Stephen of Blois Doesn't Leave the Crusade

[DanMcCollum]

So, Count Stephen-Henry of Blois (father of the future would-be king of England) became a bit of the redheaded stepchild of the First Crusade. Although a major booster of the crusade, who wrote long and positive letters back home to his wife about the progress of the venture, and military commander who was in charge of the Siege of Nicaea, he would eventually return home with his tail between his legs (this may be a BIT unfair, admittingly).

Stephen abandoned the Crusade during the Siege of Antioch when news arrived of a major relief force converging on the city. Shortly after abandoning his compatriots, the Crusaders won a spectacular victory and proceeded on their way to Jerusalem - his early withdraw denied him any of the glory (and other rewards) that were doled out to the leaders of the crusade. Even worse, after returning home, his wife Adela - possibly confused at seeing him so soon after receiving his letters about how spectacular the venture was going - pressured him to return. Stephen took part in the brief 1101 mini-crusade along with others who had fled early and was killed in the Second Battle of Ramla.

Perhaps even worse than all of this (and, lets face it, its a comedy of errors already), Stephen's fleeing the battlefield had major political ramifications for the Crusaders. While returning home through Anatolia he ran into Byzantine forces and told them horror stories of the siege of Antioch and the hopelessness of the fight. This got back to Emperor Alexis and scholars believe it may have been what convinced the Emperor that the Crusade was a hopeless venture and to scale back his involvement (and, seeing as how the Emperor was more concerned with gains in Anatolia, and not Jerusalem in the first place, it may not have taken him much to come to this decision). Alexis' perceived betrayal of the Crusaders, in turn, lead to the Crusader states being declared independent principalities that did no homage to the Emperor in Constantinople. Doh!

So: What-If Stephen of Blois shows a bit more fortitude and sticks it out through the Siege of Antioch and the Crusader victory? Without him turning tail, and spreading tales of doom, Alexis probably continues to show more support for the Crusaders by sending them supplies and giving naval assistance. This may be enough to make sure the Bohemond follows through on his agreement to give homage to the Emperor and is secured in Antioch as an imperial vassal (which was the original plan).

Furthermore, as a prominent leader and commander of one of the biggest contingents of the Crusader forces, would Stephen have a chance to gain a major title for himself? He might even end up as a contender for the title of King of Jerusalem.

Thoughts?

 

[Grammar Kaiser]

Are you making a TL out of this? I personally don't know much about this, so no thoughts on my part. Cool idea though.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Are you making a TL out of this? I personally don't know much about this, so no thoughts on my part. Cool idea though.

Not currently. I'm neck deep in my Amalingian Empire timeline which deals with a Gothic-Roman Empire and I'm expecting that I will be still working on it fore a while longer yet. But I was reading "God's War" by " by Christopher Tyerman and this jumped out as such an interesting point of divergence to discuss. I'm not particularly well read in the Crusades yet, but its a topic that recently struck my interest and I figured to read into it. Possibly, if I feel well enough informed on the topic, I might turn my attention towards a timeline with this POD.

But, until then, there are many members of this board who are much better versed in the Crusades than myself and I was wondering their thoughts on this topic.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

This very PoD got me thinking some time ago about how the First Crusade might have been a more unambiguous success for the Byzantines. The "Romans" getting Antioch, combined with a failed Siege of Jerusalem, would certainly do that.

 

[Carp]

If Alexios did really arrive just in the nick of time to help the Crusaders, as he allegedly was about to do when Stephen bravely ran away, it might do something for Crusader-Byzantine relations. In the end, however, I don't think a truly friendly relationship was possible. Alexios had assisted the Crusaders once before in a siege, at Nicaea, but had angered the Crusaders by secretly negotiating the city's surrender to himself, thus depriving the Crusaders of a real victory and a chance at plunder. A similar resolution to the siege at Antioch is plausible, but even if the united army takes the city by storm, Alexios is going to want it for himself, and that's naturally going to put off the various Crusaders leaders who by now are probably wondering if Alexios is planning to take everything they fight for. In the end, Stephen staying with the army might strengthen Alexios' hand by delivering Antioch to him (depending on whether Bohemond or any of the others dispute the emperor's claim), but I rather doubt that the KoJ is going to become a Byzantine vassal regardless of what happens at Antioch. Remember, the Crusaders took Jerusalem from the Fatimids, who by then were friendly to the Byzantines. I don't think Alexios is going to help them do that when all he really wants is some help against the Turks.

