WI: Latin empire survives?

Reene

Banned
I am a bit of a fan of Latin Empire, so I always wondered what would the consequences be if it won the Byzantine wars, and stood alone against the Turks until 1453? Could it expect more European help? Would it even come into such a situation or would more European interest/intervention save it??
 
European help wasn't forthcoming from really any region. France and England just signed peace after the 100 years war. The Varna crusade was an utter disaster and it really deterred any European nations at all from helping the Byzantines in OTL and would likely be the same ITTL.

Actually. I'm not sure how you could really keep the empire staying afloat until 1453. It never really had any direct influence let alone popularity within the other reaches of the empire. Bulgaria and the empire were constantly at war with one another and focusing too much on it's European provinces compared to it's Anatolian ones. The empire also had terrible economic issues since it destroyed the established Greek based economy.
 
Why should other European powers intervene to save the Latin Empire?
The papacy has perhaps an interest in their survival. But as a result of this, in OTL, Friedrich II emperor of the Holy Roman Empire had diplomatic contacts with Nicea.
Why should a European kingdom intervene and send an army far away. It is much more prestigious to start your own war or travel to the Holy Land. After some time (like OTL) crusades would loose their attractiveness.
But it is possible that an ambitious king in Italy like Charles of Anjou could try to invade your Latin Empire to claim it for himself.
It is possible to attract knights and the higher nobility by promising them lands. But for that you need constant conquests, and a foreign nobility could upset orthodox Greeks.
If your Latin Empire is in danger, the pope and one or another trading republic could decide to help. But the amount of help depends on the power of the papacy at that time.

To survive, the Latin Empire needs several things.
1. more popularity among the Greek population
2. a better political system with more powerful emperors, and stronger control over Thessaloniki, Athens and Achaia.
3. Several powerful emperors in a row.
4. Neighbors: Epirus should collapse, Bulgaria shouldn't become to powerful, Nicea need to survive some time to block further territorial gains from Rum. Trebezond need to become a little more powerful, also to block further influence for Rum. The Latin Empire needs to become stronger than any of the Greek successor states.
5. The Latin Empire needs a unification between the orthodox and catholic church, it needs also the support of the Italian trading republics and the papacy.
6. The Latin Empire should avoid larger civil wars and never allow the Seljuks to gain any territory in Europe.
7. It is also necessary to solve some of the economic problems and repair the destruction of the crusade on Constantinople.

It is also possible (but difficult) to let a small Latin Empire (just the area around Constantinople) survive, but such an Empire couldn't stop the Seljuks in any way.
If the Latin Empire is a success, it would call itself the (Eastern) Roman Empire, and would also claim their continuity with the (Byzantine) Eastern Roman Empire.

As a result a surviving Latin Empire is possible with much luck, but it isn't easy. There are several factors which clearly reduce the chances of success of this state.

For my personal taste/opinion, I think the Latin Empire was just the result of the terrible 4. crusade which in the long term largely destroyed the chances of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire to survive in the long term.
Because I like the Eastern Roman Empire, I can't really like the Latin Empire.
 
Okay so I don't know much about the Latin Empire or the Byzantines at this period but can someone please explain to me why the Venetians didn't come to their aid? The Latin Empire seems like it would be an ideal client state for them.
 
Okay so I don't know much about the Latin Empire or the Byzantines at this period but can someone please explain to me why the Venetians didn't come to their aid? The Latin Empire seems like it would be an ideal client state for them.
They did, the Latin Empire was a Venetian protectorate while the Byzantine Empire was a Genoese protectorate.

Constantinople was reconquered in 1261 by Byzantine general Alexios Strategopolous when the Venetian fleet and the entire Latin garrison were absent, raiding an island off the Byzantine coast. The Byzantines entered the walls through secret passages and quickly began capturing the city. By the time the Venetians arrived, there was no hope of pushing the Greeks out, but they did ferry out the Latins and resettle them in the other Latin controlled parts of Greece.
 

