably some other places) had left in Anatolia first?

Last but definitely not least, how will the Byzantines be affected by all this? The recovery of western Anatolia was a big part of the Komnenian restoration.

@Talus I of Dixie @Tabs

 

[Nivek]

The sultan of Rum from 1092 until his premature death in 1107, Kilij Arslan I was the first Muslim monarch to face a crusade, easily defeating the disorganized peasant army led by Peter the Hermit in October 1096. Unfortunately for him, the scale of his victory made him think the sultanate's western frontier was secure, and so he embarked on a campaign against the Danishmends of eastern Anatolia. He was, as a result, caught by surprise when the First Crusade laid siege to Nicaea, which surrendered after a month.

So what if Kilij Arslan either decided to wait until the western threat was well and truly over before attacking the Danishmends, or got word that this new crusader army was far more formidable than the one he bested a few months earlier? Would his army be in better shape to repeal the Crusaders and their Byzantine allies early on, and thus prevent Nicaea's fall?

A direct consequence of this POD is that the Seljuks won't be forced to move their capital to Iconium/Konya, which means their center of gravity is much further west than IOTL. How could the sultanate's culture and politics be affected by this in the future? Kilij Arslan was a capable leader, and his early death at the age of 27 will almost certainly be butterflied. Could he cross the Dardanelles and invade Thrace, or would it be better to capture the few territories the ERE (Sinope, Trebizond and probably some other places) had left in Anatolia first?

Last but definitely not least, how will the Byzantines be affected by all this? The recovery of western Anatolia was a big part of the Komnenian restoration.

@Talus I of Dixie @Tabs

No Crusaders myth and they would send back west...that means a weaker papacy, unn

 

[Vinization]

What will happen to the crusaders if they're defeated so early on? Will they return to their homes on foot, potentially causing all sorts of havoc in the process?

 

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

There very well might in fact be another, greater crusade.

Alternatively, the Christians could be put to get fright about the end of the world. Read Jay Rubenstein's "Kingdom of Heaven" about the First Crusade. His assertion is that all through the 1000's, Christians were expecting the apocalypse and the end of the world. A serious defeat might in fact, inspire more people, ironically enough. Another factor is the minor crusade of 1101, as many people missed out on it the first time around. It ended in disaster, unfortunately. I suspect a defeat by Kilij Arslan at Doryleam would have annihilated the First Crusade.

If you want another (opposite) take on the First Crusade, you can read my TL, which is supernatural and based on a Pen & Paper Ars Magica campaign.

 

[Nivek]

There very well might in fact be another, greater crusade.

Alternatively, the Christians could be put to get fright about the end of the world. Read Jay Rubenstein's "Kingdom of Heaven" about the First Crusade. His assertion is that all through the 1000's, Christians were expecting the apocalypse and the end of the world. A serious defeat might in fact, inspire more people, ironically enough. Another factor is the minor crusade of 1101, as many people missed out on it the first time around. It ended in disaster, unfortunately. I suspect a defeat by Kilij Arslan at Doryleam would have annihilated the First Crusade.

If you want another (opposite) take on the First Crusade, you can read my TL, which is supernatural and based on a Pen & Paper Ars Magica campaign.

I don't think so, if anything it would make the issue of nobles and their retainers send to death to infuriated the nobility with the papacy,that will be fun

 

[Vinization]

There very well might in fact be another, greater crusade.

Alternatively, the Christians could be put to get fright about the end of the world. Read Jay Rubenstein's "Kingdom of Heaven" about the First Crusade. His assertion is that all through the 1000's, Christians were expecting the apocalypse and the end of the world. A serious defeat might in fact, inspire more people, ironically enough. Another factor is the minor crusade of 1101, as many people missed out on it the first time around. It ended in disaster, unfortunately. I suspect a defeat by Kilij Arslan at Doryleam would have annihilated the First Crusade.

If you want another (opposite) take on the First Crusade, you can read my TL, which is supernatural and based on a Pen & Paper Ars Magica campaign.

Assuming the crusaders try again, could they reach the Holy Land by sea? Could Al-Andalus be an alternate target?

