[Timeline Idea] What if the Latin Empire destroys the Empire of Nicaea

Okay, I had an idea for a timeline but I want to see its plausibility. What if instead of the Treaty of Nymphaeum going ahead in 1214, the Latins push a further invasion and conquer Nicaea, probably occuring by the death of Theodore I Laskaris in a battle between 1204-1214. With his death, the Nicaean Empire would of undeniably doomed. I imagine if this dominance was established, the Latin Empire would truely have control over all of Frankokratia and establishing a kind of a "Third Rome", that with Western support, could destory the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia and possibly conquer Bulgaria and Serbia. I just had to get this Rome survival idea out of my head cause it could be plausible. This is just an idea, what do you think?

P.S. If people like this enough, I will turn this scenario into a full timeline!

EDIT: Find the timeline HERE
 
Last edited:
Nice idea, I think that surviving Latin Empire is very underused TL, mainly thanks to the dominance of Romano-/Byzantinophilia on this forum.
I've had my thoughts on this scenario before and I think that the most fitting PoD would be rather making the emperor Boniface of Montferrat, not Baldwin. Because Boniface was more acceptable for the natives he could have become kind of a compromise leader between the Franks and the Romans.
 
Nice idea, I think that surviving Latin Empire is very underused TL, mainly thanks to the dominance of Romano-/Byzantinophilia on this forum.
I've had my thoughts on this scenario before and I think that the most fitting PoD would be rather making the emperor Boniface of Montferrat, not Baldwin. Because Boniface was more acceptable for the natives he could have become kind of a compromise leader between the Franks and the Romans.

Thats what I was thinking. I love Boniface of Montferrat as a historical figure who could of easily been the Latin Emperor they all needed. Also I am a Byzantinophile and love the Byzantines, but this timeline could literally make the Latins the de facto successors of Byzantium. They were much more accepted than the Ottomans were as the successors of Byzantium. This also means they would not be known as the Latin Empire but as Romania/Roman Empire or Nova Roma (possibly).

EDIT: Heres my new PoD ideas:
1. After the siege of Constantinople, Boniface bribes the crusader leaders to vote for him as Emperor thus leading to a more stable and unified Latin Empire and allowing him to quickly conquer the Empire of Nicaea and probably Epirus as well.
2. Theodore Laskaris dies in battle with the Latins before the Treaty of Nymphaeum, and Nicaea quickly collapses into civil war and is almost immediately subdued by the Latins.
3. The Frankokratia is never segregated (can be extension to no. 1) and the Latin Emperor controls all of the conquests in Greece. This may also lead to the Bulgarians not making any gains on the Latin realm (northern Thrace not being lost).
 
Last edited:
NOVA ROMA! NOVA ROMA!

i like the byzantines, but this is an interesting plot.

Hmm... Nova Roma ye say. I must get on to it. I will add in the link to the timeline when I have posted my first post.

EDIT: I have made a promotional image that is attached.

Rex Romania.png
 
Last edited:
It would require a different PoD to ensure the survival of LE. By 1214, Latins didn't have the ressources or manpower to realistically take on Nicea, without being harassed by Epiriots or Bulgars.

In fact, Latins best chances are to accept the existance of Nicean Empire as a buffer state between them and Turks; giving them room to fight their balkanic foes. You'll need a Latin victory at Adrianople (that's mandatory) in 1205.

But eventually, Latins are quite doomed. Hated by the population, no reinforcements to speak of, far too divided politically (the empire was made of hugely independent feudal entities). At best, they'll keep on Albania, Morea, Achaia and Archipelago, if Ottomans doesn't show up, and less as an empire than a collection of feudal states under western political influence (Naples, by exemple).
 
It would require a different PoD to ensure the survival of LE. By 1214, Latins didn't have the ressources or manpower to realistically take on Nicea, without being harassed by Epiriots or Bulgars.

In fact, Latins best chances are to accept the existance of Nicean Empire as a buffer state between them and Turks; giving them room to fight their balkanic foes. You'll need a Latin victory at Adrianople (that's mandatory) in 1205.

But eventually, Latins are quite doomed. Hated by the population, no reinforcements to speak of, far too divided politically (the empire was made of hugely independent feudal entities). At best, they'll keep on Albania, Morea, Achaia and Archipelago, if Ottomans doesn't show up, and less as an empire than a collection of feudal states under western political influence (Naples, by exemple).