If Antioch does become Byzantine again, that also means that the County of Edessa, which predated the fall of Antioch, will not border any other Crusader state, but rather have only Cilicia and the Empire as its Christian neighbors. I imagine that this would over the long term substantially weaken the county (no ally in Antioch) unless the Byzantines make some effort to support them. If Alexios cares enough about Edessa to try, I expect the county would become a Byzantine dependency, although probably not in the early years under Baldwin I (who seems to have done pretty well on his own).

I don't really remember enough about the relation of Stephen of Blois to the other crusader leaders to say whether he stood any chance of being named king or not, but by the size of his contingent alone he was certainly a major player. You also have to consider that if Alexios takes Antioch, Bohemond may also be in the running, as we can only assume that he would have gone south into Palestine with everyone else had he not managed to snag himself a principality at Antioch.

 

[Riain]

Given where big Al was when he met Stephen and co and the timing of the events of the seige big Al wouldn't have made it to directly intervene. However I imagine news that he and his powerful army was on its way would arrive days sooner and maybe early enough to influence events.

The biggest impact would be the inability to claim Al was remiss by turning back after hearing Stephens news.

 

[DanMcCollum]

If Alexios did really arrive just in the nick of time to help the Crusaders, as he allegedly was about to do when Stephen bravely ran away, it might do something for Crusader-Byzantine relations. In the end, however, I don't think a truly friendly relationship was possible. Alexios had assisted the Crusaders once before in a siege, at Nicaea, but had angered the Crusaders by secretly negotiating the city's surrender to himself, thus depriving the Crusaders of a real victory and a chance at plunder. A similar resolution to the siege at Antioch is plausible, but even if the united army takes the city by storm, Alexios is going to want it for himself, and that's naturally going to put off the various Crusaders leaders who by now are probably wondering if Alexios is planning to take everything they fight for. In the end, Stephen staying with the army might strengthen Alexios' hand by delivering Antioch to him (depending on whether Bohemond or any of the others dispute the emperor's claim), but I rather doubt that the KoJ is going to become a Byzantine vassal regardless of what happens at Antioch. Remember, the Crusaders took Jerusalem from the Fatimids, who by then were friendly to the Byzantines. I don't think Alexios is going to help them do that when all he really wants is some help against the Turks.

If Antioch does become Byzantine again, that also means that the County of Edessa, which predated the fall of Antioch, will not border any other Crusader state, but rather have only Cilicia and the Empire as its Christian neighbors. I imagine that this would over the long term substantially weaken the county (no ally in Antioch) unless the Byzantines make some effort to support them. If Alexios cares enough about Edessa to try, I expect the county would become a Byzantine dependency, although probably not in the early years under Baldwin I (who seems to have done pretty well on his own).

I don't really remember enough about the relation of Stephen of Blois to the other crusader leaders to say whether he stood any chance of being named king or not, but by the size of his contingent alone he was certainly a major player. You also have to consider that if Alexios takes Antioch, Bohemond may also be in the running, as we can only assume that he would have gone south into Palestine with everyone else had he not managed to snag himself a principality at Antioch.

Well, the original agreement between Alexios and Bohemund was for the later to take control of Antioch as a Byzantine vassal. I suspect that a Byzantine force helping to relieve the Crusaders in that city wouldn't have completely mitigated Bohemund's distrust of the Emperor, for the Emperor's of him - but it would likely be enough to convince the Norman that it was in his best interest to follow the agreement. Antioch is ruled by Bohemund and Norman knights but remains, for the time being, a 'loyal' vassal of the Empire.

Now, Alexios fully understood the Crusader's desire to take Jerusalem, but also knew that the conquest would go against their ow allies. I suspect that, following the conquest of Antioch, they would wish their earnest allies the best of luck and play the plausible deniability game. Once a Kingdom of Jerusalem was established, the Byzantines would likely recognize the new Kingdom and establish friendly relations, but make no efforts to push their control over the land either. As to whether Stephen would be king of Jerusalem, I sadly don't know either.

But here we have Antioch under a Norman dynasty that is subservient to the Byzantine crown for the time being. This might be enough to allow the Byzantines to make some very real gains in Anatolia (or, for that matter, a semi-independent Antioch to make some gains in Armenia and Anatolia all under the auspice of the Byzantine crown, although doing so for its own purposes), while giving Jerusalem a stable northern border with a friendly Christian power.

