DBWI: The Egyptian Crusade goes ahead

The Egyptian crusade(OTL fourth crusade), named after it's intended target, was supposed to leave Europe in 1202 for Egypt and the Holy land. Financial contraits however put a early end to the project. The crusaders were unable to pay the Venetians for their services. Having incurred a considerable cost building and manning it's fleet the Venetians refused to ferry the crusaders to the holy land before the crusaders pay what was agreed upon.

What if the crusaders and the Venetians were able to work out some agreement with what they had?
 
Last edited:
The Egyptian crusade(OTL fourth crusade), named after it's intended target, was supposed to leave Europe in 1202 for Egypt and the Holy land. Financial contraits however put a early end to the project. The crusaders were unable to pay the Venetians for their services. Having incurred a considerable cost building and manning it's fleet the Venetians refused to ferry the crusaders to the holy land before the crusaders pay what was agreed upon.

What if the crusaders and the Venetians were able to work out some agreement with what they had?

Doge Dandolo finds the merchant families of the city kicking him out of office or mutinying against his authority if he tries to bum off the sheer cost of building that giant fleet on his citizens (not subjects: CITIZENS) across the Lagoon. No way this occurs unless the Crusaders can come how pull together the cash to pay the Venetians, and how are they going to do that? After the failure of the last two Crusades to accomplish anything of note, they can't do it on the promise of loot. Opening up trade privlages? They already had those. You have to remember this is a truly massive debt, and no way the Crusaders who've already mostly beggered themselves for this expedition will be willing to cover the cost of the no-shows.

Now... would the expedition gong the conventional route through Hungary and Byzantium count? The Egyptan/False Crusade was a truely massive force, and I imagine they could repeat the 1st Crusade's success in intimidating their way into gaining passage and chopping their way to Antioch with a bit of luck. With Constantinople as unstable as it was, no way they won't be eager to ship the Franks across into Asia minor as fast as possible or place any demands on them behyond "Get out of here and go kill some Turks!" Whatever the case, its a lot better of a scenario for the Jews of Europe... having a large number of armed, organize, zealious Christians who'd just emptied their pockets in order to fight for God without result in the vacinity could never turn out good for relatively defenseless non-Christians who had wealth to be... "reclaimed"
 
There were issues about Dalmatia which Venice may have used. Otherwise it might go to Ifriqya in North Africa
Dalmatia was part of the Christian kingdom of Hungary. If the Venetians wanted to do anything there, they would have to do so alone. The pope and the average crusader would not stand for any attempt to wage war on their fellow christians.
 
Dalmatia was part of the Christian kingdom of Hungary. If the Venetians wanted to do anything there, they would have to do so alone. The pope and the average crusader would not stand for any attempt to wage war on their fellow christians.

As much as it sounds weird, it isn't far fetched if the crusaders made a deal with them. The Crusaders did worse things to their fellow Christians, this won't be new.

Now something ASB'ish would be a Venetian ordered Crusader attack on... Sicily or the East Roman Empire?
 
As much as it sounds weird, it isn't far fetched if the crusaders made a deal with them. The Crusaders did worse things to their fellow Christians, this won't be new.

Now something ASB'ish would be a Venetian ordered Crusader attack on... Sicily or the East Roman Empire?
No way the Pope would tolerate an attack against his own (officially) vassal. And good luck against the Theodosian wall. There is a reason no one ( except imperial pretenders through treachery) ever conquered the City. Though I've to admit the empire had reached its lowest point under the Angeloi.
 
No way the Pope would tolerate an attack against his own (officially) vassal. And good luck against the Theodosian wall. There is a reason no one ( except imperial pretenders through treachery) ever conquered the City. Though I've to admit the empire had reached its lowest point under the Angeloi.

Why attack Constantinople? If the Pope gives his thumbs up to attacking the Heretics until they have enough money to pay, they can just land and loot the coast and monestaries to get enough Shiney Things. No, the bigger issue is why Venice would be so insane as to throw away their trade privlages (That Black Sea Wealth!) for this. Its a huge boon for their rival merchant cities to not have access to the Byzantine lands to trade in.

Presumably, the best way this could work is if the Roman Emperor was pressured by his political situation to (re) break with Rome formally: maybe a pretender manages to convince the Orthodox Church that the only way to recover is to return to total obedience to the Proper Rite. Then perhaps the False/Egyptian Crusade becomes the Crusade to Mend the Schism?
 