Yes.
I think Latins taking the Nicean Empire would have been a poison pill. Resources stretched thinner, no buffer against the Turks, more opportunities for disunity among the Latins -- I think there would be an excellent chance for the whole Latin enterprise to collapse sooner than OTL.
 
Tubendo just made a TL out of this. Please enjoy, comment and subscribe.

Well, I know, but I won't go crapping in a TL thread saying "Hey, I think your TL premise isn't really either plausible or fesible".
As this thread is more general and allows more discussion about a possible LE survival and outcome, rather than directly concerning his TL, it may be better to talk about continue a general discussion there.
 
It would require a different PoD to ensure the survival of LE. By 1214, Latins didn't have the ressources or manpower to realistically take on Nicea, without being harassed by Epiriots or Bulgars.

In fact, Latins best chances are to accept the existance of Nicean Empire as a buffer state between them and Turks; giving them room to fight their balkanic foes. You'll need a Latin victory at Adrianople (that's mandatory) in 1205.

But eventually, Latins are quite doomed. Hated by the population, no reinforcements to speak of, far too divided politically (the empire was made of hugely independent feudal entities). At best, they'll keep on Albania, Morea, Achaia and Archipelago, if Ottomans doesn't show up, and less as an empire than a collection of feudal states under western political influence (Naples, by exemple).

Those are definately problems they'd have to overcome.

Just curious, to what extent did the Latin Empire promote Uniate/Greek Catholicism IOTL? Coming to terms with their Orthodox majority is pretty much critical to their success, and Greek Catholicism wouldn't be culturally alien (at least, not as much as the Latin Rite was), but would also be acceptable to the rest of Catholic Europe.

Now that I think about it, it would be interesting to see a timeline where the Latins win at Adrianople and generally do better over the next couple of decades, and eventually get an emperor whose really interested in promoting a union between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The result is something like OTL's Greek Catholic churches-a lot of Orthodox reject it, but enough of the populace sides with it to give it critical mass. Initially, most of the nobility keep going to Latin churches, but over time they too drift into the Greek Rite and become culturally Hellanized. The resulting state looks a lot like Byzantium, but in communion with Rome and with way more Western influence.
 
Nice idea, I think that surviving Latin Empire is very underused TL, mainly thanks to the dominance of Romano-/Byzantinophilia on this forum.
I've had my thoughts on this scenario before and I think that the most fitting PoD would be rather making the emperor Boniface of Montferrat, not Baldwin. Because Boniface was more acceptable for the natives he could have become kind of a compromise leader between the Franks and the Romans.

Your idea has become the PoD for my timeline on this topic. Thanks very much. Boniface is a more reliable and likable leader than Baldwin and co. so thus can build a more "Nova Byzantium", as he would gain more military support from his Greek populance.
 
Just curious, to what extent did the Latin Empire promote Uniate/Greek Catholicism IOTL?
Not as much one could actually think.
First, and that's one of the main problems, LE was politically divided, the emperor having token power. Having him exercising some decision about it wasn't going to be much followed automatically.

Then, it was quite similar to what existed in other Latin States : having catholic clergy being in a preponderent situation, but natives usages still being kept would it be because it was easier to just takeover it than trying to rebuild one from scratch.
It ended with a bastard situation where Orthodox clergy still existed independently, but on the technical supervision of Catholic high clergy.

Now that I think about it, it would be interesting to see a timeline where the Latins win at Adrianople and generally do better over the next couple of decades, and eventually get an emperor whose really interested in promoting a union between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Thing is, even if a Latin Emperor could do that of his own (and he couldn't really, with what LE was politically and institutionally), he would have been stuck.
For all things considered, there was nothing to unify for Latins and Papacy : the fall of Constantinople, the establishment of a catholic patriarchy and the subversion of Greek clergy made an union de facto.

At best you'll have a maintain of aforementioned model, and trying to do more about it would not only give legitimacy to an Orthodox point of view distinct from Catholic one, but would actually go against Papacy whishes that would have seen the emperor acting like this as a secular ruler going against church preogatives (as in, a sugar-free Byzantine emperor).
 
Top