WI: The Fourth Crusade wasn't diverted?

Zulfurium · Nov 25, 2015

So I was wondering what the effects would be if the infamous Fourth Crusade, rather than sacking Constantinople, had gone for the Holy Land or Egypt (Unsure of original target)?

What would happen in Constantinople without the intervention of a bunch of crazy zealots under a greedy Venetian?

What could prevent the crusade from diverting?

Could a stronger Rhomaion push back the Turks?

Would the fourth crusader force be able to retake Jerusalem?

And to round out, What would the wider effects be on the Middle East (Would it affect the Mongol Invasion in any way?).

LSCatilina · Nov 25, 2015

Zulfurium said:
What would happen in Constantinople without the intervention of a bunch of crazy zealots under a greedy Venetian?

I'm pretty sure they had red lightsabers too.

What could prevent the crusade from diverting?

Hard to say : they simply accounted for too many people to come, that didn't, and that were much too far indebted to getting rid of Venetian pressure.
Remember that the Crusade was already diverted the minute it sailed, when Crusaders attacked Zara.

You may have slightly better chances with Alexios simply not showing up, and seeing the Crusade either scattering after the general reprobation due to the attack on Zara (Rome was very, very pissed about this one), or having some thousands attempting to take on Egypt or any other target pointed by Venice.

Could a stronger Rhomaion push back the Turks?

Actually, it may be possible that the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, forcing Byzantines forces on the periphery, actually (but indirectly, of course) made Byzantines more directly seeing the situation in Anatolia : the "Empire of Nicea" defeated Seljuks, which was more of a critical action to do, than if the empire was more balkanic focused.

A detail, but "Rhomaion" is an anachronic pedantism that appeared only to claim some sort of "historicity" over members. It means "of the Romans", and shouldn't be used in any context as a full name. It's just ridiculous.
You may prefer Rhomania or Romania, or even Rhomais, giving these were actual historical names.

Would the fourth crusader force be able to retake Jerusalem?

Probably not.

From what we know of their general and ultra-sketchy plan, they didn't wanted to conquer Egypt itself, or even trade it against Jerusalem, but advancing in a more fertile and less mountainous road than Turkey up to Palestine and make junction with the Kingdom of Jerusalem, crushing Ayyubid bases in Egypt along the way. Past this, there was almost no preparations, and it would probably be a Vth Crusade, just failing harder.

They lacked preparations, they lacked unity, they lacked logistics...
So, I don't think it would have been a very safe to bet on 6 000 men, all pretty much divided, against the lot of Ayyubids.

For the sake of the conversation, let's say they're successul: they take back Jerusalem, that becomes even more a clusterfuck of rivaling entities,Amaury I would still probably help them as much he could but dying in 1205, and with Cyprus and Jerusalem being divied then...

There, they would probably have formed their own fiefs, more or less dependent from Jerusalem (IMHO, probably less than more), and probably in the hinterland. I doubt they would go to hinterland of Tripoli and Antioch (Bohémond IV antagonized everyone in the region) immediatly, but that's a distinct possibility for later : maybe taking one or both of his titles, claiming to be vassals of the king (maybe for Leo I of Armenia in Antioch), with a good enough reason, as Bohémond ruled out the Latin patriarch of Antioch and called back the Melkite Patriarch.

I could see however, Venetians pressing for more influence in Cyprus and Jerusalem against Templars and Genoese, and Fourth Crusaders could have been pushed to attack Isabelle if needed and replace her with some one else. In this case, they'd antagonize everyone in the region, especially Ibelins : a counter-alliance with Muslims against Fourth Crusaders wouldn't be to be ruled out in this case.

If they don't : they would rule on rather ingrate lands, and more prone to be attacked. Ascalon and Gallilée would be prime lands, that said.

And to round out, What would the wider effects be on the Middle East (Would it affect the Mongol Invasion in any way?).

Probably very little incidences, except for details, I'd say if they fail in Egypt.

Slightly more important Crusader States (but really divided) if they somehow manages to win according to their objectives, but I think the relatively more important Latin participation (on both sides) of Syrian/Mongol conflicts isn't going to be a game-changer.