No, the bigger issue is why Venice would be so insane as to throw away their trade privlages (That Black Sea Wealth!) for this. Its a huge boon for their rival merchant cities to not have access to the Byzantine lands to trade in.
Well it seems like Dandolo didn't really like the Romans, but I'm not sure he would be willing to give up Venice's privileges for the sake of his own vengeance. Even if he did this it would mean the end of his own career (well he was old enough to not care about it) and that of his family.
Presumably, the best way this could work is if the Roman Emperor was pressured by his political situation to (re) break with Rome formally: maybe a pretender manages to convince the Orthodox Church that the only way to recover is to return to total obedience to the Proper Rite. Then perhaps the False/Egyptian Crusade becomes the Crusade to Mend the Schism?
It didn't work for Ioannes III Angelos. He dethroned his uncle and tried to mend the Schism only to end up deposed by the population of the Capital. The returns of the "Orthodox" Komnenoi from Trebizond was just the natural result of these events.
 
Well it seems like Dandolo didn't really like the Romans, but I'm not sure he would be willing to give up Venice's privileges for the sake of his own vengeance. Even if he did this it would mean the end of his own career (well he was old enough to not care about it) and that of his family.

Presumably he hoped to assume more direct control over the trade routes, which in hindsight is pretty reasonable. It was barely half a century later that the Komnenoi built the “New Fleet” and started curtailing the privileges of the Italians in favor of the expanding Greek merchant class.

It didn't work for Ioannes III Angelos. He dethroned his uncle and tried to mend the Schism only to end up deposed by the population of the Capital. The returns of the "Orthodox" Komnenoi from Trebizond was just the natural result of these events.

The Komnenoi got back into power part from faith and part from military glory. Never mind that the forces Manuel Komnenoi commanded at the capture of Ikonion were largely Turkish forces in vassalage to the Romans.
 
Maybe if Jerusalem had fallen durring the post-Hattin rut. As it was, the Jerusalem and the Outremer were fine, and few European nobles shared the Pope's opinion that Egypt ending its tributary payments constituted an act of war. Make there an actual need for a Crusade and the funds will become available. As it was, the post Third Crusade Outremer didn't need another Crusade until the Komnenoi invasion, and by that point the "Outremer" was the Ilkhanate.
 
Presumably he hoped to assume more direct control over the trade routes, which in hindsight is pretty reasonable. It was barely half a century later that the Komnenoi built the “New Fleet” and started curtailing the privileges of the Italians in favor of the expanding Greek merchant class.
Direct control over trade routes means also direct control over Constantinople. I find hard to believe that the Venetians and the Crusaders would be able to succedes were the Persians, Arabs and Bulgarians failed.

The Komnenoi got back into power part from faith and part from military glory. Never mind that the forces Manuel Komnenoi commanded at the capture of Ikonion were largely Turkish forces in vassalage to the Romans.
The way Manuel II Komnenos successfully integrated the Turks into his army was one of the greatest success for the empire of the XIII century, as the capture of Ikonion showed. However it almost backfired when his most skilled commander Ioannes (despite the confusion, I prefer to use his Roman name) revolted against his son Ioannes V.
 
Direct control over trade routes means also direct control over Constantinople. I find hard to believe that the Venetians and the Crusaders would be able to succedes were the Persians, Arabs and Bulgarians failed.

I wouldn’t put it past the Angeloi to bungle things so badly as to lose, though.

The way Manuel II Komnenos successfully integrated the Turks into his army was one of the greatest success for the empire of the XIII century, as the capture of Ikonion showed. However it almost backfired when his most skilled commander Ioannes (despite the confusion, I prefer to use his Roman name) revolted against his son Ioannes V.

The integration of the Turks into the Roman political and cultural system as a whole was vital to the empire’s survival, since it allowed Constantinople to exert soft power into areas in the Anatolian hinterland where their armies were at a disadvantage. It’s telling that even two centuries later during the Yoroukoi Rebellions it was economics that did the rebels in more than campaigns.

Yeah, Ioannes V was a shortsighted, zealous incompetent who thought he could bully the beyliks into obedience without repercussion. Thankfully his brother Nikephoros inherited his father’s tolerance and cunning. He made common cause with the Turkish Ioannes, married his sister Ayse, and then led a united army to victory over the other Ioannes.
 
I wouldn’t put it past the Angeloi to bungle things so badly as to lose, though.



The integration of the Turks into the Roman political and cultural system as a whole was vital to the empire’s survival, since it allowed Constantinople to exert soft power into areas in the Anatolian hinterland where their armies were at a disadvantage. It’s telling that even two centuries later during the Yoroukoi Rebellions it was economics that did the rebels in more than campaigns.

Yeah, Ioannes V was a shortsighted, zealous incompetent who thought he could bully the beyliks into obedience without repercussion. Thankfully his brother Nikephoros inherited his father’s tolerance and cunning. He made common cause with the Turkish Ioannes, married his sister Ayse, and then led a united army to victory over the other Ioannes.
I don’t know, much of what we know about him comes from the unreliable Niketas Spatharios, a notorious supporter of emperor Nikephoros. An unknown author from the time of Nikephoros’ nephew, Manuel III, praised his economic reforms and his attempt to revitalize the impoverished regions of the empire (including the most eastern ones).
 
I don’t know, much of what we know about him comes from the unreliable Niketas Spatharios, a notorious supporter of emperor Nikephoros. An unknown author from the time of Nikephoros’ nephew, Manuel III, praised his economic reforms and his attempt to revitalize the impoverished regions of the empire (including the most eastern ones).

To be fair, do we have any unbiased sources from that era? The medieval Roman court was notoriously partisan and prone to slandering political opponents. It wasn’t until the invention of the printing press and its early adoption by politically-minded residents of the City that we get political treatises not written by one faction or another.

You’re right about Spatharios being badly biased. His claim that Nikephoros succeeding in converting the Saruhanid nobility to Orthodoxy is ludicrous; we have evidence that many of them were already Christian, including Ioannes’ family, and obviously there are still Muslim nobles in the area today.

Nikephoros’ reforms if I remember them correctly were focused on centralization, which was definitely the right idea in terms of prosperity for the whole empire but alienated local nobility. Was he the one who first suggested rebuilding the antique Persian “Royal Road”?
 
To be fair, do we have any unbiased sources from that era? The medieval Roman court was notoriously partisan and prone to slandering political opponents. It wasn’t until the invention of the printing press and its early adoption by politically-minded residents of the City that we get political treatises not written by one faction or another.

You’re right about Spatharios being badly biased. His claim that Nikephoros succeeding in converting the Saruhanid nobility to Orthodoxy is ludicrous; we have evidence that many of them were already Christian, including Ioannes’ family, and obviously there are still Muslim nobles in the area today.

Nikephoros’ reforms if I remember them correctly were focused on centralization, which was definitely the right idea in terms of prosperity for the whole empire but alienated local nobility.
Nikephoros’s reforms were just a continuation of his brother's measure: an attempt to bring back the previous Thematic system while curbing the power of the aristocracy. The only difference between the two is that Nikephoros granted a good share of power and offices to his Turkish allies (at least the most Romanized ones) while Ioannes V heavily favoured the “European” officers.
Was he the one who first suggested rebuilding the antique Persian “Royal Road”?

I think it was his father who first proposed it at the end of his campaign. Of course his death, the subsequent civil war and the conflict against the Bulgarians didn’t allow this project to take place until the reign of Basil III.

However back to the main topic, how would this successful crusade influence the events in the eastern end of the Mediterranean world? If the Crusaders go through Asia, the Romans could easily follow them and exploit their successes against the Turks, allowing for an partial earlier restoration. Would it be enough for Ioannes III to save the throne and crush the rebels at the Trebizond?
 
I could easily see the Crusaders attacking Constantinople. Even Bohemond of Taranto directly attacked Alexios shortly after the First Crusade.
 
Nikephoros’s reforms were just a continuation of his brother's measure: an attempt to bring back the previous Thematic system while curbing the power of the aristocracy. The only difference between the two is that Nikephoros granted a good share of power and offices to his Turkish allies (at least the most Romanized ones) while Ioannes V heavily favoured the “European” officers.

I guess this whole period can be characterized by the struggle between the Imperial throne and the dynatoi, so it makes sense that both would have similar goals. One good thing for the Empire was that the Turkish dynatoi were more politically divided than their Greek counterparts, so they could be more effectively played off of each other compared to the intractable power blocs elsewhere in the Empire. The massive centralizations under the Later Komnenids took the power and organization of the Turkish dynatoi as a model to reorganize the others.

I think it was his father who first proposed it at the end of his campaign. Of course his death, the subsequent civil war and the conflict against the Bulgarians didn’t allow this project to take place until the reign of Basil III.

That was the time that the Bulgarian Tsar claimed the Roman throne through his mother, right?

Of course, we all know that wasn’t the last time that the Bulgarians claimed the purple...

However back to the main topic, how would this successful crusade influence the events in the eastern end of the Mediterranean world? If the Crusaders go through Asia, the Romans could easily follow them and exploit their successes against the Turks, allowing for an partial earlier restoration. Would it be enough for Ioannes III to save the throne and crush the rebels at the Trebizond?

I could definitely see it. The additional forces would turn the tide and allow Roman reconquest into the interior at a point when Turkish identity was less entrenched as well, getting rid of a lot of future headaches for the Roman state.

On the other hand, the Crusaders and Romans colluding so openly again would definitely sour relations between the Empire and the rest of the Muslim world. I hope it wouldn’t butterfly the eventual bustling trade between Rome and Egypt...

I could easily see the Crusaders attacking Constantinople. Even Bohemond of Taranto directly attacked Alexios shortly after the First Crusade.

