Realistically, could the Imperium Romaniae succeed?

[Superninja76]

Hi, I'm superninja76, as you hopefully know. It's been a while since I've made a thread on alternatehistory.com, but I'm happy to be back. Anyways, enough with that, on to the topic of this thread!

Now, the Imperium Romaniae, also known as the Latin Empire, has always been a sort of guilty pleasure for me to read about. Among this byzantophilic forum it, and the event that ultimately caused its creation, are almost universally reviled. Many believe it couldn't succeed, but..perhaps it could?

At least, I believe it could. Here's some things that could influence whether or not it is not destroyed!
1: No Adrianople.
This is incredibly important!
Contemporary authors report that, initially, kaloyan, the king (tsar?) of the Bulgars, was open to a detente (if not an alliance!) with the Latins, provided both sides came up with an agreeable treaty to divide byzantine territories, some of which Kaloyan claimed. As of yet, I'm unaware what he wanted exactly, but the Latins were, apparently, uninterested, and sought to take everything by crushing Kaloyan.

As we all know, that was a major fuck-up.

Without the Bulgars utterly annihilating the crusader army at Adrianople, and imprisoning the emperor himself, the Latins could have their fortunes significantly boosted, as they had quite a significant host available to them for Adrianople, which without Kaloyan and the Bulgars attacking in the north, could be used against the Laskarids. Considering the success that Henri d'flandres had against them OTL with a massively depleted army, I don't doubt that the Latins could attempt serious campaigning in Anatolia.

2: The Venetians do not veto Boniface of Montferrat's election.
I have no idea how to prevent this, but it is quite important.
Boniface was an experienced soldier, very well-connected in the east, especially Byzantium itself, with some experience in ruling too.
Two of his relatives were kings of Jerusalem, with a third (Maria.) soon to be queen-regnant. His family had also, for some time, been allies with the Angeloi, and he actually recieved two offers to marry him off to Angeloi princesses. Interestingly, both were refused as he had been married only recently before the offers.

Had he been latin emperor, he would have had the respect of the knights, and the nobles, and quite probably would have retained Thessalonica within direct imperial control, as I doubt anyone would challenge him for rule of the empire. Far more importantly, however, he would have the respect of his own people, and he would not merely be some Venetian puppet. Perhaps, he could remove the proverbial Venetian hand, that had grasped the empire's jiggly bits tightly.

Butterflies could also change the result of the fifth crusade, as with a truly decent overall commander and a substantially larger force available to it, the fifth crusade may have succeeded. Would the empire have actually gained Eygpt had the fifth crusade been a success? Or, rather, would the newly-conquered lands be given off to some noble that participated. If so, who?

Anyways. Do you think these two events could have occured? If they had, would the Empire of Romania be saved, or at least have a chance?
I patiently await any answers.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and good day!

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

They need to coopt the Byzantine bureaucracy instead of imposing Western European feudal structures on it.

Nicaea and Epirus are far from invincible, they can be conquered, but the Latins really need native support in their territories to do it.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

The idea is interesting. Even from a 1204-spitter like me

They need to coopt the Byzantine bureaucracy instead of imposing Western European feudal structures on it.

Nicaea and Epirus are far from invincible, they can be conquered, but the Latins really need native support in their territories to do it.

My concern with this is how the Latin army was built - it was a Feudal Army, it needed its rewards.

It should be possilble to operate both systems in tandem, even if the Roman system loses loads of work in the process. - Perhaps have the local bureaucracy services run by the Emperor, but the Feudal system is obliged to provide a larger military force. - Then focus on both conversion of the locals, and dismantling the Feudal system as much as possible. Confiscate lands on infractions - built on the premise of "We're new to this area, your abuses will not be tolerated by the people, nor I." (May well sell well too!) - at which point the Emperor puts the bureaucrats back in charge.

You do still have the conflict between the Latin and Greek churches however, that will still be messy. I'd suggest something similar, have a Greek and Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, etc. However, mimic the jizya and have the Greek Orthodox pay an additional tax to the Emperor/Feudal Lord. That way the Latin Church can expand passively that way too.

The big problem is that the first Emperor will need to learn to rule like an Emperor, and quickly. Embrace the Purple, etc.

In fact, Henry of Flanders is a good model to emulate. If he can agree to a long-term peace with the Bulgarians whilst he dismantles the Feudal structures the 4th Crusade required, the Empire could survive.