Tjakari · Nov 25, 2015

LSCatilina said:
I'm pretty sure they had red lightsabers too.
.

I take it you have a problem with the board's tendency to vilify the Venetians for their part in 1204.

LSCatilina · Nov 25, 2015

Tjakari said:
I take it you have a problem with the board's tendency to vilify the Venetians for their part in 1204.

Less with vilification itself*, than clichés as History (especially for the period).
I'm sorry if it came as aggressive or patronizing, tough.

What played weren't, eventually, religious or political differences, cultural tropes** or even the Massacre of the Latins (while it certainly much influenced the outcome, building a huge contempt for Byzantium) but mundane greed, first stirred up by Byzantine civil disorder, then the blunt right of arms.

Zealotry could have explained slaughter, but even Nicetas Choniatès is talking first of the insane plunder and total disregard for that was not valuable, rapable or seizable; Venetians taking actually the lesser part on the sack.
Basically, they did it because it was there, not on a evil grand scheme.

*Sack of Constantinople isn't exactly something that's worth of glorification, after all.
** For exemple, chivalry tales, as the Roman d'Enéas, about the Trojan War

John7755 يوحنا · Nov 25, 2015

LSCatilina said:
I'm pretty sure they had red lightsabers too.

Hard to say : they simply accounted for too many people to come, that didn't, and that were much too far indebted to getting rid of Venetian pressure.
Remember that the Crusade was already diverted the minute it sailed, when Crusaders attacked Zara.

You may have slightly better chances with Alexios simply not showing up, and seeing the Crusade either scattering after the general reprobation due to the attack on Zara (Rome was very, very pissed about this one), or having some thousands attempting to take on Egypt or any other target pointed by Venice.

Actually, it may be possible that the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, forcing Byzantines forces on the periphery, actually (but indirectly, of course) made Byzantines more directly seeing the situation in Anatolia : the "Empire of Nicea" defeated Seljuks, which was more of a critical action to do, than if the empire was more balkanic focused.

A detail, but "Rhomaion" is an anachronic pedantism that appeared only to claim some sort of "historicity" over members. It means "of the Romans", and shouldn't be used in any context as a full name. It's just ridiculous.
You may prefer Rhomania or Romania, or even Rhomais, giving these were actual historical names.

Probably not.

From what we know of their general and ultra-sketchy plan, they didn't wanted to conquer Egypt itself, or even trade it against Jerusalem, but advancing in a more fertile and less mountainous road than Turkey up to Palestine and make junction with the Kingdom of Jerusalem, crushing Ayyubid bases in Egypt along the way. Past this, there was almost no preparations, and it would probably be a Vth Crusade, just failing harder.

They lacked preparations, they lacked unity, they lacked logistics...
So, I don't think it would have been a very safe to bet on 6 000 men, all pretty much divided, against the lot of Ayyubids.

For the sake of the conversation, let's say they're successul: they take back Jerusalem, that becomes even more a clusterfuck of rivaling entities,Amaury I would still probably help them as much he could but dying in 1205, and with Cyprus and Jerusalem being divied then...

There, they would probably have formed their own fiefs, more or less dependent from Jerusalem (IMHO, probably less than more), and probably in the hinterland. I doubt they would go to hinterland of Tripoli and Antioch (Bohémond IV antagonized everyone in the region) immediatly, but that's a distinct possibility for later : maybe taking one or both of his titles, claiming to be vassals of the king (maybe for Leo I of Armenia in Antioch), with a good enough reason, as Bohémond ruled out the Latin patriarch of Antioch and called back the Melkite Patriarch.

I could see however, Venetians pressing for more influence in Cyprus and Jerusalem against Templars and Genoese, and Fourth Crusaders could have been pushed to attack Isabelle if needed and replace her with some one else. In this case, they'd antagonize everyone in the region, especially Ibelins : a counter-alliance with Muslims against Fourth Crusaders wouldn't be to be ruled out in this case.

If they don't : they would rule on rather ingrate lands, and more prone to be attacked. Ascalon and Gallilée would be prime lands, that said.

Probably very little incidences, except for details, I'd say if they fail in Egypt.