 

[klauslimbek]

The sultan of Rum from 1092 until his premature death in 1107, Kilij Arslan I was the first Muslim monarch to face a crusade, easily defeating the disorganized peasant army led by Peter the Hermit in October 1096. Unfortunately for him, the scale of his victory made him think the sultanate's western frontier was secure, and so he embarked on a campaign against the Danishmends of eastern Anatolia. He was, as a result, caught by surprise when the First Crusade laid siege to Nicaea, which surrendered after a month.

So what if Kilij Arslan either decided to wait until the western threat was well and truly over before attacking the Danishmends, or got word that this new crusader army was far more formidable than the one he bested a few months earlier? Would his army be in better shape to repeal the Crusaders and their Byzantine allies early on, and thus prevent Nicaea's fall?

A direct consequence of this POD is that the Seljuks won't be forced to move their capital to Iconium/Konya, which means their center of gravity is much further west than IOTL. How could the sultanate's culture and politics be affected by this in the future? Kilij Arslan was a capable leader, and his early death at the age of 27 will almost certainly be butterflied. Could he cross the Dardanelles and invade Thrace, or would it be better to capture the few territories the ERE (Sinope, Trebizond and probably some other places) had left in Anatolia first?

Last but definitely not least, how will the Byzantines be affected by all this? The recovery of western Anatolia was a big part of the Komnenian restoration.

@Talus I of Dixie @Tabs

If Arslan took the first crusade more seriously, defeating the armies besieging Nicea, well I don’t think it would be a disaster in the slightest for the crusader armies, as time and time again they have escaped much more treacherous conditions, all in all I can’t help but think it would be a minor defeat. However I also see it backfiring, because if the Turks also managed to defeat the latins, then Aléxios I would likely not feel nearly as threatened by the first crusade. This could result in complete military backing from the emperor, and it could also result in more revanchist crusaders. Maybe the war in Anatolia drags on for a year or two, before reaching Cilicia, but i only see the Rum sultanate being even more diminished, the first crusades biggest weakness was internal intrigue and struggles for authority, but the more pressure you subject the crusade to, the more it’s weakness subsides.

 

[isabella]

I don't think so, if anything it would make the issue of nobles and their retainers send to death to infuriated the nobility with the papacy,that will be fun

For what reason? The papacy had promoted the Crusade, sure, but had NO responsibility on its results and the fact who Jerusalem and the Holy sisters were inaccessible to the Christian pilgrims was a problem for everyone…
Remember who all the Crusaders essentially volunteered for it (at least every single leader/noble who had taken the Cross)

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Kilij Arslan I took the Crusaders plenty seriously after Nicea, he still ended up getting soundly beat by Crusaders that had split up their forces into separate contingents. Fighting the united Crusader force at Nicea, where it still enjoys a measure of Byzantine support, does not automatically equate to victory imo.

 

[BIZANTINUL]

Kilij Arslan I took the Crusaders plenty seriously after Nicea, he still ended up getting soundly beat by Crusaders that had split up their forces into separate contingents. Fighting the united Crusader force at Nicea, where it still enjoys a measure of Byzantine support, does not automatically equate to victory imo.

I completely agree. In the right curcumstances, the Latin knights are quite redoubtable and exhausting them when they were marching through Anatolia seems the best bet. At the start of the campaign, the lines of supply for the crusader will be a lot shorter and the byzantine support more forthcoming

 

[Urcea]

Kilij Arslan I took the Crusaders plenty seriously after Nicea, he still ended up getting soundly beat by Crusaders that had split up their forces into separate contingents. Fighting the united Crusader force at Nicea, where it still enjoys a measure of Byzantine support, does not automatically equate to victory imo.