Reene

Banned
Why should other European powers intervene to save the Latin Empire?
The papacy has perhaps an interest in their survival. But as a result of this, in OTL, Friedrich II emperor of the Holy Roman Empire had diplomatic contacts with Nicea.
Why should a European kingdom intervene and send an army far away. It is much more prestigious to start your own war or travel to the Holy Land. After some time (like OTL) crusades would loose their attractiveness.
But it is possible that an ambitious king in Italy like Charles of Anjou could try to invade your Latin Empire to claim it for himself.
It is possible to attract knights and the higher nobility by promising them lands. But for that you need constant conquests, and a foreign nobility could upset orthodox Greeks.
If your Latin Empire is in danger, the pope and one or another trading republic could decide to help. But the amount of help depends on the power of the papacy at that time.

To survive, the Latin Empire needs several things.
1. more popularity among the Greek population
2. a better political system with more powerful emperors, and stronger control over Thessaloniki, Athens and Achaia.
3. Several powerful emperors in a row.
4. Neighbors: Epirus should collapse, Bulgaria shouldn't become to powerful, Nicea need to survive some time to block further territorial gains from Rum. Trebezond need to become a little more powerful, also to block further influence for Rum. The Latin Empire needs to become stronger than any of the Greek successor states.
5. The Latin Empire needs a unification between the orthodox and catholic church, it needs also the support of the Italian trading republics and the papacy.
6. The Latin Empire should avoid larger civil wars and never allow the Seljuks to gain any territory in Europe.
7. It is also necessary to solve some of the economic problems and repair the destruction of the crusade on Constantinople.

It is also possible (but difficult) to let a small Latin Empire (just the area around Constantinople) survive, but such an Empire couldn't stop the Seljuks in any way.
If the Latin Empire is a success, it would call itself the (Eastern) Roman Empire, and would also claim their continuity with the (Byzantine) Eastern Roman Empire.

As a result a surviving Latin Empire is possible with much luck, but it isn't easy. There are several factors which clearly reduce the chances of success of this state.

For my personal taste/opinion, I think the Latin Empire was just the result of the terrible 4. crusade which in the long term largely destroyed the chances of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire to survive in the long term.
Because I like the Eastern Roman Empire, I can't really like the Latin Empire.

Thabk you for your answer. I personally am the opposite, disliking the Byzantines greatly due to their attitude when they were more powerfull and their disregard for deals. I like the 4th Crusade because Byzantines used and then cheated the crusaders.

1. Is it possible to suplant the Greek population with western migrants?

2. What was the problem with their system and how could it be fixed.

5. That id why I hoped it would survive, since unlike Byzantines they were already catholics although I think unification is impossible.
 
There was a lot of prejudice against the Byzantine Empire in contemporary medieval western texts. But I think that most of these prejudices are not justified. (For example: After the failure of the Second Crusade was it common in medieval western historiography to accuse the Byzantine Empire of treachery even when the crusader did some serious mistakes.)

1. No. It is possible to bring in some western/catholic settlers, but the conquered area is densely populated. It is beyond the logistic capabilities of the empire to plan an organized mass migration and expulsions of Greek inhabitants. Also such a policy would result almost certainly in failure. If the empire starts something like this, revolts would likely occur. Nicea or Epirus could use such a revolt to regain control over their territory.
Like in the other crusader states (or in most of the cases of larger conquests in the Middle Ages), the conquerors where mostly only a small elite which gained power over a large conquered majority.

5. But still the Catholics are a small minority. Therefore, some compromises are necessary. For the long term symbiosis and fusion of Western/Latin and Byzantine traditions seems to be the most promising way to ensure a stable government in the long term. The contested election of an Venetian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Morosini) as the new patriarch of Constantinople was not a good way to raise the acceptance of the new regime. In 1214 the pope Innocent ordered his legate Cardinal Pelagius to enforce the remaining Greek clerics to accept the Latin rite, and tried to impose so a church unification by force. Pelagius was confronted with strong resistance and failed because emperor Peter allowed the Greeks to reopen their churches.

