AHC: Surviving Latin Empire of Constantinople

Since everyone loves Byzantine timelines around here: :D

So, we all know that the Latin Empire was a dismal failure, lead to the fragmenting of the Byzantine State, and lead to the eventual rise of the Ottomans. Fair enough.

But, if there anyway for the Latin Empire to consolidate its hold on the former Byzantine lands and creating a lasting state? Also, what would the effects of this state be, both in Eastern Europe and the West? Finally, how would the religious disputes play out, and what would the Latin state have to do in order to win over the Orthodox population (short of converting, of course; that seems unlikely).
 
Since everyone loves Byzantine timelines around here: :D

So, we all know that the Latin Empire was a dismal failure, lead to the fragmenting of the Byzantine State, and lead to the eventual rise of the Ottomans. Fair enough.

But, if there anyway for the Latin Empire to consolidate its hold on the former Byzantine lands and creating a lasting state? Also, what would the effects of this state be, both in Eastern Europe and the West? Finally, how would the religious disputes play out, and what would the Latin state have to do in order to win over the Orthodox population (short of converting, of course; that seems unlikely).

There's a TL called Frankokratia that develops this idea. I think it was not updated for a while though.
 
Since everyone loves Byzantine timelines around here: :D

So, we all know that the Latin Empire was a dismal failure, lead to the fragmenting of the Byzantine State, and lead to the eventual rise of the Ottomans. Fair enough.
Actually, it lead byzantines (for Niceans) to consolidate their presence in western Anatolia and to efficiently hold the aera against Turks, while the Balkans (that were the focus of byzantines before 1204) entered in a period of troubles.

But, if there anyway for the Latin Empire to consolidate its hold on the former Byzantine lands and creating a lasting state?

First, you'll need a victory against Bulgarians in Adrianople. This battle was really crushing for Latins as it ended with the death of the emperor without clear sucession. If possible, winning the wars against Bulgarians would allow Latins to hold more than coastal land, and therefore secure their core holdings.

Second, one of the biggest issue is the almost total lack of support in the population. While in Syria and Palestine, crusaders recieved a relative support from oriental christians (not talking about Spain), they couldn't count on any real support in Romania.
I don't see a realistic way to have it, tough.

Third, the division of ERE lands was made by Venice and Crusaders : there was no land to acquire really. Even the lands kept by greek states as Epirus were considered as part of Venice or another lord holding.
So, there was little motivation for western lords to reinforce LE forces, critically when you other, closer and somewhat more glorious target (don't remember that the pillaging by crusaders of a christian city more or less casted a chill ) : Spain, Southern France, Baltic...
Finally, the international situation wasn't really the best to send knights in far lands : Germany was kind in turmoil, Phillip Augustus was eating the Plantagenet holdings and these three realms were the more important providers of crusaders...

Don't forget that LEC was using caricaturally feudal institutions. In the same time where western kings began to really impose their domination not only in an institutional way (that was already quite effective) but also military, economically and politically, having an LEC that was more a collection of states (whom a good part under venetian influence) than something like ERE...

Finally, something important for medieval times : dynastic stability. You didn't have a clear sucession rule (and it was heavily dependent on the opinion of the imperial vassals).

To resume, you'll need :

- Military victories against Bulgarians
- Support from at last part of the greek elite
- Motivation for western nobles to reinforce the LEC
- Having emperors with more power and/or less powerful vassals
- Less venetian influence
- Dynastic stability

Let's be honest, you couldn't have that with OTL LEC, as the main part of this was due to its creation conditions themselves.
You could try to create an ATL LEC from A to Z, but it wouldn't be the LEC except in name.

Also, what would the effects of this state be, both in Eastern Europe and the West?

Little in the West, at least at middle term : they had other things to be busy with.
In East? Depending on the situation it could mean a lasting byzantine Anatolia, a smaller Bulgarian Empire, a slightly more powerful Venetian influence...

Finally, how would the religious disputes play out, and what would the Latin state have to do in order to win over the Orthodox population (short of converting, of course; that seems unlikely).
Nothing.
First, the religious difference was a great way to segregate greeks from latins.
Then, when other religion represent an important but still partial part of the population, you can deal with. But when you're talking about 99%...
 
For a slightly different take:

There were several attempts to revive the Latin Empire after its fall. In particular, Charles of Anjou (King of Sicily and brother of Louis IX of France) was involved in planning several expeditions; the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII was able to make promises and eventually help incite a revolt in Sicily to keep Charles busy, but absent the Sicilian Vespers I could see Charles at least succeeding in taking much of Greece (beyond what he and various Latins controlled OTL), and reforming a Latin Empire focused on Sicily and the Morea.
 
I could see Charles at least succeeding in taking much of Greece (beyond what he and various Latins controlled OTL), and reforming a Latin Empire focused on Sicily and the Morea.

Charles d'Anjou sucess was particularly dependent of the help he recieved from his brother : the troops he used for fighting in East were mainly mercenaries fighting for their own that would have let Charles being ruler in name only.

Considering his regular defeats and failures in his balkanic campaigns (Albania mainly prooved to be a dead end for him), he had enough trouble to make his claim to Achaia Principality realists, and I don't think he could have seriously claim LEC.

He simply didn't had the financial, diplomatic and military ressources to launch himself in such conquest, depsite its obsession on having an oriental royal title (that ended to buy for himself a claim to another unconquerable kingdom : Jerusalem)
 
Top