WI: 4th Crusade Debts Settled

The vast majority of the problems faced by/caused by the 4th Crusade can be traced back to the inability of the Crusaders to pay the agreed payments to the Venetians, leading to the renogations that delayed departure, led them to attack Zara, and, ultimately, Constantinople.

What if, through some means that we won't worry about (yes, this is cheating, but please bear with me), all the money is delevered to the Venetians on time. This enables the Crusade to depart on schedule. Zara does not even cross anyone's mind. There were still elements of the Crusade leadership that were committed to try to take a detour to Constantinople, and had been committed to that long before they had ever set sail, but they now have a much weaker case for such a move. There is also still the discord likely between the rank and file and the leadership, once the true target of Egypt is discovered.
 
Last edited:
Crusaders initially accounted for far too much people that would gather, and when their obviously inflated expectations failed to materialize, they were largely indebted to ever really manage to pay in full.

I mean, the initial account represented more than 15 times more men than that showed up initially : I personally think that the disrenpcy was partially concious, tough.
Don't forget that most of these Crusaders were French, from the North-East of the kingdom especially : it was eventually about, IMO, prooving that the barons could re-edit the epic of the First Crusade and that they didn't needed the king and more importantly the emperor* (see the Crusade of Henry VI) to do so.

Not only it caused Venice to advance a lot for ships, but you had as well the cost of supplies, non-fighting logistics, etc.

With great efforts, promises and scrapping their pockets and loans, Crusader barely managed to gather 51 000 silver marks, for a "discounted" cost of 94 000 marks. They're simply not going to make it financially.
 
That does not address the discussion.
Crusaders were litterally unable to pay for their expedition. If Venice doesn't advance the resources, I'm not sure who will but it's certainly going to divert the Crusade more or less importantly (let's assume that, somehow, Genoa did, and you end up with a "Let's just make a stop in Tunisia, shall we?".
It's not a matter of nobles being suddenly unable to pay, but a mix of poor organisation (as you said, extremely divided to begin with) and wishful thinking that led to this impossible situation.

Now, if you meant that regardless of plausibility, they find the money ("You gonna laugh, my wallet was in my other armour") and our rag-tag band of Crusader finds the way to Egypt, the shoddy plan reaveals itself in all its glory : it was, more or less, about crossing Lower Egypt beating Ayyubids all the way to Jerusalem. That's it.
I'm not going to say it was Sealion-level of bad planning and preparations, but...let's say that the chances of al-Adil's Ayyubid Sultanate to suffer from a disorganized and not that impressive (numerically speaking) are reduced, to say the least. I'd expect something along the Fifth Crusade, but fizzling more or less quickly.
 
We are dealing pretty much with an army of mercenaries at this point in the sorry history of the Crusades. They will go wherever whoever pays them to go.

Only if the Pope pays do you get somewhere, and the Church's Crusade, the Fifth, also didn't go to well though it least it avoided making the Christians in the Near East even weaker.
 
There's been a lot of discussion about the fate of Zara in such a situation lately, with some (myself included) holding the view that the Zaratin city-state could emerge as a maritime republic holding hegemony ovet much of Dalmatia. Such a power would find itself an attractive ally to any adversary of Venice, be it Genoa, Pisa, or any other. Hungary would probably continue to dominate the coastal cities (including Zara, Spalatro and Ragusa).

Byzantium will struggle even without the Sack of Constantinople, as the Angeloi were notoriously incompetant rulers. Trebizond was already rife with separatism before 1204, so the Pontus will probably break away fairly quickly. And the Sultanate of Rum is not an easy problem to solve, until its fragmentation and the onslaught of the Mongols.
 
We are dealing pretty much with an army of mercenaries at this point in the sorry history of the Crusades. They will go wherever whoever pays them to go.
I have to strongly disagree with you there : Crusaders tended to indebt themselves to no end (they were already endebted to Venice even before reaching it), and economically-wise, the Crusades weren't profitable for most of them.
While Crusaders of 1204 were high on chivalry tales (the anti-Greek feeling was due to the percieved treachery of Byzantines, alimented by their independent policy during Crusades, the Massacre of Latins, but as well translations of Illiad and Aeneid into French, turned as chansons de geste), and having an at best outdated geopolitical perception of the Near-East, mercenariship is certainly not what appears from this period (and labelling so, all respect due, completly fails at understanding the social-cultural background)

There's been a lot of discussion about the fate of Zara in such a situation lately, with some (myself included) holding the view that the Zaratin city-state could emerge as a maritime republic holding hegemony ovet much of Dalmatia. Such a power would find itself an attractive ally to any adversary of Venice, be it Genoa, Pisa, or any other. Hungary would probably continue to dominate the coastal cities (including Zara, Spalatro and Ragusa).
That's interesting, but wasn't Venetian hegemony strong enough to prevent the rise of a rival that could topple it in the Adriatic? I mean the Anconine Republic was a strong independent city, but never really managed to curb down Venetian power, isn't?

Byzantium will struggle even without the Sack of Constantinople, as the Angeloi were notoriously incompetant rulers. Trebizond was already rife with separatism before 1204, so the Pontus will probably break away fairly quickly. And the Sultanate of Rum is not an easy problem to solve, until its fragmentation and the onslaught of the Mongols.
The Fourth Crusade had at least the consequence, IOTL, to force Byzantines to re-focus on Anatolia, while Angeloi's Byzantine Empire was increasingly Balkanic-focused : ITTL, the Turkic presence would probably not be seen as an existential threat until later in the century, if not later.
The Italian presence in the Empire is a given at this point : certainly not as politically dominant it became after the crusade, but the maritime decline of the empire (regardless about trade, strategical or anti-piracy) made them more or less unrootable.

