What would be the effects on society (possibly until the 21th century) if during the Fourth Crusade the Romans manage to repel the crusaders and thwart the Sack of Constantinople?
WI: No 1204 Sack of Constantinople?
- Thread starter SavoyTruffle
- Start date
I wonder - what impact on Venice? I suspect it's too late to save Amalfi or Pisa as hegemonic sea powers. The continued existence of the Byzantine Empire is unlikely to have a huge impact beyond the region, and I suspect it will eventually either fall or hang on as a near-irrelevance (worse than the HRE or the eighteenth-century papacy). Of course there's butterfly potential in this, but that's pretty much impossible to predict.
The survival of much of the city's libraries could preserve some literature that IOTL was lost for rediscovery in the Renaissance. it is possible that that will lead to an earlier and more comprehensive Hellenophilia in the west.
The actual defeat of the crusade is unlikely to have much of an impact. Crusades tended to fail, on average more often than they succeeded.
The survival of much of the city's libraries could preserve some literature that IOTL was lost for rediscovery in the Renaissance. it is possible that that will lead to an earlier and more comprehensive Hellenophilia in the west.
The actual defeat of the crusade is unlikely to have much of an impact. Crusades tended to fail, on average more often than they succeeded.
Rex Romanum
Banned
Delayed Turkish advance into Europe...?
Btw I have an interesting idea, what if the Emperor in Constantinople allied himself with the Mongols when they invade Europe?
(when the Mongols came in OTL, there was no "Byzantine Empire" per se...only Trebizond, Morea, and Epirus...)
Btw I have an interesting idea, what if the Emperor in Constantinople allied himself with the Mongols when they invade Europe?
(when the Mongols came in OTL, there was no "Byzantine Empire" per se...only Trebizond, Morea, and Epirus...)
Michael VIII did, even though I class the Palaeologi as merely being rulers of a Greek successor state to the proper Empire.
No sack of 1204 has interesting consequences. Byzantium's survival at this point is approximately 50/50- she had just been through a terrible run of Emperors, but the Byzantine system always had a tradition of turning up with a strong moderniser at a time of crisis, as with Heraclius, Leo III, or Alexios Komnenos. I suspect ITTL, we'll get a decent Emperor turn up within the next decade or so.
Where Byzantium goes from here is anyone's guess. A surviving and relatively prosperous ERE is likely to be a tempting target for the Mongols, and there's every chance it could go down to them. If this does not happen, or Genghis' victories are butterflied off, I see Byzantium trying to reassert herself as a predominantly Balkan power, with limited efforts put in to properly reconquering the Anatolian peninsula- at most, the Byzantines will be concentrating on keeping uppity Turkish leaders firmly subordinate to Constantinople, much as Manuel I did. It's possible that the Byzantines could also reassert their role as the effective protector of the remnants of the Crusader States.
Well, what I'd like to see, just for a change, is a reforming family of Emperors in a Constantinople-doesn't-fall-in-1204 scenario.
Think Andronikos Komnenos' attempts to reform the worst excesses of the aristocracy (but tamer, milder, so they don't get angry and overthrow him), allied with a (less navel-gazing) educated class, who really mine the possibilities of Greek thought, science, medicine, technology (particularly exploiting their proximity to Arab centres of learning) to bring a 'Renaissance' to Byzantium before it happens in Italy, mixed with maybe some (modest) social, institutional and military reform (inspired by the Catholic West).
Is anyone up to writing such a "deeper" more "complex" alt-1204 than the usual stuff we tend to get? If someone has a go, I'll be as supportive as I can be...
Think Andronikos Komnenos' attempts to reform the worst excesses of the aristocracy (but tamer, milder, so they don't get angry and overthrow him), allied with a (less navel-gazing) educated class, who really mine the possibilities of Greek thought, science, medicine, technology (particularly exploiting their proximity to Arab centres of learning) to bring a 'Renaissance' to Byzantium before it happens in Italy, mixed with maybe some (modest) social, institutional and military reform (inspired by the Catholic West).
Is anyone up to writing such a "deeper" more "complex" alt-1204 than the usual stuff we tend to get? If someone has a go, I'll be as supportive as I can be...
Grey Wolf
Donor
It would be quite a blow to Venice, especially if the thwarting includes for example the destruction of the Venetian fleet. Her prestige is going to sink
Genoa presumably would be the big gainer there
It really depends IMHO on what happens afterwards - does a strong empire manage to reassert control, or does the state fracture in spite of its victory as its been battered so much?
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Constantinople
No 1204 sack of Constantinople means that the empire of Nicea never comes into existance. Unless the emperors that come after 1204 can improve the situation in western Asia Minor, the country will fall to the Turks at least a century before it actually did. Remember that the Lascarids, free from the burden of having to defend the capital and the western provinces, did great things in Asia Minor.
