Alternate History Thread II...

[Thlayli]

But if the successes of the First and Second Crusades were coupled with Byzantine victory at Manzikert...


Certainly relations between Constantinople and the Crusaders was never good, but when the Byzantines retake Antioch and eastern Turkey/Armenia things could get quite strained. However, Byzantium would still be strong and in control of Turkey, and the Seljuks of Rum would be pushed south, into Iraq, which is controlled by the Abbasids, and devastate it. The Imperial Frontier remains at Lake Van.

The First Crusade will have an easier time of it, not having to march though a hostile Turkey, and the Second Crusade will take Damascus. Saladin will not live past childhood.

This *might* set the scenario for a Templar/Hospitaller/Byzantine march on Cairo or Baghdad, if a reconciliation can (and probably will) be made with a resurgent Byzantium. This will be the "Third Crusade," probably in the late 13th century after the Crusaders have consolidated their gains in the Holy Land. Byzantines, Crusaders, Arabs, and now Mongols, will soon become locked in a devastating 4-way battle for the control of the Middle East. Possibly this could culminate in a huge Battle of Baghdad.

You could do a really awesome timeline with this, das.

Okay, here we go:

1071: A newly reformed Byzantine Army (this is the PoD, I suppose) smashes the Seljuk Turks at Manzikert. The Emperor taking heed to the prudent warnings of his top General to fortify his position and scout the area proves to be an excellent decision. The Seljuks are instead pushed south, and besiege Baghdad in 1073 before being defeated by the Abbasids. Norman armies are pushed back from the boot of Italy at the Battle of Brundisium.

1081: A massive Slavic revolt is subdued, and the Bulgarian frontier is pushed back. The revitalized Byzantine Army retakes Antioch.

1091: The First Crusades (beginning 5 years earlier due to the Pope seeing the Byzantine successes in Turkey) begin. Despite the rowdiness of the Crusading forces, they are well provisioned at Antioch (which they had to besiege in OTL) by the Byzantines (who are all too happy to get rid of them,) and capture Edessa and Jerusalem by 1099. Tyre, Ascalon, and Tiberias become bustling administrative centers.

1095: Venetian raids on Northern Egypt meet with some success. Deprived of a weak Byzantium, the Venetians raid Arab territories in Sicily, Africa and Egypt. Byzantium resecures Syracuse. Raymond of Toulouse crowned King of Jerusalem.

1120: After spending several years consolidating gains, the Second Crusade assembles a force of about 50,000 men. Despite Franks, Germans and English disagreeing on whether to recapture Edessa or attack Egypt, a compromise is made, and the Crusaders march on Damascus. An initial attack meets with much success, and the inhabitants are slaughtered by the Crusaders after surrendering.

1130: Reuniting of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. (I have no way to explain this one, simply base it on the continuing Byzantine presence in Italy, and warmer relations because of it) The Pope visits Constantinople. The Patriarch meets an unpleasant end. A combined Crusade is planned to defeat the Arabs once and for all.

Hmm, I'm not really sure where to take it from here.

 

[das]

But if the successes of the First and Second Crusades were coupled with Byzantine victory at Manzikert...

Had the Byzantines won at Manzikert, the Crusades wouldn't have happened. Venice was one of the primary backers of the Crusaders, but it wouldn't have attacked Byzantine enemies had the Byzantines been able to exploit said attacks efficiently. Same with the Pope.

Maybe you mean greater Byzantine successes COMBINED with the Crusades? Better cooperation, perhaps?

 

[Thlayli]

Sure, why not? The Imperial frontier wouldn't stretch as far as it was pre-Manzikert, but the Seiljuks would just as effectively be repelled south. I think, however, that the primary impetus for the Crusades was the Pope, and if he saw Byzantine successes in Asia he might start to get quite jealous.

 

[das]

I think, however, that the primary impetus for the Crusades was the Pope, and if he saw Byzantine successes in Asia he might start to get quite jealous.

