Assuming that the Crusaders and the Venetians have enough money to sponsor their own venture to Egypt, that means Constantinople will never be sacked. However, how will the civil war among the Angelos dynasty turned out then? And once the civil war ended with the rise of the new Emperor, what will the new Emperor do between consolidated the Empire's administration, establish good relations with the court of Queen Tamar of Georgia, or launching the reconquest of Anatolia from the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, which is also in a middle of civil war of its own?
And if the Forth Crusade did succeed in taking Egypt, how will that impacted the Roman Empire, the Crusaders, the Republic of Venice and the surrounding nations?
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
It would probably fail to take Egypt and just get it's arse handed to it.
Part of the reason they chose to attack Constantinople was because not enough Crusaders showed up for the Egyptian campaign, and Constantinople was in a comparatively weaker state at that time. That made the empire ripe for plunder.
If the Fourth Crusade doesn't hit Constantinople... then MAYBE things are better for the East Romans. Not perfect. Before 1204, the empire was already struggling to roll back the advances of the Second Bulgarian Empire and the navy was still in shambles.
Weren't they already being raped by the Genoese in Galata? If I recall, the Anti-Latin riots were caused because the Catholics were getting rich due to special trade privileges which the native Byzantines didn't enjoy.
The trade privileges were given after 1261 to ensure peaceful reintegration of theitlr communities to the Empire I think
The anti-Latin riots of 1182 were whipped up by Andronikos and happened because the people didn't like the supposed influence the Latins had in politics (Maria of Antioch was leading the regency)
The economic dissatisfaction with the Italians came much later on. In 1182 it was political dissatisfaction.
A lot of the replies on here talk as if the demise of the Roman Empire was a foregone conclusion and the Fourth Crusade only served to hasten it. That’s not the reality at all.
The empire had always existed in this constant cycle of ebb and flow. A civil war or invasion would happen, chaos would ensue, the empire would find a new equilibrium through it and a new leader would emerge to restore stability. And that’s what I believe would’ve happened had it not been for the perfect storm that was the Fourth Crusade.
Thanks to the reign of terror under Andronikos the pool of talent was extremely shallow. He killed or imprisoned anyone that even looked legitimate or competent. This just led to an extended period of chaos wherein, rebellions were happening in every corner of the empire and what leadership there was from the Angeloi just made matters worse. And then the Fourth Crusade happens and deals a heavy blow while the empire is still reeling from the loss of Bulgaria among other things.
But even after the sacking of Constantinople and loss of so much territory, the empire survived and for a time thrived at Nicea. After recovering the city and much of Thrace and Greece, the empire was in fairly good shape but then John VI Kantakouzenos started a particularly devastating civil war and it was then that the end of the empire had become a foregone conclusion.
So having said all of that, if the Crusade completely bypasses the empire and goes to Egypt, then I believe that the empire survives for much much longer. With no crusade then the imperial “ship of state” is able to right itself and stabilize its positions, perhaps even retaking territory in Bulgaria and Serbia. And while it might have still ultimately declined and collapsed it may well have lasted well into the 19th century or beyond in some form.
Thank you for this reply. I've been waiting for something like this ever since I posted this.
The devil shivers
I mean, probably not until the 18th century since a powerful state in Anatolia would inevitably come into conflict with several other powerful empires that rose up after the fourth crusade. And frankly I’m not sure if the empire can win where even the ottomans failed, like say Timur.
That’s the thing though. Without the Fourth Crusade you don’t have such a weakened Roman state that allows for the rise of a strong Turkish state in Anatolia. So we have a situation wherein the Romans are able to adequately stabilize their empire and in doing so, keep the Turks at bay, so to speak. The Mongol invasions would’ve still happened in the 1240s and then we have a situation where the Romans are able to capitalize on this and either retake some Anatolian territory or make a move to recover territory in the Balkans without having to worry about the Turks. Or better yet you might have a situation where the Turks ask for Roman help against the Mongols in exchange for lands or fealty. Either way, without the Fourth Crusade the Romans would’ve eventually recovered and had a strong state once again, lasting much longer.
