Crusaders fail to take Constantinople

In order to gather the 200,000 silver marks he promised to the crusaders for helping him to become emperor , Alexios IV had to confiscate the properties of his enemies and of the church . He only managed to gather half the promised sum and this measures made him very unpopular.
In january 1204 Alexios IV was deposed folowing an uprising. Alexios V Doukas became emperor and stopped the negotiations with the crusaders. As a result , in april , Constantinople was taken .

WI the crusaders' attacks had been unsucessfull ( we can assume that an epidemic breaks out in the Frankish camp , or that they lose a part of their fleet in a storm , or that the Byzantines manage to bring more troops to defend the city before the final assault )?
Let's further assume that the emperor accepts to give them half the promised sum and some logistical support ( even though he can hold the capital , he can't stop them from sacking the rest of the empire ) and that the crusaders accept because they are weakened by the storm/epidemic/failed assaults/desertions.

Now that the crusaders are gone , how does the emperor deal with the other problems the empire has at this time?
The Ionian islands , Cyprus , Bulgaria and Cilicia had already been lost ;
The treasury is empty;
The quality and the quantity of the troops is low;
The navy is small;
Alexios Comnenos proclaimed himself emperor in Trebizond;
Leon Skourgos led a rebellion in Greece and proclaimed himself despot;
Alexios III , the emperor deposed by the crusaders , is in Adrianople , rallying his supporters;
The empire has aggressive neighbours.

Is it possible for the empire to become as rich and powerfull as it was during Manuel's reign , or do we need another POD for that?
 
Many of the problems you mentioned occurred as a result of the Sack of Constantinople. There would be no Trebizond in your TL, nor the Skourgos thing.

It's still a tall order to survive, but without 1204 the prospects for the empire are certainly much greater than with it!
 
Many of the problems you mentioned occurred as a result of the Sack of Constantinople. There would be no Trebizond in your TL, nor the Skourgos thing.

According to Wikipedia ( I know it's usually not a reliable source , but it is the only place where I could find detailed information about the empire of Trebizond ) Alexios Comnenus invaded the region with Georgian help and took control of the region a month before the fall of Constantinople.
The article has The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium amog it's references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexios_I_of_Trebizond
 
According to Wikipedia ( I know it's usually not a reliable source , but it is the only place where I could find detailed information about the empire of Trebizond ) Alexios Comnenus invaded the region with Georgian help and took control of the region a month before the fall of Constantinople.
The article has The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium amog it's references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexios_I_of_Trebizond

Not surprisingly, Wikipedia is totally wrong. The Comnenus family already had a power base in the area, and Alexios left Constantinople to escape Isaac II, and may have arrived in Trebizond before the sack of Constantinople, but it wasn't a separate state. In your scenario it's just a part of the empire.
 
Not surprisingly, Wikipedia is totally wrong. The Comnenus family already had a power base in the area, and Alexios left Constantinople to escape Isaac II, and may have arrived in Trebizond before the sack of Constantinople, but it wasn't a separate state. In your scenario it's just a part of the empire.

I see.
But the fact that they had a power base in the area , allies in Georgia and a better claim to the throne than Alexios V is a problem.

I consider the sack of Constantinople to be an effect of the problems the empire had at that time rather than a cause of it's problems.
The crusaders wouldn't have come to Constantinople if the conflicts between various pretenders to the throne hadn't taken place.
If the Empire had been wealthy at that time , Alexios IV would have been able to pay the crusaders and if the army had been strong , the crusaders would have failed to overthrow the emperor and put another pretender on the throne and later sack Constantinople .
 
They would be weakened quite a bit yes. If they give that much to the crusaders, and they still have the same weak Angeli Emperors, they may have a load of trouble.
But simply by constantinople not getting sacked they can still get by. It was a tremendiously wealthy city, and the sack was one of the greatest in history, and the city essentially burned down three times in just a few years.
Maybe the weakness's revealed by the whole incident will bring down the family, and maybe they could rebuild their navy and change a few things.
 
The sack happened because Venice wanted to remove a rival. The vulnerability was caused by a temporary crisis without which the Byzantines would have squished the Crusade like a bug. The city almost held out 250 years later, depopulated and with hardly any troops, against a huge Ottoman army with tons of cannon. The Crusaders would have had less than zero percent chance of taking the city without the cooperation of rebellious Byzantine factions.

All you need is a strong leader to end up on top, and without the Sack, I would forward Comnenus himself as a likely choice.

I see.
But the fact that they had a power base in the area , allies in Georgia and a better claim to the throne than Alexios V is a problem.

I consider the sack of Constantinople to be an effect of the problems the empire had at that time rather than a cause of it's problems.
The crusaders wouldn't have come to Constantinople if the conflicts between various pretenders to the throne hadn't taken place.
If the Empire had been wealthy at that time , Alexios IV would have been able to pay the crusaders and if the army had been strong , the crusaders would have failed to overthrow the emperor and put another pretender on the throne and later sack Constantinople .
 
Crusaders

If the fall of Constantinople in 1204 had never happened, Asia Minor would have fallen to the Turks a century earlier and the empire would have ended long before 1453. What remained of Byzantine Asia Minor was in pretty sad shape in 1204, but the loss of Constantinople forced to the Greeks to make renewed efforts in Asia Minor. For Asia Minor, the loss of the capital was the best thing that ever could have happened.
 
the crusaders have to go somewhere, and I can't see Venice giving up on their plans this easily.

What do you think it would take , besides the failure to take Constantinople and half the promised sum , to make them leave ?
Would Crete or some comercial advantages suffice , or would they refuse to make a deal and sack the rest of the empire ( as the Grand Catalan Company did ) and maybe take something else ( Athens , Thessaloniki , some islands in the Aegean ) ?
 
What do you think it would take , besides the failure to take Constantinople and half the promised sum , to make them leave ?
Would Crete or some comercial advantages suffice , or would they refuse to make a deal and sack the rest of the empire ( as the Grand Catalan Company did ) and maybe take something else ( Athens , Thessaloniki , some islands in the Aegean ) ?
How about a Venetian Anatolia(we can dream:D)?
 
Top