Slightly more important Crusader States (but really divided) if they somehow manages to win according to their objectives, but I think the relatively more important Latin participation (on both sides) of Syrian/Mongol conflicts isn't going to be a game-changer.

Lol "red light sabers"

Zulfurium · Nov 26, 2015

Ouch

Was probably a bit hamfisted with the characterization

Thank you for the comprehensive answer Catilina, was exactly what i was looking for.

chornedsnorkack · Nov 26, 2015

LSCatilina said:
I'm pretty sure they had red lightsabers too.

Hard to say : they simply accounted for too many people to come, that didn't, and that were much too far indebted to getting rid of Venetian pressure.
Remember that the Crusade was already diverted the minute it sailed, when Crusaders attacked Zara.

You may have slightly better chances with Alexios simply not showing up, and seeing the Crusade either scattering after the general reprobation due to the attack on Zara (Rome was very, very pissed about this one), or having some thousands attempting to take on Egypt or any other target pointed by Venice.

From what we know of their general and ultra-sketchy plan, they didn't wanted to conquer Egypt itself, or even trade it against Jerusalem, but advancing in a more fertile and less mountainous road than Turkey up to Palestine and make junction with the Kingdom of Jerusalem, crushing Ayyubid bases in Egypt along the way. Past this, there was almost no preparations, and it would probably be a Vth Crusade, just failing harder.

They lacked preparations, they lacked unity, they lacked logistics...
So, I don't think it would have been a very safe to bet on 6 000 men, all pretty much divided, against the lot of Ayyubids.

So how about, they make a less gross overestimate of the people who show up?
OTL, they contracted to transport 33 500 men, at 2 marks per head, and 4500 horses, at 4 marks per head. Total 85 000 marks.
In the event, just 11 000 men showed up. And with a great effort, scraped together 51 000 marks.

So, suppose they contract for, say, 17 000 men and 3000 horses?
At the same prices, they wind up with 46 000 marks.
The crusaders who show up are still 11 000 men, as per OTL, but despite missing 6000, they pay the full price of 46 000, and have 5000 marks left over. So off they sail, for Egypt.

What will they accomplish?

Halagaz · Nov 26, 2015

Zulfurium said:
Could a stronger Rhomaion push back the Turks?

To be fair, the person who was in charge before the Crusade, Alexios III Angelos, was really not the right man for a stronger Rhomania. More prosperous, certainly (no Sack and all) but not in any way strong. Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is that he's couped by a more competent rival a few years later (maybe Alexios Mourtzouphlos?).

LSCatilina · Nov 26, 2015

chornedsnorkack said:
So how about, they make a less gross overestimate of the people who show up?

Which rises an interesting question : who the hell was in charge of the estimation?

More seriously, while they barely accounted for 2,000 men at this point in Venice, the 6 envoyees still accounted for almost 17x more men. One can think that the mesestimation, while being hugely idiotic in terms of consequences, wasn't just due to miscounting (Venice wasn't going to work gratis et amore Dei).

Don't forget that most of these Crusaders were French, from the North-East of the kingdom especially : it was eventually about, IMO, prooving that the barons could re-edit the epic of the First Crusade and that they didn't needed the king and more importantly the emperor* (see the Crusade of Henry VI) to do so.

While there's a certain bombastic statement at work there, I don't think it's just random, and reflecting both desires and the network of a nobility, once conflicted with the harsh political situation (the tensed, if not outright war, situation between England, France, and the Empire).

*It can be pointed that once Constantinople taken, the crusaders dismissed Boniface of Montferrato as their leader, while he had an important role so far, in favour of the count of Flanders which was one of "them" and not vassal of the Emperor.

(Admittedly, Boniface was somehow suspected of hellenophilia as well, due to its links with Byzantium)

OTL, they contracted to transport 33 500 men, at 2 marks per head, and 4500 horses, at 4 marks per head. Total 85 000 marks.

You forgot supplies, squires and other personal. Which ammounted to 94 000.

In the event, just 11 000 men showed up. And with a great effort, scraped together 51 000 marks (originally, they managed to gather little more than 30 000 marks, IRRC, until they were reduced to go trough major cessions, see below).