I came here to say this. I'm not clear how increased attention on his part leads to an automatic Latin defeat. They beat him at Dorylaeum under less than ideal circumstances

 

[Vinization]

I came here to say this. I'm not clear how increased attention on his part leads to an automatic Latin defeat. They beat him at Dorylaeum under less than ideal circumstances

It wouldn't be automatic, but they'd at least have a harder time.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I am not sure that just because the Seljuks estimate correctly the power of the Crusader army that they will defeat it. The Crusaders had a serious heavy cavalry advantage over the enemy and a heavy cavalry that was more versatile than the cataphractori of the Byzantines. Regardless of estimation, the battle would be a matter of chance and moment, not automatic victory. Even still, there is no reason that the Crusades would be seen by the Seljuk as more important to deal with than the Danishmends.

 

[wcv215]

There’s a couple of points here. First, an initial failure to take Nicaea might honestly be a long-term benefit to the Crusader-Byzantine relations since the Emperor doesn’t prevent the sack, and there’s certainly no march on Antioch. A short-term setback, the only kind I see happening at this point that solidifies Imperial control since they haven’t developed some idea of invincibility would give the Byzantines a far better position to be in to retake not just Anatolia, but also Antioch in the long-term. And frankly the Muslim polities of Syria are fragmented and weak, so little chance of preventing that given OTL.

The second, do recall that the recapture of Jerusalem, while A goal of the First Crusade did not become the central focus until AFTER it had fallen, because the Crusade succeeded far beyond expectations. A failure to tale Jerusalem would also possibly be overall a positive for the Christian position since it wouldn’t result in the overstretch of the OTL Crusader states, confined instead to the Antioch region.

 

[Vinization]

Here's a scenario which, I'll fully admit, is probably the worst possible outcome for the First Crusade:

1. Kilij Arslan gets word, either through a spy or hearsay, of the army that will inevitably attack Nicaea, and so he uses the time he has left before their arrival to strengthen the city's defenses with earthworks like ditches, caltrops and ramparts;
2. The crusaders arrive in force in May 1097, and immediately have a harder time besieging Nicaea thanks to these extra obstacles, as well as the presence of the full Turkish army nearby. Still, despite mounting casualties, they slowly inch ever closer to the city walls as the weeks go by, their knights' heavy armor shrugging off most enemy arrows;
3. Emperor Alexios' plan to roll ships into the waters of Lake Ascanius fails, at least at first, and so the Turkish garrison's supply line stays open;
4. The siege drags on until either July or August (instead of ending in June), with both sides showing signs of exhaustion. Alexios makes his OTL offer for Nicaea to surrender to him so as to avoid being sacked by the Crusaders. They get word of it and many desert as a result, with the siege becoming impossible to sustain and thus abandoned.

How plausible is this?

 

[Nivek]

Here's a scenario which, I'll fully admit, is probably the worst possible outcome for the First Crusade:

1. Kilij Arslan gets word, either through a spy or hearsay, of the army that will inevitably attack Nicaea, and so he uses the time he has left before their arrival to strengthen the city's defenses with earthworks like ditches, caltrops and ramparts;
2. The crusaders arrive in force in May 1097, and immediately have a harder time besieging Nicaea thanks to these extra obstacles, as well as the presence of the full Turkish army nearby. Still, despite mounting casualties, they slowly inch ever closer to the city walls as the weeks go by, their knights' heavy armor shrugging off most enemy arrows;
3. Emperor Alexios' plan to roll ships into the waters of Lake Ascanius fails, at least at first, and so the Turkish garrison's supply line stays open;
4. The siege drags on until either July or August (instead of ending in June), with both sides showing signs of exhaustion. Alexios makes his OTL offer for Nicaea to surrender to him so as to avoid being sacked by the Crusaders. They get word of it and many desert as a result, with the siege becoming impossible to sustain and thus abandoned.

How plausible is this?

