WI: No 1204

[Tanc49]

Hi folks,
So I'm reading "City of Fortune" by Roger Crowley, and I cannot recommend it enough. I love this historian, and he writes so well.
But anyway.
It's about the rise of Venice and the pivotal role of the sack of 1204. Now, reading his book, it seems like the sack of Constantinople was really an outlying event, like the fall of France in 1940.
It should not have happened. The crusading army was about to run out of food and morale, and they shouldn't even have been here in the first place.
Even during the siege, it took a number of insane events to actually go through with the capture of the city.

So let's say it doesn't happen. The Crusader army fails under the walls of Constantinople leaving the Empire shaken but still complete, and Venice ruined.

What would happen then? Without the sack, Constantinople remains one of the richest city on Earth especially as it won't be gutted by fire, and won't be relying so much on the Italian navy.
The Black Sea remains a roman lake, meaning they'd take full advantage of the Pax Mongolica and the new Spice routes.
Venice is utterly ruined after failing to recoup the cost of the expedition, its top brass dead under the walls, with much of its navy at least damaged. It would then be very vulnerable to be taken either by external actors (Hungarians, the HRE...) or by other Italian cities (Padua...)
Genoa becomes the undisputed top maritime city without its rival.
The Turks are unlikely to be ferried across the Bosphorus and can be somewhat taken care of earlier, especially if another competent general comes to power.

 

[NotAMyth]

The Eagle of the East, Rhomania: An Eastern Roman Timeline (1196 - Onwards)

You can read this- deals with the many issues the romans faced during that time. Also the 1204 crusade outcome given stronger leadership.

 

[BIZANTINUL]

If the Byzantine Empire is to survive post-1204 as a powerhouse, in my opinion, you need to go further back in time than the fourth crusade. The Byzantine Empire was already desintegrating under the Angheloi (the bulgarian rebellion, secesionist tendencies in Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor, a german emperor which passed very easily through the Balkans , a general diplomatic isolation of the Empire).

The moment that Manuel died and left a minor with a latin mother on the throne, the empire was doomed.

 

[Tanc49]

If the Byzantine Empire is to survive post-1204 as a powerhouse, in my opinion, you need to go further back in time than the fourth crusade. The Byzantine Empire was already desintegrating under the Angheloi (the bulgarian rebellion, secesionist tendencies in Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor, a german emperor which passed very easily through the Balkans , a general diplomatic isolation of the Empire).

The moment that Manuel died and left a minor with a latin mother on the throne, the empire was doomed.

Don't think I agree, there were many times where the Empire seemed doomed. Justinian plague, the Muslim conquest... And yet it bounced back to live another day

 

[DracoLazarus]

If the Byzantine Empire is to survive post-1204 as a powerhouse, in my opinion, you need to go further back in time than the fourth crusade. The Byzantine Empire was already desintegrating under the Angheloi (the bulgarian rebellion, secesionist tendencies in Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor, a german emperor which passed very easily through the Balkans , a general diplomatic isolation of the Empire).

The moment that Manuel died and left a minor with a latin mother on the throne, the empire was doomed.

There is a chance that the Megale Komnenoi or the Laskarids yet overthrew the Angeloi. In fact, the Komnenid coup in Trebizond took place prior to the Sack of Constantinople.
As such, I believe that there is a significative chance that the Angeloi would've been booted from the ERE throne, allowing for a more effective dynasty to take its place.

 

[BIZANTINUL]

There is a chance that the Megale Komnenoi or the Laskarids yet overthrew the Angeloi. In fact, the Komnenid coup in Trebizond took place prior to the Sack of Constantinople.
As such, I believe that there is a significative chance that the Angeloi would've been booted from the ERE throne, allowing for a more effective dynasty to take its place.

Yes there is a chance that a another dinasty might take the place of the Angeloi. But the underlining problem of the emperors in this period is a lack of legitimity of the monarchs. When the Komnenians were extinguished there were a lot of families that could claim the throne but were having serious difficulties in imposing the hegemony in the byzantine political order.

Regarding the rulers of Trebizond, they were, from what I know the descendents of Andronikos I, which doesn't have a great track record with the byzantine nobility, strangled his nephew and offended the susceptibilities of the byzantine church by his dalliance with his niece. They might have too difficulties if the external treat is surpassed.

