WI: Crusaders routed at Zara in 1202

[Fehérvári]

Even before the sack of Constantinople in 1204, the Fourth Crusade already wrecked havoc at Zara in 1202. Upon Venetian request, the Crusaders attacked and besieged Zara, which was a notable trade rival of Venice in the Adriatic. IOTL the city was caught offguard by the sudden arrival and hostile behaviour of the Crusaders. The defenders surrendered after a short siege and the Crusaders plundered the city.

What if the citizens of Zara caught wind of the Venetian-Crusader plans about attacking their city and thus managed to send request for help from the Hungarian king? Believing in the eventual arrival of royal relief forces, the city resists the attackers. The Hungarian king (IOTL King Emeric, but ITTL I plan to have King Béla III live longer, but it's not important for this question) arrives with a strong army (maybe in around early December) and swiftly breaks the siege and routs the Crusaders and Venetians.

Now, what consequences could this have? I assume the crusade would come to an early end in this scenario, ergo Constantinople wouldn't get sacked in 1204 and the Latin Empire wouldn't get established. That alone unleashes a torrent of butterflies. What do you think?

 

[Elfwine]

If they really well and truly are smashed, I think Venice- which has spent a lot on its part of the expedition (not to mention that there are no small number of Venetians along) is in a pretty bad place for a while.

Not immediately vulnerable necessarily, but that's a lot of effort for potentially less than nothing.

 

[Fehérvári]

If they really well and truly are smashed, I think Venice- which has spent a lot on its part of the expedition (not to mention that there are no small number of Venetians along) is in a pretty bad place for a while.

I was thinking about half of the Crusaders scattering in every direction, while another half of them embark with the Venetians on the undamaged Venetian Fleet and flee from the area. Most if not all siege equipments would be abandoned. The Venetian-Crusader force would be severely weakened, but I'm not sure what action would they take after this. They might sail to Arba(Rab), the closest significant Venetian holding in the region, but they might as well dare to resume their journey towards the Holy Land while hoping to attain some fortune along the way.

Not immediately vulnerable necessarily, but that's a lot of effort for potentially less than nothing.

How would the Pope react to these developments? The Hungarian king was under oath to join a crusade and go to the Holy Land and yet he just squashed a crusading force instead (although justly). Would the Pope demand the Hungarian king (or one of his sons in his place) to gather the scattered Crusaders and/or gather an army of his own and immediately lead a crusade (in place of the defeated Cruader army)?

Should the Hungarians organise a crusade, it would inevitably have to go on the land route considering the existing tensions with venice (even if the Hungarian-subject Dalmatian cities could gather the necessary amount of transport ships. What do you think?

 

[Elfwine]

I was thinking about half of the Crusaders scattering in every direction, while another half of them embark with the Venetians on the undamaged Venetian Fleet and flee from the area. Most if not all siege equipments would be abandoned. The Venetian-Crusader force would be severely weakened, but I'm not sure what action would they take after this. They might sail to Arba(Rab), the closest significant Venetian holding in the region, but they might as well dare to resume their journey towards the Holy Land while hoping to attain some fortune along the way.

Well, if the Venetians themselves have taken light losses, they're still relatively okay - although we're down to what, five thousand other crusaders? This feels like the main thing holding it together will be the Venetians and what they push for.

Not sure if him squashing a crusading force attacking his lands would go badly, although I suspect there's going to be extra papal pressure to fulfill any vows he's taken. Though given how long Andrew II put off going OTL...

Should the Hungarians organise a crusade, it would inevitably have to go on the land route considering the existing tensions with venice (even if the Hungarian-subject Dalmatian cities could gather the necessary amount of transport ships. What do you think?

That makes sense to me.

Overland would be a rough trip, but I'm not sure there's any major military obstacle along the way (although I imagine Alexius III is not going to make himself useful).

 

[Fehérvári]

Well, if the Venetians themselves have taken light losses, they're still relatively okay - although we're down to what, five thousand other crusaders? This feels like the main thing holding it together will be the Venetians and what they push for.

The Crusaders would be still indebted to the Venetians but they would have even less means to make good on their debt. The Venetians could either decide to cut their losses and abandon the Crusaders or they could direct them against a new, easier target. Maybe Cattaro(Kotor)? It was in Serbian hand at the time AFAIK.