 

[Carp]

Well, the original agreement between Alexios and Bohemund was for the later to take control of Antioch as a Byzantine vassal. I suspect that a Byzantine force helping to relieve the Crusaders in that city wouldn't have completely mitigated Bohemund's distrust of the Emperor, for the Emperor's of him - but it would likely be enough to convince the Norman that it was in his best interest to follow the agreement. Antioch is ruled by Bohemund and Norman knights but remains, for the time being, a 'loyal' vassal of the Empire.

That's possible, but very debatable. In the first place, the claim that Bohemond had been promised Antioch is, as far as I'm aware, made only in the Gesta Francorum, which is generally pro-Bohemond, and some scholars have argued that particular passage to be a later interpolation. Even if it's legit, the specific passage claims he was promised "land in extent from Antioch" which seems to mean territory in the region, not the city itself.

And consider the counter-indications. Firstly, Anna Komnena says nothing about a promise of Antioch to Bohemond; instead she says that Bohemond was angling to be made Domestic of the East (who could very well have been based out of Antioch), but that Alexios basically strung him along, neither completely rejecting nor explicitly accepting his wishes. Later, when discussing the Siege of Antioch, Anna claims that Bohemond feared that by the terms of his oath he would be required to hand over Antioch once it was captured, and thus conspired against Tatikios, the Byzantine commander, in order to make sure there were no Byzantine forces on hand to force him to comply with his agreement. That narrative is clearly at odds with the idea that Bohemond had been promised Antioch by Alexios.

But we don't have to take Anna's word as gospel to think the "grant" to Bohemond might be suspect. Even in the Gesta's account, Bohemond behaved very strangely for a man promised Antioch. He didn't take true possession of it immediately - in fact, even thought Alexios abandoned them in the siege, the Crusaders first sent Hugh of Vermandois to the emperor to demand that he show up and take possession of Antioch, ask his help against Jerusalem, and warn that they would find him in breach of his agreement if he didn't show up. In the meantime, Bohemond was politicking to be recognized as lord of Antioch and was courting the Genoese to assist him, promising them concessions. That seems like odd behavior if he was indeed promised Antioch by Alexios - why are the Crusaders writing to the emperor asking him to show up and take his city if the man he promised the city to is already here? Why is Bohemond trying to finagle his way into the lordship of Antioch and soliciting outside aid to do so rather than just appealing to the Emperor, if he expects to be given Antioch by the Emperor? Why did Raymond of Tolouse oppose Bohemond's claim, on the basis that it would be a breach of the agreement with Alexios, if the agreement with Alexios stipulated that Bohemond would take the city? Even if the grant from Alexios was a secret one, surely then would have been a good time to make it public?

I suspect that Bohemond, if he was promised anything, was promised only land in the vicinity of Antioch and not the city itself, and that if Alexios was on the scene with an army he would try to install his own man in Antioch just like he did at Nicaea. I doubt he would have left Bohemond - a man who, in his younger days, had invaded the empire alongside his father - with such an important city as Antioch. Consider that, in the timeline you've proposed, Alexios is basically the savior of the Crusade - he has swooped in with an army at the moment of the Crusaders' most dire need and rescued them all from certain demise (for nobody could have predicted their OTL miraculous deliverance). Under such conditions I believe it highly unlikely that Bohemond would have been given the city, especially since a number of other leaders of the Crusade opposed him taking control of Antioch. Alexios has no reason to give it to him and every reason not to. After all, what's Bohemond going to do, take his ball and go home, which would mean abandoning his holy mission in a huff because he didn't get the city he wanted? Rebel against Alexios, knowing that most of the Crusaders have absolutely no interest in doing that, and really want the emperor's support for taking Jerusalem? If Alexios saves the day at Antioch, Bohemond's got nothing, and he knows it. Maybe he ends up with the territory "in extent from Antioch" that the Gesta claimed he was promised, but he's certainly not getting more.

Now, Alexios fully understood the Crusader's desire to take Jerusalem, but also knew that the conquest would go against their ow allies. I suspect that, following the conquest of Antioch, they would wish their earnest allies the best of luck and play the plausible deniability game. Once a Kingdom of Jerusalem was established, the Byzantines would likely recognize the new Kingdom and establish friendly relations, but make no efforts to push their control over the land either.