 

[BIZANTINUL]

Don't think I agree, there were many times where the Empire seemed doomed. Justinian plague, the Muslim conquest... And yet it bounced back to live another day

Yes, you are right I might have been a tad bit alarmist. But the situation by itself is dire. The bulgarians will still be on the ascendent, the serbians are independent, Sicily and HRE are united in a single state, In Greece and Macedonia the imperial autorithy is non-existent.
The crusade paradoxically might have helped stem the desintegration by oferring the rump states a common Target.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Yes there is a chance that a another dinasty might take the place of the Angeloi. But the underlining problem of the emperors in this period is a lack of legitimity of the monarchs. When the Komnenians were extinguished there were a lot of families that could claim the throne but were having serious difficulties in imposing the hegemony in the byzantine political order.

Regarding the rulers of Trebizond, they were, from what I know the descendents of Andronikos I, which doesn't have a great track record with the byzantine nobility, strangled his nephew and offended the susceptibilities of the byzantine church by his dalliance with his niece. They might have too difficulties if the external treat is surpassed.

The Trebizonds were on a roll in otl with their conquest of Trebizond. Their loss of momentum was frankly by chance and because of the immediate fracturing of the Empire after 1204.

Without the fall of Constantinople, and the Imperial government, there's likely only one enemy for the Komnenians to fight. Alexios and David Komenos were pretty competent military leaders who had the support of Queen Tamar the Great of Georgia whose kingdom experienced a golden age. Major cities in Pontus like Trebizond and Sinope basically opened their gates to the Komnenoi. Its likely that with the growing resentment mounting towards the inept Angeloi, the Komnenoi are welcomed by large parts of the Empire allowing them to bolster their ranks.

You could see them take Anatolia while the Lascarids quarrel with the Angeloi in Europe to try and sieze the throne there. Eiher way, the Komnenoi have a good shot of taking throne in this scenario.

a lack of legitimity of the monarchs. When the Komnenians were extinguished there were a lot of families that could claim the throne but were having serious difficulties in imposing the hegemony in the byzantine political order.

Well they weren't really extinguished, but deposed. Alexios and David were making headway in Anatolia. The news of their sudden success in a united Empire could potentially see many join under their banner.

Regarding the rulers of Trebizond, they were, from what I know the descendents of Andronikos I, which doesn't have a great track record with the byzantine nobility, strangled his nephew and offended the susceptibilities of the byzantine church by his dalliance with his niece. They might have too difficulties if the external treat is surpassed.

They rapidly and bloodlessly took most of Pontus, so there was support within the Empire for a Komnenian restoration. There were some plots in the Imperial city as well for a Komnenian restoration as well, though these got discovered which was why Alexios and David fled to Georgia.

 

[RedSword12]

There is a chance that the Megale Komnenoi or the Laskarids yet overthrew the Angeloi. In fact, the Komnenid coup in Trebizond took place prior to the Sack of Constantinople.
As such, I believe that there is a significative chance that the Angeloi would've been booted from the ERE throne, allowing for a more effective dynasty to take its place.

I very much doubt the Komnenoi would magically have been better rulers. Bloodline does not determine effectiveness, and chances are they would have been just as bad as the Angeloi. The Byzantine Empire was rotting to the core, and it is very unlikely a resurgence of an older dynasty would reverse that decay.

 

[Jimbo808]

Well it's all about presentation, to an extent.

Let's say a dose of dysentry sends the crusaders back home with the shits and their tail between their legs.

The view of Constantinople being unbeaten, unbeatable and still impregnable still stands. Presentation is everything, petty kingdoms less likely to try their luck.

I mean it probably won't change the outcome of 1453 but the years between would be different that's for sure.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

I very much doubt the Komnenoi would magically have been better rulers. Bloodline does not determine effectiveness, and chances are they would have been just as bad as the Angeloi. The Byzantine Empire was rotting to the core, and it is very unlikely a resurgence of an older dynasty would reverse that decay.

But we have actual evidence of how the Komnenoi ruled. The Empire of Trebizond for the most part was pretty stable and outlasted the Empire proper by about a decade.

Alexios I of Trebizond was a pretty competent ruler with how he laid the foundations for Trebizond, his sons were pretty competent as well when you look at the historical record.

Manuel Komenos was described as as successful general who recaptured Sinope. Trebizond also began its golden age during his reign as well.

 

[RedSword12]

But we have actual evidence of how the Komnenoi ruled. The Empire of Trebizond for the most part was pretty stable and outlasted the Empire proper by about a decade.

Alexios I of Trebizond was a pretty competent ruler with how he laid the foundations for Trebizond, his sons were pretty competent as well when you look at the historical record.

Manuel Komenos was described as as successful general who recaptured Sinope. Trebizond also began its golden age during his reign as well.

That's chance, not blood.

 

[Tanc49]

Well it's all about presentation, to an extent.

Let's say a dose of dysentry sends the crusaders back home with the shits and their tail between their legs.

