If the Battle of Manzikert was to never happen or unfold differently meaning that the Seljuks never manage to get into Anatolia would the Crusades still happen?
Without Manzikert would the Crusades still happen?
- Thread starter EasternRomanEmpire
- Start date
One of the main reasons to go on crusade was to heal the split with the Greeks, the Greco-Latin relationship seriously deteriorated as a consequence of the Crusades so ITTL they hate each other much less than IOTL.
This is absurd on many levels. The religious quarrel was not that bitter, for one, not to mention that the Byzantines were not a threat to Catholicism. The medieval Church was not as profligate with throwing around heresy accusations as people today suppose. It was not an uncommon view in the Catholic Church that they should reconcile with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Urban II gained considerable legitimacy through his efforts in doing that.
Last edited:
I would say, 'possible but unlikely'.
Depending on how well does Byzantium do, it's quite likely the efforts are spent on invading North Africa instead of the Middle East.
Depending on how well does Byzantium do, it's quite likely the efforts are spent on invading North Africa instead of the Middle East.
Tbf, neither were the Muslims.
If Manzikert hadn't happened, something very similar to the Crusades would probably still have been launched against the Baltic pagans and Iberian muslims.
How do the Byzantines go to North Africa? They have much more dangerous enemies closer to home.
It may be but it would be secondary compared to personal profit.
The Seljuk Turks were genuinely harsh in mistreating local Christians, worse than previous Muslim states, and this was part of the impetus for Alexios's request for aid and Urban II's answer. There's a reason most of the cities the Crusaders retook over the course of their journey through Anatolia were handed over to them by local civilians who'd risen up against their Turkish garrisons.
There were proto-Crusades in Spain, but these were also wars which would have been waged regardless. It's not like Christian-Muslim relations were peaceful until Bad Christian Church decided to fight a religious war. The Crusades most certainly weren't the start of inter-religious warfare, not by a long shot. That's why I find the claim made by Thomas Asbridge (historical consultant to Kingdom of Heaven) that they fundamentally changed the relationship between Christianity and Islam to be foundationally absurd.
Last edited:
The Crusaders, not the Byzantines, a way to divert the 'crusading spirit' towards another direction.
What I meant was that the Seljuk turks were not an existential threat to the Catholic world as is sometimes claimed by reactionary historians. They weren't even the primary target of the Crusaders, just an obstacle in the way to the Holy Land. The Crusades weren't defensive wars intended to protect Byzantine Christians, they were agressive colonial wars waged to secure glory and riches for European nobility.
That still doesn't make sense, why would the Crusaders go in North Africa instead of the Holy Land or places near them like Spain or the Baltics which are much more important in their eyes than North Africa.
They were called by religious fervor, leaders on the Crusade often also searched personal benefit but they believed that they were serving God's will.
Very little of what you just said in that post is true. For one, it remains a subject of vigorous debate on whether or not Jerusalem was the initial target in mind or if initially the purpose was merely to liberate Anatolia (the Erdmann thesis). Whatever the case may be, liberating Christians from Muslim rule was a top priority. The Crusades were conceived of as defensive wars. The First Crusade was intended to roll back Muslim expansion. Same with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Crusade, and the Crusade of Nicopolis, and the Crusade of Varna. What was certainly not at the top of most crusaders' minds was riches. Going on crusade was financially ruinous, and offered little chance at reward beyond the remission of sins. The notion that they were a colonial venture is also highly questionable, since it's basically a lazy transposition of modern concepts onto a medieval framework for which it does not fit. The vast majority of crusaders took up the cross, did their fighting, and then went home without riches or new holdings to show for it. The greatest wealth that returned with them to Europe was relics, which further proves that the religious fervor involved was genuine. Anyway, it's hardly like the Crusaders were imposing themselves onto a native population thereto accustomed to ruling itself. The local Arabs had been largely subjugated by the Seljuk Turks or the Fatamids, and the local Christians had been subjugated overall long ago. If a few Crusaders setting up shop in the Levant was colonialism (and I really don't think use of this word is suitable considering its anachronism due to its modern connotations), to Christians it was also liberation from Muslim colonialism. And again, the evidence doesn't bear out the claim that the crusaders were just out for riches and land. Why did the Crusaders just hand over the Anatolian cities they retook to the Byzantines instead of declaring their own new fiefdoms? Why did the vast majority go home after completing their journey? If they were colonialists, they were remarkably bad at it. It doesn't make sense unless they weren't by and large concerned with conquest.
Last edited:
The significance of the 1054 schism is one of these things that's more apparent in hindsight than it was to people at the time. Rome and Constantinople had been out of communion before, and always managed to patch things up again. Some sees remained in communion with both for centuries after 1054.
