The Crusaders did in fact sack Constantinople and basically destroyed the empire. I don't see them acually launching a full fledged attack against the byzantines
The 4th Crusade wasnt proclaimed against Byzantines... Venetians and the deposed Emperor Alexius III lured the Crusader army against Constantinople for their own reasons... Pope Innocens III was against that move and as soon as he learned that Crusaders had sacked the Imperial City he excommunicated the leaders (with no effects anyway)...
Apart from greed i see no other reason for a Crusade being called against Byzantium... it would be suicidal to do that since Byzantine Empire was the barrier between Europe and Turkic people...
That is what i said. They the fourth crusade did sack the city and threw any chance of the Byzantines holding on much longer.
The Only way i could see a crusade is if the Patriarch personally sticks his ass up in the air at the pope.
Not even then... They would exchange insults renew their mutual excommunications etc. but there would be no crusade for that reason... it wasnt called 150 years earlier in 1054... why now?
Because the empire was weaker and a Crusade might actually succeed. In 1054 the Byzantines would have smooshed a Crusade like a teeny little bug. There are always multiple reasons for everything. The Crusades were not just launched for religious purposes.
And while the Pope might not have intended the 4th Crusade to destroy Constantinople, the Venetians clearly did.
What about a crusade against Byzantium circa 1090, around the time of the First Crusade of OTL? Would that be any more successful?
Do you mean "... leaves the field open for the Seljuks to face..."? At this point it was the Turks dominating Anatolia. The Arab presence peaked around two hundred years previously.Even worse... If 1st Crusade redirects to Constantinople and destroys the Empire that leaves the field open for the Arabs to face a weakened Crusading army...
Do you mean "... leaves the field open for the Seljuks to face..."? At this point it was the Turks dominating Anatolia. The Arab presence peaked around two hundred years previously.
As to your input: I remember reading that the Seljuks actually besieged Constantinople a decade or so earlier in OTL. So if the city has been taken by the crusaders, it will then fall to the Seljuks ~350 years early.Indeed... thanks for the correction...
Even worse... If 1st Crusade redirects to Constantinople and destroys the Empire that leaves the field open for the Arabs to face a weakened Crusading army...
Hey, Arabs, Turks, Persians, they're all Saracens to me!Don Giorgio. I hope you won't hold grudge on me for doing this, but mistaking one group with a completely different another is such a terrible flaw. It was like mistaking French with Germans, or Italians with Spanish.....
So, please don't take this personally, my friend.
*Asher shoots his own head in the spot*