Aftermath of successful fourth Crusade

Let us suppose that, somehow, the fourth Crusade actually reached its target of Egypt (we will ignore any theories that the crusade was purposefully miss directed). The arrangement between the Crusaders and their Venetian allies was pretty much to split their gains, in money and land, 50/50.

With that in mind how might such a division of Egypt look? Would the Venetians be content with key trading ports such as Alexandria and Damietta? Might they come to an arrangement where their share is provided through various financial incentives, such as tax exemption?

PS, holy shit, Siri knows the word Damietta!
 
Knowing the Venetians, they'd want a monopoly on trade coming out of Alexandria, Damietta, and other important port cities. They might take a few of them under their "protection" and use their control over them as leverage, assuming the crusaders get a bit resentful. If the kingdom lasts for a while, it might even expand further south into northern Ethiopia and start trading in the Indian Ocean, which threatens the traditional Arab control over trade there.
 
Let us suppose that, somehow, the fourth Crusade actually reached its target of Egypt
They fail, big time. The only way that they can get to Egypt, is with Venetian navies. Even if they don't go to Byzantium, they would have to pay their transport by taking over Zara. That alone made 1/2 of the army quitting, and the rest being excommunicated.

6, 000 men, divised as much it was humanly possible, against the whole Egypt aren't going to succeed.

With that in mind how might such a division of Egypt look?
The whole expedition didn't had a really clear plan (as the easy diversion point out) : the general idea was about fighting Ayyubids, crushing their bases in Egypt to take Jerusalem back. Past this, there was almost no preparations.
Assuming they suceed, it's not clear what they would have done.
For the sake of the conversation, let's say they stick to this general idea : they take back Jerusalem, that becomes even more a clusterfuck of rivaling entities,Amaury I would still probably help them as much he could but dying in 1205, and with Cyprus and Jerusalem being divied then...

At best you'll end with Jerusalem, knight-orders, Ibelins, Tripoli, Antioch, and newcomers. I don't think the situation would be overall that better than IOTL.

Would the Venetians be content with key trading ports such as Alexandria and Damietta?
I'd rather think, if they stick it to the general idea, that they would have preferred a better and favoured position in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (where they always tried to battle Genoese presence)

Knowing the Venetians, they'd want a monopoly on trade coming out of Alexandria, Damietta, and other important port cities.
Which they basically began to have regardless : while obviously not having the control of these cities, they had a very large commercial presence in Muslim Egypt (and will keep it up to XVth) even if admittedly, it was greatly helped by their presence in Crete (roughly 43% of traders in Alexandria were Venetians in the XIVth)
 
Last edited:
Potentially huge - in the long run, it gives La Serrenissisma a much more stable path to the East, without having to conduct diplomacy with an ever changing cast of Khans, sheikhs, etc. When you consider that unlike the Latin Empire, in Egypt the Crusaders will simply be replacing one non-native elite with another, they likely have far great longevity. There's no howling mad native elite breathing down your necks in Egypt.

The fact that a successful Fourth Crusade cores out the main source of manpower and money that made a Crusader invasion of the Levant ultimately doomed has simply massive long-term butterflies. The one that isn't always explored is after a certain amount of time, does any Egyptian elite whose roots are Crusader knights still think of themselves as European Christians? A successful Fourth Crusade is one where the butterflies include the potential for an entirely new culture ruling a big rich chunk of the world for centuries after. Big stuff.
 
Potentially huge - in the long run, it gives La Serrenissisma a much more stable path to the East, without having to conduct diplomacy with an ever changing cast of Khans, sheikhs, etc. When you consider that unlike the Latin Empire, in Egypt the Crusaders will simply be replacing one non-native elite with another, they likely have far great longevity. There's no howling mad native elite breathing down your necks in Egypt.

The fact that a successful Fourth Crusade cores out the main source of manpower and money that made a Crusader invasion of the Levant ultimately doomed has simply massive long-term butterflies. The one that isn't always explored is after a certain amount of time, does any Egyptian elite whose roots are Crusader knights still think of themselves as European Christians? A successful Fourth Crusade is one where the butterflies include the potential for an entirely new culture ruling a big rich chunk of the world for centuries after. Big stuff.

