WI: Kilij Arslan is Captured at the Siege of Nicaea in the First Crusade ?

[Sevarics]

IOTL, Kilij Arslan underestimated the Crusaders after defeated the Peasant's Army. As a result, he went to fight the Danishmends in the East, only to have to make an about face and rush back to Nicaea when he got word of the ever growing Crusader forces at the city where his family was. He arrived back shortly after Raymond of Toulouse got to the encampments and made a charge at the tired army in order to try to get into the gates, at which point Bohemond arrived and charged at his flank, forcing him to withdraw.

But, what if Kilij Arslan was captured at this battle instead of withdrawing to fight again ? With Kilij Arslan captured so early into the First Crusade, do the Seljuk forces in Nicaea give in more easily than they did IOTL when Alexios had to transport ships overland to blockade Nicaea's lake access? Once both Kilij and his family are in Crusader/Byzantine hands, what becomes of the rest of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum ? How do the Danishmends react to their enemy being taken by the Crusaders/Byzantines ? Do Crusader/Byzantine relations break down sooner or last longer with such an impressive victory so early into the First Crusade?

 

[Sevarics]

One side effect of Kilij Arslan being captured so early in the First Crusade is that he won't have the chance to pursue a scorched earth policy between Dorylaoin and Iconion like he did in OTL. As a result, the Crusader forces won't have to pillage and ransack their way across Anatolia and will arrive in the Holy Land in at least somewhat better condition than they did. Additionally, Kilij Arslan won't be able to enslave the male greek children between Dorylaoin and Iconion and send them to Persia like he did in OTL.

 

[RedSword12]

As a result, the Crusader forces won't have to pillage and ransack their way across Anatolia and will arrive in the Holy Land in at least somewhat better condition than they did.

They did not have to do all that much pillaging, and where effective scorched earth was applied, there was nothing left to take. A major reason they weren't held up in sieges all the way across Anatolia is that upon their approach the local Christians would typically overthrow the Turkish garrisons, provide the Crusaders food and rest, and send them on their way.

Personally I think that Kilij Arslan's capture leads to Alexios taking a more active role in the campaign to fully exploit the opportunity, and as such relations with the Crusaders quite likely will remain friendly, as he will be in position to quickly provide aid if things go south. If Anatolia can be retaken to a vastly greater extent, he may even eventually agree to lead them personally, as they themselves wanted him to (further casting doubt on the canard that the Latins were just treacherous barbarians who'd been planning on betraying the Romans from day one).

So, I'd say this quite possibly leads to the survival of the Byzantine Empire by allowing them to make vital inroads into the heartlands of Anatolia, setting the Romans and Crusaders up favorably for additional advances down the line. The Crusade of 1101 is in this scenario far more likely to succeed, for example. This by extension also makes the Kingdom of Jerusalem far more likely to survive as well, with a strong, friendly neighbor anchoring its northern flank.

 

[Sevarics]

They did not have to do all that much pillaging, and where effective scorched earth was applied, there was nothing left to take. A major reason they weren't held up in sieges all the way across Anatolia is that upon their approach the local Christians would typically overthrow the Turkish garrisons, provide the Crusaders food and rest, and send them on their way.

Personally I think that Kilij Arslan's capture leads to Alexios taking a more active role in the campaign to fully exploit the opportunity, and as such relations with the Crusaders quite likely will remain friendly, as he will be in position to quickly provide aid if things go south. If Anatolia can be retaken to a vastly greater extent, he may even eventually agree to lead them personally, as they themselves wanted him to (further casting doubt on the canard that the Latins were just treacherous barbarians who'd been planning on betraying the Romans from day one).

So, I'd say this quite possibly leads to the survival of the Byzantine Empire by allowing them to make vital inroads into the heartlands of Anatolia, setting the Romans and Crusaders up favorably for additional advances down the line. The Crusade of 1101 is in this scenario far more likely to succeed, for example. This by extension also makes the Kingdom of Jerusalem far more likely to survive as well, with a strong, friendly neighbor anchoring its northern flank.

If Alexios ends up leading the more cohesive Byzantine-Frankish First Crusade, I assume that both the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and the Duchy of Antioch (and by extension the County of Edessa) never come into being. So what do Bohemond, Baldwin and the Armenians end up doing in this situation ? All three of these groups wanted land for themselves and I don’t see Bohemond becoming the King of Jerusalem.

 

[RedSword12]

If Alexios ends up leading the more cohesive Byzantine-Frankish First Crusade, I assume that both the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and the Duchy of Antioch (and by extension the County of Edessa) never come into being. So what do Bohemond, Baldwin and the Armenians end up doing in this situation ? All three of these groups wanted land for themselves and I don’t see Bohemond becoming the King of Jerusalem.

Bohemund and Baldwin probably either get absorbed into the Byzantine aristocracy (as is theorized that Bohemund was interested in doing at the beginning), or into the Crusader nobility in Palestine. With Alexios exerting more control and being able to offer more support, it's unlikely they'll be able to break off in the long run.

 

[Sevarics]

Bohemund and Baldwin probably either get absorbed into the Byzantine aristocracy (as is theorized that Bohemund was interested in doing at the beginning), or into the Crusader nobility in Palestine. With Alexios exerting more control and being able to offer more support, it's unlikely they'll be able to break off in the long run.

So we potentially end up with Voimoundos Altavilla and Valduinos Voulónis as Byzantine aristocrats ? I know that Bohemond initially wanted to be Domestic of the Anatolikon. I wonder if he ends up getting that role down the line in this scenario.

 

[Sevarics]

Looking at this map of the First Crusades initial battles, I think that we probably still have some sort of battle with the Seljuk remnants after Nicaea at Dorylaeion and then from there they move to either Amorion or Ancyra before heading to Iconion. IOTL the Crusaders were chasing Kilij Arslan and that was why they ended up going toward Konya but taking Ancyra prior to Iconion will make central Anatolia more secure moving forward so if Alexios ends up taking a more active role in leading the Crusaders, I could see Ancyra being the target after Dorylaeion even if it is just Alexios leading the Byzantine forces while the Crusaders head for Iconion before meeting up together on the road to Antioch.