Very pausable

 

[RedSword12]

Here's a scenario which, I'll fully admit, is probably the worst possible outcome for the First Crusade:

1. Kilij Arslan gets word, either through a spy or hearsay, of the army that will inevitably attack Nicaea, and so he uses the time he has left before their arrival to strengthen the city's defenses with earthworks like ditches, caltrops and ramparts;
2. The crusaders arrive in force in May 1097, and immediately have a harder time besieging Nicaea thanks to these extra obstacles, as well as the presence of the full Turkish army nearby. Still, despite mounting casualties, they slowly inch ever closer to the city walls as the weeks go by, their knights' heavy armor shrugging off most enemy arrows;
3. Emperor Alexios' plan to roll ships into the waters of Lake Ascanius fails, at least at first, and so the Turkish garrison's supply line stays open;
4. The siege drags on until either July or August (instead of ending in June), with both sides showing signs of exhaustion. Alexios makes his OTL offer for Nicaea to surrender to him so as to avoid being sacked by the Crusaders. They get word of it and many desert as a result, with the siege becoming impossible to sustain and thus abandoned.

How plausible is this?

Not plausible. Alexios gave them money in lieu of loot, which appeased them. Crusader-Byzantine relations were still pretty good at this point.

 

[Vinization]

Not plausible. Alexios gave them money in lieu of loot, which appeased them. Crusader-Byzantine relations were still pretty good at this point.

That was after a month long siege, surely they'd be even more eager to sack Nicaea (and thus angrier at Alexios if he double crosses them) if the siege lasts twice or thrice as long, with all the extra fighting that entails.

 

[RedSword12]

That was after a month long siege, surely they'd be even more eager to sack Nicaea (and thus angrier at Alexios if he double crosses them) if the siege lasts twice or thrice as long, with all the extra fighting that entails.

It wasn't a double-cross. They were compensated for the lack of loot, and during the siege were routinely being fed on supplies the Byzantines had hauled over from friendly territory. Mass-desertion is out of the question; the crusaders had sworn an oath to go to Jerusalem, and leaving at this stage when the army's biggest problem was merely time and boredom, would seem premature to the vast majority. A lot of the early tensions between the crusaders and the Byzantines were exaggerated post-facto by the chroniclers, informed by the crusaders' decision to consider Alexios's abandonment of them at Antioch as betrayal (which was actually hotly debated amongst the leadership, even after the ordeal was over).

 

[klauslimbek]

Here's a scenario which, I'll fully admit, is probably the worst possible outcome for the First Crusade:

1. Kilij Arslan gets word, either through a spy or hearsay, of the army that will inevitably attack Nicaea, and so he uses the time he has left before their arrival to strengthen the city's defenses with earthworks like ditches, caltrops and ramparts;
2. The crusaders arrive in force in May 1097, and immediately have a harder time besieging Nicaea thanks to these extra obstacles, as well as the presence of the full Turkish army nearby. Still, despite mounting casualties, they slowly inch ever closer to the city walls as the weeks go by, their knights' heavy armor shrugging off most enemy arrows;
3. Emperor Alexios' plan to roll ships into the waters of Lake Ascanius fails, at least at first, and so the Turkish garrison's supply line stays open;
4. The siege drags on until either July or August (instead of ending in June), with both sides showing signs of exhaustion. Alexios makes his OTL offer for Nicaea to surrender to him so as to avoid being sacked by the Crusaders. They get word of it and many desert as a result, with the siege becoming impossible to sustain and thus abandoned.

How plausible is this?

I dont understand the point of this What if, is it what if the first Crusade failed or Arslan defeated the crusaders at Nicea, what is it exactly that you want to happen? There must be a reason you gave the Turks all these advantages, which the crusaders fail to adapt to (which is odd considering the siege of Antioch).

If somehow the Crusaders lost at Nicea, they would cover the rear of their army with their superior cavalry, so they could make an orderly retreat. The first action of the crusade ending in a clear defeat, Aléxios Komnenos fears would not be, the franks a gonna conquer my empire, but the Turks are unstoppable. Meaning direct Byzantine support, and moreover the Seljuks need to be severely weakened if the crusaders want to go to the levant. Arslans best bet would have been to avoid battle with crusaders entirely and try to make a deal, that’s why Saladin was successful even though he got beat up during the third crusaders he realised he just had to wait them out.

The result of a Seljuk victory at Nicea briefly:
Seljuks will face more punishment from a combined Byzantine and crusader force, the crusaders would be able to rely on the Byzantines much more, less massacres - more conquests.