INFORMATION ABOUT THE CRUSADES THAT IS NOT WIDELY REPORTED OR TAUGHT:

THE FIRST CRUSADE

BYZANTINE EMPEROR, ALEXIUS I, ATTEMPTED TO WIN BACK ANATOLIA FROM THE LEGITIMATELY SETTLED TURCOMAN TRIBES - AND SENT WORD TO EUROPE TO RAISE TROOPS... 🤔

INTRODUCTION

THE LOSS OF BYZANTINE ANATOLIA TO TURCOMAN NOMADS

How and why did Byzantine Anatolia become peacefully occupied by nomadic Turcoman tribes? How did the Byzantine Empire respond?

OVERVIEW 

In 1071 the Byzantine Emperor, Romanus IV, raised an army for the purpose of sweeping Turcoman nomads out of the interior of the Byzantine Empire: Anatolia.

How did the Turcomans come to peacefully occupy parts of Anatolia? Here's the background...

Earlier, in the early-mid 11th. Century, the Turcoman tribes - nomadic horseman and sheep herders - had been driven from their grazing plains, east of the Euphrates river, by the rise of the power of the Mongols.

They were allowed to settle in a corner of the Islamic Khwarezmian Empire (Peria; now Iran), where they voluntarily converted to Islam.

The Turcoman people had great martial qualities, and went on to take control of a large part of the Khwarezmian Empire - and to declare themselves the protectors of the Sunni Caliphate in Baghdad (now in Iraq) and of Sunni Islam: protectors, mainly, against Shia Islam and the Shia Caliphate in Cairo, Egypt.

The leaders of the Turcomans established The Seljuk Sultanate.

Being sheep and horse herders, the Turcoman people needed grazing land - and the tribes people continued their nomadic lifestyle.

In The Byzantine Empire, with its impregnable, wealthy capital, Constantinople,  government switched between two factions - which would scheme, plot and connive against each other to overthrow the sitting emperor - and appoint the next emperor: the Noble faction: the aristocracy, which owned vast estates I the interior - Anatolia; and the Civic Faction: the wealthy merchants and traders; the professional politicians and civil servants: who's business dealings kept wealth pouring into Constantinople.

The Noble Faction emperors would deal with defence by raising troops from the pleasantry on their estates, for the purpose of defending the land from incursions.

The Civic Faction emperors had a policy of buying-off would be invaders: Constantinople was fabulously wealthy - the offer of a large payment to barbarians who threatened to invade inevitably worked - and, compared to the wealth of Constantinople, it was little more than loose change... 😏

Moreover, the Civic Faction pointed out, that this way nobody died - and no property was damaged... 🤔

But the estates in the interior were declining from the lack of other imperial investment. The Noble Faction was not content... 😕

Then, after several decades of Civil Faction rule - and great prosperity for Constantinople - in the mid-late 11th. Century, a new type of incursion began: the Turcoman nomads, just peacefully following the grazing lands for their sheep and horses...

There was no more army of levied/ conscripted peasants to drive off incursions into Anatolian estates - so the Turcoman (later known as Turks) gradually occupied more and more of the territory... 😳

These Turks were peaceful - and had no use for Constantinople's pay-off money - they were just doing their nomadic thing and looking for good pasture lands... 🤔

Finally, in 1068, a Noble Faction emperor gains control: Romanus IV. He decides to raise an army and sweep through Anatolia - to push the nomads out... 🤔

Then fate takes a hand... 😳

On the march, Romanus IV and his army cross paths with the army of the Seljuk Sultan, Alp Arslan and HIS army: in their way to battle against the Shia Islam forces of Egypt... 😳

Battle between the Byzantine army and the Seljuk army is joined...

Romanus IV leads the advanced guard in battle. His rear-guard remains behind.

The attack goes badly. The rear-guard is informed by its commander that the battle is hopeless and lost - and leads the rear-guard in retreat...

(Some say, that the commander of the rear-guard - a Civil Faction loyalist - deliberately betrayed Romanus IV; but that is not certain.)