I think they'd still be Christians under any reasonable TL. It would be interesting to see how native Egyptians react, religion-wise: in addition to the Muslims, there was still a large Christian population in the country, although they'd be considered heretical by the Catholic crusaders. Still, the crusader states were generally more pragmatic in religious matters than they're usually given credit for, so they'd probably be able to work out a modus vivendi. After a few centuries we might end up with a majority-Catholic Egypt, which could be quite interesting.
 
They fail, big time.

There's any number of ways it could have worked.

- The ~33,000 crusaders the French contracted the Venetians to transport could have actually showed up.
- The French could have had better estimates, and only contracted for the ~12,000 that showed up.
- Alexios IV could have presented the Crusaders with a more realistic proposal (he was, historically, able to pay the Crusaders 100,000 out of the promised 200,000 marks. If their agreement was for 100,000, and perhaps excluded the impossible submission of the Orthodox to Rome, the Crusaders could have been in and out of Constantinople without too much more trouble).

Etc.

The point is that we simply assume that the Crusade got to Egypt in enough numbers to matter, and then those Crusaders went on to win.
 
- The ~33,000 crusaders the French contracted the Venetians to transport could have actually showed up.
These estimation were wishful thinking : giving the Anglo-French war, German-Pontifical conflicts, general disinterest for the crusades, etc. All of that would be huge obstacles.

- The French could have had better estimates, and only contracted for the ~12,000 that showed up.
The problem wasn't only the guesstimate made by Crusaders , than the number of sailors and ships it required (when the doge tried to lower the price to the actual ammount, they still didn't have enough). Crusaders had none of them (for quite good reasons), and Venice was to supply it, including ships (meaning a net commercial and demographical risk).
Crusader still lacking money (the whole expedition was half-assed), they had to comply before Venice demands.

- Alexios IV could have presented the Crusaders with a more realistic proposal
There would be the huge problem of excommunication after Zara, and half of the army turning back to Europe. Lacking any kind of religious legitimacy (Byzantines lacking concept of Crusade to begin with, even if we wanted to try that).
Furthermore, I'm not sure more realistic demands could have been easily reached : you had other than money, as in accepting pontifical supremacy, giving troops to Crusaders, basically a pro-Latin policy that would have make him expelled at best.
Remember that it's a much modest pro-Latin policy that ended Commenos dynasty and put Angelos in charge.

Assuming that less than 8,000 , excommunicated (I grant you the excommunication was rescinded, but going further in error wouldn't help), hugely divided (IOTL they figured out a leader afterwards), and not having a clue on how to reach Egypt without being hijacked regularly manage to reach Alexandria...It's not going to end well, for them.

(And of course, their allies in Syria knew a political division the very next year)

The whole expedition was probably one of the best medieval equivalent, in matter of feasability, of Sealion.

The point is that we simply assume that the Crusade got to Egypt in enough numbers to matter, and then those Crusaders went on to win.
Well, I tried to answer that in my post : from what we know of their plan, they didn't wanted to conquer Egypt itself, or even trade it against Jerusalem, but advancing in a more fertile and less mountainous road than Turkey up to Palestine and make junction with the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

There, they would probably have formed their own fiefs, more or less dependent from Jerusalem (IMHO, probably less than more), and probably in the hinterland. I doubt they would go to hinterland of Tripoli and Antioch (Bohémond IV antagonized everyone in the region) immediatly, but that's a distinct possibility for later : maybe taking one or both of his titles, claiming to be vassals of the king (maybe for Leo I of Armenia in Antioch), with a good enough reason, as Bohémond ruled out the Latin patriarch of Antioch and called back the Melkite Patriarch.

I could see however, Venetians pressing for more influence in Cyprus and Jerusalem against Templars and Genoese, and Fourth Crusaders could have been pushed to attack Isabelle if needed and replace her with some one else. In this case, they'd antagonize everyone in the region, especially Ibelins : a counter-alliance with Muslims against Fourth Crusaders wouldn't be to be ruled out in this case.

If they don't : they would rule on rather ingrate lands, and more prone to be attacked. Ascalon and Gallilée would be prime lands, that said.

So, maybe something like this.

300px-Levant_1197-fr.svg.png
 
Top