WI the Fourth Crusade doesn't happen—how can the Byzantine Empire survive?

[Velkas]

Well, in my timeline I'm working on, the Fourth Crusade is butterflied away, as Henry VI has already taken Jerusalem by that time.

I'm wondering about the effects of not having the Fourth Crusade, particularly on the Byzantine Empire. In OTL, The Fourth Crusade was a severe blow to the Byzantine Empire, and when Constantinople was retaken and the Byzantine Empire restored in 1261, it was a mere shadow of its former glory. So what if the Fourth Crusade never happens? It seems the Byzantine Empire has a much better chance of surviving. I understand the Angeloi were terrible rulers—who can depose them and do a better job ruling? What would need to be done to ensure the survival of the Byzantine Empire?

 

[Velkas]

Anyone?...

Also, how can I prevent Henry VI from taking over the Byzantine Empire instead?

 

[Elfwine]

There are a couple good timelines - one old one by Ioannes and one new one by Basileus444 describing the Empire in a situation like you're thinking of (I think the Fourth Crusade is diverted at the last minute rather than never going to Constantinople, but close enough).

As for Henry: Just keep him busy elsewhere, or make the Byzantines too strong to be worth the trouble.

Henry is ambitious, but not delusional. He's not going to try to conquer the Byzantines while occupied making sure the German princes remember that he is the Emperor at home.

And realistically, he will be busy.

Won't stop him from squeezing every bit he can from the Byzantines, but OTL, that involved threats, not armies. Telling on how weak Alexius III was.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

The Angeloi will be overthrown sooner or later, but the Empire is fragmenting even before 1204, and the newfound tendency for generals to attempt to found their own independent state, as happened with Cyprus in the 1180s and in Trebizond shortly before the Fourth Crusade will need to be squashed quickly. Any new Emperor taking the throne around the year 1210 will have radical problems to deal with. He'll have an easier time of it than the Palaiologoi did IOTL, certainly. But the odds had begun to slide against the Empire the moment Manuel I died without an adult heir...

 

[SavoyTruffle]

The Angeloi will be overthrown sooner or later, but the Empire is fragmenting even before 1204, and the newfound tendency for generals to attempt to found their own independent state, as happened with Cyprus in the 1180s and in Trebizond shortly before the Fourth Crusade will need to be squashed quickly. Any new Emperor taking the throne around the year 1210 will have radical problems to deal with. He'll have an easier time of it than the Palaiologoi did IOTL, certainly. But the odds had begun to slide against the Empire the moment Manuel I died without an adult heir...

I'd imagine the Komnenoi era was interesting - bringing short-term stability to the Empire - but at the same time the Komnenoi emperors weren't exactly up to snuff given their circumstances. They got lucky though - the Angeloi brought the brittle system down instead.

 

[Elfwine]

The Angeloi will be overthrown sooner or later, but the Empire is fragmenting even before 1204, and the newfound tendency for generals to attempt to found their own independent state, as happened with Cyprus in the 1180s and in Trebizond shortly before the Fourth Crusade will need to be squashed quickly. Any new Emperor taking the throne around the year 1210 will have radical problems to deal with. He'll have an easier time of it than the Palaiologoi did IOTL, certainly. But the odds had begun to slide against the Empire the moment Manuel I died without an adult heir...

And to answer the obvious follow up for Velkas: No, Manuel dying with an adult heir does not make everything better.

Byzantium in the 1180s is in a tricky, sticky situation of overextension abroad and overstrain within.

Is it manageable? Hell yes. But its going to take exceptional leadership to simply keep things together and avoid what BG just mentioned even if you push your POD all the way back to 1176 (Myriokephalon).

Nothing impossible, certainly- a sane Andronicus I might have done it, or John III is an OTL model of the kind of Emperor needed - but the Byzantines will be busy.

There's a reason my timeline has Alexius II (born in time to be 16/17 when Manuel I dies in 1183 TTL) busy with "working things out" for two decades after his father's death - its not described in much depth, because I don't know all the relevant people - but this will be interesting times.

The only good thing is, Hungary aside - the Empire's neighbors aren't really in a position to eat it alive, either. Nibble at it, yes. But if the Empire is well lead, it can survive this.

