A more successful Latin Empire

In real life, the Latin Empire, established after the Fourth Crusade to supplant the Byzantine Empire, was something of a failure: dogged by a lack of resources from the start, its Emperors soon ceased to have any meaningful control outside the walls of Constantinople, and the Empire itself is remembered chiefly for screwing over the Byzantines. My question is twofold: first of all, what would have needed to be different for the Empire to become more successful and firmly established, and for the crusaders to establish a viable Latin state centred in Constantinople? Secondly, what would be the long- and short-term effects of such a state being established?

As to the first, I don't know enough about the period to comment with any authority, but as far as I know the Latins essentially tried to get rid of all the old Byzantine governing structures and build their own government from scratch, with about as much success as such attempts usually meet with; they were also troubled by the Bulgarians to the north. Would changing these factors enable the Empire to establish itself as a viable state?

As to the second, and assuming that a well-established Latin Empire would be stronger than the OTL Byzantine Empire -- at any rate, it would probably have an easier time attracting support from the West -- would it be able to stop the Turkish advance into Europe? Expand into Asia Minor and retake Anatolia? Culturally speaking, what would happen? Would the Latins be assimilated into the Greek-speaking rest of the country, or vice versa, or would a hybrid culture spring up? Would the Emperors try and reduce the potential for religious strife by working to heal the Great Schism? Come the Reformation and the Enlightenment -- assuming these things aren't butterflied away -- would the Latin Empire be receptive to new ideas? Historiographically speaking, would we think of there being a "Latin Empire" at all, or would we just view it as the Byzantine Empire with a foreign ruling class being imposed? And would the Fourth Crusade be remembered less negatively if the state it set up actually lasted and prospered?

Man, there are so many juicy butterflies here, I'm surprised we don't see TLs about this more often...
 
People here are just very Byzantophilic: Ideas on the Latin Empire would seem blasphemous to them. :p

Anyways I would need proper research before touching this subject accurately.
 
My question is twofold: first of all, what would have needed to be different for the Empire to become more successful and firmly established, and for the crusaders to establish a viable Latin state centred in Constantinople?

A victory against Bulgarians is mandatory, as it prevented Latin Empire to really strengthen its presence on Balkans. ITTL you could see an end to Epirus Despotate if Venice and Latin Empire manages to make a rear alliance.
Eventually, that would make one front less to be busy about.

Then, not sacking the hell out of Constantinople but refraining it a bit, in order to have something worth ruling over (admittedly, you had a great tension between Latins and Greeks at this time : no slaughter of Latins would have helped)

Finally Nicean Empire must be aborted : but you'll also need greek states strong enough to prevent Turks to have an access to sea and threatening Latins. Eventually a Nymphaion-like treaty with Latin Empire without rivaling Emperor would increase Constantinople's legitimacy.

Secondly, what would be the long- and short-term effects of such a state being established?

That said, the crusader structure of the Latin Empire effectivly prevent an unity between its constituent kingdoms and Thrace, without forgotting Venetian de facto overlordship.

They didn't exactly rejected every byzantine institutions, but feudal structures overruled them. Henri of Flanders tried to compose with Greeks, attracting some to its court. If Latin Empire manages to pass as a Latino-Byzantine Empire, with more or less legitimacy at the eyes of Greek elites, it would be a great advancy.

That said Latin Empire wouldn't be more powerful as Byzantine Empire in the same period
A western help, however is to be ruled out except for ponctual reinforcements against Turks (even that is not a given), and letting Anatolia ruled by greek buffer states would have been more interesting for Latins.

It was speculated on this board, that 4th Crusade actually forced Greeks to focus on Anatolia with Nicean Empire and that without it, Turks would have taken it over more quickly. On the other hand, Balkans were taken over by Bulgars and Serbs far more easily.
But with a greek "balkanisation" in Anatolia and Latin victories in Balkans, the situation could be reversed.

For cultural assimilation, I doubt it : Latin rulers didn't made it OTL in Greece, and while they could create a creole culture as in Palestine, they wouldn't be greeks, religion forming an immense obstacle.