2. In general too much power for the Venetians and for the nobility. According to the Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae, it was planned, that the Emperor should only control one quarter of the former byzantine territory. (to Venice three eights, and the rest to other crusaders) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitio_terrarum_imperii_Romaniae). If you want to strengthen the trade of the Latin Empire, you had to strengthen native merchants, which could anger the Venetians.
To reform the Latin empire, you have not much time. Your POD should be between 1204 and 1224 (Fall of Thessaloniki to Epirus), because really soon the Latin empire lost most of their territories except the Area around Constantinople and the de facto independent states in southern Greece.

My suggestions are:
1. Allow the orthodox clergy to elect a patriarch, which needs the approval of the Emperor and the Pope. Also allow their liturgy, but start some form of dialogue to create possibilities for a church unification in the future.
2. Reduce the influence of the Venetians without loosing their support. Therefore still allow them to trade and have some influence in the Empire, but don't allow them to influence or decide the really important decisions.
3. Don't destroy parts of the Byzantine Bureaucracy, use them to support the Emperor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire#Organization_and_society + also economy and society on this article)
You also need to gain more financial resources. The Latin Empire lacked them, because the Emperor controlled only small parts of the Empire, the Venetians controlled the trade, and where opposed towards tolls, and Constantinople was devastated by the fourth crusade. Selling relics to western Europe would improve your financial situation but contradict goal 1. and damage your prestige.
4. Try to support the other crusader princes in the area, especially stop the Komnenodoukas dynasty from Epirus. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Thessalonica), and gain the upper hand over the princes.
5. Try to avoid any war with Nicea. You don't have the resources to wage war against them, even if you win, further conflicts with the Seljukes of Rum or with Trapezunt could occur.
6. Some of the problems are so severe, that it is impossible to fix them in short time. There are also reasons, why the political system of the Latin Empire formed in this problematic way after the fourth crusade. Also the authority of the Latin Emperor seems to be limited. Therefore are radical reforms really difficult.
7. Luck and incompetent neighbors.
 

Reene

Banned
There was a lot of prejudice against the Byzantine Empire in contemporary medieval western texts. But I think that most of these prejudices are not justified. (For example: After the failure of the Second Crusade was it common in medieval western historiography to accuse the Byzantine Empire of treachery even when the crusader did some serious mistakes.)

1. No. It is possible to bring in some western/catholic settlers, but the conquered area is densely populated. It is beyond the logistic capabilities of the empire to plan an organized mass migration and expulsions of Greek inhabitants. Also such a policy would result almost certainly in failure. If the empire starts something like this, revolts would likely occur. Nicea or Epirus could use such a revolt to regain control over their territory.
Like in the other crusader states (or in most of the cases of larger conquests in the Middle Ages), the conquerors where mostly only a small elite which gained power over a large conquered majority.

5. But still the Catholics are a small minority. Therefore, some compromises are necessary. For the long term symbiosis and fusion of Western/Latin and Byzantine traditions seems to be the most promising way to ensure a stable government in the long term. The contested election of an Venetian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Morosini) as the new patriarch of Constantinople was not a good way to raise the acceptance of the new regime. In 1214 the pope Innocent ordered his legate Cardinal Pelagius to enforce the remaining Greek clerics to accept the Latin rite, and tried to impose so a church unification by force. Pelagius was confronted with strong resistance and failed because emperor Peter allowed the Greeks to reopen their churches.

2. In general too much power for the Venetians and for the nobility. According to the Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae, it was planned, that the Emperor should only control one quarter of the former byzantine territory. (to Venice three eights, and the rest to other crusaders) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitio_terrarum_imperii_Romaniae). If you want to strengthen the trade of the Latin Empire, you had to strengthen native merchants, which could anger the Venetians.
To reform the Latin empire, you have not much time. Your POD should be between 1204 and 1224 (Fall of Thessaloniki to Epirus), because really soon the Latin empire lost most of their territories except the Area around Constantinople and the de facto independent states in southern Greece.