Romanus IV was captured by Alp Arslan. This was totally unexpected: emperors are not supposed to become prisoners. High ranking officers and nobles could be captured and held for ransom - but it was impossible ransom an emperor: to put a price on the value of an emperor just wasn't done... 😳

The Sultan treated Romanus with every honour and dignity... But he didn't know what to do with him... 😳

At last, he made Romanus an offer: he'd assist Romanus IV in getting back the throne of Byzantium (which was now occupied by another Civic Faction emperor - after Romanus's defeat) - but in return, Turcoman nomads must be allowed to settle in Anatolia.

It as agreed. The Sultan's and his army restored Romanus IV as Byzantine Emperor - and Turks were free to settle in Anatolia.

But in Constantinople, Romanus IV was damaged goods - shamed by his defeat and capture at Manzikert; his resumed reign was ended the following year (1072).

Pretty soon, Anatolia became occupied by Turks - and small emirates (similar to Principalities I  European nobility) sprang up - under a Sultan and a Sultanate: The Seljuk Sultanate of Rum (pro: 'room': Rum is Arabic for Rome: Byzantium / Anatolia was considered by Islam  to be the remnant of the Roman Empire.)

ALEXIUS I COMNENUS: THE RETURN OF THE NOBLE FACTION...

In 1081, Alexius I Comnenus, of the Noble Faction, became Byzantine Emperor.

During his reign, the small emirates within the Sultanate of Rum became more and more divided - fighting amongst themselves. Alexius I had inherited a Byzantine Empire with very little in the way of an army - but he with this disunity in The Sultanate of Rum, he saw an opportunity to win back territory in Anatolia...

Alexius adopted a strategy of picking off small emirates one by one - with his small army supplemented by mercenaries bought from barbarian tribes. His strategy was successful - but limited, because of resources... 😕

OTHER FACTORS

The Seljuk Turks Assume Political Control of Sunni Islam Territories

In their determination to defend (and, in really, to assume corporeal / political control of) the territory of Sunni Islam, the Seljuk Turks imposed tight controls on travelling and the movement of people in and out of the territories - and this affected the pilgrims routes to sacred places for Christians - which were previously freely accessible.

The disputes within Christianity

There were six Patriarchs of Christianity up to the 11th. Century: Constantinople; Alexandria; Antioch; Cilicia; Baghdad - and Rome...

Rome had long claimed pre-eminence over the others, but that claim was rejected by those others.

Being the the capital of what was left of the Roman Empire - the Byzantine Empire; and the wealthiest and most powerful city in Christendom - Constantinople - the Constantinople Patriarchy was the most influential.

The rejection of the claims by the Roman Patriarch: the Pope - came to a head in 1054, when the Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople... and that Patriarch excommunicated the Pope right back...

Disputes within the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy...

Meanwhile in Western Europe, the papacy was involved in ongoing disputes: the reform papacy (the policy of the influential German monk, Hildebrand who became Pope Gregory VII: 1073 - 1085)), which began in the mid-11th. Century and sought to remove the influence of the Holy Roman Emperor from the Church (among other reforms), caused situations where there were two or more claimants to the office of pope.

Pope Urban II was in dispute with Pope Clement III (now recorded as an anti-Pope)

Pope Urban II needed a 'PR' propaganda exercise...

A charismatic preacher, called Peter The Hermit, returned from The Holy Land with tales of how the pilgrim routes had now been made more difficult to travel... 😳 He was very passionate and devout - and really laid it on thick - using rhetoric and propaganda to present (almost all, or possibly all of it most likely false or at least exaggerated) stories about how terribly the Muslims who controlled the pilgrimage routes were treating Christians... 😤

Peter The Hermit's stories formed part of what would give Pope Urban II his 'Unique Selling Point' - 'PR' coup... 😏

More on that to follow... Meanwhile, let's get back to Alexius I in Constantinople...

ALEXIUS I SEES AN OPPORTUNITY...

Alexius figured, that with a big enough army he could take advantage of the disunity within The Seljuk Sultanate of Rum - and maybe completely retake Anatolia... 🤔

He too was wise to the disruption to the Christian pilgrim routes - and he too made a lot of it in propaganda pleas to Western Christian nobles. He made lurid claims about the Turks desecrating Christian churches and so forth: these claims have long since been fairly well shown to have been false.