The best you could go with, would be less a more lasting Latin Empire (though it could be seen ITTL more as a real equivalent of the Kingdom of Jerusalem than a failed empire), but more lasting franco-byzantine states on continental Greece with eventually a catholicisation of the population.

Man, there are so many juicy butterflies here, I'm surprised we don't see TLs about this more often...
Well, some confuse Byzantophily with Byzantolatry.
Not that Latins did much for improving their image : the plundering of the city shoked up to the pope that (it's worth noticing) didn't sanctioned this crusade at first.
But there's a tendency to spouse even the most radical byzantine views about the outside world as genuine, even when obviously biased (would it be for good reasons).
 
Last edited:

Dirk

Banned
As far as the personalities involved, having Baldwin I win against the Bulgarians no more than a year after his coronation as Emperor is a great start. He was apparently young, vigorous, pious, gallant, and took his crusading vows strictly (we conquer for God, no rape, no torture, no looting, etc.).

His brother Henry (the next emperor) wasn't bad, but of course the loss of such a major battle and the power shift that ensued with the Emperor's capture was anything but good for the Emperor's authority.

Now with Baldwin continuing as Emperor, he can perhaps convince his lords not to basically melt down everything of value and turn it into cash, and to ingratiate themselves with the local population. A state in the mold of William of Champlitte and Geoffrey de Villehardouin's Principality of Achaea, which lasted well into the 15th century and remained Catholic and Western (upper strata) culturally would perhaps be ideal.

A thorn in the early emperors' sides was Boniface of Montferrat, who seized Thessalonica before Baldwin could get to it and thus became his most powerful vassal and internal enemy. Perhaps Baldwin turns from Nicaea earlier (he spent a lot of time beating the Byzantines into the dirt; I'm not sure how you'll manage this POD), seizes Thessalonica and other major towns in Macedonia, and, thus reinforced, defeats the Bulgarians handily before they can fully get ready.

Does this sound good?
 
He was apparently young, vigorous, pious, gallant, and took his crusading vows strictly (we conquer for God, no rape, no torture, no looting, etc.).
Crusading vows didn't excluded violence at all : it's just that this violence should have been restricted to heathens. (Actually if he did took his vows seriously, he would have done like the rest of the Crusaders that preferred not to attack Adriatic cities for Venice to begin with).

His brother Henry (the next emperor) wasn't bad, but of course the loss of such a major battle and the power shift that ensued with the Emperor's capture was anything but good for the Emperor's authority.
On the other hand, his brother does seems to have actively tried to concily himself some Greeks, with tryng to get them in his council. Baldwin didn't tried such thing, as far as I know.
 
A less brutal sack in 1204, which crippled Constantinople as a capital might have helped, but I think the chief obstacle is the gulf between rulers and ruled: Initially, many Greeks, especially in Thrace, were willing to accommodate themselves with the Crusaders, but the Latin clergy made itself rapidly hated by its haughtiness and refusal to acknowledge the requests of the Orthodox population to have its own priests, even under Catholic prelates. This was a mistake that backfired quite spectacularly when the Greeks sided with the invading Bulgarians already in 1205, and it was only Kaloyan's massacring of Greeks in turn that prompted their re-defection back to the Latin Empire. Henry of Flanders understood this situation and tried to rein in his clerics and conciliate the Greeks, but it was already too late.

IMO, Boniface of Montferrat would have been a far better choice as emperor (indeed, he would have been elected but for the Venetians) as he was both more experienced and more acquainted with the Byzantine state and its customs. His kinship with the Angeloi also conferred him more legitimacy in the eyes of the population, and his ties to Genoa would have made him less dependent on Venice. Of course, whether he would be better able to check the Bulgarians than Baldwin or henry is a matter of conjecture, but if you want a "Latin Empire" that is a true Western-Byzantine amalgam, I think Boniface would be the way to go.
 
Then, not sacking the hell out of Constantinople but refraining it a bit, in order to have something worth ruling over (admittedly, you had a great tension between Latins and Greeks at this time : no slaughter of Latins would have helped)

Although then again, without the massacre of the Latins we might not have seen a Latin capture of Constantinople in the first place...