No 1204 sack of Constantinople means that the empire of Nicea never comes into existance. Unless the emperors that come after 1204 can improve the situation in western Asia Minor, the country will fall to the Turks at least a century before it actually did. Remember that the Lascarids, free from the burden of having to defend the capital and the western provinces, did great things in Asia Minor.
All good points, and I think that instead of a single body ruling over the Balkans and Anatolia, we'd get two distinct spheres of influence.
wwalter
I second el t. I think it is a popular misconception that the Fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders was an unmitigated disaster for the Empire. By forcing the pretenders to the throne of Constantinople to administer and defend Byzantine possessions in Asia Minor, the Latin Empire actually did the Byzantines a service.
The recapture of Constantinople only brought about a renewal of the political instability that had allowed the Crusaders to gain a foothold in the first place. Take away the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders, and you still have a conquest of the Empire by the Turks, in the next century or two. However, this might benefit the rump Crusader states, as they won't have to compete with the Latin Empires for the services of Italian and French Knights.
Nothing to change the "Big Picture" though. Venice losses some ground relative to Genoa, the Turks and the Mamluks still encroach upon the borders of Christendom.
The recapture of Constantinople only brought about a renewal of the political instability that had allowed the Crusaders to gain a foothold in the first place. Take away the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders, and you still have a conquest of the Empire by the Turks, in the next century or two. However, this might benefit the rump Crusader states, as they won't have to compete with the Latin Empires for the services of Italian and French Knights.
Nothing to change the "Big Picture" though. Venice losses some ground relative to Genoa, the Turks and the Mamluks still encroach upon the borders of Christendom.
Riain
Banned
I've sometimes wondered how the Empire would fare in the age of gunpowder weapons. Cannon were the last argument of Kings and played a significant part in the rise of absolute monarchies in Europe in the early modern era. The empire, with its absolute monarchy and efficient taxation and financial liquidity may be able to do very well if it survived as a large entity into the age of cannon.
Personally I don't see how no 4th Crusade would weaken Byzantine postion in Anatolia. More resources, less wars and so on. Not mentioning that Mongols most likely show as per schedule, which means that in late XIII C. both Rum and Bulgaria are severly weakened, which would most likely allow restoration of Byzantine Empire in large parts of Anatolia and Balkan.
The curious butterfly effect would be on Ukraine. If things go more-or-less as OTL (Mongols, expansion of Lithuania) by XVI-XVII C. there'd be an increasingly important wheat trade route - Ukraine - Byzantium - South-Western Europe.
The curious butterfly effect would be on Ukraine. If things go more-or-less as OTL (Mongols, expansion of Lithuania) by XVI-XVII C. there'd be an increasingly important wheat trade route - Ukraine - Byzantium - South-Western Europe.
I don't understand why some people think a Byzantine Empire that survives as a united state (instead of divided into the Latin Empire, Nicea, Trebizond, and other successor states) would do less well against the Seljuks. A united Byzantium would have far more resources, and serve as a much greater deterrance to Seljuk expansion. Good leaders among the Laskaris and other families would still be available to the empire.
In addition, the early 13th century saw the height of power for Cilician Armenia and Georgia. A minimal amount of cooperation between the three could mean that all retain their power against the Seljuks, and be good enough to survive until the Mongols arrive. There is even potential for expansion.
The fragmentation of Byzantine certainly helped the Seljuks. They took advantage and expanded. When they were defeated, like at the Battle of Antioch on the Meander, they were still able to negotiate a favorable peace because Nicaea did not have enough strength to exploit their victory. A united Byzantium would, and if the war goes worse for the Turks, you could have Georgia and Armenia wanting to share in the spoils.
So I don't think Constantinople not being sacked means the Seljuks do even better.
The question is what happens when the Mongols show up. They likely vassalize the Seljuks, Georgians, and Armenians. At this point, do they turn south and head towards Egypt as they did IOTL? Or do they seek some kind of submission from Constantinople? I think the Byzantines would be less defiant than the Mamlukes, so it's possible the Mongols still head south.
In addition, the early 13th century saw the height of power for Cilician Armenia and Georgia. A minimal amount of cooperation between the three could mean that all retain their power against the Seljuks, and be good enough to survive until the Mongols arrive. There is even potential for expansion.
The fragmentation of Byzantine certainly helped the Seljuks. They took advantage and expanded. When they were defeated, like at the Battle of Antioch on the Meander, they were still able to negotiate a favorable peace because Nicaea did not have enough strength to exploit their victory. A united Byzantium would, and if the war goes worse for the Turks, you could have Georgia and Armenia wanting to share in the spoils.
So I don't think Constantinople not being sacked means the Seljuks do even better.
The question is what happens when the Mongols show up. They likely vassalize the Seljuks, Georgians, and Armenians. At this point, do they turn south and head towards Egypt as they did IOTL? Or do they seek some kind of submission from Constantinople? I think the Byzantines would be less defiant than the Mamlukes, so it's possible the Mongols still head south.
Constantinople
For conditions in Asia Minor at this period see: The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor, by Speros Vryonis.