WI: The Crusaders take Aleppo and Damascus during the Second Crusade

[LMLost9]

The Second Crusade was probably the biggest missed opportunity that the crusaders ever had. It was a disaster, launched as a reaction to the fall and destruction of Edessa. Emperor Manuel was not happy about the crusade, even though his ally HRE Conrad was seemingly its most important participant, and the Empire could use the crusade to retake central Anatolia; that's why his support was minor, with some chroniclers accusing him of conspiring against the crusaders; truth is, he did not try to convince Conrad to wait for the French crusaders under Louis VII, and the supplies he provided to the crusaders were not enough. The Germans were destroyed at the Battle of Dorylaeum, after this, their participation would only be minor. The French did a better job, defeating the Turks in two battles, but losing at Mount Cadmus. After this, most of their armies were left behind, and only a few reached Antioch by sea. Raymond of Poitiers, Prince of Antioch tried to convince Louis VII of launching an attack on Aleppo, but he rejected it, because he lacked the men for such an attack; this convinced Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was Raymond's niece, that she should divorce him. The final stage of the crusade saw the landing of 10-12k more men, that were used to siege Damascus along the surviving French and German forces, the siege also failed.

Say, Conrad decides to wait for Louis and Manuel realises how important Anatolia is for the Empire, and gives the crusaders enough supplies. The crusaders decisively defeat the Turks at the Plains of Philomelion and take Iconium in a similar manner to that of Barbarossa during the Third Crusade. They follow the route of the First Crusade and reach Antioch. Manuel garrisons the cities that had fallen to the crusaders and starts to consolidate his position in Central Anatolia.

The Crusaders arrive at Antioch with about 22k men (22k seems like a good estimate after their march in Anatolia, they started with 27k, 20k Germans, mostly infantry; 7k French, mostly cavalry). From Antioch they launch an expedition against Aleppo and its Emir Nur ad-Din, who destroyed Edessa. His brother, Sayf ad-Din, Emir of Mosul, who is in a family feud with Nur ad-Din, uses this opportunity to seize his brother's eastern possessions. A relief force from the ruler of Damascus is defeated. Aleppo falls after a long siege and Nur ad-Din dies. Sayf ad-Din tries to take Aleppo, but is defeated, a treaty is signed; Aleppo is recognised as a Crusader possession, and all of the territory of the County of Edessa, but Azaz is recognised as Sayf ad-Din's possession.

Mu'in ad-Din Unur, ruler of Damascus, Homs and Hama; was Nur ad-Din's ally, during the siege of Aleppo the Crusader forces that arrive by sea, decide to siege Damascus. The Crusaders triumphant from the siege of Aleppo, march to Damascus, that without anyone to reinforce it falls. The fall of Damascus leaves Homs and Hama almost undefended, eventually this cities will fall. As a way to emulate the First Crusade they attack Ascalon as the final target of the Crusade, and it falls.

Basically, the land route to the Holy Land is secured, Manuel now controls Central Anatolia, the Seljuks are extremely weakened; Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Hama and Ascalon fall, practically all of the Levant is in Crusader hands; Eleanor may not divorce Louis VII; without Nur ad-Din, Saladin probably never becomes an important part of history.

- Would this victory mean long term surviving crusader states?
- How would Europe and the Islamic World react to such an impressive victory?
- What would they do with this new conquered territories? New crusader states or new divisions of Jerusalem, maybe?
- Would Eleanor of Aquitaine still divorce a victorious Louis VII? If not, how could this affect the history of England and France?
- Would the fall of Central Anatolia prevent the disasters that the Byzantine Empire suffered after the death of Manuel?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

1. Long-term for the Crusader States it means that the County of Edessa is still there and probably a new one is created in Nur Al-Din's territory and the Crusader States would last much longer than in our timeline as it takes some power to create a new Muslim superpower.
2. Europe will be much more keen on doing another Crusade as they see their victories as the sign that God is on their side,
3. They would create new Crusader States (What does new division of Jerusalem mean?)
4. Eleanor of Aquitaine would probably not divorce Louis VII it is impossible to predict what does this mean for England and France as marriages are unpredictable.
5.With Anatolia the Empire would be much less likely to fall anytime soon as their greatest threat is gone and as resources wasted in Anatolia can be used elsewhere
Also Latins don't start to hate the Greeks as Louis VII blamed his defeat on the Greeks which lead to hate between the two sides and sack of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade.