 

[Mathalamus]

There are a couple good timelines - one old one by Ioannes and one new one by Basileus444 describing the Empire in a situation like you're thinking of (I think the Fourth Crusade is diverted at the last minute rather than never going to Constantinople, but close enough).

the 4th crusade did indeed happen as normal in Basileus444's timeline.

 

[Elfwine]

the 4th crusade did indeed happen as normal in Basileus444's timeline.

Yeah. Ioannes's it does get diverted at the last minute.

So that's probably closer to what Velkas should look at, as the Byzantines don't have to spend fifty-seven years reconquering to get back to less-than-the-1204 position.

 

[Velkas]

As for Henry: Just keep him busy elsewhere, or make the Byzantines too strong to be worth the trouble.

Henry is ambitious, but not delusional. He's not going to try to conquer the Byzantines while occupied making sure the German princes remember that he is the Emperor at home.

And particularly the Italians...

But that sounds good.

And to answer the obvious follow up for Velkas: No, Manuel dying with an adult heir does not make everything better.

Byzantium in the 1180s is in a tricky, sticky situation of overextension abroad and overstrain within.

Is it manageable? Hell yes. But its going to take exceptional leadership to simply keep things together and avoid what BG just mentioned even if you push your POD all the way back to 1176 (Myriokephalon).

Yeah, I'm not making the POD any earlier than 1197...

Nothing impossible, certainly- a sane Andronicus I might have done it, or John III is an OTL model of the kind of Emperor needed - but the Byzantines will be busy.

And who might be a likely figure to take over by 1210, then set about making the changes the Empire needs?

The only good thing is, Hungary aside - the Empire's neighbors aren't really in a position to eat it alive, either. Nibble at it, yes. But if the Empire is well lead, it can survive this.

Well, that's encouraging. What might Hungary's relationship with the Empire be?

Yeah. Ioannes's it does get diverted at the last minute.

So that's probably closer to what Velkas should look at, as the Byzantines don't have to spend fifty-seven years reconquering to get back to less-than-the-1204 position.

I've found that TL, and I'll take a look at it...

 

[Elfwine]

And who might be a likely figure to take over by 1210, then set about making the changes the Empire needs?

Theodore Lascaris would be the easiest guy to pick, but there's plenty of want-to-be emperors.

Well, that's encouraging. What might Hungary's relationship with the Empire be?

Depends. Hungary OTL has taken all it seems really interested in by the point of your POD, but its a powerful nation with ambitious kings.

So it could be friendly, in a distant (there's no border after the Empire loses Serbia and Bulgaria) way.

 

[Velkas]

In Ioannes's thread, someone suggested having the Crusaders getting together enough money and then sailing to Egypt as a more likely POD.

Ioannes then said the following:

It's a likelier POD, but still highly problematic in terms of survival for the Empire in the long term. Crushing the Turks, changing the Empire's economic policy and relations with the Italian states, recreating a capable native army large enough to be effective, and creating a serious cultural exchange between the Empire and the West all seem to be necessary to fix the problems that interrelate and destroy the Empire.

How can I have the Byzantines accomplish these in my TL?

 

[Elfwine]

With great difficulty.

Venice is - at this point - a parasite, not consuming all of Byzantium's trade, but its still a problem.

Crushing the Turks and rebuilding the army needs a sound administration, for which see the last point.

As for cultural exchange, a few emperors like a more moderate version of Manuel I might help, with a few western rulers like Frederick II (though that doesn't mean you need OTL's Frederick II to be one) who love the East. That should help start it.

But this is going to be the most frustrating part, as neither East or West is going to place much importance on this.

I think the first thing is straightening out the fact the administration has become nakedly corrupt and the tendencies of the dynatoi towards preferring a feudal set up to the old centralized state have become becoming positively seperatist. Until that's beaten into shape, the state doesn't have the resources it needs.

How to do that? Well, Nicaea's emperors seem to have managed well - especially John III.

The Byzantines do have the resources internally to do well, but they need to be developed and the state needs to be able to extract them - unfortunately, those are not necessarily wholly compatible.

Ultimately, given intelligent, far-seeing emperors who can win battles internally and externally, the possibility exists. But if you want the mid-13th century empire to look like it did under Basil II, I think that's not going to happen.

And on that note: Keep the Seljuks from dominating Anatolia. Divide and rule. Sponser pretenders. Etc.