But - then as now - lurid propaganda is a powerful device; the truth is most often not a consideration... 🙄

It's widely suggested too, that Alexius I also spoke of the great wealth in Constantinople - and in Anatolia - as an inducement to the Western European nobles to come to Constantinople to rescue their Christian co-religionists in the east... 😏

ANOTHER FACTOR IN WESTERN EUROPE: NORMAN EXPANSIONISM

At around the same time, the Normans (descendants of the Vikings now settled in France - Normandy), were displaying territorial ambitions all over Europe - and beyond... 🤔

One Robert Guiscard was one such adventurer; he accumulated various titles in his conquests - and had his eye on Byzantium and what could be had there... The call from Alexius was too good to pass up.

Soon, Pope Urban II would double the appeal of such an adventure... 😏

POPE URBAN II HEARS OF THE CALL FROM ALEXIUS I...

Back again to Pope Urban II - and his propaganda coup...

What with the charismatic preacher, Peter The Hermit pleading the case for Christian pilgrims - and now, the Orthodox Christian base in Constantinople doing the same... 😲 Pope Urban II had his 'moment': his preaching to Roman Catholic Christians to go to the aid of the Christians in the east* - and win guaranteed absolution from sin and a place in Heaven - made him the star Pope - and won him his contest with Clement III... 🤩

(*It's important to note: capturing Jerusalem for Christianity was NOT a stated aim of Pope Urban II's  sermon: only going to aid of Christians in the east.

It is believed / suggested that he also intended to use his intervention as a means of persuading the Patriarch of Constantinople to reunite the Roman and Orthodox Churches - and recognise the pre-eminence of the Roman Church.)

AND SO OFF THEY ALL WENT TO CONSTANTINOPLE - TO WIN ANATOLIA BACK AND RE-OPEN THE PILGRIM ROUTES...

Robert Guiscard led the Western European army to the aid of Byzantium - eager for the reward in land and riches that success would bring...

However, once the Western European army was camped outside Constantinople, Alexius I demanded that they all sign a declaration they stated that all land in Byzantine Anatolia that was conquered - must be handed over to him.

Guiscard was apoplectic with rage... But he and his army couldn't get across the Bosporus and into Anatolia without Byzantine help; he had to sign... 😳

So it was that this mercenary army was unleashed on the Turkish occupied Anatolia by Alexius I - for the purpose of reclaiming the territory...

Or - some insist: this Christian army from Roman Catholic Europe went to the aid of Christians in the east - to battle the Muslims...

There's something of truth in the latter - 'something' of truth... But, when seen in the round - and all things considered, it's my contention that the romanticised popular idea that what is now recorded in history as 'The Crusades'* was a  mainly - or wholly - religious enterprise, us just that: romantic fiction - though based on some elements that give it sufficient credibility... 😏

(*The reference 'Crusades' was only applied in the 19th. Century; previously, these events were considered a kind of pilgrimage.)

APPENDIX: A BRIEF LOOK AT HOW 'THE CRUSADES' WERE RECORDED IN THE ISLAMIC EAST...

The events recorded in the West as 'The Crusades' were recorded by Muslim / Arab / Persian / Turkish / Kurdish Historians as 'The Frankish Wars' (wars against the French: the Muslims labelled all of these invaders 'Franks' - no matter where they came from).

They were not seen as religious wars - but rather, just wars of attempted conquest, by invaders that happened to be Christian.

The First Crusade, in fact, was thought to be yet another fairly routine incursion by the Byzantine Empire: skirmishes between Byzantium and the various separate emirates were quite common.

The Islamic world was caught off guard by the First Crusade. As with Europe (with its petty fiefdoms, dukedoms, principalities, etc...), the various emirates and sultanates were in competition with each other  - and more concerned with their own conflicts. There was also the conflict between Shia Egypt and Sunni territories, under Turkish rule.

This partly explains the sweeping success of that First Crusade.

The Christian states in The Holy Land would survive - in an ever depleting degree for some 200 years. I. That time, fairly normalised relations were established their Islamic neighbours: trade; free movement between each other's territory - and even close alliance between Christian states and Muslim states - in mutual support against aggressors... 🤔

The so-called 'Crusades' were not what romantic, pop history describes them to be - not really... 😏

These details are for other articles... 🙂

(I found this imagine on Google Images. It's from a site called. History Crunch. My acknowledgement and thanks to that site. 🙂)

Textual content: © Copyright MLM Arts 18. 02. 2023. Edited and re-posted: 19. 02. 2023