What Was the Real Difference Between the Latin and Byzantine Empires?

Would it be right to consider the Latin Empire to be a separate polity from the Byzantine Empire, or is it just the Byzantine Empire usurped by Catholic monarchs? Was the administration much different, and did the rulers and subjects of the Latin Empire feel like the state was not actually a continuation of the Byzantine Empire?
 
First, it's quite clear Crusader tought themselves as inheritors of Byzantium, calling their empire the same name they gave to the former : Romania, Empire of the Romans.

But you had too much differences with what existed before, to call it a direct continuation even from afar.
Boniface de Montserrat (by his wife, widow of Isaac Angelos) was considered too much close to either Greeks (he took an important role in the negociations with Kommenoi) or Poulains (Francs from Latin States) to be a viable imperial candidate.

What driven the Latin Empire appearance was eventually a much idealized feudalisation, largely influenced by French features (most of great nobles of the empire were from the kingdom) while french royalty proceeded to a more important unification than it existed before, including its litterature as Roman d'Enéas or Roman de Troie that popularized greatly the old homeric/classical corpus (that was already known, but less ingrained and less accompanied by moral/political comments) trough trodabor/trouvère court plays.

If you add to that the myth of troyan origin of Franks, it certainly played a bit for what mattered new conquerors.

As for Greeks, one just have to give a look at Nicetas Choniates to see all the hatred they had against Latins : it already existed before (and caused the Massacre of Latins, that certainly had a huge impact on Latin perception of the Empire) but it was nothing compared to the general feeling that the Empire had collapsed because of bloodthirsty and greedy Barbarians.

Basically, Latins (or rather Franks) created an Empire that if claimed to inherit Byzantium was something much more inspired by political concerns and more or less archaising principles of the West.
It went to comical heights, with the Empire being shared among nobles depending on their forces, including regions that ceased to be part of the Empire since ages (we still have the plans to split it, with a "County of Konya", a "Kingdom of Andremite (Endremit)" or a "Duchy of Nicée").

This feudalisation alone is a clear radical rupture with the imperial administration (or even for what mattered Latin States, that while still based on an ideal feudality, were still able to deal with native structures).
Even "Venetian Romania", as was called the part ruled by the Senerissima, was closer to previous structures.

That said, Latin states in Romania weren't totally cut out from byzantine bases, would it be only to make it work. Assises de Romanie, a mix of French, Venetians, Napolitain customs and Byzantine law can point that.

The opposition, real and important, between Latins and Greeks shouldn't be systematized : while Frankish influence was extremely limited in Thrakia and Macedonia, it was more important in places they held longer as Greece strictly speaking (up having regional conversions to Roman Catholicism).

You have a case to make for Byzantine successors. I'm not sure you could call them the same state than the Empire, would it be because you had too much of them, even before the situation get decanted (Trebizond Empire wasn't less legitimate than Nicean Empire), although they're certainly a direct continuation and claimed much of it.
 
Top