How about Alexius IV paying his debts to the venetians and the crusaders (assuming that Alexius III left the Imperial Treasury intact) and then asked the Crusaders to swear an oath of felty to him as his prececessor Alexius I had done during the First Crusade? Or perhaps persuading them to split the territories they concquered (like providing safe passage through Asia Minor and giving them troops in exchange with concquered lands like Iconium etc.)
Could Alexius IV with the use of Byzantine diplomacy divert the crusaders against the seljuq turks?
The army in 1081 was badly bloodied, yes, and it would be more or less entirely wiped out by the Norman wars. But regarding the Themata, you're not correct. They had been in a state of decline since the days of Basil II, and were more or less abolished under Alexios I, though Anna Komnena still talks about them vaguelly writing in the early 1150s. Point is though, the Themes had long since ceased to provide the base of the army by 1203, so raising them in this discussion isn't really relevant.In 1081 there was only a small army left, but an army nevertheless, disciplined and experienced enough for Alexios to form a new army around these core units. Most importantly, the themes were functional enough to provide the necessary manpower. In 1203, the army that was left was almost completely useless and the theme system was collapsing. There were no capable core units or the manpower for a new army.
The army in 1081 was badly bloodied, yes, and it would be more or less entirely wiped out by the Norman wars. But regarding the Themata, you're not correct. They had been in a state of decline since the days of Basil II, and were more or less abolished under Alexios I, though Anna Komnena still talks about them vaguelly writing in the early 1150s. Point is though, the Themes had long since ceased to provide the base of the army by 1203, so raising them in this discussion isn't really relevant.
To compare the Imperial situation in 1203 to 1081 seems to me to be more or less viable- yes, the Bulgars and Serbs were causing trouble in the Balkans in 1203, but so were the Normans in 1081. In addition to this, the Anatolian situation, even without Trebizond, is much better in 1203 than in 1081, given the Rhomanians have control of all the best bits of the peninsula here. The Roman Empire in 1203 is quite capable of mounting a comeback, and is by no means doomed to collapse. IMO, final collapse only really became probable in the reign of Andronikos II.
I suppose the argument is true in essentials- but then, the Rhomanians had a lack of manpower vis a vis the Caliphate in the 700s and had serious border strain then, and they were able to bounce back from this period. The troubles of the early thirteenth century, whilst certainly not insubstantial, were mild compared to those faced by Heraclius or Leo III, or even Alexios Komnenos.I stand corrected. As far as I have read about this, I understand the lack manpower and continuous strain on the borders were the key factors behind their downfall. So the greatest requirement for Byzantium to survive is to be able to form a capable army and stabilize their borders in order to build their strength for an attack.
I think an extremely interesting question to be posed, is that if the ERE prevents the disaster of 1204 more or less intact, how would they have responded to the Mongol invasions that more or less crushed the Seljuk state?
I think some adroit diplomacy could have had some extremely interesting results.
Especially with the conflict between the Mongols and the Ayyubid dynasty... A temporary alliance of convenience between the Mongols and the ERE seems very much possible. Good point.
A Mongol Stilcho would be nice.All without even being paid to. What more could you want from barbarians?
A Mongol Stilcho would be nice.
I can easily see the Mongol invasions being the single event that hands Anatolia back to the ERE in the long term.