Not sure if him squashing a crusading force attacking his lands would go badly, although I suspect there's going to be extra papal pressure to fulfill any vows he's taken. Though given how long Andrew II put off going OTL...

And Andrew II inherited that vow from his father, Béla III, who made this vow at the time of King Ladislaus's canonisation in 1192. So yeah, that crusade could probably wait. Then what about a Hungarian punitive expedition against Venetian territories? AFAIK, the Venetians only held islands in Dalmatia around this time, so the closest land possessions of Venice were probably Pola(Pula) and Trieste. Both of these cities submitted to Venice only recently, so they could prove to be low morale easy targets. Or what about the Venetian-Crusader defeat inciting revolts throught the islands of Dalmatia, towhich the Hungarian king could provide assisstance in exchange of these islands swearing fealty to him?

That makes sense to me.

Overland would be a rough trip, but I'm not sure there's any major military obstacle along the way.

Wouldn't the Bulgarians be a possible huge obstacle? Especially since they were actively contesting Hungarian control/influence over Macho(Mačva) and Cumania(Wallachia). Maybe following the route alongside the Great Morava and Vardar Rivers and then the Aegean Coast could maybe help avoid confrontation (not guaranteed), but that's a relatively big detour compared to following the Via Militaris.

(although I imagine Alexius III is not going to make himself useful).

Now that you mention it, Alexius III dethroned Isaac II who had the daughter of Béla III as his spouse. Isaac II and Margaret of Hungary had two sons: Manuel and John. John was too young, but Béla III (or Emeric or Andrew II) might just actually try to place Manuel on the Byzantine throne, should he choose to travel to the Holy Land via Constantinople.

 

[Elfwine]

The Crusaders would be still indebted to the Venetians but they would have even less means to make good on their debt. The Venetians could either decide to cut their losses and abandon the Crusaders or they could direct them against a new, easier target. Maybe Cattaro(Kotor)? It was in Serbian hand at the time AFAIK.

Might work. There's probably still enough soldiers to take Cattaro unless more goes wrong.

Wouldn't the Bulgarians be a possible huge obstacle? Especially since they were actively contesting Hungarian control/influence over Macho(Mačva) and Cumania(Wallachia). Maybe following the route alongside the Great Morava and Vardar Rivers and then the Aegean Coast could maybe help avoid confrontation (not guaranteed), but that's a relatively big detour compared to following the Via Militaris.

An obstacle, but I'm not sure about huge - I wouldn't want to estimate numbers other than in broad strokes, but I suspect Bela has a stronger army.

Now that you mention it, Alexius III dethroned Isaac II who had the daughter of Béla III as his spouse. Isaac II and Margaret of Hungary had two sons: Manuel and John. John was too young, but Béla III (or Emeric or Andrew II) might just actually try to place Manuel on the Byzantine throne, should he choose to travel to the Holy Land via Constantinople.

It's certainly something I see coming up as a thing. Would be kind of funny for some value of.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

Something which is often ignored in no 4th crusade scenarios is the fact that Constantinople was losing its grip on the provinces before the crusade, not to day they can’t recover but things won’t just be amazing for the romans

 

[Aichi72]

How would the Pope react to these developments? The Hungarian king was under oath to join a crusade and go to the Holy Land and yet he just squashed a crusading force instead (although justly). Would the Pope demand the Hungarian king (or one of his sons in his place) to gather the scattered Crusaders and/or gather an army of his own and immediately lead a crusade (in place of the defeated Cruader army)?

Should the Hungarians organise a crusade, it would inevitably have to go on the land route considering the existing tensions with venice (even if the Hungarian-subject Dalmatian cities could gather the necessary amount of transport ships. What do you think?

Well considering that the attack on Zara took place in contravention of direct order from the Pope forbidding the Crusaders from attacking fellow Christians, and that he IOTL promptly excommunicated the whole army after the Sack of Zara and ordered them to get back to, you know, crusading, I wouldn't be certain that Innocent III would be all that concerned.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Something which is often ignored in no 4th crusade scenarios is the fact that Constantinople was losing its grip on the provinces before the crusade, not to day they can’t recover but things won’t just be amazing for the romans

The Komnenian and Sgouros were already making their own moves against Constantinople. Within a few years from the POD we might already get a more competent ruler in charge instead of the Angeloi, setting things back on track.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

The Komnenian and Sgouros were already making their own moves against Constantinople. Within a few years from the POD we might already get a more competent ruler in charge instead of the Angeloi, setting things back on track.