The correct target for all the Crusades should have been Egypt. If you want to hold Jerusalem. Egypt had a significant (possibly still majority) Christian population at the time, it was wealthy, a great spot for a naval power to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean etc etc.
Good luck convincing people to go die to take Cairo, though
The Latin Christians were just as oppressive to us as the Greek ones were.
Coptic statement from the Patriarch of Alexandria, Christodoulous to Michael IV, 1046-1102
^ Coptics could not even go into Crusader Jerusalem for worship.
The Coptic church split from the Roman and the Constantinople churches in the 5th C. The Patriarch of Alexandria was isolated from the rest of the christian world. Copts could worship freely in Jerusalem only when under Saladin Ayyubid rule as the Crusaders considered them a different religion. In fact the copts actually supported the initial Arab conquests over the Byzantine due to their religious oppression.
The Egyptian Sultanate had virtually always been extremely respectful to the seat of Alexandria and assumed responsibility & protection for all christians - Coptics in Egypt/Nubia and even other christians lower down the Nile to Aksum. At that time, the coptics would absolutely have supported the Ayyubi over the Latin invaders.
No doubt. But had Egypt been conquered then "the Latins" might have changed their approach. Perhaps not. We will never know of course.
The crusaders get their ass promptly whooped by the Egyptians, the end.
You don't think they'd have a chance against the Mamluks? The crusaders had horses, lances, and thick plated armor.
Check the Fifth Crusade.
The fifth crusade actually had a chance of restoring Jerusalem to Christian control and the city was offered to the Crusaders in a treaty, but if I recall the Crusader leaders were too arrogant and rejected it.
I meant, they literally given the Jerusalem back in the 6th Crusaders (roughly a decade after the 5th Crusader), however the end result were still the same.
The Crusader were kicked out from mainland Levant in less than a century later.
Crusades were logistically taxing and strategically unviable for Western European because the distance of the conflict to their power base.
The Success of 1st and 6th Crusader were the outlier rather than the norms.
Mamluks were in the 1250s. But no, the Egyptians on the other hand had the home field advantage, superior numbers, better archers and egypt behind them, the crusade wouldve ended like saint louis', getting whooped
Fair enough. My opinion was that the Crusaders were successful largely in pitched battles, but they made a lot of stupid tactical decisions which often caused their downfall. Even in the Fifth crusade they held the advantage over the Egyptians but the Christian cardinal who led the expedition kept ignoring the advice of his advisors not to push further and in spite of the Mamluk sultan offering him peace.
yeah, itd fall eventually to incompetence & greed as most crusades did
From what I understand, one of the problems with the fourth crusade other than a lack of funding was that they lacked a lot of men to even wage war against the Egyptians with. So they probably wouldn’t even have enough men to beat the armies of Egypt and then siege their cities, all of which would’ve taken too many men than they could spare.
Yeah the fourth crusade was a mess
Since others have established what would have happened if those armies showed up in Alexandria instead (embarrassing defeat), I'll go in a different direction but still in the spirit of the question.
The best case scenario for both the Crusaders and Romans is to split the difference between what the original plan was and what happened in reality by going for modern day northeast Libya. Gives the Crusaders a win (likely just temporary, but still), established a theoretical beachhead for a more organized Egyptian campaign, and it'd be a lot easier to trade with the likes of Crete and Cyprus. The shorter distance to central and western Europe would also make reinforcing this outpost a lot easier.
As for the long-term situation in Constantinople, maybe they hold out into the 1500's, maybe they find a way to hold the Turks to Anatolia and maintain as a city state in Constantinople with a few scattered loyal outposts, but even the best case scenario is an outcome with borders similar to modern Greece + Thrace. The Empire was already terminally in decline by 1203.
In my view it’s a net positive whether or not the crusaders actually achieve anything. When someone is doing war in someone else’s backyard it’s a better outcome
If the fourth crusade happened it would lose and be defeated, the Romans would decline but just a little bit slower I don't see a way the Romans could bounce back from their defeats and their massive loss of lands in the decades before the sack. Also i think the political instability wouldn't stop, the usurping, revolts and murders would still continue and those internal troubles would screw with any form of resurgence.
