WI Emperor Alexius IV managed to pay the Crusaders? No sack of Constantinople?

At best I see this effectively keeping the Turks out of Europe, but even that seems difficult given the many internal problems facing the Empire at this point (1204) in its history.
 

Ambition

Banned
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?

Its possible. After all, we don't really know the capabilites of Alexios IV, so given some luck he could reach a profitable agreement with the Crusaders, even divert them to the direction most suitable for him.

One possibility could be for Alexios to join the Crusaders in a campaign and take command of the army after the other leaders die ''heroically in battle'' or in ''accidents''. Just like how Octavianus took command of the consular army.
 
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.
 

Ambition

Banned
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 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 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 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 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.
 

Ambition

Banned
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.
 
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.

And very advantageous to the ERE.

Even if it doesn't form an alliance, the Mongols will conveniently wreak havoc on all the major eastern powers the ERE has to worry about.

All without even being paid to. What more could you want from barbarians?
 
A Mongol Stilcho would be nice.

Well, there is that. :D

But that would require Mongols on Roman land, and accepting Roman ways, which is a bit harder than merely profiting from them doing what they planned to do anyway.

Not to say it can't or shouldn't be done - anything the ERE can do to take advantage of the rich pool of nonRoman or Armenian talent is going to be to its advantage.
 
I can easily see the Mongol invasions being the single event that hands Anatolia back to the ERE in the long term.
 
I can easily see the Mongol invasions being the single event that hands Anatolia back to the ERE in the long term.

If anything, it brought even more Turkic tribes into Anatolia, making it even more difficult for the Romans to ever recapture Anatolia.
 
The main thing would be that the ERE would have to be better able to take advantage of a shattered Seljuk sultanate.

Turks, even as Muslims, are not necessarily a threat to retaking Anatolia.
 
regarding the treasury, Alexios III fled with 1000 pounds of gold. 1 pound = 16 ounces, hence 16.000 ounces. Now, 1 silver mark was worth 8 ounces, therefor, the 16.000 ounces Alexios took with him only accounted for 2000 marks, that's 98.000 short.

But even if they had, say, 75.000 extra marks, or even 100.000, it would have made no difference, because the time it would take to collect the other 100.000 would only lead to mounting debt, because, as historical, the Venetians would demand that the "rent" for their ships be paid, since they had more or less suspended commercial activities in order to be able to take part in the campaign.

Assuming however that they had all the necessary money readily available, and used it to pay the crusaders, who would be even happy with the arrangement and would not demand more. Then what ?

Alexios had promised them the support of the entire roman fleet and 10.000 men (out of a total of 15.000 men in the capital). While these would leave the empire really vulnerable, they were however doable. What was not doable was his promise of placing the orthodox church under the authority of the pope. Neither noblemen nor commoners would stand for that.

And even if they did, by the time all of this would have been sorted out, autumn would be approaching fast, thus forcing the crusaders to wait until spring, and so we're back to square one.

Regarding what would the crusaders do if they were satisfied and in a position to leave, I think they would set sail for Egypt, leaving Constantinople both defenseless, broke and very very very angry. Revolution would have been inevitable, and with a little "luck", a civil war as well, at least against Alexios III who was in Adrianople, or, if they're even "luckier", then a multi-sided one. In this scenario, Bulgarian intervention in inevitable, and that of other powers pretty likely.
 
This might be better than what happened OTL, but it is sounding like a disaster is going to happen on top of what's happened between 1180 and 1203 anyway.

That can't be good.
 
Keep in mind that on this very board,the prospect of Roman Survival is still seriously talked about as late as Stephen Dusan .A Roman Empire without 1204 , and with a Bulgarian Tsar taking Constantinople might simply mean a Bulgarian Roman Emperor.
 
Top