 

[IamtheEmps]

I dont believe that it can survive in the long term. The Orthodox Greeks where a too developed culture, while quite literally the Latins where foreign barbarians. At best the Latins win and are absorbed into the Greek Society, this is even more so if the local bureaucracy survives. Similarly I dont believe that at this time a union of churches was possible. The Orthodox have already added the rejection of Union as a part of the Great Easter Triumph of Orthodoxy. I mean really there is no place in recorded history where Orthodox or Catholics have converted en masse between each other, only Uniates in Ukraine and Belarus, which isnt in Greece. And if Turkish genetics tells us anything it is that "Turk" is a religious designation for Muslim Greeks, who have learnt turkish. Therefore, without conversion it seems impossible for the Latins to absorb the Greeks, more likely a revolt by the copted bureaucracy overthrows the government in a pro-Orthodox palace coup, causing an explusion of Latins. On the plus side if that revolt goes well it might be possible to have a revived Byzantine Empire.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I dont believe that it can survive in the long term. The Orthodox Greeks where a too developed culture, while quite literally the Latins where foreign barbarians. At best the Latins win and are absorbed into the Greek Society, this is even more so if the local bureaucracy survives. Similarly I dont believe that at this time a union of churches was possible. The Orthodox have already added the rejection of Union as a part of the Great Easter Triumph of Orthodoxy. I mean really there is no place in recorded history where Orthodox or Catholics have converted en masse between each other, only Uniates in Ukraine and Belarus, which isnt in Greece. And if Turkish genetics tells us anything it is that "Turk" is a religious designation for Muslim Greeks, who have learnt turkish. Therefore, without conversion it seems impossible for the Latins to absorb the Greeks, more likely a revolt by the copted bureaucracy overthrows the government in a pro-Orthodox palace coup, causing an explusion of Latins. On the plus side if that revolt goes well it might be possible to have a revived Byzantine Empire.

Survival and success isn't the same as assimilation of the conquered - see the Manchu for an example.

I think you're likely to see an Empire that does become more Catholic in time, but VERY slowly, with a desire to import Latin settlers. Which will be interesting the Latins ruled like Romans. There will likely be an evolution of Latin-Romans (adopting a lot of Greek customs, but not going Greek, whatever that would mean).

The key will be if the Latins can prove themselves the strongest, not as a cultural grouping, but as a realm - can they defeat the Nicaeans? Can they defeat the Turks? If they can succeed then I don't think they'll be deposed.

What I'm interested in is the development of the Roman-Latins. Being an amalgam of the Europeans, and likely using Greek as a later lingua franca, what is the cultural difference going to be? Are we going to have the someone amusing situation of the Latin Empire going rogue with its own schism? Or could this 'Latins' culture spread both within and without the Empire. Access to the learning and knowledge of Rome could accelerate a renaissance.

 

[ByzantineLover]

The idea is interesting. Even from a 1204-spitter like me



My concern with this is how the Latin army was built - it was a Feudal Army, it needed its rewards.

It should be possilble to operate both systems in tandem, even if the Roman system loses loads of work in the process. - Perhaps have the local bureaucracy services run by the Emperor, but the Feudal system is obliged to provide a larger military force. - Then focus on both conversion of the locals, and dismantling the Feudal system as much as possible. Confiscate lands on infractions - built on the premise of "We're new to this area, your abuses will not be tolerated by the people, nor I." (May well sell well too!) - at which point the Emperor puts the bureaucrats back in charge.

You do still have the conflict between the Latin and Greek churches however, that will still be messy. I'd suggest something similar, have a Greek and Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, etc. However, mimic the jizya and have the Greek Orthodox pay an additional tax to the Emperor/Feudal Lord. That way the Latin Church can expand passively that way too.

The big problem is that the first Emperor will need to learn to rule like an Emperor, and quickly. Embrace the Purple, etc.

In fact, Henry of Flanders is a good model to emulate. If he can agree to a long-term peace with the Bulgarians whilst he dismantles the Feudal structures the 4th Crusade required, the Empire could survive.

So perhaps a better POD would be Baldwin of Flanders dying sometime before or during the Sack of Constantinople and Henry of Flanders getting Venetian support instead? Or better yet, Boniface becoming Emperor instead? (I can't really imagine what Baldwin would do in the latter scenario - would he stay in the Balkans, or go on to Acre to rejoin his wife and then return to Flanders?)