 

[LMLost9]

1. Long-term for the Crusader States it means that the County of Edessa is still there and probably a new one is created in Nur Al-Din's territory and the Crusader States would last much longer than in our timeline as it takes some power to create a new Muslim superpower.

I think I did not explain myself well, but I meant that the crusaders just give up on Edessa in exchange of Aleppo being recognised as a Crusader possession. Edessa is way too inland, hard to defend and is literally destroyed; so even if they take it, the Emir of Mosul could take it once the crusaders leave.

3. They would create new Crusader States (What does new division of Jerusalem mean?)

I meant like counties and duchies subjected to Jerusalem, but I didn't know how to express it.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

How about trade? Is the Crusaders take Aleppo and Damascus, they will gain access to the Middle Eastern trade routes that lead to the Silk Road and eventually to China, which would massively increase the prosperity of Europe and lead to interesting side effects down the road.

 

[Putnam]

- Would the fall of Central Anatolia prevent the disasters that the Byzantine Empire suffered after the death of Manuel?

It's doubtful that the entirety of the Plateau would be retaken during Manuel's reign, however, the Empire would be better positioned in Anatolia in the long term (sort of, but I'll get to that). Perhaps the Empire would be able to tighten the squeeze on the Sultanate of Rum by capturing a few more forts and certainly weakening the Sultan's army, but that would be about it. The Second Crusade was not there to fight the Turks in Anatolia, but to avenge the destruction of Edessa.

The Battle of Myriokephalon only really happened because the whole campaign was essentially Manuel attempting to make up for the failure of the Second Crusade. With a successful Second Crusade Manuel would not feel compelled to appease the West and indeed some of his other foolish efforts, like the invasion of Egypt, probably wouldn't have happened either.

However, the real problem for the Empire moving forward is Andronikos Komnenos. After the death of Manuel I the Empire was perfectly strong and doing quite well. It was Andronikos that wrecked the dynasty and laid the ground work for the fracturing of the Empire at the provincial level that would lead to the 4th Crusade and beyond.

Eliminate Andronikos and the Empire is basically saved from its historical 13th century fate. And trust me, Andronikos did plenty to justify his execution or exile.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I think I did not explain myself well, but I meant that the crusaders just give up on Edessa in exchange of Aleppo being recognised as a Crusader possession. Edessa is way too inland, hard to defend and is literally destroyed; so even if they take it, the Emir of Mosul could take it once the crusaders leave.
I meant like counties and duchies subjected to Jerusalem, but I didn't know how to express it.

Well the whole point of the Crusade was to retake Edessa do its unlikely they just give up on it.
Edessa is vulnerable but its important to shield the other Crusader States.
Jerusalem's borders don't really need to be changed, the pre-Saladin borders are easily defensible.

How about trade? Is the Crusaders take Aleppo and Damascus, they will gain access to the Middle Eastern trade routes that lead to the Silk Road and eventually to China, which would massively increase the prosperity of Europe and lead to interesting side effects down the road.

It may open a new route to China but it doesn't increase the prosperity of Europe as the Crusader States would want to gain money by taxing merchants and even if the costs were lowered merchants would sell at the highest price possible, it would only benefit the Duchy of Damascus if there is one

 

[LMLost9]

It's doubtful that the entirety of the Plateau would be retaken during Manuel's reign, however, the Empire would be better positioned in Anatolia in the long term (sort of, but I'll get to that). Perhaps the Empire would be able to tighten the squeeze on the Sultanate of Rum by capturing a few more forts and certainly weakening the Sultan's army, but that would be about it. The Second Crusade was not there to fight the Turks in Anatolia, but to avenge the destruction of Edessa.