My suggestions are:
1. Allow the orthodox clergy to elect a patriarch, which needs the approval of the Emperor and the Pope. Also allow their liturgy, but start some form of dialogue to create possibilities for a church unification in the future.
2. Reduce the influence of the Venetians without loosing their support. Therefore still allow them to trade and have some influence in the Empire, but don't allow them to influence or decide the really important decisions.
3. Don't destroy parts of the Byzantine Bureaucracy, use them to support the Emperor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire#Organization_and_society + also economy and society on this article)
You also need to gain more financial resources. The Latin Empire lacked them, because the Emperor controlled only small parts of the Empire, the Venetians controlled the trade, and where opposed towards tolls, and Constantinople was devastated by the fourth crusade. Selling relics to western Europe would improve your financial situation but contradict goal 1. and damage your prestige.
4. Try to support the other crusader princes in the area, especially stop the Komnenodoukas dynasty from Epirus. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Thessalonica), and gain the upper hand over the princes.
5. Try to avoid any war with Nicea. You don't have the resources to wage war against them, even if you win, further conflicts with the Seljukes of Rum or with Trapezunt could occur.
6. Some of the problems are so severe, that it is impossible to fix them in short time. There are also reasons, why the political system of the Latin Empire formed in this problematic way after the fourth crusade. Also the authority of the Latin Emperor seems to be limited. Therefore are radical reforms really difficult.
7. Luck and incompetent neighbors.

It isnt just prejudice, its their general behaviour and attitude of superiority towards non Byzantines, the way they went into a panicked city grab behind Crusaders back during the first Crusade, the extremelly petty and selfish behaviour during the second Crusade, their stagnancy for a milenia etc.. Those are just some of the reasons I dislike them and honestly I dont understand all the Byzantophillia.

Thank you, your suggestions are very insightfull.
 
I am a bit of a fan of Latin Empire, so I always wondered what would the consequences be if it won the Byzantine wars, and stood alone against the Turks until 1453? Could it expect more European help? Would it even come into such a situation or would more European interest/intervention save it??
Would this include the Nicean territories in Asia Minor or do the Lascarids still get established there?
 

Reene

Banned
They just have to survive/hold Constantinople until 1453, and no Byzantines exist. That is all
 
It isnt just prejudice, its their general behaviour and attitude of superiority towards non Byzantines, the way they went into a panicked city grab behind Crusaders back during the first Crusade, the extremelly petty and selfish behaviour during the second Crusade, their stagnancy for a milenia etc.. Those are just some of the reasons I dislike them and honestly I dont understand all the Byzantophillia.

Thank you, your suggestions are very insightfull.

Thank you.

I don't want a large discussion about liking or hating the Byzantine Empire (because this is a matter of personal historical taste), but recommend you to reflect your own biases.
I wouldn't recommend using moral judgements about medieval empires in this context. If you use moral judgements you had to research a lot and be aware that many of the sources are biased.
(Perhaps the different writers of the First Crusade are biased, but Anna Komnena is also heavily biased in favor of her father)
You should use your moral standards (if you want to make moral judgements, which I think isn't necessary or helpful, if you try to understand medieval history) not only on one side but equal on all sides of a conflict.
What is your moral judgement about Venice and their actions at the Fourth Crusade?
What is your moral judgement about the leaders of the First Crusade, which carved out and conquered their own states and allowed the massacre at Jerusalem?

You should try to understand all sides.
The crusades where also dangerous for the Byzantines. It is always dangerous if a large foreign army is around your capital. And the Crusaders (at least at the First crusades) where partly Normans. And there are several invasions from the Normans of Southern Italy against the Byzantine Empire. Therefore you had to be careful at such a situation. Alexios Komnenos perhaps underestimated the reaction on his call for help.

The Byzantines where not selfless,their goal was to ensure their interests and the survival of their empire. But to claim that they where always selfish stagnant traitors is heavily biased.
There are always differences between individuals, and the Eastern Roman Empire wasn't the same during their thousand years of existence. There are large differences for example between the Empire under Justinian compared to the Komenian Empire.
I'm interested where (which sources) you get your information and opinion about the Byzantine Empire.