How exactly are the Komnenian and Sgouros better administrators? do they have better genes? The only thing advantage they might enjoy is legitimacy, but that grows with time. Adding to that IIRC it was the Komnenian way of ruling with families that added to the disillusion of the provinces.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

How exactly are the Komnenian and Sgouros better administrators? do they have better genes? The only thing advantage they might enjoy is legitimacy, but that grows with time. Adding to that IIRC it was the Komnenian way of ruling with families that added to the disillusion of the provinces.

It would be a challenge for them to be equal or worse than Isaac II and Alexious III/IV. And while it is hard to say anything about Sgouros, the Komnenian brothers (especially David) showed some good initial successes post 1204. As for the whole “disillusion of the provinces”, it worked under the Komnenians and only broke down under the Angeloi, not sure why you would blame the former here.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

It would be a challenge for them to be equal or worse than Isaac II and Alexious III/IV. And while it is hard to say anything about Sgouros, the Komnenian brothers (especially David) showed some good initial successes post 1204. As for the whole “disillusion of the provinces”, it worked under the Komnenians and only broke down under the Angeloi, not sure why you would blame the former here.

Because they created the system? And the system broke down when a new dynasty arose, not exactly a stable system.

 

[kholieken]

- Crusaders got excommunicated
- Venice throw richer crusaders in debt prison, abandon poorer ones to become bandit.
- Hungarian got prestige, and allowed to delay crusades and lead next one.
- Byzantine got reprieve and internal civilbwar with less interferences. Future depend on capabilities of new dynasty.

 

[Lady Visenya]

Alexios III Komnenos gets much needed time to stabilize the regime, ideally. But I'm an Alexios III Komnenos friend, so...

 

[Bored Young Man]

Alexios III Komnenos gets much needed time to stabilize the regime, ideally. But I'm an Alexios III Komnenos friend, so...

Because they created the system? And the system broke down when a new dynasty arose, not exactly a stable system.

The system was at the time of Alexios I a decent system of loyalty: he barely had any revolts. They married all of the major power players and gave them privileges due to royal blood. The disadvantages of such a system was

1. The requirement for an unified aristocracy and an emperor capable enough to shape them.
2. The need to limit the royal family size least they grow to unsustainable size and heterogeneity.
3. The natural growth of the number of royal family members and dissenting views throughout the generations.
4. The growing dissatisfaction of those outside the aristocracy such as the church, provincial notable, capable generals and bureaucrats.
5. General ossification, it inhibited new blood and giving power based on birth across so much of the empire is not a great recipe.

By the 13th century civil war did need to happen since there was so much factionalism, discontent, and incompetent leadership.

That being said Alexios III wasn't terrible, he had been energic and consistently engaged in fighting off rebellions and reasserting power. The issue was that by all his intel the crusade was going to Egypt, that the pope had already negotiated passage through his waters so by the time Alexios found out he had only 4 weeks of warning and no time to rebuild a mothballed fleet. He wasn't bad, maybe even above average but he had bad luck and inherited a broken kingdom.

 

[Elfwine]

He wasn't bad, maybe even above average

I am genuinely interested in what one might suggest as reading to back up the assertion that Alexios III was not a bad emperor. 1195-1203 is not a bright period when it comes to imperial leadership in any source I've read, but at least some of those are quite dated (Ostrogorsky, for example).

 

[Bored Young Man]

I am genuinely interested in what one might suggest as reading to back up the assertion that Alexios III was not a bad emperor.

Well I'll admit a lot of the sources don't like him, but its a matter of context: the traditional narrative of him was that of a greedy and weak man and they point to his large bribes, raids by the Hungarians, Bulgars, and Sejuks, and how quickly his men deserted him. He was the guy at the helm during the hurricane, but he didn't sail into the hurricane- that the fault of predecessors and accepted Byzantine norms at that time.

Manuel was the man who managed to waste the wealth and power of the empire in largely fruitless attempts to aid the crusader states, intervene in Italy, and secure the Balkans. In fact he had managed to secure advantageous strategic marriages with Hungary, the Normans, and the Germans only to skip out at the last moment pissing off the other and establishing a reputation for inconsistency. He had also expanded into traditional Hungarian lands in Dalmatia that he had no way to hold and only nominal authority and pissing off Hungary and Venice. He had for some reason ignored the Turks and instead picked sides in the Balkans and Italy, inevitably pissing off one faction or another.