So, suppose they contract for, say, 17 000 men and 3000 horses?
At the same prices, they wind up with 46 000 marks.

Which would still let them indebted : as you said, with great efforts, they scrapped together 51 000 marks.

Which doesn't mean they had this large sum on them, just like pocket money, but by futher usurery, with precious stuff or even lands being engaged or sold.
Even that was eventually completed by the 34 000 remise accorded by the doge to pay for the full armada.

Remember that Crusaders already had to borrow the initial money (for giving deposits) in 1203, when they first came to Venice, to have an idea of the financial problem.

Without counting supplies (which is absurd, but just for the fun) and everything that is not strict transportation...always makes a 11 000 marks difference at best.

You could technically have an even less important guesstimate, but at this point it would be admitting that the expedition was going to be a total failure.

What will they accomplish?

Minor nuisance Crusade?
With all the poor logistics, leadership disunity and all on they showed off...

I'm not saying Ayyubids would be in for a good laugh, but I don't think Crusader would have been able to go for Jerusalem : while not strictly impossible, doesn't look good, isn't?

Circonflexe · Nov 27, 2015

LSCatilina said:
You may prefer Rhomania or Romania, or even Rhomais, giving these were actual historical names.

While we're here, why the h in Rhomania? It could basically only be a η (Ρηομανια), which by the founding of Constantinople had been pronounced "i" for several centuries (so “Riomania" - this is a completely different movie). Or is simply the letter ρ transcribed as rh (as in its own name) because Greeks had a different pronunciation than Latins? (and then why is this not universal in Greek words? We have rho, r(h)omania, diarrhea, but sphere, perimetre, and rhythm in English becomes rythme in French. Is it accentuation?

LSCatilina · Nov 27, 2015

For what I understood (I can be wrong) it's mostly due to formal accentuation and written translitteration* (which isn't always self-consistent) :

Ῥωμαΐς - Rhomais
Ῥωμανία - Rhomania
Ρωμαίικα - Romaica.
σφαῖρα - sphaîra
διάρροια - diarrhea (double ρρ, usually rendered as rrh)

*We're talking of translitteration based on various uses, mostly referring to Ancient Greek on various periods (from medieval to XIXth century).
Actual historical pronounciation may not have played a huge role, but polytonic transcription did.

Space Oddity · Nov 27, 2015

If I may join in on the distaste for the "evil Venetians" cliche--look, I know we all like to curse the Crusaders for breaking Byzantium, but the fact was the only reason they were able to succeed was because the damn empire was already pretty broken. The Empire had suffered multiple coups and civil wars in a very short period of time, which had resulted in a fast succession of short-sighted incompetent governments. The fact is, if the Fourth Crusade hadn't hit Rhomania, something else would have eventually... they were not in a location that allowed one to self-destruct like that indefinitely.

Caesar Biden · Nov 27, 2015

Space Oddity said:
If I may join in on the distaste for the "evil Venetians" cliche--look, I know we all like to curse the Crusaders for breaking Byzantium, but the fact was the only reason they were able to succeed was because the damn empire was already pretty broken. The Empire had suffered multiple coups and civil wars in a very short period of time, which had resulted in a fast succession of short-sighted incompetent governments. The fact is, if the Fourth Crusade hadn't hit Rhomania, something else would have eventually... they were not in a location that allowed one to self-destruct like that indefinitely.

Not to mention the terrible leadership it was under, the increasing power of the nobility, the apathy in Constantinople to do anything to help the Empire rather than just improve their own lot, etc, and you just have a terrible situation all around. The crusaders were motivated by loot and all that, yeah, but if there had been half-way competent people in charge of Constantinople, they would have been torn apart and it wouldn't have mattered. There's a reason the Fourth Crusade "succeeded", and it's not just some tragic twist of fate.