The view of Constantinople being unbeaten, unbeatable and still impregnable still stands. Presentation is everything, petty kingdoms less likely to try their luck.

I mean it probably won't change the outcome of 1453 but the years between would be different that's for sure.

Especially since it didn't need dysentery, just for Dandolo to be less of a badass or to slip and break his pelvis. He was 90 and blind after all.
On top of that, Romania would be on better terms with the Pope who was really against the Crusade in the first place

But we have actual evidence of how the Komnenoi ruled. The Empire of Trebizond for the most part was pretty stable and outlasted the Empire proper by about a decade.

Alexios I of Trebizond was a pretty competent ruler with how he laid the foundations for Trebizond, his sons were pretty competent as well when you look at the historical record.

Manuel Komenos was described as as successful general who recaptured Sinope. Trebizond also began its golden age during his reign as well.

Yup, even without "the bloodline", there is such a thing as family culture and self definition.

 

[BIZANTINUL]

The Trebizonds were on a roll in otl with their conquest of Trebizond. Their loss of momentum was frankly by chance and because of the immediate fracturing of the Empire after 1204.

Without the fall of Constantinople, and the Imperial government, there's likely only one enemy for the Komnenians to fight. Alexios and David Komenos were pretty competent military leaders who had the support of Queen Tamar the Great of Georgia whose kingdom experienced a golden age. Major cities in Pontus like Trebizond and Sinope basically opened their gates to the Komnenoi. Its likely that with the growing resentment mounting towards the inept Angeloi, the Komnenoi are welcomed by large parts of the Empire allowing them to bolster their ranks.

You could see them take Anatolia while the Lascarids quarrel with the Angeloi in Europe to try and sieze the throne there. Eiher way, the Komnenoi have a good shot of taking throne in this scenario.


Well they weren't really extinguished, but deposed. Alexios and David were making headway in Anatolia. The news of their sudden success in a united Empire could potentially see many join under their banner.


They rapidly and bloodlessly took most of Pontus, so there was support within the Empire for a Komnenian restoration. There were some plots in the Imperial city as well for a Komnenian restoration as well, though these got discovered which was why Alexios and David fled to Georgia.

They did have a chance, no doubt about it, they had some support in Paphlagonia, a region where the Komnenians were native. Is this support unanimous? I am not sure as the Empire was already splintering in semindependent statelets either one making all that is necessary to remain independent. Even in Asia Minor some opportunistic adventurers are making a bid for power. Could the Komnenians overcome such a diverse opposition with limited resources? They could, but it is not sure. They had the support of Thamar the Great but probably she cannot invest all her military resources in this venture and was satisfied with the brothers carving a puppet principality at her border.

Also, there are other possible candidates which are linked with a reigning dinasty and could seize power and become formidable adversaries for the Megas Komnenoi: the two son in laws of Alexios III, Theodore Lascaris and Alexios Palaiologos which can command the alegiance of certain constantinopolitan political circles. And they were tangible, they were present in the capital as opposed to the two Megas Komnenoi which have been in Georgia for a long time.

 

[NotAMyth]

I don't think Politics and succession was that big a deal in destroying the empire. Other nations suffered similar conflicts and survived, even thrived.
No, the main problem with ERE, right from the time of the Crisis of the 3rd Century, was Economics, specifically how income generation and prosperity was achieved on an individual and the government level. While this is a huge, huge period to effectively define any specific conclusions, we can make a few sweeping, macro observations.

• Rome throughout was an urban society. This is what allowed it such an effective administration, which in turn promoted longevity and stability of state.
• Urbanization without industrial or even proto-industrial production levels means that the state as a whole is a trade based economy.
• Now since production per capita/km is very shallow, that means you gotta go wide to increase your volume of trade. This is what promoted initial expansion, right to the point where the cost of logistics (due to the level of technology) would offset any gain in trade value.
• Once this point was reached natural mercantilism started looking inward rather than outward, basically becoming cannibalistic to expand on an individual level. This means that the individual no longer necessarily prospers when the state as a whole prospers.
• Being an urban empire, ideally all state functionaries are paid by the government, and the government is paid by all the production and trade it controls.
• This means that the guys actually responsible for upholding the government of Rome have no direct stake in actually upholding it's physical territory. They are paid by the government, not the land.
• Now while the government can cough up the cash it's all good. If they can't, everyone scrambles to either find their own piece of the pie or they directly go for the bakery, i.e. the imperial crown. And everytime they do, they leave the pieces they already have unguarded.
• That's why the Komnenian borders were so weird, and they spent all their resources trying to take Italy, Syria, even Egypt. Cuz they had no economic pressure to take the poor lands of inner anatolia. They could pretty much run the empire without them.
• Bottomline: the government is only as good for cash as everyone believes it to be- If no one believes in it, they won't pay up and then the govt can't pay up its functionaries to uphold the empire. The empire becomes a name on the paper.