The Battle of Myriokephalon only really happened because the whole campaign was essentially Manuel attempting to make up for the failure of the Second Crusade. With a successful Second Crusade Manuel would not feel compelled to appease the West and indeed some of his other foolish efforts, like the invasion of Egypt, probably wouldn't have happened either.

However, the real problem for the Empire moving forward is Andronikos Komnenos. After the death of Manuel I the Empire was perfectly strong and doing quite well. It was Andronikos that wrecked the dynasty and laid the ground work for the fracturing of the Empire at the provincial level that would lead to the 4th Crusade and beyond.

Eliminate Andronikos and the Empire is basically saved from its historical 13th century fate. And trust me, Andronikos did plenty to justify his execution or exile.

Manuel would probably be forced to keep fighting the Seljuks even after the crusade is over, to consolidate his gains, and the Danishmendids would probably use this opportunity and attack. The Seljuks are in a extremely weak position, like, their capital has been sacked and they had lost most of their army at Philomelion. I admit that I exaggerated saying that the land route to the Holy Land is secured, but given this conditions, Manuel would probably be able to advance his border to Iconium and Ancyra, maybe even Sinope if he doesn't fear Danishmendids expansion, at least in this war, he may try to push further later.

Andronikos could probably be prevented given this situation, his support came from the hate to the Latins, and the unrest provoked by the economic situation. With a victory in the Second Crusade that results in the Empire regaining parts of Anatolia, and later pushing even further, the hate for the Latins would be reduced, and the unrest provoked by Turkish assaults reduced. Adding that to what you said, no Byzantine expedition for Egypt, the Empire would be in a much better economic situation. So, Andronikos would probably be just another rebel, quickly defeated and never making it to the throne.

 

[LMLost9]

Well the whole point of the Crusade was to retake Edessa do its unlikely they just give up on it.
Edessa is vulnerable but its important to shield the other Crusader States.
Jerusalem's borders don't really need to be changed, the pre-Saladin borders are easily defensible.

Not really unlikely, OTL everyone saw it as a lost cause, and retaking it was not even discussed in the council of Acre, it wouldn't be hard to believe that they just give up on it if the threats seem to great.

You're right that the pre-Saladin borders are defensible, but everyone saw Damascus as the biggest prize they could get in Syria, that's why theu attacked it OTL despite it being almost impossible to take in their situation.

How about trade? Is the Crusaders take Aleppo and Damascus, they will gain access to the Middle Eastern trade routes that lead to the Silk Road and eventually to China, which would massively increase the prosperity of Europe and lead to interesting side effects down the road.

The fall of Damascus and Aleppo would make the Crusader States effectively control the Byzantine and Egyptian access to the silk road, the Empire could probably find its way, or use force against Aleppo and Antioch; but not Egypt, which is decadent thanks to Fatimid rule. The major beneficiaries would be Damascus, that could become even richer, and the Italian republics.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Not really unlikely, OTL everyone saw it as a lost cause, and retaking it was not even discussed in the council of Acre, it wouldn't be hard to believe that they just give up on it if the threats seem to great.

You're right that the pre-Saladin borders are defensible, but everyone saw Damascus as the biggest prize they could get in Syria, that's why they attacked it OTL despite it being almost impossible to take in their situation.


The fall of Damascus and Aleppo would make the Crusader States effectively control the Byzantine and Egyptian access to the silk road, the Empire could probably find its way, or use force against Aleppo and Antioch; but not Egypt, which is decadent thanks to Fatimid rule. The major beneficiaries would be Damascus, that could become even richer, and the Italian republics.

