Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

The First Crusade, an Alternate History

The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 3:08:44 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
What do you think would have happened if the Seljuk Turks captured and held Anatolia at the beginning of the Crusade? What do you think are some potential alternate outcomes of the entire war?
"You're more of a fluentic fail doer who sometimes does a doo dah with a diggity ding, managing to push open doors that weren't meant to be opened, only to find that there's no floor, so you instead become spiderman and crawl on the walls." -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 11:49:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 3:08:44 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
What do you think would have happened if the Seljuk Turks captured and held Anatolia at the beginning of the Crusade? What do you think are some potential alternate outcomes of the entire war?

Considering there were many Crusades after that, I think it would only have been a matter of time before another Crusade was called year and years later. Granted that the European armies were decimated, the Muslims could have pushed back into Europe and occupied much of it, unless some rebellious citizens could push them back (probably not).
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:19:15 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 3:08:44 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
What do you think would have happened if the Seljuk Turks captured and held Anatolia at the beginning of the Crusade? What do you think are some potential alternate outcomes of the entire war?

They probably would have gone to war against the Turks. Byzantium was leery about such a large number of well-trained forces being in the Empire after their previous experiences with unruly crusaders (especially Normans), so if the Byzantines were out of the picture then the war would have been fought on Roman soil against the Turks instead of against the Fatimid Empire. Attacking the Fatimids was stupid in some ways (they were actually nipping at the Seljuks' heals, and had recently taken territory from them) and brilliant in others (the Crusader States allowed Urban II and later popes to unite dissident political forces in Europe against a common enemy.) The outcomes may have been more positive; an uneasy truce with the Fatimid Caliphate, a concentrated onslaught against the Turks, the reclamation of Byzantium and the slow healing of the great schism. The only caveat is the timing; they would have needed to attacked before Constantinople's formidable formations were repaired, as they also could have been stopped cold at the Bosporus by an entrenched Seljuk force. In that case, Europe would have suffered greatly.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -