Neo-Latin states in the Aegean? (Yet another Prince of Peace Question)

As I wrote here, the Girays taking over the Ottoman Empire has profound effects on the Mediterranean. Of course, this TL I'm working on has a different Med, as Venice has not violently declined. Suleiman was succeeeded by Murad, an insane Sultan whose mother pursued a pacificist policy. As such, as late as the 1 aid, tired of rule under an Ottoman Pasha who has meddled into their affairs for too long and even abrogated their autonomy). Venice had no qualms following an aggressive policy against the Turks following the occupation of age old colonies such as Naxos. Genoa, under the same pressure, banded together with Venice (both covertly funded by Spanish silver).

Venice and Genoa's large banking houses eventually throw their clout behind Giray, supplying vast funds to the Crimean Khanate, turning their steppe forces into a true army capable of taking the crown, and much later taking down the rebellious Egytians. He awarded them with generous land grants: Venice is allowed to annex Morea, which received it's pre-1570 autonomy under the Ottomans and then some. It was during this time of weakness that Venice expanded her interests further north, bringing her protection and influence over Attica, where the Duchy of Athens is reformed. Yet while Morea had been directly annexed to Venice with significant autonomy, Athens legally remained part of the Ottoman Empire, with the rump Eyalet of Morea simply merely ceased to exist, with Athens taking it's place. The Duchy is granted a generous amount of autonomy, the duchy being hereditary and the duke free to choose his own councillors, with the defense of the duchy being by the Venetians, who had their own troops in Athens, Thebes, and Ypati. Yet it is still very much part of the Ottoman Empire. Friction immediately erupts over the status of Athens and it's exact position within the empire. Some see it as a temporary status to allow the Giray Sultan's to consolidate things, while the Venetians hope to turn it into an economic sattelite, perhaps united with Morea.

The Girays were even more generous in regards to the myriad of former Italian outposts in the Aegean that had been seized in the 1560s by Turkish forces. Lacking the forces to defend them and needing troops for more important campaigns, the Girays were extremely liberal in allowing Venice and Genoa to reoccupy their old outposts. For Venice, this saw the restoration of the Duchy of Naxos, the even older Lordship of Negroponte, and even the island of Lemnos, which despite being a Venetian dependency for a short time was held by the Genoese in the end. For the Genoese themselves, they were granted Lesbos and Chios along with their dependencies.

This brings up an interesting situation. At least on Naxos, the Venetians probably restore the Duchy to the closest heir. In the Morea, the Maniots had no shortage of champs whom they rooted for. With a surviving house of Montferra, it's quite likely that a second son would be inivited to serve as Prince of Morea. For the Genoese, prominent families are probably dolled out these lands as feudal dependencies. Yet this is no Byzantine wank; it's not even a Latin wank, but rather an interesting turn of events (Ottoman extinction) with a bizarre turn of events (brief Neo-Latin revival in the Aegean!). Much like the original Latin dependencies, these are not independent statelets in any sense but dependencies of Venice and Genoa. Colonies with fancy titles. Morea is a pseudo-exception, as the autonomy granted by Venice is coCould this Giray compromise in and around Greece give birth to a number of neo-Latin states? Built upon old foundations of states that were washed away or short lived, their houses scattered. I am not talking of the Duchy of Naxos under say, Charlotte Crispo and Lorenzo II d'Medici lasting into the modern day.

Everyone knows Giray is buying time. He is appeasing the west so he can deal with bigger threats; when the time, Naxos, Morea, and even Chio can be taken with no issue. But what sort of cultural effects might a neo-Latinism have on European culture? The Girays, in taking over the Ottoman Empire, won't be concerned with these islands, at least at first. They are dealing with a charismatic force in Egypt that by their enthronement in Constantinople has Egypt and Syria under their thumb, having co-opted the Maronites and other sects in the region. Egypt and Syria will eventually be reincorporated, but it will be the Aegean and Greece that will be the mess, even if Syria and Egypt are open to foreign merchants.

I am not want a restored Kingdom of Jerusalem. I do not want the Muslims permanently maimed and in retreat. I merely want the Venetians and Genoese taking advantage of a weak client (The Girays of the Crimea), only to eventually get fucked over.The Ottoman Empire will merely have a rough spot that some take advantage of, but they most definitely be resurgent, and these tiny states created in the vaccum will certainly be the first to go.

But what matters to me here is the effects of these events culturally: not only in the Christian world, but the near east. With the "Latins" returning, what would the Muslims think? These are not sovereign states, but rather (most probably vis a vis Moea and Naxos, Venetian dependencies). Still, what effect could they have? Naxos and Chios were not intellectual strongholds, but I could see Morea become one especially if the Venetians choose a proper Prince to serve as their governor, most likely a member of the House of Montferrat, given their Palagoloi blood. Could we see Morea become the short lived home of the Greek scientific revolution, until scattered a few generations later by the Girays when they reclaim the province.

There is also the idea of Rhodes in the Turks weakness. Are the Knights fit to make an expedition there... and if they are, would they bother? Perhaps it'd make a fitting propaganda victory to retake Rhodes, but would they consider keeping it? Or simply raid and leave> Again: it may make a fitting home for a generation, but the Girays will come knocking it will be even more bloody than the first siege that ousted the Knights to Malta. Ditto with another Knighthood finding a home in the Aegean, the Knights of St, Stephen. Worth it, or a waste of time on their end? If worth it, then where?

Even if things end sadly for these neo-Latins (and they will), I can see the short lived period of Neo-Latinism as being quite popular in many circles. The Catholic Church and Catholics especially would probably support it following the end of the religious wars and the War of the Austrian Succcession as way to unite the faithful, while Protestants deride it as a false paradise. Yet these "Latin" lands manage to find men from all walks of life: missionaries take up the book and adventurers take up the sword to defend these territories, philosophies, artists, and writers wanting to create works of art and visit those of the years past, such as the acropolis, and even a small trickle true bonafide settlers, who despite having open frontiers in Meridionale (Brazil), Mexico, Peru, La Plata, and even the charted settlements in Virginia (*new name forth coming) by the Scheldt Company, decide to seek their fortunes in Greece.

These Neo-Latin states are fascinating, but they aren't meant to endure. Maybe a generation or two on average, possibly three if they are lucky. They rise due to the unique circumstances of Giray in need, but soon wiped away when he no longer has need of western generosity. Is this plausible, or just plain ridiculous? I'm running on little energy and lots of caffeine and these hands just keep typing away...
 
Last edited:
I don't see why the Giray would exactly need to retake these piddling little islands and parts of Greece. The wealthiest parts of the empire would still be in Giray hands, and in times of resurgence the Giray could just economically browbeat the islands, perhaps seizing the states of the Anatolian coast. I see no reason for them to retake restive areas of Greece- better to focus on the actual lands that matter in Egypt and Mesopotamia, along with the threat of the Safavids (who I root for).

The effects on Europe would certainly be interesting- the romanticism of Greece would probably come much, much earlier. Actually, considering that the Giray have to conquer out of the isolated Crimea, I could see even more of Greece being taken- perhaps up to Thessaloniki. If the rulers play their cards right- we'll finance you, attack the Mamlukes, special trade concessions, etc- than I could see these states surviving in the long term. Now, if there are a bunch of tiny states, then they are fucked. I'd like to see a resurgent Islam in the rest of the Balkans, and Safavid power in Mesopotamia/East Arabia, but perhaps a united Latin state under the Montferrats, based out of Sparta or Athens (hey, there is that crazy romanticism), could be vassalized to the resurgent Giray. Certainly nothing north of Thessaloniki, but the little Aegean Islands, Crete, the Morea, Athens, etc. That would be smarter for the Latins (who know and remember the gigantic Turkish threat next door), and the Venetians/Genoese, who gain a stable trading partner rather than weak little outposts.

If the Giray are focused on the Balkans (and they should be- the Austrians will return, and they actually have armies that could threaten the Giray) and the Persian border (Safavids will most certainly exploit the vacuum and they present an alternative claim to Islamic legitimacy) then the worthless land of Hellas or whatever will pale in importance.
 
I don't see why the Giray would exactly need to retake these piddling little islands and parts of Greece. The wealthiest parts of the empire would still be in Giray hands, and in times of resurgence the Giray could just economically browbeat the islands, perhaps seizing the states of the Anatolian coast. I see no reason for them to retake restive areas of Greece- better to focus on the actual lands that matter in Egypt and Mesopotamia, along with the threat of the Safavids (who I root for).

The effects on Europe would certainly be interesting- the romanticism of Greece would probably come much, much earlier. Actually, considering that the Giray have to conquer out of the isolated Crimea, I could see even more of Greece being taken- perhaps up to Thessaloniki. If the rulers play their cards right- we'll finance you, attack the Mamlukes, special trade concessions, etc- than I could see these states surviving in the long term. Now, if there are a bunch of tiny states, then they are fucked. I'd like to see a resurgent Islam in the rest of the Balkans, and Safavid power in Mesopotamia/East Arabia, but perhaps a united Latin state under the Montferrats, based out of Sparta or Athens (hey, there is that crazy romanticism), could be vassalized to the resurgent Giray. Certainly nothing north of Thessaloniki, but the little Aegean Islands, Crete, the Morea, Athens, etc. That would be smarter for the Latins (who know and remember the gigantic Turkish threat next door), and the Venetians/Genoese, who gain a stable trading partner rather than weak little outposts.

If the Giray are focused on the Balkans (and they should be- the Austrians will return, and they actually have armies that could threaten the Giray) and the Persian border (Safavids will most certainly exploit the vacuum and they present an alternative claim to Islamic legitimacy) then the worthless land of Hellas or whatever will pale in importance.

Thank you for the super insightful answer. You're right in regards to the islands -- they're of no economic value, and for the Merchant Republics are more tradeposts more than anything. My only concern for the Girays is that these islands do connect the Eastern Med to Constantinople and the Bosphorus, so there would be an incentive to get them all in one hand. But Naxos and other islands weren't even seized by the Turks until the late 1560s, while others slowly fell during the 15th century and some earlier--so there would be no sea lane troubles. Morea and eventually Athens may be the biggest form as the Girays will want to take it back, but it's not a huge issue. For the most part, the Girays will be focused on the Balkans and Anatolia, and especially the East, retaking Iraq from the Safavids and reconquering Syria and Egypt who in the years before Murad's death had openly revolted.

As for Greece, I suppose it could go further, but when you get out of the Morea and Attica, boundaries are more muddled. The Thessaloniki of the 17th century was not a typical Greek city; it had Greek inhabitants, but it was actually majority Jewish IIRC and had many Muslims. So I simply chose the Venetians to annex Morea while the remainder of that Eyalet is spun off into the old Duchy of Athens, as the borders correspond perfectly.

While there may be more issues in and around Thessaloniki, the Girays should be fine. They manage to coopt some pillars of support within the empire and aside from the Albanians and quite possibility the Bosnians, the South Slavs form a major base too, as the Girays promise to end the Janissary system. Now, one can argue the Greeks are South Slavs too, but they are a unique case in that they have a foreign power (Venice) interested in them. But the Giray base of power will most definitely be the Balkans and Anatolia.

Agreed on the Austrians and Persia. I think if a situated persented it's self, the new Giray Sultans may to retake Morea and especially Athens, but would have bigger fish to fry. Like the Ottomans who were content to ignore these Latin remnants in the Aegean, I think the Girays probably would too.

You've given me a lot to think about...
 
Yeah- I didn't think the Latins could take Thessaloniki, nor would that be particularly good for its Sephardic inhabitants. As for the rest- I think that the Balkans could definitely fall in Giray favor, especially with the 30 Years War etc, but Mesopotamia, which had Shia Arabs, may stay Safavid. They had a stable power base close to Mesopotamia and were a difficult opponent for the Ottos at the height of their power, let alone a reconquered Giray Empire. I think that Armenia could certainly be reseized, along with the Mamluks, but Mesopotamia may be a sore, like it was when the region had Byzantines and Sassanids fighting in Mesopotamia.
 
Yeah- I didn't think the Latins could take Thessaloniki, nor would that be particularly good for its Sephardic inhabitants. As for the rest- I think that the Balkans could definitely fall in Giray favor, especially with the 30 Years War etc, but Mesopotamia, which had Shia Arabs, may stay Safavid. They had a stable power base close to Mesopotamia and were a difficult opponent for the Ottos at the height of their power, let alone a reconquered Giray Empire. I think that Armenia could certainly be reseized, along with the Mamluks, but Mesopotamia may be a sore, like it was when the region had Byzantines and Sassanids fighting in Mesopotamia.

That's true -- I forgot about Iraq's religious leanings. I haven't done much thought into the Girays, but I imagine they'll be rather heterodox Sunni. I'm saving the fun for a Berber empire that eventually comes to rule Algeria, Tunisia, and Tripolitania: Kibayles who are quite big on Maraboutism, which was a rather sycophant form of Islam. These Kibayles also had some really awesome traditions, such as men being forced to wear headscarves while women walked around bareheaded.

As for the Girays, I imagine heterodox Sunni. I'm not actually too sure if they were too active in support deverish lodges and the like in the way the Ottomans did. I still think Iraq might fall eventually, simply because the Persians are in a bad position geographically; they'll be a point when the Ottomans have the might to push out the Persians. Happened IOTL, anyways; Persia held Iraq for nearly thirty years and soon lost it.
 
Top