 

[Halagaz]

The election of Boniface of Montferrat is an interesting idea. But, there are a lot of problems and caveats with it.

1. How could it happen? The crusaders' electoral council had 12 members: 6 Venetian delegates, 4 French delegates (who supported Baldwin), and 2 Lombard delegates (who supported Boniface). In other words, Boniface of Montferrat was not winning. The Venetians didn't really veto his election, they just finished him off.

So I think Boniface could win if and only if Baldwin of Flanders dies during the crusade. May as well kill off Henry of Flanders, too, to prevent the French and Venetians from rallying around him.

2. It was decided early on that the Emperor - whoever he happens to be - will hold only 1/4 of the Latin Empire under his direct rule. That's not exactly a recipe for success. Also, note that Baldwin was a respected and competent leader among the Crusaders. And that Henry was considered a good Emperor, and relatively tolerant towards the Greeks...but even Henry couldn't accomplish much in such a bad situation. Would Boniface really do much better? I'm not so sure.

3. There might be an total clusterfuck of a succession crisis after Boniface dies.

And then there's the elephant in the living room: the Latin Empire depended on a limited pool of foreigners to be its military and governing elites. This limited pool is going to be slowly but constantly shrinking: dying in battles, dying of old age, sailing off on random crusades...
The Latin Empire would need to co-opt Greeks to a much larger degree than it did in OTL - and that's probably impossible, so long as it's committed to Catholicism.

 

[IamtheEmps]

As @Halagaz says the necessity to recruit locals is paramount. Furthermore if such a recruitment does happen it would require either a full toleration of the orthodox or conversion to orthodoxy without this either the locals rise up, or they invite in the Serbs or Bulgarians to become monarchs. Remember Stefan Uros was descended of emperors, and so his successors represent a semi legitimate alternative to any foreign power.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

As @Halagaz says the necessity to recruit locals is paramount. Furthermore if such a recruitment does happen it would require either a full toleration of the orthodox or conversion to orthodoxy without this either the locals rise up, or they invite in the Serbs or Bulgarians to become monarchs. Remember Stefan Uros was descended of emperors, and so his successors represent a semi legitimate alternative to any foreign power.

That could be a legitimately interesting TL tbh, a Serbian-rejuvenated Roman Empire!

 

[Superninja76]

From what I can see, without Boniface the best chance is clearly, Henri d'flandres. Baldwin was..rather bad, honestly, and if Henri had taken the reigns early, things may have been much different. He was quite reasonable and willing to negotiate with his enemies, as shown by the treaty of Nymphaeum. However, there is somewhat of a problem regarding henry's ability to have children. Through two marriages he had no children, save for a possible illegitimate daughter.
Handwaving his problems in that area away for a moment, I'd like to focus on just how good of a leader Henri actually was. Here's a possibly paraphrased quotation from George Akropolites, on how he treated orthodox greeks, and greeks in general.

"Henry, though a Frank by birth, behaved graciously to the Romans who were natives of the city of Constantine, and ranked many of them among his magnates, others among his soldiers, while the common populace he treated as his own people." Obviously, it had to be translated from greek, so the wording may be somewhat different, but the overall intended meaning of the quote is clear.
Also, when the papal legate, the bishop of Albano, imprisoned orthodox clergymen and closed orthodox churches, on the orders of the holy father himself, the order was personally countermanded by Henry. Standing up to the papal legate in such a way demonstrates that Henry, although catholic, would protect all of his subjects, frankish or otherwise.

His skills as a commander, and also as an individual soldier, are also indisputable. He beat a bulgar army at Philippopolis and smashed two laskarid armies in decisive battles, at the Rhyndacus and at Adramyttion, while outnumbered both times and even ambushed at the Rhyndacus river. He was also not afraid to fight in person, and at the battle of Adramyttion henry was actually purposefully the first of his cavalry to reach the mangaphaoi line, and quite probably participated in the melee. Judging by how he was not killed, it is reasonable to assume he was a capable warrior in his own right.

