An earlier 1204 happens, with the Normans drawing upon Catholic help in their campaign to seize the Empire before the Seljuks can consolidate Anatolia.
Most likely, yes, with either party agreeing to stay out of the other's business as they deal with their respective Greek resistance.
The schism was a more religious matter than a political one and is unlikely to prevent a byzantino-latin entente when the situation grows dire especially at this point in time when 1204 did not happen yet. Popes and different byzantine emperors did continue to work together especially when the normans threatened both of them and în Byzantium a authoritarian emperor did not have any problem în ignoring a recalcitrant patriarch if the political situation requires it.
But the schism can worsened to to prevent a byzantino-latin entente when the situation grows dire especially at this point in time
Kiljik Arslan was on his way to unite anatolia went crusaders attacked him
Hiring mercenaries like Roussel de Bailleul started problem in the place
It was a joke.
www.mybobs.com
The report between the byzantine emperor and patriarch is more unequal than between the rest of western rulers and Pope so when push comes to shove the emperor can put an accent on political matters and bypass the religious establishment (I.e Michael Palaiologos did reinforce albeit with difficulty the union with Rome). The emperor will then be able to work with the Pope. The Pope also needs the byzantines so as to counterbalance the growing power of the Normans and for him too an alliance would be desirable. For the venetians, the byzantine market is a golden opportunity for wealth and they also will not pass an alliance with the byzantines.
Extremely unlikely they would survive because they will piss off the Mongols like they did OTL and TTL it's more than certain because they are way more powerful and as to defending. These are the Mongols under Genghis we're talking about. They're the toughest there are
why would there be an agreement? seljuks already have almost all of Anatolia so catholics have nothing to offer. There is the only the war
Both parties just got hold of a lot of new land, which they have never administered, in fact most of it wasn't administered by foreigners since times immemorial.
You ignore my point entirely seljuks had already conquered and did all of that bolded things you said to anatolia and could invade the balkans but normans who just started their conquest would have to fight them for the balkans to convince them for a peace agreement
They did not do much except having conquered Anatolia. By 1092 in fact they had to focus on solidifying their internal grasp, yielding the initiative against Byzantium for nearly a century.
Yet the normans did not conquer anything so the seljuks have no reason for peace with them
why counter speculate against actual history and say it's not like that ? OTL Byzantium before crusades couldn't attack Seljuks who did not have internal opposition that helped Byzantines before, even during and after the crusades. Byzantium didn't even have the troops to occupy the conquests of the first crusade.