This is what happened in 1204. No one believed in the Emperor. So effectively the Empire didn't exist beyond Constantinople. Starving crusaders could then sack the city.
To prevent it you need an Emperor who can restore absolute trust within all the people of the Empire. This is such an abstract concept it'll take ages to figure out how to solve it, even if they could pinpoint what the problem was.

 

[Goldensilver81]

If the Byzantine Empire is to survive post-1204 as a powerhouse, in my opinion, you need to go further back in time than the fourth crusade. The Byzantine Empire was already desintegrating under the Angheloi (the bulgarian rebellion, secesionist tendencies in Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor, a german emperor which passed very easily through the Balkans , a general diplomatic isolation of the Empire).

The moment that Manuel died and left a minor with a latin mother on the throne, the empire was doomed.

dont agree bulgaria will face a bad case of mongols in 1240s and become their vassals the seljuks even more so if the byzantines play their cards rigth it leaves them a lot breathing room.

 

[Tanc49]

I don't think Politics and succession was that big a deal in destroying the empire. Other nations suffered similar conflicts and survived, even thrived.
No, the main problem with ERE, right from the time of the Crisis of the 3rd Century, was Economics, specifically how income generation and prosperity was achieved on an individual and the government level. While this is a huge, huge period to effectively define any specific conclusions, we can make a few sweeping, macro observations.

• Rome throughout was an urban society. This is what allowed it such an effective administration, which in turn promoted longevity and stability of state.
• Urbanization without industrial or even proto-industrial production levels means that the state as a whole is a trade based economy.
• Now since production per capita/km is very shallow, that means you gotta go wide to increase your volume of trade. This is what promoted initial expansion, right to the point where the cost of logistics (due to the level of technology) would offset any gain in trade value.
• Once this point was reached natural mercantilism started looking inward rather than outward, basically becoming cannibalistic to expand on an individual level. This means that the individual no longer necessarily prospers when the state as a whole prospers.
• Being an urban empire, ideally all state functionaries are paid by the government, and the government is paid by all the production and trade it controls.
• This means that the guys actually responsible for upholding the government of Rome have no direct stake in actually upholding it's physical territory. They are paid by the government, not the land.
• Now while the government can cough up the cash it's all good. If they can't, everyone scrambles to either find their own piece of the pie or they directly go for the bakery, i.e. the imperial crown. And everytime they do, they leave the pieces they already have unguarded.
• That's why the Komnenian borders were so weird, and they spent all their resources trying to take Italy, Syria, even Egypt. Cuz they had no economic pressure to take the poor lands of inner anatolia. They could pretty much run the empire without them.
• Bottomline: the government is only as good for cash as everyone believes it to be- If no one believes in it, they won't pay up and then the govt can't pay up its functionaries to uphold the empire. The empire becomes a name on the paper.

This is what happened in 1204. No one believed in the Emperor. So effectively the Empire didn't exist beyond Constantinople. Starving crusaders could then sack the city.
To prevent it you need an Emperor who can restore absolute trust within all the people of the Empire. This is such an abstract concept it'll take ages to figure out how to solve it, even if they could pinpoint what the problem was.

That's a very interesting analysis, also a good analysis as to why feudalism took up in the west.
A great victory would restore trust, especially if Venice then falls. With some nice diplomatic skills, you could get Venice destroyed as an example

 

[NotAMyth]

That's a very interesting analysis, also a good analysis as to why feudalism took up in the west.
A great victory would restore trust, especially if Venice then falls. With some nice diplomatic skills, you could get Venice destroyed as an example

Yeah, Exactly. But even victories, strong emperors and conquering armies are temporary fix. Fleeting moments of confidence, basically caused by "Rally Around the Flag" Effect

Any long term solution requires divorcing individuals (the Emperor) from institutions (Imperial State). People tend to believe in institutions longer, and through more hardship, than they do in other people. Also institutions can't have their head chopped off, lose wars or turn out to be infertile.

 

[BIZANTINUL]

dont agree bulgaria will face a bad case of mongols in 1240s and become their vassals the seljuks even more so if the byzantines play their cards rigth it leaves them a lot breathing room.

It is possible, but there is still time until 1240 and for now Bulgaria under Ioannes Kaloianos is a regional power which can quickly become a mortal danger for Byzantium. The sultanate of Rum will be engulfed by a civil war soon and will be unable to threaten Byzantium.