Surviving Sultanate of Rum and Latin Empire

Crazy enough, this question appears to not have been posted for its own thread before.

What if the Sultanate of Rum and the Latin Empire, which had practically split up the Eastern Roman Empire, both survived and had become the new norm for the region, with both surviving until at least the end of the 1500s.

I believe that, by this time, the Latin Empire would be Hellenized but still Catholic (seeing as how that's what defined them more than anything) and the Sultanate of Rum would also be Hellenized but still very Turkish and Muslim like IOTL.

Also, I could see the Catholic and Islamic Worlds seeing their respective states as being the true Successor to Rome.
 
Why all the way into the 1500s and not say, 1453?

Honestly, the Byzantine Empire was on its last legs at the founding of the Latin Empire and it never really recovered. How would you envision the division of the territory between OTL's Latin Empire and OTL's Sultanate of Rum? I'm not sure how stable a Bosporus border would be, for example.
 
Why all the way into the 1500s and not say, 1453?

Honestly, the Byzantine Empire was on its last legs at the founding of the Latin Empire and it never really recovered. How would you envision the division of the territory between OTL's Latin Empire and OTL's Sultanate of Rum? I'm not sure how stable a Bosporus border would be, for example.

I wouldn't say Byzantium was on its last legs in 1204, but it certainly was in a phase of decline - not the first, and probably not the last. Without the sack of Constantinople and the establishment of crusader states in Romania, the empire would eventually have recovered. Without those events, a surviving Byzantine Empire in the 16th or 17th century is actually not a challenge.

If somehow both the Latin Empire and Rum survived and became strong states, and Nicaea was removed from the picture, eventually one or the other would hold both Greece and Anatolia, taking the place of the Ottoman Empire. An enduring Catholic power in the east would be interesting, for sure.
 
Why all the way into the 1500s and not say, 1453?

Honestly, the Byzantine Empire was on its last legs at the founding of the Latin Empire and it never really recovered. How would you envision the division of the territory between OTL's Latin Empire and OTL's Sultanate of Rum? I'm not sure how stable a Bosporus border would be, for example.

That was my original plan, but I want them to outlive the ERE.

I'd expect most of the surviving Eastern Roman Empire's lands to go to the Latin Empire, with Rum too focused on enemies to the East.

So most of the Aegean Coast and all of Greece is in the hands of the Latins, while the rest of Anatolia and (over time) and increasing amount of the Mid East is solidly in the hands of Rum.

I wouldn't say Byzantium was on its last legs in 1204, but it certainly was in a phase of decline - not the first, and probably not the last. Without the sack of Constantinople and the establishment of crusader states in Romania, the empire would eventually have recovered. Without those events, a surviving Byzantine Empire in the 16th or 17th century is actually not a challenge.

If somehow both the Latin Empire and Rum survived and became strong states, and Nicaea was removed from the picture, eventually one or the other would hold both Greece and Anatolia, taking the place of the Ottoman Empire. An enduring Catholic power in the east would be interesting, for sure.

This sort of determenism is something I want to avoid. I don't want either the Latins or the Rumans to overpower the other, I want it to be a sort of perpetuating rivalry as two claimants to Imperium with vastly different societies who are at least strong enough to not get completely destroyed by the other.
 
This sort of determenism is something I want to avoid. I don't want either the Latins or the Rumans to overpower the other, I want it to be a sort of perpetuating rivalry as two claimants to Imperium with vastly different societies who are at least strong enough to not get completely destroyed by the other.

The problem is that it isn't strategically feasible in the long term (for any level of security) for there to be one state with control over Constantinople (and via that essentially the Bosporus and Dardanelles), and another with Anatolia. The one with Constantinople will be looking to ensure there is a frontier beyond the capital in NW Anatolia, and the state in Anatolia cannot have another state control naval passage between its southern and northern coasts.

That frontier is a maaaaaaajor conflict point.