At this point, the Empire was aprticularily vulnerable to anyone willing to take a share : the firm inertia of Angeloi really didn't helped. A revival is always possible, but in these conditions, it would probably make the Empire being "only" in a better geopolitical and financial situation to face its decline, IMO.
 
That's interesting, but wasn't Venetian hegemony strong enough to prevent the rise of a rival that could topple it in the Adriatic? I mean the Anconine Republic was a strong independent city, but never really managed to curb down Venetian power, isn't?
It was strong but not unbreakable.
The Dalmatians had salt mines, a rugged costline that allowed the safest sea travel through the Adriatic (a sea lane heavily used by Venice), a Hungarian overload that provided a huge market to sell goods, offered military protection and gave huge autonomy that made the cities practically semi-independent. The Dalmatians (especially the city of Zara) had good predisposition to become serious players. They were just unlucky.
 
That's interesting, but wasn't Venetian hegemony strong enough to prevent the rise of a rival that could topple it in the Adriatic? I mean the Anconine Republic was a strong independent city, but never really managed to curb down Venetian power, isn't?

As MakiRoc said, Venice was strong, but not unopposable. Zara and much of Dalmatia had placed themselves under Hungarian protection already by 1202, thus breaking Venetian hegemony. And Zara had previously beaten off a Venetian assault in 1190.

Remember, even IOTL Ragusa alone remained a serious competitor to Venice. Other Dalmatian cities, such as Zara, Tragura (Trau) and Spalatro (Split) certainly had the ability to do the same had they survived. The Venetian Lagoon will always be superior for trade, but the Zara-Ancona and Ragusa-Ancona trade routes did compete well OTL.

The Fourth Crusade had at least the consequence, IOTL, to force Byzantines to re-focus on Anatolia, while Angeloi's Byzantine Empire was increasingly Balkanic-focused : ITTL, the Turkic presence would probably not be seen as an existential threat until later in the century

If a rebellion, under the OTL Nicaene Emperor Laskaris perhaps, were to base itself in Anatolia (an area which presumably would favour an Emperor concerned with the welfare of the eastern themes), then a similar effect could be had.

At this point, the Empire was aprticularily vulnerhble to anyone willing to take a share : the firm inertia of Angeloi really didn't helped. A revival is always possible, but in these conditions, it would probably make the Empire being "only" in a better geopolitical and financial situation to face its decline, IMO.

The Byzantines have an opportunity to recapture Anatolia when the Mongols arrive and cripple the Turks. But to do this they NEED a competent Emperor. And they'll need several consecutive competent Emperors to climb out of the hole the Angeloi dug for the realm. The Empire could recover some of its strength, but that will be difficult to achieve.
 
Last edited:
At the time, there was a serious rebellion in mainland Greece by Leo Sgorous, centered on the northern part of the Morea peninsula, whilst the southern part was doing its own thing.

In fact, central authority had eroded so much, that local big-wigs were becoming more-or-less independent all over the place, and revolts were becoming pretty constant (with a couple in Thessalia and Asia Minor only a couple of years prior). There's a reason the whole realm fragmented to such an extent OTL, and it may very well still do so ITTL, albeit with Orthodox Greek-speakers as the local rulers - this is made even more likely by the fact that the Bulgarians and Turks will likely have a lot more success ITTL, as the Bulgarians OTL had to repeatedly face the Crusader army whilst the Turks got super unlucky by having their Sultan be killed by Laskaris just as they were defeating the only army available to the 'Empire of Nicaea'
 

trajen777

Banned
Thoughts -- have Richard not killed by the crossbow bolt and lead the 4th crusade or have Have Henry 4th not get sick (poisoned) in Italy. Either of these would have brought leadership, financial support, and organizational skills to the crusade (the 4th would have been earlier). The success of the crusade would have been highly probable with Saladin dead, good leadership, and strong support.
 
@trajen777
At this point, it's unlikely that Richard would lean a crusade : even if his previous painful experience wouldn't discourage him, even if the English nobility and elites wouldn't roll their eyes at the prospective to yet another costly expeditions and shaky regency, you'd still have the issue of Philippe II of France that would still pressure as much as possible the Angevin ensemble on the continent.

Regardless on how the conflict would go (and in spite of Richard's skill, it would be hard to resolve in his clear favour), the King of England wouldn't have the leisure to use his ressources, time and men for another ultramarine expedition. It doesn't help, futhermore, that the bulk of Fourth Crusaders were French (North-Eastern France, to be precise), a group of nobles that really didn't trusted Richard (again, as painfully obvious during the Third Crusade) and that wouldn't acknowledge its authority.
 

trajen777

Banned
I agree partially. However at this time i think that Richard was on a strong run to pushing Philip into a very weak position. The main failure of the 4th crusade is the lack of a true leader that could expand the number of forces available. You are very correct in the areas that drew the most troops from for the 4th crusade. To be successful the 4th crusade needed a true leader, then you would have a much different makeup of the crusade. However you are correct in that Philippe needed to be dealt with before he could leave. With John in the background and Philippe in the front their needed to be a solution there first.
 
Top