Finally, he was actually married in 1204 to one of Boniface of Montferrat's daughters, Agnes. Had Henry become emperor early on, this could have kept relations between Boniface and the imperial government good enough for Boniface to not almost start a civil war by taking Thessalonica for himself. With a mostly-united realm and marriage into the montferratid family, which would gain him a decent amount of connections in both his empire and Jerusalem. Agnes quite probably died in childbirth, so if her death (and the child's) was prevented, there wouldn't be a problem with succession, regardless of the gender of the child.

With an alliance with the Bulgars (it is reasonable to assume Henry would have been open to negotiations, unlike his brother..), the crusading army not lost at Adrianople, and a fairly stable realm, I expect the Nikaeans may well have been crushed. Historically they were repeatedly smashed by Henry and latin armies, even while the empire was crippled by bulgar invasions, so with the army that did not die at Adrianople, Henry may well be able to destroy the Nicaeans entirely, early on. If Nicaea is not defeated early, he could always take advantage of the losses the Nicaeans took at Alasehir (if they don't just lose it due to butterflies) and move in.

 

[ByzantineLover]

From what I can see, without Boniface the best chance is clearly, Henri d'flandres. Baldwin was..rather bad, honestly, and if Henri had taken the reigns early, things may have been much different. He was quite reasonable and willing to negotiate with his enemies, as shown by the treaty of Nymphaeum. However, there is somewhat of a problem regarding henry's ability to have children. Through two marriages he had no children, save for a possible illegitimate daughter.
Handwaving his problems in that area away for a moment, I'd like to focus on just how good of a leader Henri actually was. Here's a possibly paraphrased quotation from George Akropolites, on how he treated orthodox greeks, and greeks in general.

"Henry, though a Frank by birth, behaved graciously to the Romans who were natives of the city of Constantine, and ranked many of them among his magnates, others among his soldiers, while the common populace he treated as his own people." Obviously, it had to be translated from greek, so the wording may be somewhat different, but the overall intended meaning of the quote is clear.
Also, when the papal legate, the bishop of Albano, imprisoned orthodox clergymen and closed orthodox churches, on the orders of the holy father himself, the order was personally countermanded by Henry. Standing up to the papal legate in such a way demonstrates that Henry, although catholic, would protect all of his subjects, frankish or otherwise.

His skills as a commander, and also as an individual soldier, are also indisputable. He beat a bulgar army at Philippopolis and smashed two laskarid armies in decisive battles, at the Rhyndacus and at Adramyttion, while outnumbered both times and even ambushed at the Rhyndacus river. He was also not afraid to fight in person, and at the battle of Adramyttion henry was actually purposefully the first of his cavalry to reach the mangaphaoi line, and quite probably participated in the melee. Judging by how he was not killed, it is reasonable to assume he was a capable warrior in his own right.

Finally, he was actually married in 1204 to one of Boniface of Montferrat's daughters, Agnes. Had Henry become emperor early on, this could have kept relations between Boniface and the imperial government good enough for Boniface to not almost start a civil war by taking Thessalonica for himself. With a mostly-united realm and marriage into the montferratid family, which would gain him a decent amount of connections in both his empire and Jerusalem. Agnes quite probably died in childbirth, so if her death (and the child's) was prevented, there wouldn't be a problem with succession, regardless of the gender of the child.

With an alliance with the Bulgars (it is reasonable to assume Henry would have been open to negotiations, unlike his brother..), the crusading army not lost at Adrianople, and a fairly stable realm, I expect the Nikaeans may well have been crushed. Historically they were repeatedly smashed by Henry and latin armies, even while the empire was crippled by bulgar invasions, so with the army that did not die at Adrianople, Henry may well be able to destroy the Nicaeans entirely, early on. If Nicaea is not defeated early, he could always take advantage of the losses the Nicaeans took at Alasehir (if they don't just lose it due to butterflies) and move in.

Some very good points.

But as for Agnes of Montferrat, according to Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Henry might not have married her until 1206.

Which means, if Henry avoids pissing of Kaloyan like Baldwin did, there's the slight possibility he could end up marrying Kaloyan's daughter, Maria, 9 years early. It might be a slight possiblity, given how capricious Kaloyan could be, but it would stave off Bulgarian aggression, which was ultimately what killed the Latin Empire in its' cradle.

 

[Superninja76]

Some very good points.

But as for Agnes of Montferrat, according to Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Henry might not have married her until 1206.