I know, that I'm a little bit byzantophil, but I would never claim that the Byzantines or their enemies or neighbors where on the matter of morals superior or inferior.
It is in general important to detect your own biases and then look at the other side.
 

Reene

Banned
I don't want a large discussion about liking or hating the Byzantine Empire (because this is a matter of personal historical taste), but recommend you to reflect your own biases.
I wouldn't recommend using moral judgements about medieval empires in this context. If you use moral judgements you had to research a lot and be aware that many of the sources are biased.
(Perhaps the different writers of the First Crusade are biased, but Anna Komnena is also heavily biased in favor of her father)
You should use your moral standards (if you want to make moral judgements, which I think isn't necessary or helpful, if you try to understand medieval history) not only on one side but equal on all sides of a conflict.

If you dont mind, I would enjoy it. I've never discussed Byzantophillia or phobia with someone in a detail that allowed me to understand the other side.

I dont use moral judgement on things like murder, or rape, or even canibalism, those are all influenced by various cultural and historical issues. The massacre in Jerusalem is horrible by modern standards but relatively common and understandable at the time. What I do judge is asking a man for help and then going behind his back to leave the person hanging. "Got mine, F you now" at its finest while at the same time squeling for western help when times got hard once again.

What is your moral judgement about Venice and their actions at the Fourth Crusade?
What is your moral judgement about the leaders of the First Crusade, which carved out and conquered their own states and allowed the massacre at Jerusalem?

I understand their reasoning. 30 000 out of Venice's population of 100 000 were employed for months waiting on the crusaders that never came in the numbers that were expected, with no money in sight. They didnt set out with the goal of sacking Constantinople, but Byzantine actions and constand under-estimating led to the events that transpired.

I find the men of the first crusade admirable. They did something that hasnt happened before, traveled hundreds of miles from their home to a land they knew nothing about out of conviction and showed extraordinary courage. They did horrible things. But quite typical for the time.

You should try to understand all sides.
The crusades where also dangerous for the Byzantines. It is always dangerous if a large foreign army is around your capital. And the Crusaders (at least at the First crusades) where partly Normans. And there are several invasions from the Normans of Southern Italy against the Byzantine Empire. Therefore you had to be careful at such a situation. Alexios Komnenos perhaps underestimated the reaction on his call for help.

Yes it is dangerous but you invited them. Show some trust. I dont expect or think that the Byzantines should have thrown open the gates and let them march in armed and what not, but their treatment of crusaders as some barbarians that could be useful, but arent deserving of respect is contemptible in my mind.

The Byzantines where not selfless,their goal was to ensure their interests and the survival of their empire. But to claim that they where always selfish stagnant traitors is heavily biased.
There are always differences between individuals, and the Eastern Roman Empire wasn't the same during their thousand years of existence. There are large differences for example between the Empire under Justinian compared to the Komenian Empire.
I'm interested where (which sources) you get your information and opinion about the Byzantine Empire.

In 1000 years they made 3 notable inventions; the Arches/Domes, church Icons and Trebuchets. In 1000 years. They simply used what was left of Rome, and ancient Greece, hoarded it, contributing next to nothing. The fall of Byzantines was a great boon for Europe as it was shown, since the hoarded knowledge was set free and flowed, where in less than 100 years a Reneisance was happening, with constant progress ever since. And its been just 500 years since then.

I know, that I'm a little bit byzantophil, but I would never claim that the Byzantines or their enemies or neighbors where on the matter of morals superior or inferior.
It is in general important to detect your own biases and then look at the other side.

I agree. I just find very little when it comes to Byzantines.
Why do you like them?
 
Basically, Byzantium was stagnating by 1204, but the Latin Empire inherited it and only stagnated even faster. In the 1220s, the Latin Emperor already had nearly no authority over his barons. Another weakness was how many of the empire's Orthodox subjects - who could not be realistically replaced with Catholics - hated it, and not without reason. There were Emperors who tried to strengthen the state and make it more tolerant (Henry and Robert), but they weren't able to change much.