However, I'd disagree with LSCatilina that the Fourth Crusade actually helped Rome (fascinating differences in wording, btw, but I always just call pre-1204 Rhomania/Rhomais 'Rome' for simplicity's sake). While it certainly acted as a wake-up call, and for a short time Nicaea beat back the Turks, this ultimately didn't matter because of the Fourth Crusade, and the shift back to a Western Focus to regain Constantinople and what they could in the Balkans. Assuming there's no Fourth Crusade, Rome at the very least will have a handle on their part of the Balkans for a little while. And there's plenty of wealth in this area- ironically, even as the Empire was declining, the Aegean region was becoming more and more prosperous by the day.

It all comes down to a problem of leadership, IMO. Things could continue as they are simply by inertia, but eventually (hopefully) Rome would find leadership enough to right itself, probably thanks to outside factors (It's possible a Norman invasion could prompt a change in leadership). If they can do that, than Rome could probably recover to where they were at in the Middle of the 12th century, thanks to the Mongols breaking down the Turks in Anatolia. If they can't, they'll continue to survive and slowly wither on the vine until something else happens to prod Rome, one way or another.

LSCatilina · Nov 27, 2015

Biden&Ceaser'12 said:
However, I'd disagree with LSCatilina that the Fourth Crusade actually helped Rome (fascinating differences in wording, btw, but I always just call pre-1204 Rhomania/Rhomais 'Rome' for simplicity's sake).While it certainly acted as a wake-up call, and for a short time Nicaea beat back the Turks, this ultimately didn't matter because of the Fourth Crusade, and the shift back to a Western Focus to regain Constantinople and what they could in the Balkans.

Rhomania was already balkanic-focused before 1204: Angeloi had to, in order to repeal Normans, Imperials, Serbians and Bulgarians.
When Seljuks resumed pression in Anatolia (with a pretender claiming to be Alexios II), Isaac II had little possibilities there : for him Turks weren't as much as an existential threat that were balkanic ones.

Nicean emperors, on the contrary, faced them as such, and let Latins and Epirotes get their ass kicked by Bulgarians and Serbians (it's one of the reasons the Latin Empire had relatively working relations with Nicea in a first time)

You'd note that I never said the Crusade helped Byzantines.
What I said was litteraly that it made Byzantine successor states in the Roman periphery more aware of Turkish threat as an existential one.
I'd be grateful, if you disagree with my post, to not twist my opinions/arguments when you're explaining yours.

Rome, that said, strikes me as useless nip-ticking : Byzantines tought they were Romans, and that their Empire was the Roman Empire. That's granted.
But it wasn't called, as a political ensemble, Rome.

And there's plenty of wealth in this area- ironically, even as the Empire was declining, the Aegean region was becoming more and more prosperous by the day.

Not for Byzzies, tough : due to Turkish presence and renewed piracy in the area, they had to give even more to Pisans and Genoese fleets and merchants.

It all comes down to a problem of leadership, IMO. Things could continue as they are simply by inertia, but eventually (hopefully) Rome would find leadership enough to right itself, probably thanks to outside factors (It's possible a Norman invasion could prompt a change in leadership).

Norman pressure was already a thing since decades, and didn't really changed stuff : you had regular revolts, granted, but a bit too peripherical to be that efficient for what would have mattered a Rhomanian political renaissance. At the contrary, they played a great role into imperial weakening (as highlighted by Turkish presence in the 1190's and of course the sack of 1204)

Rhomania could only afford this much inertia : all their neighbours were lurking on the empire at this point. Angeloi dynasty tried inertia, actually, and it didn't that worked fine.

Caesar Biden · Nov 27, 2015

LSCatilina said:
Rhomania was already balkanic-focused before 1204: Angeloi had to, in order to repeal Normans, Imperials, Serbians and Bulgarians.

Certainly it was, I never said it wasn't. There's a vast difference between using critical resources to fend off threats and using critical resources to regain core territory, though. Once Nicaea refocused on the West, it was all downhill from there in Asia Minor, they barely had enough resources left over to stem the bleeding.

LSCatilina said:
Nicean emperors, on the contrary, faced them as such, and let Latins and Epirotes get their ass kicked by Bulgarians and Serbians (it's one of the reasons the Latin Empire had relatively working relations with Nicea in a first time)

But that working relationship, and the Nicaen focus on Anatolia, ended pretty quickly after it had begun when the Latin Empire grew weak and Nicaea strong enough to look West for just a moment. And after this happened, the Byzantines would have even less resources to keep in Anatolia than they did beforehand, leading to the rapid collapse of authority in Anatolia.