If he saves the day at Antioch he's got a fair amount of leeway. They can't say he didn't help - he saved their bacon. I think you're right that he'd sit the final siege out, or at most furnish them with some supplies. After all, at this point the record of the Crusaders is not all that good. They did alright against the Turks in Anatolia, but the Siege of Antioch ITTL is seen as a near-failure that avoided total disaster only because of Alexios coming at the last minute. There's no reason to think that they'll do any better against the Fatimids. Jerusalem doesn't really have value to Alexios; his resources are better spent in Anatolia.

 

[DanMcCollum]

That's possible, but very debatable. In the first place, the claim that Bohemond had been promised Antioch is, as far as I'm aware, made only in the Gesta Francorum, which is generally pro-Bohemond, and some scholars have argued that particular passage to be a later interpolation. Even if it's legit, the specific passage claims he was promised "land in extent from Antioch" which seems to mean territory in the region, not the city itself.

And consider the counter-indications. Firstly, Anna Komnena says nothing about a promise of Antioch to Bohemond; instead she says that Bohemond was angling to be made Domestic of the East (who could very well have been based out of Antioch), but that Alexios basically strung him along, neither completely rejecting nor explicitly accepting his wishes. Later, when discussing the Siege of Antioch, Anna claims that Bohemond feared that by the terms of his oath he would be required to hand over Antioch once it was captured, and thus conspired against Tatikios, the Byzantine commander, in order to make sure there were no Byzantine forces on hand to force him to comply with his agreement. That narrative is clearly at odds with the idea that Bohemond had been promised Antioch by Alexios.

But we don't have to take Anna's word as gospel to think the "grant" to Bohemond might be suspect. Even in the Gesta's account, Bohemond behaved very strangely for a man promised Antioch. He didn't take true possession of it immediately - in fact, even thought Alexios abandoned them in the siege, the Crusaders first sent Hugh of Vermandois to the emperor to demand that he show up and take possession of Antioch, ask his help against Jerusalem, and warn that they would find him in breach of his agreement if he didn't show up. In the meantime, Bohemond was politicking to be recognized as lord of Antioch and was courting the Genoese to assist him, promising them concessions. That seems like odd behavior if he was indeed promised Antioch by Alexios - why are the Crusaders writing to the emperor asking him to show up and take his city if the man he promised the city to is already here? Why is Bohemond trying to finagle his way into the lordship of Antioch and soliciting outside aid to do so rather than just appealing to the Emperor, if he expects to be given Antioch by the Emperor? Why did Raymond of Tolouse oppose Bohemond's claim, on the basis that it would be a breach of the agreement with Alexios, if the agreement with Alexios stipulated that Bohemond would take the city? Even if the grant from Alexios was a secret one, surely then would have been a good time to make it public?

I suspect that Bohemond, if he was promised anything, was promised only land in the vicinity of Antioch and not the city itself, and that if Alexios was on the scene with an army he would try to install his own man in Antioch just like he did at Nicaea. I doubt he would have left Bohemond - a man who, in his younger days, had invaded the empire alongside his father - with such an important city as Antioch. Consider that, in the timeline you've proposed, Alexios is basically the savior of the Crusade - he has swooped in with an army at the moment of the Crusaders' most dire need and rescued them all from certain demise (for nobody could have predicted their OTL miraculous deliverance). Under such conditions I believe it highly unlikely that Bohemond would have been given the city, especially since a number of other leaders of the Crusade opposed him taking control of Antioch. Alexios has no reason to give it to him and every reason not to. After all, what's Bohemond going to do, take his ball and go home, which would mean abandoning his holy mission in a huff because he didn't get the city he wanted? Rebel against Alexios, knowing that most of the Crusaders have absolutely no interest in doing that, and really want the emperor's support for taking Jerusalem? If Alexios saves the day at Antioch, Bohemond's got nothing, and he knows it. Maybe he ends up with the territory "in extent from Antioch" that the Gesta claimed he was promised, but he's certainly not getting more.

Hmmmm, I had been under the impression that Bohemond had been promised Antioch, but may have misread the history there (not surprising as I'm only beginning to really look into the Crusades). Very good thoughts all in all. So we have the Byzantines in control of Antioch and in a better position to push into the Turkish-held parts of Anatolia. We also have a Kingdom of Jerusalem (although we haven't established who the likely King would be yet). How does everyone think this would develop?

 

[Riain]

The biggest problems with outremer were interrelated : the inability to transit anatolia without powerful and skillful army/lack of Frankish settlers to create a bigger class of poulains. Having Al get to Antioch and sort Bohemond out aren't going to fix either of these things.