Now, I think you COULD get a division of Anatolian Coast + Latin Empire vs Anatolian Highlands + Cilicia. Both have defensible frontiers, and the former has a very long border that needs a lot of deployed forces as moving from one coast to another coast isn't easy. Meanwhile the one in the highlands, simply needs to deploy from a central location. That is probably your best division.

However, it still depends on the feasibility of the Latin Empire if you want that to be a thing. I'm not sure that a bunch of Catholics will be able to rule over the Orthodox so easily. Not reliably at least. They have little to no support base.

What is worse - is that outside of the Crusades, the Catholic world was pretty crap at the whole "We're all Christians, band together now". Whereas Islam had the concept of Jihad (no, not holy war, the complex idea), as well as the Ghazi. The Latin Empire will not get the support it requires, whereas the Sultanate of Rum will. To compound that, the Latin Empire (at least in terms of Roman titles) is pitted politically not just against the Sultanate but against the HRE. Meaning the largest Christian power has political cause to be like, "Nah" when asked for help.

If you had Holy Orders in the area that were reinforced like the dickens, near constantly, by lordlings and criminals, you MIGHT be able to sustain it. But having the Latin Empire becoming a Catholic Australia is probably going to cause major issues in the short term.
 
That was my original plan, but I want them to outlive the ERE.

I'd expect most of the surviving Eastern Roman Empire's lands to go to the Latin Empire, with Rum too focused on enemies to the East.

So most of the Aegean Coast and all of Greece is in the hands of the Latins, while the rest of Anatolia and (over time) and increasing amount of the Mid East is solidly in the hands of Rum.



This sort of determenism is something I want to avoid. I don't want either the Latins or the Rumans to overpower the other, I want it to be a sort of perpetuating rivalry as two claimants to Imperium with vastly different societies who are at least strong enough to not get completely destroyed by the other.
Issue with that is that both sides are going to be lusting for the other side of the Bosporus (as in securing the Dardanelles and the Bosporus will be their primary objective). Why focus on hinterlands when you can control one of the most important waterways in Europe? It's a vital naval passage, a huge economic boon, and a security threat (terribly narrow). The moment one of those parties starts weakening, the other side is going to seize upon it and try to conquer them.
 
And more often than not it would be Rum over the Latins. For more above the many aforementioned reason, the most important being a Catholic Emperor ruling over an Orthodox population, one that is likely pissed because their city got sacked by the very people whom formed the ruling class.

Simply put, a Surviving Sultanate of Rum is actually fairly difficult, but doable, a Survivng Latin Empire is doable, but would probably take about as much luck as say...trying to build back Byzantium in EU4 in a more historically accurate setting.
 
The problem is that it isn't strategically feasible in the long term (for any level of security) for there to be one state with control over Constantinople (and via that essentially the Bosporus and Dardanelles), and another with Anatolia. The one with Constantinople will be looking to ensure there is a frontier beyond the capital in NW Anatolia, and the state in Anatolia cannot have another state control naval passage between its southern and northern coasts.

That frontier is a maaaaaaajor conflict point.

Now, I think you COULD get a division of Anatolian Coast + Latin Empire vs Anatolian Highlands + Cilicia. Both have defensible frontiers, and the former has a very long border that needs a lot of deployed forces as moving from one coast to another coast isn't easy. Meanwhile the one in the highlands, simply needs to deploy from a central location. That is probably your best division.

However, it still depends on the feasibility of the Latin Empire if you want that to be a thing. I'm not sure that a bunch of Catholics will be able to rule over the Orthodox so easily. Not reliably at least. They have little to no support base.

What is worse - is that outside of the Crusades, the Catholic world was pretty crap at the whole "We're all Christians, band together now". Whereas Islam had the concept of Jihad (no, not holy war, the complex idea), as well as the Ghazi. The Latin Empire will not get the support it requires, whereas the Sultanate of Rum will. To compound that, the Latin Empire (at least in terms of Roman titles) is pitted politically not just against the Sultanate but against the HRE. Meaning the largest Christian power has political cause to be like, "Nah" when asked for help.