Which means, if Henry avoids pissing of Kaloyan like Baldwin did, there's the slight possibility he could end up marrying Kaloyan's daughter, Maria, 9 years early. It might be a slight possiblity, given how capricious Kaloyan could be, but it would stave off Bulgarian aggression, which was ultimately what killed the Latin Empire in its' cradle.

Considering maria was kaloyan's only child, if he still died around the time he historically did (obviously not in the same way, as he wouldn't be sieging thessalonica..) would she inherit the bulgar empire? If boril still pulls the moves he historically made, henry could invade bulgaria to press his wife's claim on the throne, and would quite probably gain the support of most of the bulgar nobles if he does it early on, as they regarded boril as a usurper.

If he succeeds, henry and maria's children would have a damned good inheritance, should they have children.

 

[ByzantineLover]

Considering maria was kaloyan's only child, if he still died around the time he historically did (obviously not in the same way, as he wouldn't be sieging thessalonica..) would she inherit the bulgar empire? If boril still pulls the moves he historically made, henry could invade bulgaria to press his wife's claim on the throne, and would quite probably gain the support of most of the bulgar nobles if he does it early on, as they regarded boril as a usurper.

If he succeeds, henry and maria's children would have a damned good inheritance, should they have children.

I've read in various places that Kaloyan had a son named Bithleem, whom he sent to Rome in 1204 to be educated. He either died before Kaloyan, died after Kaloyan but before he could return to Bulgaria or just decided to stay in Rome.

And if not him, there were Kaloyan's nephews, Ivan Asen and Alexander.

 

[Superninja76]

I've read in various places that Kaloyan had a son named Bithleem, whom he sent to Rome in 1204 to be educated. He either died before Kaloyan, died after Kaloyan but before he could return to Bulgaria or just decided to stay in Rome.

And if not him, there were Kaloyan's nephews, Ivan Asen and Alexander.

Ivan asen and alexander would actually have worse claims than boril himself, as they could not marry the cuman princess. With maria a viable option, would they really even be able to challenge maria and the latins for succession to the throne? If they would, the.. let's call it bulgarian war of succession, would be quite a cluster of competing pretenders. I lack knowledge of bulgarian succession law, if it even existed, but to me it seems maria has the best claim out of everyone. Sons > Daughters > Nephews, right?

 

[ByzantineLover]

Ivan asen and alexander would actually have worse claims than boril himself, as they could not marry the cuman princess. With maria a viable option, would they really even be able to challenge maria and the latins for succession to the throne? If they would, the.. let's call it bulgarian war of succession, would be quite a cluster of competing pretenders. I lack knowledge of bulgarian succession law, if it even existed, but to me it seems maria has the best claim out of everyone. Sons > Daughters > Nephews, right?

Yes, but would the Bulgarians want to be ruled by a Catholic? I doubt it.

And by the logic of the last line, it seems Maria would have the second-best claim after Bithleem.

 

[Superninja76]

Yes, but would the Bulgarians want to be ruled by a Catholic? I doubt it.

And by the logic of the last line, it seems Maria would have the second-best claim after Bithleem.

Apologies, that post was based off of the assumption bithleem would die as historically. And I don't believe the bulgarians would actually care about being ruled by a catholic. After all, kaloyan had very good relations with the pope, and actually had put the bulgarian church under the pope's jurisdiction. (I think so, anyways.) He was also crowned by a cardinal by the name of Leo Brancaleoni, and I find no mention of opposition towards kaloyan's moves internally. So, the catholic thing wouldn't be as big a problem as it was in the roman empire.

 

[Halagaz]

Apologies, that post was based off of the assumption bithleem would die as historically. And I don't believe the bulgarians would actually care about being ruled by a catholic. After all, kaloyan had very good relations with the pope, and actually had put the bulgarian church under the pope's jurisdiction. (I think so, anyways.) He was also crowned by a cardinal by the name of Leo Brancaleoni, and I find no mention of opposition towards kaloyan's moves internally. So, the catholic thing wouldn't be as big a problem as it was in the roman empire.

That's because Kaloyan allowed the Bulgarian church to ignore his (nominal) submission to the Pope and basically stay Orthodox. A "proper" Catholic - and a foreigner, no less - trying to claim the Bulgarian throne would face huge problems.

(Bulgaria, like most countries in the Byzantine sphere, did not operate on strict succession laws. Maria's claim wouldn't matter much in the light of religious and political issues.)