 

[Earl Marshal]

At the very least relations between the Byzantines and the Crusaders should be slightly better as Alexios did make an effort to save them in their moment of greatest need. It should also help relations between the Byzantines and the Latins some what since the Crusaders won't be abandoned like OTL which could potentially result in better cooperation between the two in the future.

The Byzantines gaining possession of Antioch in 1098 will also save Alexios, John, and Manuel, or whoever succeeds Alexios, a lot of aggravation dealing with the Principality of Antioch that can instead be directed towards the reconquest of Anatolia. Antioch at the time was a city with tremendous religious and commercial value which will certainly benefit the Empire.

Stephen is likely to gain some sort of county or duchy in the Kingdom, and he could honestly be in contention for being King due to his prominence in the Crusade before his departure. Bohemond is also going to find lands for himself in the Holy Land and without Antioch he will definitely be a candidate for King. Bohemond will also likely continue his hostility towards the Empire although probably in a more limited fashion than OTL due to his increased distance and the better relations with the Byzantines.

 

[Carp]

How things proceed after Antioch depends in part on how exactly Kerbogha is run off. It's not really clear how he lost or what happened to him IOTL, which complicates matters. If, upon the arrival of Alexios and a sizable Byzantine army, Kerbogha simply backs off and manages to preserve his authority in Mosul, it's quite possible he'll remain a danger for some time to come. If he's defeated or his army dissolves as it apparently did IOTL, Alexios and the Crusaders have a fairly free hand in Syria for the time being.

One thing about this scenario is that it substantially speeds up the timeline for the Crusaders. After Antioch's fall, the army spent nearly six months faffing about in Syria for two reasons: First, they were still terribly low on supplies and needed to raid their Muslim neighbors for food, and second (and more importantly), they could not agree on who should take Antioch. To buy time they went so far as to write the Pope asking him to take control (in person!) of Antioch, or at least send a legate to figure things out. In this scenario, neither of these things are an issue - the Crusaders are presumably resupplied by the Byzantines, and there's no question of who gets Antioch because it goes to Alexios. In the summer of 1098, then, there's really nothing stopping the Crusaders from going straight south as soon as they've rested up from their ordeal.

Jerusalem didn't fall to the Fatimids until after Antioch. The Fatimids, like the Byzantines, were hoping to use the Crusade to regain territory lost to the Turks, and invaded Palestine in response to the failure of the Turks at Antioch. Al-Afdal only besieged Jerusalem in July, the month after Antioch's fall. I still don't think the Crusaders can get there first - even without the six months wasted after Antioch, it took them nearly as long to reach Jerusalem (although that's probably shorter too if Raymond doesn't waste time in his failed siege of Arqa, which he may have only insisted upon because he wanted Tripoli so he could be a prince like Bohemond, who ITTL is not a prince of anything). So the Fatimids presumably still get Jerusalem, but they have very little time to prepare for the Franks. They didn't complete their conquest of Palestine until Autumn, and since they won Jerusalem in part by bombardment they had to spend some time repairing the walls of the city. A greatly accelerated Crusader schedule means the Fatimids get hit right after taking the territory for themselves, possibly before the walls of Jerusalem are even fully repaired, possibly before the conquest is even really complete, possibly before Iftikhar gets to poison the local wells in anticipation of their arrival. Assuming the Crusaders can still best Al-Afdal in a field battle as they did at Ascalon, their chances of establishing themselves in Palestine are probably a bit better overall, even if Alexios doesn't help them directly. If he's giving them aid "under the table," their chances only get better.

Depending on Alexios' own interests in the east, I can see some attempt being made on Aleppo. Ridwan was isolated and weak; his vassal Omar of Azaz went running off to the Crusaders for help gaining his independence soon after Antioch's fall. Taking Aleppo has a variety of salutary effects for the Christians - it gives Alexios a buffer between Antioch and the Muslims, it makes Edessa and the northern KoJ less vulnerable, and it threatens the link between Mosul and Damascus, the path by which the Zengids would eventually rise to rule Syria and lay the groundwork for the fall of the KoJ. If Aleppo is taken, the position of Damascus seems like it would be much more tenuous. If Bohemond was indeed promised land beyond Antioch, Aleppo might be a good place for Alexios to try and install him, thus at least guaranteeing some Norman support for the venture (although I doubt the rest of the Crusaders would be all that interested - they want to go south, not east).