Still, not destroying quite so much of Constantinople would definitely be a good idea. IIRC part of the reason the city was so damaged is that the crusaders attempted to defend themselves from Byzantine counter-attacks by setting fire to the buildings around their position, so a Latin attack that succeeded more quickly could help with this.

That said Latin Empire wouldn't be more powerful as Byzantine Empire in the same period

I think it depends on how quickly it can get established. IOTL part of the reason Byzantium lost so much ground is that it had to spend sixty years essentially reconquering the European half of its empire (and even then most of Greece remained in Latin hands). If the Latin Empire manages to establish itself quickly as the legitimate successor state it wouldn't have to do this, and could focus its resources on defence against external foes.

It was speculated on this board, that 4th Crusade actually forced Greeks to focus on Anatolia with Nicean Empire and that without it, Turks would have taken it over more quickly.

I'd heard the opposite -- the Empire of Nicaea spent most of its efforts reconquering Europe, leaving the Anatolian frontier weakened and vulnerable to attack.

For cultural assimilation, I doubt it : Latin rulers didn't made it OTL in Greece, and while they could create a creole culture as in Palestine, they wouldn't be greeks, religion forming an immense obstacle.

Well at the least I'd expect them to become fluent in Greek over the next couple of generations, simply in order to communicate with 90% of the rest of the population.
 
Although then again, without the massacre of the Latins we might not have seen a Latin capture of Constantinople in the first place...
That's a fair point, but it really had an important impact on Crusaders views of Byzantines, making them passing from "semi-hereticals, but powerful and possibly helpful" to "murderous crowd barely held by the emperors".

IIRC part of the reason the city was so damaged is that the crusaders attempted to defend themselves from Byzantine counter-attacks by setting fire to the buildings around their position, so a Latin attack that succeeded more quickly could help with this.
It might work, but loot would have been still an huge motivator, critically for the ones that didn't intended to settle there.

If the Latin Empire manages to establish itself quickly as the legitimate successor state it wouldn't have to do this, and could focus its resources on defence against external foes.

Even if Bulgarians and Epiriots are ruled out, the Latin Empire would have still do deal with other Latin States : Thessalonica and Greek feudal states were practically independent and barely acknowledged imperial authority (when I say barely, I mean "Try to do that and I ally myself with Bulgarians"). The Latin Emperor didn't had, and by far, the same authority greek emperors or western christian kings had.

I'd heard the opposite -- the Empire of Nicaea spent most of its efforts reconquering Europe, leaving the Anatolian frontier weakened and vulnerable to attack.
I'm not that convinced : Niceans focused more on anatolian grounds in a first time, agreeing with Latins in the Treaty of Nymphaion to effectivly share the former empire.
The Despotate of Epirius, for instance, took really more part into the military collapse of the Latin Empire balkanic parts.
In fact, would have some claimants to the imperial title wouldn't have searched Latin help against emperors (as during Battle of Poimaneion), I'm not sure when Niceans would have actually tried to take on Latins. Probably around the 40's.

I think that without Nicean Empire, Seljuk might have taken more of Anatolia before the Mongol Invasions.

Well at the least I'd expect them to become fluent in Greek over the next couple of generations, simply in order to communicate with 90% of the rest of the population.
What for? You have translators for that, and while I think frankish lords may have made that OTL, they probably tried to use linguistic features the same way Normans did in Anglo-Saxon England, as a social separator.

Remember that Franks were present in really few numbers, and that they needed to keep the distinction as much they could (explaining more or less why they didn't tried too much to catholicise local populations).

Franks managed to have some unions with Armenians and oriental Christians in Palestine, but both communauties had actually good relations almost since the beggining of the Latin States there : regular union with Greek nobility would have implied good relations with them and actual acknowledgment of their authority.

Admittedly, if you manage to have such, you could have a more or less "exotic" Frankish culture there, but not at all a mixed one.
 
It might work, but loot would have been still an huge motivator, critically for the ones that didn't intended to settle there.

