WI: 2nd Crusade Sacks Constantinople?

What if 2nd Crusade Sacks Constantinople?

So instead of the 4th Crusade we have the 2nd Crusade sack Constantinople. Results? Impact on the Crusader states and Byzantine Empire?

"A siege mentality developed. One member of the King's (Louis VII) closest circle recalled that, a day out side of Constantinople, the disaffected, reinforced by news leaking out of Emperor Manuel's treaty with the Seljuks, proposed a radical new strategy: use the huge western army to occupy Thrace, enter into alliance with Roger of Sicily and with his fleet, which was already in Greek waters, seize Constantinople."

God's War by Christopher Tyerman
 
Not feasible.Manuel,whatever his faults were,was a much more capable man than the Angeloi idiots who took over the throne.
 
Last edited:

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
I agree, the only reason the 4th Crusade managed it because of the perfect storm of incompetence and unpreparedness. At this time the Byzantines are still relatively strong and could challenge any European army outside the walls of Constantinople.
 
Another problem is that the leaders of the Second Crusade weren't exactly bright.It's why they screwed up the Second Crusade.
 
Another problem is that the leaders of the Second Crusade weren't exactly bright.It's why they screwed up the Second Crusade.

Okay based on the comments a failed Crusader assault on Constantinople is still an interesting POD. What do the Byzantines do after they beat off the Western assault?
 
Okay based on the comments a failed Crusader assault on Constantinople is still an interesting POD. What do the Byzantines do after they beat off the Western assault?
Completely cut their support to any crusade effort ? Actively block any tries to use their territory to join the Levant ? Capture knights and demand ransom ?
 
Okay based on the comments a failed Crusader assault on Constantinople is still an interesting POD. What do the Byzantines do after they beat off the Western assault?

Get very. Very. Pissed.

Seriously, I'd expect a general unwillingness to work with Latins - which would be very very bad for the Crusaders already in Jerusalem. Later crusades would either have to travel by sea, or risk open conflict on land, or by sea.

As a result, I would not expect any joint invasion of Egypt. This could be good in the long run for the Empire (mad that may seem). With Jerusalem and the other Crusader states more isolated from the West, they increasingly have to rely upon a distrustful Roman Empire, which could lead to deals that favor the Empire to improve relations. If it gets really bad for Jerusalem et al., this could lead to offers of vassalage.

If there is a Sicilian Campaign, this could be very different - with no Conrad to agree a partition with, and a general distrust of Latins (combined with the sensible distrust of mercenaries), the Romans may either not invade, or invade with a much larger Roman force, and rely less on local forces. The victory over the crusaders in battle could also be used in negotiations with the Pope - God gave victory to the Patriarch of Constantinople after all - not sure how useful though.

My main excitement is that if there is no Egyptian campaign, the empire may have more forces, that could lead to either a better result for an alt-Myriokephalon, or different invasion strategy that leads to a successful Roman invasion of Anatolian Interior - which is ++good
 
Get very. Very. Pissed.

Seriously, I'd expect a general unwillingness to work with Latins - which would be very very bad for the Crusaders already in Jerusalem. Later crusades would either have to travel by sea, or risk open conflict on land, or by sea.

As a result, I would not expect any joint invasion of Egypt. This could be good in the long run for the Empire (mad that may seem). With Jerusalem and the other Crusader states more isolated from the West, they increasingly have to rely upon a distrustful Roman Empire, which could lead to deals that favor the Empire to improve relations. If it gets really bad for Jerusalem et al., this could lead to offers of vassalage.

If there is a Sicilian Campaign, this could be very different - with no Conrad to agree a partition with, and a general distrust of Latins (combined with the sensible distrust of mercenaries), the Romans may either not invade, or invade with a much larger Roman force, and rely less on local forces. The victory over the crusaders in battle could also be used in negotiations with the Pope - God gave victory to the Patriarch of Constantinople after all - not sure how useful though.

My main excitement is that if there is no Egyptian campaign, the empire may have more forces, that could lead to either a better result for an alt-Myriokephalon, or different invasion strategy that leads to a successful Roman invasion of Anatolian Interior - which is ++good
I agree,it's going to be extremely good for the ERE.After the First Crusade,the Crusaders became a liability for the ERE.Manuel and his father spent a ridiculous amount of money and men trying to assist the Crusader States all for the Crusaders to pay lip service to Constantinople and not be of much help whenever the ERE's in trouble.The Egyptian campaign was deliberately sabotaged by the Jerusalemites because they didn't want to share the spoils of war with the ERE,as if they have any chance of conquering and holding Egypt to begin with their meager resources.
 
Absolutely impossible. The first three Crusades never found themselves in a situation in which a war against Constantinople was likely... And the Byzantine Emperors had as much fault as the Crusaders if not more for the bad relations between the ERE and Jerusalemn.
 
Absolutely impossible. The first three Crusades never found themselves in a situation in which a war against Constantinople was likely... And the Byzantine Emperors had as much fault as the Crusaders if not more for the bad relations between the ERE and Jerusalemn.

Frederick Barbarossa did take effective control over much of the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople is too tough a nut to crack it seems.
 
Relations between the Byzantines and the Latins would go pretty sour in the short and medium term, although in the long run I'd expect them to patch things up easier than they did IOTL. It's easier to forgive a treacherous attack when you ended up kicking the attackers' arses than when they managed to sack and occupy your capital for sixty years.
 

longsword14

Banned
Knowing the situation of their own side and that of Byzantines, they dare not pull such a trick around this time period. Even they would know that doing so will leave them stranded with no support in hostile lands.
 
Top