The people that have to be buddy buddy isn't the Catholic and Orthodox church, it has to be between the Byzantines and the boots on the ground, the Crusaders themselves didn't even pay heed to the Catholic Church. Remember the first crusade was lead by a Catholic priest (no one cared about the priest).
Western Europe SAVES Byzantine Empire
- Thread starter UCB79
- Start date
Yes, but why are the crusaders helping. They have no reason and lack our hindsight. There is no reason for them to help an emperor they often don't recognise. Reconciliation is one of the few things that would give the Crusaders a reason to go out of their way. No agreement was made to return anything pass Antioch to the Byzantines as they couldn't even hold it concentrating on Anatolia during the first and second.
The priest did lead it in a spiritual sense and he was highly respected. The reason we don't remember him is that he dies before taking Jerusalem. The secular leaders of the Princes' Crusade were yes composed of men seeking new land and title but also of people genuine in their belief and while they see no issue with the Byzantines without our hindsight of their future needs they wouldn't have much reason to commit fully to aiding them to talk about future crusades where the Byzantines were in need of the 'saving' the OP is asking of. What you need is a reason and while there are other ways aside from reconciliation that would be one of the easier to come-by ones.
Yes, it seems that we are in agreement though I am in firm belief that the issue couldn't be solved by a reconciliation of the church. I don't know what kind of reason for the secular princes would have for supporting Byzantines fully.
If the Crusade of Varna ends up in a Crusader victory I can only see Rome surviving long term by serving as a convenient buffer state that none of victorious powers want to outright conquer. For that to happen they would have to get pretty lucky as Venice had no qualms about conquering Constantinople before. Although I assume Constantinople would repay it's debt to the Crusaders by formally converting to Catholicism, instead of using it as extended political leverage, which would probably help a bit.
Planet of Hats
Donor
The First Crusade was the West's attempt to save the ERE. They even got there at a time when the Middle East was divided and in turmoil, and managed to win. Once. By taking Jerusalem, despite Pope Urban II sending them off to "liberate the eastern churches" rather than Jerusalem specifically. And then not give the land back to the ERE, again despite what the Pope was saying.
Saving the ERE from a Crusades point of view seems like it would require some serious effort put in to find a POD through which events will conspire to weaken and divide most anyone in the Middle East who might pose a threat. It'll also probably require the bridging of religious differences between Rome and Constantinople. And it'll probably require Crusading to not be hijacked by the avarice of the noble class.
There's always the indirect option, in which the ERE buys up an absolute pile of Norman mercenaries to fight off the Turks, only for the Normans to end up running the place.
Saving the ERE from a Crusades point of view seems like it would require some serious effort put in to find a POD through which events will conspire to weaken and divide most anyone in the Middle East who might pose a threat. It'll also probably require the bridging of religious differences between Rome and Constantinople. And it'll probably require Crusading to not be hijacked by the avarice of the noble class.
There's always the indirect option, in which the ERE buys up an absolute pile of Norman mercenaries to fight off the Turks, only for the Normans to end up running the place.
I see this said often but I don't remember at any point that the Crusaders ever agreed to give anything past Antioch back to the Byzantines. Everything after was not really planned for and it would be highly unlikely for Crusaders with an even greater degree of fervour would give the Holy land and city back to what were to them heretics. Even if they weren't the Byzantines would have been better of re-securing Anatolia before exposing themselves in dry Palestine and the Crusaders themselves would be unlikely to again go out of their way to help them without our hindsight and with their own hindsight of the threat a strong Byzantium can pose to the West and Italy more specifically which made up a large portion of the crusading forces.
Riain
Banned
I'd say the Crusade of 1101 and the 2nd crusade.
- Directly their transits of Anatolia giving the Byz the spoils of their victories in Anatolia by default.
- Indirectly they strengthen the Crusader States and give the Islamic powers in the region a target for their attentions within their heartlands, rather than the Byz on their periphery, giving the Byz breathing space.
Constantine II was already deposed from the Bulgarian throne in 1422, so neither dynasty seems to be doing well at that point.
I've wondered what would happen had Nikolas Kanabos taken the throne in 1204 though, he was asked to do so and seemed to be fairly popular.
Perhaps the Byzantines had a better knowledge of the region, but they lacked the military means to enforce it.
This, it should be the Byzantines, which have a very good offer for the Catholic Crusaders, they are in need of help, not the other way around, that's very basic Realpolitik. IMHO for that to happen both sides need to jump over their own shadow, both Orthodox and Catholics had pretty bad views from one another.
Add to that a 'Byzantine' Empire, which had to 'beg' for help in the 'Barbaric' Catholic west.
IMHO yes the Crusaders made mistakes, but Constantinople treated help from the West rather poorly. Let's just say, both sides had different expectations, and that gap was never breached.