The Crusades are, largely, a result of cooperation between Venice, Byzantium and the Pope. If Byzantium is in a position of strenght, neither Venice nor the Pope will try anything anywhere where it can help the Byzantines. Indeed, they might actually attack Byzantium for all we know - after all, there is also the issue of Normans and other knights who needed to be directed somewhere. The Byzantines, from a Papal point of view, are no better than the Muslims - even worse, because heretics are always considered to be worse than heathens. The Venetians see profit in the conquest of the Holy Land, but also in that of the Byzantine Empire, as the Fourth Crusade has shown. The Normans and the other knights don't, in their mass, care as long as there's a chance to get rich, especially a one blessed by the Pope.

 

[Xen]

the Byzantines arnt considered Heritics- Orthidox and Catholics actually have shared rights, and baptism in one church is (was, and has been) recognized by the other; rather the main difference isnt in that they view each other as heritics, but only of the authority given to the Pope

 

[das]

Okay, the SCHISMATICS if that makes you happier. Point is, an ideological backing can always be found.

 

[Thlayli]

Right, but a strong Byzantium will be much harder to assail than a weaker one, and their continuing presence in Italy ATL might precipitate a reconciliation. The Emperor would probably kill the Patriarch if it meant Papal cooperation.

 

[das]

Right, but a strong Byzantium will be much harder to assail than a weaker one

Not necessarily. A Byzantium that won Manzikert will probably press on eastwards, a perfect opportunity for an attack on its very heart.

their continuing presence in Italy

Actually, where does that come from? The Normans already took over South Italy, I believe...

And also, why would it cause reconciliation? If anything, that was a major thorn in Byzantine-Papal relations.

The Emperor would probably kill the Patriarch if it meant Papal cooperation.

But why does he need it if he just defeated the largest Turkish threat? The Crusaders are more of a threat for the Byzantines, so why let them seize a base in the Holy Lands?

 

[Thlayli]

I was postulating that, in the same year that the Byzantine Army won Manzikert, it would evict the Normans at Brundisium. Besides that, your points make sense.

 

[das]

Normans are rather hard to evict, and are on the other side of the empire... If Byzantines win at Manzikert, logically they will press on to exploit this victory.

 

[Thlayli]

Well, in 1070's the Normans only controlled as far south as Naples. Byzantium did still have a foothold in Brundisium and elsewhere. So a determined and reformed (levy) army could push them back.

 

[das]

Still, it is rather unlikely. For one thing, Normans could find help - indeed, an attempt to attack them might be used by the Pope to start an anti-Byzantine crusade, winning Normans over to his side in the process. For another, the Byzantine victory at Manzikert would have finally shifted the Byzantine vector of expansion eastwards, so there isn't much point in wasting strenght on fighting the Normans at the same time.

 

[Thlayli]

Hmm, ok. I think that the Pope at this time will be more interested in capturing Jerusalem first (as this is pre-First Crusade we're talking about here)

Basically what I want is to set up a scenario where the combined Papal-Templaro-Byzantine Empire faces down an Arab-Mongol alliance in Baghdad in the middle 13th century. If the Christans work together, and the Arabs (scared of the westerners) don't kill the Khan's emissaries, a conflict of the two Grand Alliances is very possible.

On an entirely different note, I would like to explore the implications of an Athenian victory in the Peloponessian Wars.

 

[das]

I think that the Pope at this time will be more interested in capturing Jerusalem first

The Pope's situation at the time was a very good one - he was in a position to choose between two directions of practically equal value in all regards. The lure of liberating the Holy Land isn't much bigger than the lure of reuniting the Church. Constantinople, if anything, is richer than the Holy Land.

Basically what I want is to set up a scenario where the combined Papal-Templaro-Byzantine Empire faces down an Arab-Mongol alliance in Baghdad in the middle 13th century. If the Christans work together, and the Arabs (scared of the westerners) don't kill the Khan's emissaries, a conflict of the two Grand Alliances is very possible.