If you had Holy Orders in the area that were reinforced like the dickens, near constantly, by lordlings and criminals, you MIGHT be able to sustain it. But having the Latin Empire becoming a Catholic Australia is probably going to cause major issues in the short term.

Now that's an interesting idea.

In reality, the Latin Empire lasted most of the 1200s and I believe that there had to be a level of mixing between the existing ruling class and the new one in that time.

Perhaps they could marry into and meld with the ruling elite while converting peasants and bringing in Catholic commoners.

Issue with that is that both sides are going to be lusting for the other side of the Bosporus (as in securing the Dardanelles and the Bosporus will be their primary objective). Why focus on hinterlands when you can control one of the most important waterways in Europe? It's a vital naval passage, a huge economic boon, and a security threat (terribly narrow). The moment one of those parties starts weakening, the other side is going to seize upon it and try to conquer them.

Well I'm sure that's a power balance that could be maintained for at least a few centuries.

Remembee, the Sultanate of Rum collapsed at the hands of the Mongols, they could survive and have other things to worry about to the East that would prevent them from always waiting to take the Bosphorus.

And more often than not it would be Rum over the Latins. For more above the many aforementioned reason, the most important being a Catholic Emperor ruling over an Orthodox population, one that is likely pissed because their city got sacked by the very people whom formed the ruling class.

Simply put, a Surviving Sultanate of Rum is actually fairly difficult, but doable, a Survivng Latin Empire is doable, but would probably take about as much luck as say...trying to build back Byzantium in EU4 in a more historically accurate setting.

Yes, Rum always seemed like the better off of the two. The early Ottoman Empire as we know it was in a lot of ways just a continuation of Rum. When the Latin Empire collapsed, it was gone.
 

Deleted member 67076

The Latin Empire can't survive. It had too little external support, too many internal divisions, and too many hostile neighbors (and subaltern populations). To say nothing of driving the local economy into the ground through imposing Latin feudalism and agricultural practices.

Really, its a miracle it lasted so long as it did historically.
 
I think the latins are actually more likely to be able to take on the sultans of rum and win. Keep in mind, properly used heavy cavalry and heavy infantry smashed the absolute shit out of muslim armies, like at montgisard, dorylaeum, vaslui, belgrade, and very nearly the battle of varna.

But i'd say a good POD for latin survival is having theobald II survive so we get a fully united crusade, or having boniface of montferrat not get vetoed. Frankly, boniface would be a much better ruler than baldwin, as he actually had some connections in the byzantine empire, and was just more in tune with the area. Plus, he was, apparently, a very experienced soldier, which could prove incredibly useful during the early struggles with nikaea. In addition, his niece was the heiress to jerusalem, and if she doesn't die in childbirth she could probably be quite the ally.

Honestly, the best way to keep the latin empire afloat is just not fuck with the bulgars. They were initially quite friendly, and kaloyan apparently was considering an alliance, but that tanked when the latins started raiding bulgar lands. If you avoid that, the complete and utter fucking disaster that was adrianople might not happen.
 
Also, having the crusaders not light the fires during the second siege to assist themselves, and the ensuing fire being avoided would be huge. Most of all, the latin empire needs an intact constantinople.

With boniface as emperor, adrianople avoided (and the bulgar alliance, obviously.) and no fire of constantinople, I really don't see a reason why the latin empire couldn't hang on.
 
Sorry 'bout the triple-post. More POD's are coming to me!
If the latin empire is stronger due to my POD's, and the sultanate of rum is somehow stronger (otherwise it wouldn't survive very long!) the fifth crusade could actually succeed. After all, the latin empire was the principal nation in the fifth crusade, and I recall the sultanate of rum fought alongside the latins against the ayyubids.
Winning a crusade, especially one targeted at eygpt, would be huge for the latin empire.
But, if you really want the fifth crusade to succeed, having the pope somehow decide against telling frederick to shove it would be enough. His support could be crucial for the crusade, as the HRE, especially in the 1250s when it was more centralised, was not a force to be reckoned with.
 
Top