I think the Latin Empire could survive for over a century, though it can't really destroy the Byzantine successor states. But it would have to be incredibly lucky. And even with such incredible luck, it wouldn't last long against the Ottomans.
 
Having Sicily, either with a Hauteville of Staufer ruler, sympathetic to the Latin Empire may help it taking down Epirus.
 
I agree. I just find very little when it comes to Byzantines.
Why do you like them?
Well, 1000 years of interesting history, with interesting rulers, up and downs, great architecture and great art. Also the continuation of the Roman Empire into the Middle Ages. Also an christian, Greek dominated empire in the Eastern Mediterranean which thinks of itself as the Roman Empire is great.

In 1000 years they made 3 notable inventions; the Arches/Domes, church Icons and Trebuchets. In 1000 years. They simply used what was left of Rome, and ancient Greece, hoarded it, contributing next to nothing. The fall of Byzantines was a great boon for Europe as it was shown, since the hoarded knowledge was set free and flowed, where in less than 100 years a Reneisance was happening, with constant progress ever since. And its been just 500 years since then.
Well, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_inventions, the list is a little bit longer. Not mentioned the byzantine silk production (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_silk).
You can't say, that stagnation is only a matter of technology. You should look also on the economy, the society and politics of Byzantium.
According to Angeliki E. Laiou and Cécile Morrisson (Angeliki E. Laiou and Cécile Morrisson, The Byzantine economy, Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007) the Byzantine Empire had for long parts of their history a flourishing economy (between the Macedonian Dynastie and the Kommnenoi).
There was also some intellectual production ongoing (for example some works on military theory, medicine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Compendium_in_Seven_Books), and other topics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_scholars) ). The hole concept of (scientific) "progress" and the scientific method isn't Byzantine, that is right. But it wasn't common in Western Europe before the Renaissance or in many other cultures. But even without the concept of scientific/technological progress some form of slower progress is possible.
The Theme System is a new form of province administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district))
So it is not only using what was left, but also creative adaption and improvement.

The Renaissance started in Northern Italy even before the Fall of Constantinople. (Dante and Petraca lived before the Fall of Constantinople). It would be to easy to assume that the Renaissance had the single cause of Byzantine refugees. I think, that there was also some form of constant slow progress in Western Europe during the second half of the middle ages. (For example the growth of cities in Germany during that time). Northern Italy was urbanized and comparatively rich in that period of time. Therefore the Renaissance didn't stated by zero. To be honest, I'm not an expert on the topic of the Renaissance, but to have some form of Renaissance like that in Italy, I think several things are necessary: Large and rich cities which could employ artists or scientists and cultural transfer. Cultural transfer could occur through trade, war or refugees. The Crusades for example increased the cultural transfer. It is nearly impossible to stop cultural transfer. If you are confronted with foreign ideas and concepts you could likely become creative enough to improve your own ideas or use useful foreign ideas. If there are no greek refugees, still cultural transfer could occur through trade across the Mediterranean. On this way, the works of ancient philosophers could also arrive in Italy (perhaps slower). I assume that there are a lot of ancient ruins in Italy (I never visited Italy), therefore some thinkers could become interested in them. Then they would much more focus on the Romans, but if they realized the cultural transfer between the ancient Greeks and the Romans, they could find the ancient philosophers in the Byzantine or the Arabic world.

Also saying, that the Byzantine Empire is stagnant because there was not as fast "progress" and change as in Western Europe (and the Western World) in the last 500 years is misleading, because the fast progress and therefore global domination of the Western World (which now comes to an end) is a highly unique event in history.

