What if the Crusaders bag the Sultan and his capital in one fell swoop and the Danishmends gobble up the remainder of Rum?
Kilij Arslan I doesn't underestimate the First Crusade?
- Thread starter Vinization
- Start date
It absolutely was. And both sides probably knew it was. The Crusaders saw a sack of a city which had put up strong resistance as their right, and Alexios was almost certainly aware of that. Its why he couldn't let the Crusaders take Nikaea, and its why he made sure to pay them off afterward, as a means of trying to smooth over that loss. That's not to say he was wrong to take he action, he absolutely was not. Just look at what happened to Antioch and Jerusalem.
My objective is to ensure the Byzantines reconquer as little of western Anatolia as possible, which naturally means things need to go wrong for the crusaders from the start.
Since there's so much resistance to the very idea of Nicaea not falling, how much would a Seljuk victory at Dorylaeum affect future developments in Asia Minor? Suppose Bohemond of Taranto's calls for help from other crusaders are intercepted by the Turks, and thus he his troops are eventually buried in arrows.
Last edited:
That scenario would probably lead to Byzantine troops entering Iconium in the near future, or at least pushing their borders significantly closer to it than IOTL.
If you want Byzantine Anatolia to be as little as possible: instead of what if Arslan was more competent, why not, what if there were no crusades. Even though the Byzantines would definitely try to expand, there gains would be balanced by their relatively small manpower pool.