True, but a looted city is still much more promising a capital than a charred wasteland.


Even if Bulgarians and Epiriots are ruled out, the Latin Empire would have still do deal with other Latin States : Thessalonica and Greek feudal states were practically independent and barely acknowledged imperial authority (when I say barely, I mean "Try to do that and I ally myself with Bulgarians"). The Latin Emperor didn't had, and by far, the same authority greek emperors or western christian kings had.

Yes, there'd have to be some way of breaking up the great fiefs to stop them becoming over-powerful. By way of comparison, William the Conqueror gave his great magnates territories scattered throughout England and Normandy, which ensured that (a) their power-base was split up, and hence it was harder to gather enough men to rebel, and (b) that no matter which part of William's dominions came under attack, the major nobles always had a vested interest in defending them. Maybe a more "Norman"-style approach would have helped the Latin Empire.


I'm not that convinced : Niceans focused more on anatolian grounds in a first time, agreeing with Latins in the Treaty of Nymphaion to effectivly share the former empire.
The Despotate of Epirius, for instance, took really more part into the military collapse of the Latin Empire balkanic parts.

At first, yes, but they ended up reconquering the European lands and switching their focus to that part of their Empire.

What for? You have translators for that, and while I think frankish lords may have made that OTL, they probably tried to use linguistic features the same way Normans did in Anglo-Saxon England, as a social separator.

Norman rule in England is actually a very good example of what I had in mind, as the Norman conquerors ended up assimilating into the native English population, whilst at the same time the Norman French language and culture heavily influenced the English language and culture.

Remember that Franks were present in really few numbers, and that they needed to keep the distinction as much they could (explaining more or less why they didn't tried too much to catholicise local populations).

Franks managed to have some unions with Armenians and oriental Christians in Palestine, but both communauties had actually good relations almost since the beggining of the Latin States there : regular union with Greek nobility would have implied good relations with them and actual acknowledgment of their authority.

Admittedly, if you manage to have such, you could have a more or less "exotic" Frankish culture there, but not at all a mixed one.

Maybe this is where removing the massacre of the Latins could come in: without the memory of this colouring the crusaders' views, they might be less concerned with keeping as much distance between themselves as the Greeks as possible.
 
Yes, there'd have to be some way of breaking up the great fiefs to stop them becoming over-powerful.
You mean, even more than OTL? That's gonna be hard, except by having more crusaders to participate to the share.

Maybe a more "Norman"-style approach would have helped the Latin Empire.

Unappliable there : William had continental reservoirs of nobles and people ready to cut themselves a demesnes in England, and even that wasn't made in one wave but in decade.
Latin Empire emptied his demographical reserves as soon it was created : no real reinforcement (at least not ponctual) should be expected.

At first, yes, but they ended up reconquering the European lands and switching their focus to that part of their Empire.
Yes, in the same time Turkish threat vanished, by the grace of Mongol campaigns.

Norman rule in England is actually a very good example of what I had in mind, as the Norman conquerors ended up assimilating into the native English population, whilst at the same time the Norman French language and culture heavily influenced the English language and culture.
It, litteraly, took ages for that happening.
Latin Empire simply doesn't have one single asset Anglo-Norman England had : large demesne, no immediate hostile neighbours, more military power (heck, even Crusader States in Palestine had more), division up to embarassement.

Unless some remote islands or outposts on Greece could count as successful Latin Empire, I simply don't see that happening by simple lack of time.

Maybe this is where removing the massacre of the Latins could come in: without the memory of this colouring the crusaders' views, they might be less concerned with keeping as much distance between themselves as the Greeks as possible.
Not really, distance with Byzantines pretty much began with the First Crusade, beggining with a mutual incomprehension : Byzzies tought Franks were there as a mercenary force that they could use for imperial interests, Franks tought Byzzies were ready to help them taking Jerusalem back for the sake of it.

Apart Manuel I's reign, where he actually did much for trying to fill the gaps without giving up imperial interests, and at the exception of most of Crusader States safe Antioch, Byzantines had a rather bad reputation.
 
Top