Having Sicily, either with a Hauteville of Staufer ruler, sympathetic to the Latin Empire may help it taking down Epirus.
In OTL the Hohenstaufen ruled over Sicily between 1194 and 1266. Sicily could help against Epirus, but after that they would want to control the coast and Dyrrachium. But in the long term, an ambitious ruler of Sicily could try to march towards Thessaloniki or Constantinople if the Latin Empire remains weak. (In OTL: The Hauteville and Charles of Anjou tried to invade the Byzantine Empire on this route) (An Empire of Sicily and Constantinople would be really interesting, but not exactly the Latin Empire you want)
 

Reene

Banned
Well, 1000 years of interesting history, with interesting rulers, up and downs, great architecture and great art. Also the continuation of the Roman Empire into the Middle Ages. Also an christian, Greek dominated empire in the Eastern Mediterranean which thinks of itself as the Roman Empire is great.

I really looked forward to your response. Thanks :)


Well, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_inventions, the list is a little bit longer. Not mentioned the byzantine silk production (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_silk).
You can't say, that stagnation is only a matter of technology. You should look also on the economy, the society and politics of Byzantium.
According to Angeliki E. Laiou and Cécile Morrisson (Angeliki E. Laiou and Cécile Morrisson, The Byzantine economy, Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007) the Byzantine Empire had for long parts of their history a flourishing economy (between the Macedonian Dynastie and the Kommnenoi).
There was also some intellectual production ongoing (for example some works on military theory, medicine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Compendium_in_Seven_Books), and other topics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_scholars) ). The hole concept of (scientific) "progress" and the scientific method isn't Byzantine, that is right. But it wasn't common in Western Europe before the Renaissance or in many other cultures. But even without the concept of scientific/technological progress some form of slower progress is possible.
The Theme System is a new form of province administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district))
So it is not only using what was left, but also creative adaption and improvement.

The list is a bit longer, 10 items to be precise, but some share similarities that I bunched them up. Regular trebuchet and hand trebuchet, Dome, Cross in Square and arched bridge all share similar domed characteristics.

There was economy but it was wasted. When Crusaders came and demanded pay so they can continue on 4th crusade the Empire couldnt scrounge up the promised sum. When Crusaders went in, they colected over a milion marks from various churches. When they had economy, Byzantines wasted it.

The Renaissance started in Northern Italy even before the Fall of Constantinople. (Dante and Petraca lived before the Fall of Constantinople). It would be to easy to assume that the Renaissance had the single cause of Byzantine refugees. I think, that there was also some form of constant slow progress in Western Europe during the second half of the middle ages. (For example the growth of cities in Germany during that time). Northern Italy was urbanized and comparatively rich in that period of time. Therefore the Renaissance didn't stated by zero. To be honest, I'm not an expert on the topic of the Renaissance, but to have some form of Renaissance like that in Italy, I think several things are necessary: Large and rich cities which could employ artists or scientists and cultural transfer. Cultural transfer could occur through trade, war or refugees. The Crusades for example increased the cultural transfer. It is nearly impossible to stop cultural transfer. If you are confronted with foreign ideas and concepts you could likely become creative enough to improve your own ideas or use useful foreign ideas. If there are no greek refugees, still cultural transfer could occur through trade across the Mediterranean. On this way, the works of ancient philosophers could also arrive in Italy (perhaps slower). I assume that there are a lot of ancient ruins in Italy (I never visited Italy), therefore some thinkers could become interested in them. Then they would much more focus on the Romans, but if they realized the cultural transfer between the ancient Greeks and the Romans, they could find the ancient philosophers in the Byzantine or the Arabic world.

You could say Reneisance started with the Crusades, but that just shows one thing, the moment Europe came in contact with the knowledge that Byzantines already had, they sped ahead at an astonishing rate, overcoming the Byzantines, the Arabs and everyone else. By 17-18 century there was no doubt that Europe is the worlds dominant force. It is that speed, and that fury that made me love Latin Empire, since it gave me hope that Byzantines could have been included in such developments. Just how far Europe could have progressed with their hoardes of knowledge, and indomitable western thirst for said knowledge, and pursuit of its furthering.

Also saying, that the Byzantine Empire is stagnant because there was not as fast "progress" and change as in Western Europe (and the Western World) in the last 500 years is misleading, because the fast progress and therefore global domination of the Western World (which now comes to an end) is a highly unique event in history.