The Crusaders always held the Greeks in contempt as heretics, so if they had a chance they’d likely take it. We also can’t forget Naples’ bungled invasion of Arborea in the 1290s, showing that there was an interest among the Normans to expand east. If the Crusaders did take Constantinople, might we see a follow-up invasion by other Catholic powers?
 
I guess this whole period can be characterized by the struggle between the Imperial throne and the dynatoi, so it makes sense that both would have similar goals. One good thing for the Empire was that the Turkish dynatoi were more politically divided than their Greek counterparts, so they could be more effectively played off of each other compared to the intractable power blocs elsewhere in the Empire. The massive centralizations under the Later Komnenids took the power and organization of the Turkish dynatoi as a model to reorganize the others.



That was the time that the Bulgarian Tsar claimed the Roman throne through his mother, right?

Of course, we all know that wasn’t the last time that the Bulgarians claimed the purple...



I could definitely see it. The additional forces would turn the tide and allow Roman reconquest into the interior at a point when Turkish identity was less entrenched as well, getting rid of a lot of future headaches for the Roman state.

On the other hand, the Crusaders and Romans colluding so openly again would definitely sour relations between the Empire and the rest of the Muslim world. I hope it wouldn’t butterfly the eventual bustling trade between Rome and Egypt...



The Crusaders always held the Greeks in contempt as heretics, so if they had a chance they’d likely take it. We also can’t forget Naples’ bungled invasion of Arborea in the 1290s, showing that there was an interest among the Normans to expand east. If the Crusaders did take Constantinople, might we see a follow-up invasion by other Catholic powers?

There is a theory that radical Catholics in the 13th century wanted a Crusade to Constantinople to reunite the Christians under the Church of Rome. It was never taken seriously by the Pope or the Kings, Emperor etc... They were more pragmatic in these matters. Although, any planned Crusade would result in a catastrophe for the Christian World in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Roman Invasion of Sicily in the early 14th century proved that the Romans were still a strong force not to mess with...
 
The Crusaders always held the Greeks in contempt as heretics, so if they had a chance they’d likely take it. We also can’t forget Naples’ bungled invasion of Arborea in the 1290s, showing that there was an interest among the Normans to expand east. If the Crusaders did take Constantinople, might we see a follow-up invasion by other Catholic powers?
If the Crusaders took Constantinople, the Turks would at least be able to take all of Anatolia, and then the Eastern Roman Empire is screwed whether it's Orthodox or ruled by a small elite of Catholic Frankish knights. Probably a Turkic Anatolian empire would combine Hellenistic and Turco-Persian attributes, raid the coast of Greece (they'd never actually conquer it though, as raiding it would be too profitable) and temporarily take Constantinople before the Italian age.
 
There is a theory that radical Catholics in the 13th century wanted a Crusade to Constantinople to reunite the Christians under the Church of Rome. It was never taken seriously by the Pope or the Kings, Emperor etc... They were more pragmatic in these matters. Although, any planned Crusade would result in a catastrophe for the Christian World in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Roman Invasion of Sicily in the early 14th century proved that the Romans were still a strong force not to mess with...

I mean, looking at the Albigensian Crusade it isn’t hard to picture the most zealous Catholics wanting to wipe out the heretics. It was a patently impossible idea, though—a handful of zealots couldn’t bring down Orthodoxy, let alone all of the varied flavors of Eastern Christianity.

The Roman invasion of Sicily did certainly put the fear of the Basileus into Italy and beyond—but in the long run I’d argue that was bad for Rome. That fear helped Giacomo Albizzi begin his unifying efforts in Tuscany, and in the long run paved the way for the unification of Italy as we know it. The Italian navy proved itself to be a huge thorn in Rome’s side on more than one occasion, not to mention its obscene economic power and influence.

Besides, it’s not like Rome held the parts of Sicily it conquered for more than two decades. They would’ve had better luck holding parts of the Italian boot proper, where IIRC there were some actual support for Rome among native Greek speakers.

If the Crusaders took Constantinople, the Turks would at least be able to take all of Anatolia, and then the Eastern Roman Empire is screwed whether it's Orthodox or ruled by a small elite of Catholic Frankish knights. Probably a Turkic Anatolian empire would combine Hellenistic and Turco-Persian attributes, raid the coast of Greece (they'd never actually conquer it though, as raiding it would be too profitable) and temporarily take Constantinople before the Italian age.

I dunno, the Romans still controlled Bithynia and beyond at this point. Total Turkish conquest isn’t inevitable even in the wake of a nasty collapse of authority.

If some kind of unitary Turkish Empire was founded, I’d agree with your analysis. The Romans could hold them out of Europe proper with their navy, not to mention support from other Orthodox powers like Serbia.
 
Top