alternatehistory.com

IOTL, after the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the establishment of the Latin Empire, the Venetians picked Baldwin of Flanders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_I,_Latin_Emperor) to be Emperor. IOTL, at the Battle of Adrianople, Baldwin was captured, presumably eventually killed, by the Bulgarians, leading to his brother, Henry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_of_Flanders), taking the throne. Henry proved to be more pragmatic and tolerant than many of the other Crusaders in Greece, and he defended what little was left of the Latin Empire with fewer men and resources than many of his enemies.

What if Baldwin had died either before or during the Sack of Constantinople, or between the sack and the Battle of Adrianople? With his men and resources not depleted, might the Latin Empire's chances have been better? I personally reckon that, if Henry avoids conflict with Kaloyan for as long as possible, he might be able to finish off Nicaea, and open the door for future expansion into Anatolia. I'm not knowledgable enough to go into the powder keg of religion...

Or was Henry's OTL approach (in regards to religion and warfare) have been the result of Adrianople and not his de-facto approach?

Any thoughts?
Top