Frankly I can't see such a scenario happening. Mongols, for one thing, have much more to gain from an alliance with the Europeans - as Xen pointed out long ago, they actually seeked a formal alliance at some point, and even without it, there was a lot of informal cooperation. The Templars and the Pope... well, I guess that it is possible, temporarily anyway. But the Byzantines were only pressed into cooperating with their Latin foes by the catastrophe of Manzikert.

Weird scenarios come to mind - the Pope and the Arabs against the Byzantines and the Mongols, for instance. Interestingly enough, if we look on profits alone, that isn't impossible. But I guess one could only go so far on pragmatism alone...

On an entirely different note, I would like to explore the implications of an Athenian victory in the Peloponessian Wars.

Depends on when does that victory come. And on the magnitude of that victory as well...

 

[Thlayli]

Hmm. Athenian victory comes bloodily and with difficulty...but decisively. And before the Peace of Nicias, at that.

The main departure from OTL will be the absence of that plague that killed Pericles. He has to survive. The conservative Pericles strategy can't be transformed into the aggressive Demosthenes strategy as it was after his death.

Athens will rely more on defending it's own colonies, and protecting the fortified cities themselves. Technically Athens has better abilities to survive a war of attrition, because it has:

1. Overseas allies.
2. A good route of supply for Athens.
3. Pericles.

Now, Sparta had a large army to maintain, (the longest Spartan campaign into Athens was only 40 days) and also the helots to worry about.

Pericles stayed patient, and finally the Spartans, infuriated by the years of back and forth campaigning, attempted a direct assault of Athens, trying to storm it. It failed, the Spartans and their allies took some sections of the long walls, but not after losing many men. They are outnumbered and pushed back at a skirmish in Piraeus.

The Peloponessian Coalition starts to fracture. A helot revolt puts Spartan hegemony of the Peninsula in danger, and troops are withdrawn to put this down, giving Athens time to recover.

Sparta hadn't been dealt a devastating defeat yet, but it had certainly been humiliated. Athens managed to seize Megara as Plataia and Argos joined the allied coalition.

Next, Boiotia went over to Athens as Plataia and Delphi skirmished the forces of Thebes to a standstill. With the help of Athenian raids from Euboea, they keep Thebes under siege for the remainder of the war. Most of Attica, Boiotia, and Fokis are now under the control of Athens. Sparta during all this time hasn't been idle. They have attempted to assemble a navy, but are about as successful as the early Roman version, except that the Spartans don't have seafaring allies. They do manage to sack Naxos and Delos, but are crushed by the Athenian Navy at the battle of Melos.

So anyway, Sparta assembled it's largest army yet, (even encluding some helots which was quite revolutionary, but necessary due to the serious lack of manpower by now) and prepared to leave the Peloponesse. Their campaign plan was quite good, first to march from Korinthos to retake Megara, then send a diversionary thrust towards Athens. This is merely to distract them, because the real attack would then capture Plataia, (lifting the siege of Thebes) and then crush Delphi, effectively leaving Athens isolated and alone on Greece proper.

Sparta could then besiege the city and take it at their leisure, weakened as they believed it already was from the earlier assault. There was only one flaw in the Spartan plan, that they had forgotten as their massive army issued out of Sparta, Pylos and Mantinea. Argos. If Argos had remained neutral, Athens would most likely have been defeated.

The Spartans gave it a wide berth, but forgot to leave more than a token force to watch the city. The Argos militia was depleted, but as the large Spartan Army marched toward Korinthos, they did the only logical thing. That was to attack south, toward Sparta itself. Aided by a good-sized helot revolt (although many had been taken along with the campaign this time) the Argos forces attacked Sparta itself. An emergency levy militia, along with excellent Spartan discipline and fanaticism among the garrison forces, was enough to fight off the Argos assault. But a major detatchment from the army up north had to be dispatched in order to contain the attack.

The result was that two armies of equal strength met at the coming battle. Athens, watching the Argos events with amusement, took the extra time afforded to them to send military recruiters to Crete and Asia Minor (Greek portions) They returned with a lot less gold, but a lot more trained mercenaries.

