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

The First Crusade, an Alternate History

The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 7,592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 3:08:44 AM
Posted: 11 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?
2016 was the greatest year in living memory, perhaps surpassed only by 1933. -thett

Remember: diversity = strength -thett

You're more of a fluentic fail doer who sometimes does a doo dah with a diggity ding... -Vaarka

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 11:49:18 PM
Posted: 11 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: 8,396
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:19:15 AM
Posted: 11 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.
"Whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilization."
- G. K. Chesterton -