This timeline is probably less favorable to the Armenian princes, who IOTL often made common cause with Frankish Antioch against the Byzantines and Turks. ITTL, presumably, Armenian Cilicia is bordered only by the Byzantines and the Turks, which I presume would make the chances of them sliding into Byzantine vassalage significantly higher. Conversely, it's probably a more favorable timeline to the Cypriots, who without a hostile Latin power in Antioch slavering greedily over their island probably have very little to worry about.

As for who becomes king, I think Raymond of Toulouse stands a pretty good chance to win it. He was always a favorite, but his popularity took a dive as a result of the long delay after Antioch (which was largely due to his bickering with Bohemond), his failed siege of Arqa, and the failed trial by fire of Peter Bartholomew to prove the authenticity of the Holy Lance, which Raymond had closely attached himself to. ITTL it's plausible that none of these things happen, which puts Raymond in a good position provided he doesn't screw it all up in some other way. As for whether Stephen of Blois could have given him a serious run for his money for the kingship, well, I just don't know. I'm certain he'll end up as some sort of count, at least, assuming he wants to stay on in the kingdom.

 

[Bee]

I don't think Stephen was looking to become a ruler in the East. Most of the Crusaders who were major magnates in the West (Baldwin of Flanders, Robert of Normandy, Eustace III of Boulogne) went home. Raymond of Toulouse did stay, but he had made it known ahead of the crusade that he intended to remain.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

If the only Crusader state were the Kingdom of Jerusalem, with the Byzantines firmly in control of lands to the north and possibly east -- what does this mean for the prospects of future crusades?

 

[cmakk1012]

ITTL it seems likely there's a Crusade for Damascus, as it's an important city psychologically, and one for Egypt, but it's more likely the latter would fail. If the northern Crusader states are more in the Byzantine sphere, the KoJ either follows suit or tries to chart its own course and gets crushed by Egypt or the Turks eventually.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

There is a lot above (which since I'm at work I haven't read all of it, so forgive me if I'm retreading), but I tend to think that based on the idea Alexios wouldn't be reneging on his part of the deal, and thus the Crusaders would be in a bad place to renege on their side, I think this could almost make the First Crusade be seen as one of the Great Christian Endeavours - and a successful one to boot, with each of the Crusader leaders becoming a Dux in the Levant alongside some Roman commanders, with the Crusaders further south, and a Themata Hagioi Topoi (Army of the Holy Places) based in Antioch as the main military force in the region, and the Crusaders expected operate in a manner like the slightly older themes. (Whether it is like that in practice is a different story).

With Alexios right behind them in terms of a Roman Army, I can't see them feeling reckless enough to try and fight the Romans for any of the cities, but more likely simply threaten to go home if they aren't given some of them - Alexios knows for sure that he hasn't got a great chance of holding all this territory without their help, and they know this, and know it is more true the further south they go. This is where I think ambitious lords like Bohemond can capitalise. Rather than the Emperor using the Hagioi Topoi to enforce his rule, have his daughters favourite Norman be an enforcer, or Despotes of the Latins. It wouldn't happen immediately, but given a few incidents I think it might do, simply to allow Alexios to focus on Anatolia proper.

I'm optimistic that it would be a stable relationship, with the Crusader Dux becoming Romanised over the generations, but being very unruly in the early days, with Egypt on their doorstep, likely to be invaded under an alt-John (or more likely IMO), and alt-Manuel - I say that an alt-Manuel is more likely to do this because it is 1) 3rd generation crusaders now, and 2) John seemed more sensible. Letting the crusaders come and settle, and generally lead to having more troops in the region to call on (and let it recover), seems more his speed to me - whilst he focuses on Anatolian and if he does well, Caucasian expansion. After that, you can have someone like Manuel be more of a wildcard, and either directly invade himself, or invite Crusaders to come along for the ride (the success of that invitation basically relying on how the Latins have said it is like under Roman rule).

TL;DR - I think the PoD might make the 1st Crusade more or less the best case scenario. A Roman n.levant and Latin s.levant under Roman protection/authority.

 

[Carp]

Whatever else they were, most of the Crusader "princes" were sticklers about oaths. Case in point, the feud between Bohemond and Raymond about Antioch, in which pretty much all the other crusader leaders went to rather extreme lengths to avoid breaking their vows, including inviting the Pope to come arbitrate, sending Hugh to Alexios to give him one more chance to take "his" city, and refraining from supporting Bohemond's claim. Even after the "betrayal" of Alexios at both Nicaea and Antioch, they were still reluctant to make a breach with him and renege on their promises.

The Crusaders had promised to deliver all former Byzantine territories "in Asia" that they captured, but it seems very unlikely that this meant anything south of Antioch. Alexios surely meant all that had been lost in Asia Minor (and Antioch itself, which he had lost during his own reign), not everything that had been lost in the days of Heraclius more than 400 years previously. As such, Alexios would have no claim over them past Antioch, and they would feel no obligation to him other than (at most) the congenial relation of allies. The main leaders who intended to stay, like Godfrey, Raymond, and Bohemond, very clearly wanted to be independent princes; Raymond played the part of Byzantine loyalist for a time, but only because he was playing the foil to Bohemond. They clearly recognized the Pope, not Alexios, as the nominal leader of the "pilgrimage." As for Alexios, he doesn't really have the ability to make the Latins into vassals - remember, most of Asia Minor is still lost, Genoa and Venice are more powerful in the east than the Roman navy, and historically Alexios had a difficult enough time exerting his authority over Antioch and Cilicia, states much closer at hand.

If the Latins give him Antioch and establish themselves in the Levant, as far as Alexios is concerned, the mission is a success. It's not a perfect success - undoubtedly he would have preferred his "mercenaries" to stick around in Asia Minor so he could take back more than just Nicaea - but he's recovered Nicaea and Antioch, allowed friendly buffer states to be formed in Syria, and enhanced his prestige at home by not only gaining victories but being able to boast of his participation in the liberation of Jerusalem (regardless of how much effort he actually expends on that). I suspect he neither wants nor needs a larger role in Jerusalem once it's in Frankish hands, and I have real difficulty seeing any kind of meaningful "Romanization" of the Crusader States (aside, perhaps, from Edessa or other Syrian statelets which might be more dependent on the Byzantines due to their possession of Antioch).

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Whatever else they were, most of the Crusader "princes" were stickers about oaths. Case in point, the feud between Bohemond and Raymond about Antioch, in which pretty much all the other crusader leaders went to rather extreme lengths to avoid breaking their vows, including inviting the Pope to come arbitrate, sending Hugh to Alexios to give him one more chance to take "his" city, and refraining from supporting Bohemond's claim. Even after the "betrayal" of Alexios at both Nicaea and Antioch, they were still reluctant to make a breach with him and renege on their promises.

The Crusaders had promised to deliver all former Byzantine territories "in Asia" that they captured, but it seems very unlikely that this meant anything south of Antioch. Alexios surely meant all that had been lost in Asia Minor (and Antioch itself, which he had lost during his own reign), not everything that had been lost in the days of Belisarius more than 400 years previously. As such, Alexios would have no claim over them past Antioch, and they would feel no obligation to him other than (at most) the congenial relation of allies. The main leaders who intended to stay, like Godfrey, Raymond, and Bohemond, very clearly wanted to be independent princes; Raymond played the part of Byzantine loyalist for a time, but only because he was playing the foil to Bohemond. They clearly recognized the Pope, not Alexios, as the nominal leader of the "pilgrimage." As for Alexios, he doesn't really have the ability to make the Latins into vassals - remember, most of Asia Minor is still lost, Genoa and Venice are more powerful in the east than the Roman navy, and historically Alexios had a difficult enough time exerting his authority over Antioch and Cilicia, states much closer at hand.

If the Latins give him Antioch and establish themselves in the Levant, as far as Alexios is concerned, the mission is a success. It's not a perfect success - undoubtedly he would have preferred his "mercenaries" to stick around in Asia Minor so he could take back more than just Nicaea - but he's recovered Nicaea and Antioch, allowed friendly buffer states to be formed in Syria, and enhanced his prestige at home by not only gaining victories but being able to boast of his participation in the liberation of Jerusalem (regardless of how much effort he actually expends on that). I suspect he neither wants nor needs a larger role in Jerusalem once it's in Frankish hands, and I have real difficulty seeing any kind of meaningful "Romanization" of the Crusader States (aside, perhaps, from Edessa or other Syrian statelets which might be more dependent on the Byzantines due to their possession of Antioch).

This is sort of what I meant (more or less) with the idea of on paper and in practice before. Alexios has the advantage of having an army loyal to him at his back, whilst the Crusaders are allies, and still isolated in the east between the Romans, their rival Crusaders, and the Muslim world. Their position isn't that strong, certainly not as strong as Alexios'.