The Fifth Crusade went to Egypt as planned and got its ass kicked,so it would be the same.
Why do you guys do this...
Please do not enter hypothetical questions...
In any case, the 4th Crusade while indeed crucial for the East, just hastened what was already inevitable, the rise of the West and fall of the East.
Constantinople falling to Bulgarians is still preferable to it falling to the turks
Why? This seems anti-Turkish bias to me. The Ottomans preserved many Byzantine structures that would have been possibly lost otherwise.
Oh yeah "preserved" just ignore that Mehmet ordered the the destruction the column of justinian and the church of the holy apostles he also let his troops troops destroy what ever they wanted for 3 days
Since Islam is iconeclast they also destroyd a ton of byzantine icons
Bulgaria was christian so they would not have done any of this but they would also not have desecrated the hagia sophia and the other churches in constantinople
Mehmed wanted the city to become his capital though, so he also protected many infrastructures that could have been destroyed by others. We can’t really say how things would have gone with the Bulgars, “What if” doesn’t belong in history books, at least in my opinion.
It is not Anti-Turkish bias. The Bulgarians became Romanized enough that they had Greek along Bulgarian as an official language and they wanted to become Roman Emperors, until they conceded to just being Caesars. Still, they sought to become part of Romanland, just in their own terms, which is even better than the Ostrogoths who eventually did the opposite, decided to separate from New Rome and assimilate the locals (which prompted Justinian's invasion).
The Turks never exhibited such willingness to become Romans and join Romanland.
One of the reasons Kaloyan failed was specifically because he enslaved and murdered romans no different than any other foreign force, regardless of if they were Orthodox.
I’m not convinced of this argument
Didn’t the Ottomans called themselves Caesars? Maybe we perceive them as not willing to integrate because they became the rulers of the former Roman territories by conquest, but I don’t know if things would have been so much better with the Bulgars. At least for Constantinople itself. While the siege was cause of destruction, Mehmed didn’t want to annihilate the city, he wanted it as a capital for his empire. I don’t really like discussing history using conditionals.
Until Amalasuintha the Ostrogoths did a decent job of ruling in accordance with the east, their kingdom is really an interesting topic.
Anti-turkish bias ? Turks are literally the worst tragedy that ever happened to asia minor, Greece and the balkans, they are not the worst thing that happened to the middle east because that is Islam.
Hagia Sophia is now a FUCKING MOSQUE, that is absolutely disgusting
Islamophobia, cool dude.
Inevitable? Textbook example of terrible history.
Let me explain ok?
From an economic standpoint, the West was gearing up already by the 12th c, with the rise of towns and population.
The Eastern Mediterranean had been an unstable source of wealth since the rise of Arabs. The wealth had moved to the West.
From a political point of view, the Fourth Crusade was a byproduct of the bad management of Byzantine Emperors.
It is simple, until the 11th century, the wealth was mostly in the hands of Easterners, this changed by the 12th c. The fall of Byzantine Empire was inevitable.
You can’t use the term inevitable and be taken seriously when discussing or studying history.
If things are inevitable why study?
Are we on inevitable paths? It’s fatalism
I agree, and specifically on the 1204 AD Sack of New Rome. That was not an inevitable event by any means, it actually is better understood as a "black swan" event. There was no such conspiracy, as if they had decided to conquer New Rome already back in Venice in 1202 AD.
I am just saying that I am not a fan of hypothetical questions. But you are right. Thank you.
I'd somewhat disagree with this. I'm of the belief that it is both individuals and societal conditions that drive history, and that more often than not the latter limits what the former can do.
Whenever someone proposes a hypothetical scenario where they say 'oh, well these guys were DUMB why didn't they make x decision?' they neglect to observe societal/contextual factors which limited what these individuals could do.
The 'Germany could have won WW2' scenario is a prime example. All the crazy ways people come up with to make them win the war can be handwaved away when you look at the practical reasons for why they couldn't make those decisions.
Germany's defeat in WW2 was inevitable. That doesn't mean it isn't worth studying and dissecting to understand the factors that led to it's defeat.