I would disagree about its uniqueness. Look at Arabs and their expansion when they encountered the Greek knowledge. They too surpased the Byzantines, and they started out as a bunch of nomads coming out of some Gods forsaken desert that no one bothered to conquer, and no one could have hoped would produce anything of value.

In OTL the Hohenstaufen ruled over Sicily between 1194 and 1266. Sicily could help against Epirus, but after that they would want to control the coast and Dyrrachium. But in the long term, an ambitious ruler of Sicily could try to march towards Thessaloniki or Constantinople if the Latin Empire remains weak. (In OTL: The Hauteville and Charles of Anjou tried to invade the Byzantine Empire on this route) (An Empire of Sicily and Constantinople would be really interesting, but not exactly the Latin Empire you want)

I would be OK with that. Such a force could become a real Roman empire, controling both Constantinople and Rome.
 
I would disagree about its uniqueness. Look at Arabs and their expansion when they encountered the Greek knowledge. They too surpased the Byzantines, and they started out as a bunch of nomads coming out of some Gods forsaken desert that no one bothered to conquer, and no one could have hoped would produce anything of value.

A straw man version of both Byzantium and the Arabs, wonderful. In reality the Arabs which conquered much of the Near East were very well integrated into both the Sassanian and Byzantine power structures, in a similar way to the Germanic tribes which were on Roman payroll in earlier centuries. The key reason the Arabs were able to gain so much territory was because Byzantium and Persia had spent a quarter of a century fighting each other in one of the most brutal wars in human history and were exhausted. Delay the Arab conquests ten years and I personally think that they wouldn't happen. Once they had gained control of the richest provinces of Byzantium and all of Persia, it is no wonder that they easily surpassed the besieged rump state that was Byzantium.

teg
 

Reene

Banned
A straw man version of both Byzantium and the Arabs, wonderful. In reality the Arabs which conquered much of the Near East were very well integrated into both the Sassanian and Byzantine power structures, in a similar way to the Germanic tribes which were on Roman payroll in earlier centuries. The key reason the Arabs were able to gain so much territory was because Byzantium and Persia had spent a quarter of a century fighting each other in one of the most brutal wars in human history and were exhausted. Delay the Arab conquests ten years and I personally think that they wouldn't happen. Once they had gained control of the richest provinces of Byzantium and all of Persia, it is no wonder that they easily surpassed the besieged rump state that was Byzantium.

teg

A straw man on purpose for ease of understanding. Its not their conquests that I am talking about. Yes fast conquest is impressive, but I was talking more about the fact that their victories were lasting, and they progressed scientifically faster than Byzantines.
 

Deleted member 67076

Its very hard, I think, to keep the Latin empire alive.

Much like in Jerusalem, it suffered by having way too many leaders that wanted total control and refused to work together. For instance, the Latin Empire balkanized itself into 4 different parts within the first year, all because of disputes on who should be emperor. Ironically, the Emperors in Constantinople in turn had very little control over their short sighted barons, which drastically hindered government and military efficiency.

Additionally, the leaders of the empire had no understanding of the Byzantine Economy, and proceeded to simply wreck it by attempting to impose feudalism in the region, shrinking the bureaucracy to the bare minimum, and allowing the Venetians to hollow out the economy through destructive free trade policies. (That they disbanded the military and made no effort to manufacture or trade also hurt them, and put them at the mercy of Venice's economic policy of dumping goods) This meant the government was perennially short on cash with no way out unless the entire government policy was overhauled and feudalism was broken, which would infuriate the barons.

And also, their military was in a very bad spot. Surrounded on all sides by enemies (including a very energetic Bulgaria), with no chance of reinforcement from abroad, people with limited knowledge of the terrain and a restive native population that absolutely hated the ruling class.

All these factors add up to a very bad situation with little means of improvement.

The real question is how did it survive for so long.
 
Even if you dislike the Byzantine empire the latin empire is one of the worst replacements for it,if you want a replacement empire to take over eastern med, Hungary or Bulgaria are far better choices.
 
Top