Without a Fourth Crusade, it's safe to assume that the Empire would be significantly better off as a whole. More resources will mean better success overall, and the Anatolian frontier would be better off in the long term.

LSCatilina said:
You'd note that I never said the Crusade helped Byzantines.
What I said was litteraly that it made Byzantine successor states in the Roman periphery more aware of Turkish threat as an existential one.
I'd be grateful, if you disagree with my post, to not twist my opinions/arguments when you're explaining yours.

I apologize if I gave off the impression of twisting your words. Your post obviously wasn't entirely clear to me in its intent.

LSCatilina said:
Not for Byzzies, tough : due to Turkish presence and renewed piracy in the area, they had to give even more to Pisans and Genoese fleets and merchants.

Not for Constantinople and the Roman government, certainly. But that doesn't change the fact that there was a wealth of resources and riches that the government could have tapped into, had their leadership been more competent.

LSCatilina said:
Rhomania could only afford this much inertia : all their neighbours were lurking on the empire at this point. Angeloi dynasty tried inertia, actually, and it didn't that worked fine.

I agree. Inertia was only going to work so long, and at some point, something was gonna give. Whether this was a drastic weakening of Imperial power as IOTL went, or a rebirth of it after a period of stability and strengthening of power, is up in the air.

LSCatilina · Nov 27, 2015

Biden&Ceaser'12 said:
Certainly it was, I never said it wasn't. There's a vast difference between using critical resources to fend off threats and using critical resources to regain core territory, though. Once Nicaea refocused on the West, it was all downhill from there in Asia Minor, they barely had enough resources left over to stem the bleeding.

But it was already going downhill during Angeloi's imperium. They actually had barely ressources to manages the crisis on all their borders AND within their borders.

Niceans had enough ressources not because they, on their own, choose to address the Turkish threat first, but because there wasn't another one to : anyone with Constantinople as its capital would be stuck with such bad geostrategic situation : no matter Byzantines or Crusaders.

If Byzantines didn't lost their capitals and most of their Empire, it probably have took more time, but they were obviously at the mercy of any remotly ambitious raid and without a cardboard invitation to Constantinople as IOTL*, this might have touched Anatolia of all provinces because it wasn't really focused on.

*Seriously, were they Byzantines or Tivolians?

But that working relationship, and the Nicaen focus on Anatolia, ended pretty quickly after it had begun when the Latin Empire grew weak and Nicaea strong enough to look West for just a moment.

In spite of the destructuration of Latin Empire (that wasn't spectacularily structurated to begin with), Nicean Emperors preferred first to deal with Trebizond (even if that meant allying themselves with Seljuks).

You really have to wait the Mongol Invasions for that Nicaeans renounced to rule by proxy (as with the Despotate) tought about focusing entierly on the West as Mongols "cleaned" Anatolia and Eastern pressure from one hand, and weakening Bulgaria and the protection they offered to Latin Empire.

It's not when Latin Empire grew weak that they suddenly decided to go all waagh on Constantinople, but really when Mongols changed the regional geostrategy, and removed not only pressure on Anatolia, but Bulgarian ones as well.

More resources will mean better success overall, and the Anatolian frontier would be better off in the long term.

Frankly, I doubt it. Bulgarian, Italian and Serbian pressure alone would have consumed resources as they did IOTL before 1204. Giving the strategic and extistential threat that they represented, most Anatolia would have likely fallen to Turks.

The Empire was in some deep shit, and if Crusaders were able to take half of it, you can bet that more powerful neighbours weren't going to be gentle.

Not for Constantinople and the Roman government, certainly. But that doesn't change the fact that there was a wealth of resources and riches that the government could have tapped into, had their leadership been more competent.

It's not a question of competence there, as much than geopolitics. Italian dominated the region, and tentatives to get rid of that insanely backfired.
Byzantines could go all Boxers if they want, Italian and their allies would likely found some more comprehensive pretender, or at the very least renew western pressure on Rhomania, which would only further the crisis.