So as a result, the Spartan forces had their normally stellar discipline lowered by the inclusion of helots, where the Athenian/Allied armies had their numbers and training raised by the fresh mercenaries, many former Persian Army soldiers. Granted, this lowered Athenian popularity among the citizens a bit, but no one was complaining, the assault on Athens taken into account. As the Spartans regrouped and moved toward Korinthos, the Athenian forces decided, for the first time in the war, to preemptively strike. The armies met a little east of the city.

Technically the Battle of Korinthos was a stalemate, with equal casualties on both sides. The Spartan charges were driven back with great loss. But Pericles (Commanding from the front in a manner that would be remembered epically by Thucydides) wisely decided to hold the mercenaries in reserve until the end. They proved to be particularly effective, and the helots broke at this point. Sparta was driven back to Korinthos, but they held the city. The First Battle was over.

Rapid naval communications went to Argos from the Athenian war camp, and Argos forces withdrew from their positions near Sparta. The exhausted levy forces were in no position to pursue them. Resupplying at Argos, they then moved north, effectively trapping the Spartan Army in Korinthos. The Second Battle was a failed Spartan attempt to break out south of the city, and the Third Battle of Korinthos was a devastating combined charge of the Argos and Athenian forces. The Spartan Army, formerly with no match in all Greece, was defeated. They had been besieged for a month, with little food, and the attack from both sides was too much for them. They were killed to a man, most choosing death over surrender.

The war would continue for two more years, but Sparta's end was truly at Korinthos. Their allies gone, the citizenry of Sparta itself perished in a mass suicide, followed by a burning of the city on the eve of the final allied attack.

Athens was hegemonic, and triumphant. The only question was, how long would the new Athenian Empire hold together? Pericles I may have seemed a demigod, but all mortals die eventually...

 

[das]

Not bad, though I can't see the Persians not using the situation (or the Spartans not contacting them - they did in OTL, even without Alcibiades)... Not sure also about Pericles lasting for so long - he was quite old by the time he died (so I don't think he would be commanding from the field neither...). His political star was down as well, his prestige undermined by the siege, but I suppose that a victory such as the one in your TL could revive it.

And why destroy Sparta? Not all the Spartan leaders were stereotypically stubborn. A coup d'etat is not out of question if things get as dire as they did.

 

[Thlayli]

Interesting points. Pericles will probably die after the war's end. His age, however, will make his military leadership particularly memorable in the Sagas. He has a family still alive, however...

The Persians could be prevented from intervening if Athens buys them off. They will be less eager to join Sparta after the failed siege, and the least they could do would be to purchase neutrality.

I think that Athens will force a painfully humiliating treaty on Sparta, even if it does survive. This of course paves the way for greater Athenian expansion in Sicily/Turkey, and an eventual conflict between (stronger) Greeks, Etruscans, and Carthaginians in a larger Punic conflict.

The Carthaginians and Athenians will both spawn massive trade empires, and I suspect they'll each have their own client states in Sicily and Italy. (Lilybaeum for Carthage, Syracuse for Athens)

Equally interesting scenarios come to mind...an Athens-Rome alliance fighting a Carthage-Persia one...

 

[Oruc]

Wouldnt Thebes just kick Athens arse like they did to Sparta after its attempt to build its own empire

 

[das]

The Persians could be prevented from intervening if Athens buys them off. They will be less eager to join Sparta after the failed siege, and the least they could do would be to purchase neutrality.

Unlikely. Persians are rather likely to take the money AND then take over the Greek cities in Asia Minor (that were, if I recall correctly, quite pro-Spartan, so the Athenians would be in a strange position if they protest it).

Wouldnt Thebes just kick Athens arse like they did to Sparta after its attempt to build its own empire

Thebes would be kept on a leash - it is closer to Athens than to Sparta, IMHO, plus Athens was much better at actually maintaining an empire, with more experience and all.

 

[Oruc]

Thebes would be kept on a leash - it is closer to Athens than to Sparta, IMHO, plus Athens was much better at actually maintaining an empire, with more experience and all.

your honest opinion is wrong.