Plus, the Crusaders did tend to agree to make peace with local rulers for supplies rather than fight. This suggests less interest in taking territory compared to getting to Jerusalem. Meanwhile Alexios is there, with an army - and doesn't have to agree to the peace, letting the Crusaders take their supplies and move on, and then lay siege to towns and cities that are now lacking in supplies - all the while keeping the Crusaders on side with more supplies on top. The Crusaders willingness to just move on to the end goal serves Alexios quite well in his own campaign to take control of the region, even if it is mostly small towns and hinterlands. He has Crusader oaths, and his continued backing in supplies, and rearguard security, largely protecting him from any Crusader attempts to seize his newly captured territories. Losing a few large cities and towns that are effectively isolated within his territory isn't the worst loss.

At which point, unless the Crusaders are forcing towns and villages they walk past to swear to them rather than just give up supplies, Alexios' has them in a perfectly affable bind. Once the Crusaders have done Crusading for Jerusalem, and Alexios has swept up the small towns and hinterlands behind them, the whole "Hang on, where does my city end and Alexios' territory begin" argument happens - at which point Alexios' would (I expect) have the general goodwill of the Crusaders themselves, regardless of the leadership. This is a good position in which to offer "This border and independence", at which point suddenly most of them are isolated city-states reliant on the Roman Empire economically, or "Dux of [Your City] and [All This Land]" that sets them up quite happily.

Then there is the general disunity of the Crusaders. All it takes for Alexios to get traction is for one of the main leaders to accept the deal, and then the others would likely scramble as to not miss out.

Quite literally, their zealotry, disunity and impatience hands most of the territory to Alexios, unless the Crusaders slow down and start seizing the countryside rather than just gathering supplies. If we're honest here, this isn't Crusader Kings where suing for peace for a barony gives you a castle and its land, its the real world where if you haven't taken the town, you better be willing to trade/fight to get it.

Plus, excluding Raymond. Whilst they only agreed to hand over Turk land, they DID swear fealty. At which point Alexios can call on that oath to be like "Oi, buddy, you're my vassal remember?" - which as people who took their oaths seriously, gives Alexios' more leverage.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So what does this do, over the course of the next century or so, for Byzantine standing in Western Christiandom, and vice versa?

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

So what does this do, over the course of the next century or so, for Byzantine standing in Western Christiandom, and vice versa?

I think it depends on what happens AFTER the First Crusade. If the Latins are accepted, or even honoured, then I imagine the Romans might suddenly get much more popular. Serving Constantinople means land, honor, and if during a crusade, the forgiveness of sins - but it is what happens when the dust settles that matters for the long term. This is where Alexios is going to have to figure out what he can compromise on. A Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem but an Orthodox one in Antioch? Or are we looking at two Patriarchs in Jerusalem? Is the Levant going to be safe? Jerusalem always suffered from a lack of reliable soldiers - but this scenario has it backed by the Roman Empire, as it IS the Empire.

Taxation, political influence, land, etc - I mean, what were the relative tax rates for Frankish Kingdoms vs the Romans? If the Romans require more tax, that might be a bit of a downer, but if it is less, it might raise some questions for younger nobles as to whether they should simply move to the East with a couple hundred men in tow, and swear to the Roman Emperor, grab some land in Anatolia. - and if that is the behaviour of lesser lords, what happens if they are reckless and flagrantly ignore treaties? (I'm looking at you Raynald of Chatillon) - I mean, I could fully expect a blinding and castration for something like that, which would also be a downer.

As someone whose done the whole 'Come from the West, settle in the East' shtick, it all comes down to the perspective sent home in letters, and considering we are talking about Crusaders, who did show themselves not to be the most well behaved group, I expect that the punishments will be highlighted, and the misbehavior sidelined.

But overall, I think you'd still see that reputation of the Empire as a "Land of Opportunity". As to the result over a century? I think you'll see any of those who've heard from the First Crusade come over with some men - not nearly as many, but a fair number, to help Alexios and later alt-John in Anatolia. Then a Second Crusade where an alt-Manuel asks the Pope for more of the pious to help in Egypt, and if that is successful, a Third Crusade, where the Emperor completely goes around the Pope, and sends letters to the cities of Europe (to both sideline the Pope, and take advantage of the whole Land of Opportunity thing) - aimed at either Mesopotamia, or North Africa.