WI: Fourth Crusade goes as planned

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

What if the Fourth Crusade actually went as planned and launched an invasion of Egypt instead of attacking Constantinople and the Eastern Empire?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
It would stand a decent chance of capturing Alexandria. The main problem the Fourth Crusade had was a lack of money.
 
Wasn't Venice's intention all along to re-direct the Fourth Crusade along the Adriatic and to Constantinople? I thought Venice had assured the Ayyubids that the crusade would never make it to Egypt because Venice did good trade with each other.
 

Deleted member 67076

Wasn't Venice's intention all along to re-direct the Fourth Crusade along the Adriatic and to Constantinople? I thought Venice had assured the Ayyubids that the crusade would never make it to Egypt because Venice did good trade with each other.
I never heard of that:confused:.
 
It wouldn't be accurate to say that Venetians always intended to go for Constantinople but they were in it to turn a profit, not for God or as part of some larger scheme to enhance the Crusader States. If you can make Enrico Dandolo believe that he'll make more money for less risk in Egypt than Rhomania than that's where they'll go.
 
Wasn't Venice's intention all along to re-direct the Fourth Crusade along the Adriatic and to Constantinople? I thought Venice had assured the Ayyubids that the crusade would never make it to Egypt because Venice did good trade with each other.

That sounds really conspiracy theory-ish. I mean yes Venice used the Crusaders to help lift the Siege of Zara but other then that....
 
The idea that the Fourth Crusade was the victim of Dandalo The ArchVillain is an entertaining one, but it's fairly outdated. You still hear it put about because it was backed by people like Stephen Runciman back in the fifties, who wrote beautiful and compelling history books.
That got picked up on by a lot of documentary makers even into the nineties, and that influenced children's history books...

Really, the truth is that it's much more a slowly escalating catastrophe rather than a grand scheme to save the Ayyubids from attack and take out the Byzantines.
 
I'm not sure what happens to the crusaders. I would assume that they make some gains in Egypt, likely Alexandria and Gaza, but I have serious doubts about their ability to take Cairo. Retaking Gaza however may help the Crusader states to survive longer, especially if it is refortified, as it was considered critical to securing the crusader frontier. Alexandria, I see going the way of the Greek islands following the OTL fourth crusade, namely being taken over by either the Venetians or Genoese and used as a trading outpost. In that capacity we may see an Italian Alexandria with a decent lifespan, considering that the Ayyubids will be weakened by the crusade and later likely smashed by the Mongols. The crusaders' survival will also depend on how they react to the Mongols ultimately, but if they handle the Mongols correctly then we could see the crusader states surviving into the renaissance.

Byzantium on the other hand, will likely fall into civil war on account of the total incompetence of Alexios III. David and Alexios Komnenos and Alexios Angelos the younger will likely all attempt to overthrow Alexios III Angelos. Theodoros Laskaris is a wildcard, being the son in law of Alexios III, so he may turn out in support of the emperor on the condition of being named his heir, although Alexios III will likely use his other unmarried daughters to attempt to secure allies, whom he will also promise to name his heirs. I can't see Alexios III retaining power in his own right for long, but who succeeds him is a matter of some debate. David Komnenos and Theodoros Laskaris were militarily talented, and David and his brother Alexios had already risen up in rebellion by 1204, while Alexios Angelos the younger will likely seek foreign aid in a bid to regain his father's throne. Still, no matter who wins, the chances of losing Constantinople are much smaller than OTL, and I imagine that the Byzantine Empire has a better than 50% chance of making it to the modern day, especially if they can capitalize on the Sultanate of Rum's weakness.
 

Deleted member 67076

I'm not sure what happens to the crusaders. I would assume that they make some gains in Egypt, likely Alexandria and Gaza, but I have serious doubts about their ability to take Cairo. Retaking Gaza however may help the Crusader states to survive longer, especially if it is refortified, as it was considered critical to securing the crusader frontier. Alexandria, I see going the way of the Greek islands following the OTL fourth crusade, namely being taken over by either the Venetians or Genoese and used as a trading outpost. In that capacity we may see an Italian Alexandria with a decent lifespan, considering that the Ayyubids will be weakened by the crusade and later likely smashed by the Mongols. The crusaders' survival will also depend on how they react to the Mongols ultimately, but if they handle the Mongols correctly then we could see the crusader states surviving into the renaissance.

Byzantium on the other hand, will likely fall into civil war on account of the total incompetence of Alexios III. David and Alexios Komnenos and Alexios Angelos the younger will likely all attempt to overthrow Alexios III Angelos. Theodoros Laskaris is a wildcard, being the son in law of Alexios III, so he may turn out in support of the emperor on the condition of being named his heir, although Alexios III will likely use his other unmarried daughters to attempt to secure allies, whom he will also promise to name his heirs. I can't see Alexios III retaining power in his own right for long, but who succeeds him is a matter of some debate. David Komnenos and Theodoros Laskaris were militarily talented, and David and his brother Alexios had already risen up in rebellion by 1204, while Alexios Angelos the younger will likely seek foreign aid in a bid to regain his father's throne. Still, no matter who wins, the chances of losing Constantinople are much smaller than OTL, and I imagine that the Byzantine Empire has a better than 50% chance of making it to the modern day, especially if they can capitalize on the Sultanate of Rum's weakness.

Any thoughts on how the Byzantines would deal with the Mongols?
 
Any thoughts on how the Byzantines would deal with the Mongols?

Offer tribute when the Mongols come and defeat their armies most likely. Although it depends if the Mongols advance far enough into Anatolia for them to encounter the Byzantines.
 
Any thoughts on how the Byzantines would deal with the Mongols?
We can probably assume that whatever civil conflicts that result from the reign of Alexios III will be over by the time the Mongols arrive. If the Byzantines are successful under Alexios III's successors, then they can in all likeliness recover Bulgaria and or take advantage of the weakness of the Turks in Anatolia, which could leave them with the strength to militarily resist the by then horribly overextended Mongols. If, on the other hand, they wind up ruled by one of the less competent contenders (like Alexios the younger), then they likely don't expand, and possibly lose further territories to the Serbians, Bulgarians, and Italians, although nothing so damaging as happened after the fourth crusade. Trebizond may still break away as well, given that is did so in 1203 OTL and Alexios Megas Komnenos seemed content to rule as Emperor of Trebizond after his brother David died. In that case, the Turks and Bulgarians may serve as effective buffers, allowing the Byzantines to avoid the Mongols entirely, or they could crumble before the Mongols, which will likely force the Byzantines to pay the Mongols off. Only a total fool of an emperor woud provoke the Mongols, and the empire should still be rich enough to pay them off, so only a second Alexios III could wind up bringing the empire down in spectacular flames due to Mongol invasion.
 
Top