The concept of a religious war was actually pretty novel and controversial at the time, and only really gained wide acceptance because the spectacular success of the First Crusade seemed to indicate divine favour for the idea. It's certainly possible to create a scenario in which Manzikert doesn't happen but the Crusades do, but it's by no means certain, and incremental conquests in Spain or the Baltic probably aren't enough.
Actual, they were neither, they were religious wars intended to liberate the Holy Land from the infidel. Almost nobody actually got rich off crusading, and indeed most crusaders returned back home rather than trying to carve out fiefs in Palestine. And the Crusader states weren't "colonies" as we usually think of them; they were independent polities, not subjects of an overseas country.
Do you have an actual source for this or is this your opinion?
I'm not doubting that their emotions were genuine, I'm saying that we can't reasonably call this a defensive war, especially after they decided to go down to Antioch and eat the locals.
It is a fact well know to everyone who bother to look at the real data instead of going for prejudices. The Crusades were always a net loss financially and most of Crusaders were firstborns and had already fiefs at home.
That were things who would happen in any war.
Last edited:
A lot of things that didn't actually work at making people richer have been pursued for the sake of riches, but more to the point, "genuinely religious" and "interested in personal profit" are not mutually exclusive for medieval nobility.
Another vote for that there'd probably be wars in North Africa (and at least attempts at saying conquering-and-converting pagans is just and righteous), Jerusalem and the Levant not necessarily.
You're not likely to see anything about schismatic (not heretical) Greeks unless there's something to produce how the OTL crusades lead to mutual ill will though.
Another vote for that there'd probably be wars in North Africa (and at least attempts at saying conquering-and-converting pagans is just and righteous), Jerusalem and the Levant not necessarily.
You're not likely to see anything about schismatic (not heretical) Greeks unless there's something to produce how the OTL crusades lead to mutual ill will though.
Sure, people can make unsuccessful attempts to get rich, but as mentioned above, most of the crusaders went back home after reaching Jerusalem, which isn't the behaviour we'd expect if they were motivated by financial gain (since land was the main form of wealth in the middle ages, we'd expect them to stay and occupy new estates instead). Plus, travelling to the Middle East was expensive, so most of the crusaders were already rich, because otherwise they couldn't have afforded to go on crusade in the first place.
I would find that to be consistent with the behavior of people who had motives other than pure religious conviction, personally. Especially as "already rich" rarely stopped medieval nobles from wanting to be richer.
It's a lot easier to believe that (for example) Louis IX had no particular interest in taking new lands for himself than it is to believe that Frederick II was motivated purely by religious feelings without a trace of secular ambition, to pick two contemporaries who both returned home after their crusades. And it's not easy to believe that Louis IX was a typical anything when it came to kings and their view of what was legitimate and valid.
Edited: This apart from getting into things like that "crusaders" include the crusade against the Cathars, since that's not a direct comparison to Jerusalem/the Levant in the first place (as far as Jerusalem holding a place in Christendom before the notion of "crusade" ever came up).
I suspect those sorts of wars happen, but I don't think they'd be treated the same way in a no-Manzikert->no First Crusade as we know it world.
Last edited:
It should be noted that the idea of an Armed Pilgrimage to the Holy Land predates Manzikert, so it's not particularly crazy to think that some sort of crusade in that direction could have happened.
It should also be noted as an aside that Manzikert did not doom Anatolia to fall to the Turks, as is often believed. It was the infighting among the Romans, their inability to control their mercenaries (particularly the Normans), and the largely uncontrolled and uncontrollable Turkic Nomads that doomed Anatolia. All Manzikert decided was the Empire's loss of control over the Armenian mountain passes, which opened the flood gates for the Turkic Nomads.
Had the Romans been willing or even able to take back up the old strategies they employed during the bad old days of the Arab Invasions, they probably would've held onto Anatolia.
Indeed, if you want to see what might've been had the Empire not had a stable dynasty at the top in the 7th century, just look at the 11th century following Manzikert.
It should also be noted as an aside that Manzikert did not doom Anatolia to fall to the Turks, as is often believed. It was the infighting among the Romans, their inability to control their mercenaries (particularly the Normans), and the largely uncontrolled and uncontrollable Turkic Nomads that doomed Anatolia. All Manzikert decided was the Empire's loss of control over the Armenian mountain passes, which opened the flood gates for the Turkic Nomads.
Had the Romans been willing or even able to take back up the old strategies they employed during the bad old days of the Arab Invasions, they probably would've held onto Anatolia.
Indeed, if you want to see what might've been had the Empire not had a stable dynasty at the top in the 7th century, just look at the 11th century following Manzikert.
the crusade was called to help the byzantine empire and reclaim the holy land because the seljuks unlike other muslims did not respect pilgrims and even killed some the seljuks were the antagonist of the crusader story because when it was called in 1095 the fatimids had not recaptured the city of jerusalem yet, the motivation later changed pretty hard to go back to lol no we are not taking jerusalem after saying you were for 3 years