As Basil II has shown the Byzantines needed a consistent campaign over years to get actual results whereas he jumped from theatre to theatre. And lastly, its baffling to me how Manuel kept Andronikos alive despite his repeated treason and incest-the choice of a heir is a massive part of the judgement of a king.

I don't blame the guy who was only at the helm for a few years for the imprisonment of the Venetians, the diminishment of any diplomatic relations in the west, the neglect of the Turks, and the squandering of wealth for ephemeral Latin diplomacy vs strengthening the Empire. By Alexios III's time there was no way he could get peace in the east or west to conduct a campaign on the other front, nor for that matter was there the considerable advantage in military strength just 20 years prior.

Andronikos I was the man who broke with the policy of aristocratic consensus, initiated the decline towards civil war, and let the massacare of the Latins happen. Given how much the aristocracy hated each other and how little unity there was, there wasn't a chance for consensus by Alexios III's time and bribes were just how politics was conducted. By Alexios III's time it was established tradition that emperors could easily be disposed by revolt or coup, that claimants would march armies to the city-they'd fight, and life goes on-I don't blame him for his predecessors cheapening the authority of the office nor his men for abandoning him since it seemed like just another coup where life would go on afterwards. Similarly he didn't centralize the empire into the hands of an incompetent aristocracy, that was a product of a hundred years- which while necessary at the start was by the time of Manuel a liability.

We really have to ask, would any average emperor had done any better in a centralized empire with an incompetent and highly factional aristocracy with coups, revolts, and inviting foreign armies being accepted norms? Where the estates hated the aristocracy and central authority was crumbling? Where the previous rulers squandered the wealth, reputation, and power of the empire while angering the traditional naval shield of Venice and angering the martial Latins?

 

[Elfwine]

We really have to ask, would any average emperor had done any better in a centralized empire with an incompetent and highly factional aristocracy with coups, revolts, and inviting foreign armies being accepted norms? Where the estates hated the aristocracy and central authority was crumbling? Where the previous rulers squandered the wealth, reputation, and power of the empire while angering the traditional naval shield of Venice and angering the martial Latins?

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: We cannot blame Alexios III for the decisions of his predecessors, and how they deserve to be rated is a worthy discussion in its own right, but that does not mean that everything was doomed no matter what he did (including that he did not have to become emperor in the first place - if we're talking state being wracked with coups and plots, it hardly seems fair to anyone to ignore that he became emperor because of a coup).

Was he unreservedly terrible? Perhaps not, but arguing that the ship was in danger when he took the helm doesn't establish that he was any good at being captain.

 

[Bored Young Man]

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: We cannot blame Alexios III for the decisions of his predecessors, and how they deserve to be rated is a worthy discussion in its own right, but that does not mean that everything was doomed no matter what he did (including that he did not have to become emperor in the first place - if we're talking state being wracked with coups and plots, it hardly seems fair to anyone to ignore that he became emperor because of a coup).

True, I am overcorrecting somewhat. It's just that the traditional narrative as well as first-hand accounts of the crusaders who went against papal orders, killed Christians, and never reached the Holy Land had a lot of reasons to smear his name whereas he just seemed to be at least better than Manuel with okay competence and a more coherent and realistic direction.

 

[Elfwine]

True, I am overcorrecting somewhat. It's just that the traditional narrative as well as first-hand accounts of the crusaders who went against papal orders, killed Christians, and never reached the Holy Land had a lot of reasons to smear his name whereas he just seemed to be at least better than Manuel with okay competence and a more coherent and realistic direction.

I guess my question comes down to this: What is "better than Manuel with okay competence" based on here?

The traditional narrative may not be charitable to him, but it doesn't follow that means that it's wrong about him.

Though to be honest, the way this interests me as far as the what if: Say the 4th Crusade never disrupts his reign. What is Alexios actually attempting to do about the state's multitude of problems?

He's around fifty at the time as far as I can tell. Based on other emperors, he might have another ten or fifteen years at most (potentially longer, but not likely), and he's going to be followed by a son in law most likely - if they don't predecease him, and if no one overthrows him first.