There is a pretty good timeline on this site with this exact premise, focusing on Dalmatia:
https://alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/dalmatia-ascendant-reboot.445632/
No 4th Crusade: what happens to the Byzantine Empire?
- Thread starter Byzantine fanatic
- Start date
There is a pretty good timeline on this site with this exact premise, focusing on Dalmatia:
https://alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/dalmatia-ascendant-reboot.445632/
I... I want to read this timeline. But make the Mongols Orthodox.
Even better a Mongol Basileus of the Romans. Basileus Konstantinos XI "the Mongol" retakes the levant and Egypt for the Romans.
Or even better prevent Alexius (IV) escape from Constantinople to the court of his brother in law. Anyway with no sack of Constantinople, the Romans still have to endure Kalojan's hostility but the lack of serious threat from the West (Frederick II is still a minor and the German crown is disputed) and the loss of unity means that the Romans have a chance to revert the disasters of the last 20 years. Theodore Laskaris (assuming a smooth successions) is certainly up to the task.
I wonder, if there was such a relationship between a resurgent Byzantines and the Mongols, whether or not the Mongols might consider Orthodox Christianity - especially if the Romans have had the audacity to somehow resist their invasion. That could lead to Mongolian names being considered good and Christian (even if not Greek). "Chingis Laskarid, Lord of Eurasia, Emperor of the Romans and the Mongols" has a nice ring to it.
This is something I can't fully establish. What sort of force and strategy would the Romans need to break the Bulgarians? Are we looking at large forces to capture each of their cities? With no 1204 the Romans probably have many more resources, and if stability is maintained, surely the Romans and provide the army to defeat the Bulgarians.
Deleted member 67076
You know I imagine the Byzantines would just end up paying off the Mongols rather than trying to fight them. Its what they did historically under Michael and Andronicus, and both were rewarded with an alliance with the Golden Horde and Ilkhanate. In a scenario without the Fourth Crusade I suspect the same thing would happen.
Also with regard to Anatolia, avoiding the Fourth Crusade leads to a really interesting scenario in that the balance of power stays the same but much of the elites in the Seljuq sultanate were becoming increasingly, well not assimilated but influenced and tied to the empire. Many of them like Kaykous I, Kaykous II, Mesud II, and so on spent time plenty of time in the empire as hostages/exiles and were educated and influenced by the Greek court. Most of them were of half or more Greek ancestry anyway through intermarriages. Some of them even apparently jointly practiced Christianity and Islam! The reverse was true on the Byzantine side, and many a magnate later held great influence in the Turkish courts- case in point Manuel Maurozomes who became an emir under the Seljuqs and was an important power player.
Without the Fourth Crusade, this fluid dynamic in the borderlands of partial assimilation and influence continues, which is going to play a problem come the influx of a new wave of Turkish migrants fresh off the steppes who did not like the lack of ghazi mentality found in their cousins. But until then, in the 60 or so years that continue on the population of Anatolia will get increasingly fluid in how they identify and act, and this is something that I find that's never addressed. This of course is to the potential benefit of the Romans in increasing their soft power and penetrating the Seljuq court.
Also with regard to Anatolia, avoiding the Fourth Crusade leads to a really interesting scenario in that the balance of power stays the same but much of the elites in the Seljuq sultanate were becoming increasingly, well not assimilated but influenced and tied to the empire. Many of them like Kaykous I, Kaykous II, Mesud II, and so on spent time plenty of time in the empire as hostages/exiles and were educated and influenced by the Greek court. Most of them were of half or more Greek ancestry anyway through intermarriages. Some of them even apparently jointly practiced Christianity and Islam! The reverse was true on the Byzantine side, and many a magnate later held great influence in the Turkish courts- case in point Manuel Maurozomes who became an emir under the Seljuqs and was an important power player.
Without the Fourth Crusade, this fluid dynamic in the borderlands of partial assimilation and influence continues, which is going to play a problem come the influx of a new wave of Turkish migrants fresh off the steppes who did not like the lack of ghazi mentality found in their cousins. But until then, in the 60 or so years that continue on the population of Anatolia will get increasingly fluid in how they identify and act, and this is something that I find that's never addressed. This of course is to the potential benefit of the Romans in increasing their soft power and penetrating the Seljuq court.
The reason I asked, of course, is that the existence of a bolstered Crusader Levant, and perhaps even a Crusader Egypt, may have massive implications for course of Byzantine history.
Now that is an interesting point! Turn the crusaders against the Venetians by sending the crusaders to fight rebels in Greece or Anatolia. Make a bargain with the Venetians by selling them part of Crimea/Crete/Ionian Islands/Galata, and then later retake those areas, playing off the Genovese/Pisan/Anconan and Venetian growing rivalry. Lands given to the crusaders can be tied to the emperor's service, thus keeping them economically dependent on the government, in Constantinople, and non hereditary. These Latins were there to fight, didnt matter who, and every man has a price. The Venetians are proto-capitalists so they can see that if the crusaders are no longer in their pocket, then settling with the Romans and still having the upper hand economically/militarily (they still have all those ships) may be in their better interest. This all requires a shrewd man at the helm of the Roman state. The Angeloi pretenders are an unkown variable however. These Latin lordlinglings can prove to be troublesome down the line as their lack of understanding of Roman laws and culture will be to their disadvantage. Revolts, schemes to seat Latin/feudal friendly emperors could be interesting.
SuperSage125
Banned
Would the mongols be able to conquer this stronger byzantine empire and most importantly constatinople?
How much effort are they willing to put into it?
The Mongols took out the Song, so it's not out of the question. But it's not a given, either.
Thomas1195
Banned
Don't forget that the Italians already had the controlling influence over Byzantine/Constantinople trade, at the expense of Byzantine merchants.
That was the case because of Byzantine hostile attitude towards trade, which was a long-established thing. It was perhaps a very bad legacy - one of the worse - it inherited from Rome. It would severely damage the Empire in the long run.
Without a deep change in culture and attitude, it would at best go the way of the Ottoman Empire IOTL without its early military success - I mean, the Sick Man of Europe - and unlike with the Ottoman IOTL, Venice would squash them like a bug on the sea.
That was the case because of Byzantine hostile attitude towards trade, which was a long-established thing. It was perhaps a very bad legacy - one of the worse - it inherited from Rome. It would severely damage the Empire in the long run.
Without a deep change in culture and attitude, it would at best go the way of the Ottoman Empire IOTL without its early military success - I mean, the Sick Man of Europe - and unlike with the Ottoman IOTL, Venice would squash them like a bug on the sea.
I don't see why the Byzatines would be handle Mongolic horse archers any better than Turkic horse archers. Of course Mongols may end up settling the Anatolian plateau