Well its not because the Second Crusade doesn't get ambushed in Anatolia that it surely would be able to take Damascus, keep it and create a new state that would survive the Muslim's attempt at reconquest so I'm not sure if they will be able to take it, the First Crusade was extremely lucky the miracle doesn't need to be repeated

 

[LMLost9]

Well its not because the Second Crusade doesn't get ambushed in Anatolia that it surely would be able to take Damascus, keep it and create a new state that would survive the Muslim's attempt at reconquest so I'm not sure if they will be able to take it, the First Crusade was extremely lucky the miracle doesn't need to be repeated

Like, that's the whole point of setting an AH scenario, I acknowledge that taking Damascus would be difficult. That's why I proposed a situation where the conditions that made the OTL siege of Damascus fail are not there, the Zengid brothers won't be relieving Damascus, because one is dead and the other has signed a peace with the Crusaders; the Crusader numbers are greater, their morale too; they can just wait till this isolated city falls.

I would not equate the miracle that was the First Crusade with this scenario, they have constant supplies from both the Crusader States and the Italian republics, there is no situation nearly as harsh as the siege of Antioch.

 

[Nuraghe]

It's doubtful that the entirety of the Plateau would be retaken during Manuel's reign, however, the Empire would be better positioned in Anatolia in the long term (sort of, but I'll get to that). Perhaps the Empire would be able to tighten the squeeze on the Sultanate of Rum by capturing a few more forts and certainly weakening the Sultan's army, but that would be about it. The Second Crusade was not there to fight the Turks in Anatolia, but to avenge the destruction of Edessa.

The Battle of Myriokephalon only really happened because the whole campaign was essentially Manuel attempting to make up for the failure of the Second Crusade. With a successful Second Crusade Manuel would not feel compelled to appease the West and indeed some of his other foolish efforts, like the invasion of Egypt, probably wouldn't have happened either.

However, the real problem for the Empire moving forward is Andronikos Komnenos. After the death of Manuel I the Empire was perfectly strong and doing quite well. It was Andronikos that wrecked the dynasty and laid the ground work for the fracturing of the Empire at the provincial level that would lead to the 4th Crusade and beyond.

Eliminate Andronikos and the Empire is basically saved from its historical 13th century fate. And trust me, Andronikos did plenty to justify his execution or exile.

I quite agree with your reasoning, I would just like to add a few more details, the first concerns Manuel's foreign policy, which after the failure of the 2nd crusade in Otl, was based on making Byzantium the main guardian / defender of Outremer ( but at the same time to balance and control the more aggressive fringes within it, which is why his participation in the two campaigns in Egypt was purely to carry out his role as senior partner and simultaneously keep an eye on the aspirations of Jerusalem ) with a more 2nd Crusade successful, Manuel should not worry too much about what happens in the East because Outremer has been momentarily strengthened ( as well as Byzantium, which would take advantage of this to take back Iconium from the sultanate, so as to strengthen its position against it and also have a more stable control on the land connection route between Byzantium, Armenian Cilicia and Outremer ) therefore after having re-established the vassalage relationship with the Seljuks ( the Anatolian plateau was no longer so important for the Byzantines, given that they already held the most profitable and strategically important regions , moreover the Sultanate of Rum was a fairly quiet vassal compared to the other Turkish potentates ) Manuel will finally be able to turn his attention to the Balkans in order to continue the integration and assimilation of Bulgaria and Serbia into the Empire, and also focus more attention on his diplomatic policy towards the Latin West : especially towards the Papacy and the alliance with the Hohenstaufen in an anti-Altavilla function ( he had become a close friend of Conrad in Otl, and there was talk of a possible marriage between the two dynasties ), so if Andronicus had not broken the mechanism of stable succession, or Manuel had lived just long enough to allow Alexios to be considered a full-fledged adult (in fact it is thought that Manuel let himself go after his "defeat" to Myriokephalon), we would have found ourselves with an eastern Rome that was considerably more stable than in Otl and with important ties with Latin Europe ( given that Alexios II was betrothed to the princess of France )