Assuming that the Latin Empire survived, would the population have converted to the Catholic church, or would the country have remained Orthodox? What would also happen to the rulers, would they become Hellenic and/or Orthodox too?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't think the viability of the Latin Empire was a serious possibility. The decline of the old Empire had simply fallen too far.
- 2
- 1
The only way would be if they had somehow managed to prevent the formation of the successor states claiming the Byzantine crown. They could have rebranded themselves as a new dynasty rather than a new state.
Unlikely to work, but when you consider the wildly different origins of Byzantine dynasties it's not absolutely impossible.
Unlikely to work, but when you consider the wildly different origins of Byzantine dynasties it's not absolutely impossible.
There are absolutely no reasons why Latin Empire could have not become a Latin Byzantine. What problem Latins had was that this Empire was very poor after sack, few allies and a lot of enemies. Then they started a war with Bulgarians which drained little resources they had.
If they hadn't messed around with the Byzantine administrative apparatus they might have been OK, although I doubt they'd ever have become as great as the earlier Byzantines.
The success of any crusader state was dependent on two factors, Continued support from Europe, and winning or successfully subjugating the native people. The Latin Empire royally screwed up both in our time.
If however the Latins made peace with the Greek successor states made some negotiations with Bulgaria, formalized an Alliance with Venice and treaties of support from Hungary and other Western Kingdoms and pledged themselves to running the Muslims out of Anatolia. They would have probably held a fair shot at building a power base and reunited the Greek and Anatolian parts of the Byzantine Empire.
The People would likely stay Greek and Turkish, The various other cultures in the north are also likely to survive. The Muslims in Anatolia likely would be put under an Iberian styled inquisition or otherwise expelled, Orthodox might remain but likely be changed through a Mix of Catholic and more western influence. The Rulers would gradually become Greek with heavy western influence which would lead to some cultural issues with the Turks in Anatolia down the line.
Would they become a Catholic Ottoman Empire? No. Would they be a more active player in World politics and arguably change the entire course of world history, such as the discovery of the New World, the Reformation, The Balkan Problems, and both world wars? Absolutely.
If however the Latins made peace with the Greek successor states made some negotiations with Bulgaria, formalized an Alliance with Venice and treaties of support from Hungary and other Western Kingdoms and pledged themselves to running the Muslims out of Anatolia. They would have probably held a fair shot at building a power base and reunited the Greek and Anatolian parts of the Byzantine Empire.
The People would likely stay Greek and Turkish, The various other cultures in the north are also likely to survive. The Muslims in Anatolia likely would be put under an Iberian styled inquisition or otherwise expelled, Orthodox might remain but likely be changed through a Mix of Catholic and more western influence. The Rulers would gradually become Greek with heavy western influence which would lead to some cultural issues with the Turks in Anatolia down the line.
Would they become a Catholic Ottoman Empire? No. Would they be a more active player in World politics and arguably change the entire course of world history, such as the discovery of the New World, the Reformation, The Balkan Problems, and both world wars? Absolutely.
Last edited:
- 1
The Latin Empire came a half century before the Mongols wrecked the eastern Islamic world, and a full century before Osman did exactly what they would have needed to. I absolutely think it was a plausible possibility. Like other Crusader states though they focused externally far too much - no state is going to endure indefinitely when wholly reliant on foreign aid. I personally think they had more potential than Nicaea, who were too locked into past legitimacy; the Latins had the possibility of making more sweeping modernization changes and bringing in a better government apparatus. They just didn't.
I don't think the population would have become truly Catholic. They might have merged some of the rites but honestly there was little reason to expect the east to ever truly submit to the papacy again beyond the top level paying lip service to elicit crusader aid. The rulers would have probably been a Catholic elite, and if the state is presumed to become successful, I would assume tolerant (for its time) of religions much like the Ottomans OR totally ruthless in bringing all to heel and expelling minorities like eg Spain. I would assume the rulers would have gradually become more Hellenized just like the Romans did; probably a blending of Western and local.
I don't think the population would have become truly Catholic. They might have merged some of the rites but honestly there was little reason to expect the east to ever truly submit to the papacy again beyond the top level paying lip service to elicit crusader aid. The rulers would have probably been a Catholic elite, and if the state is presumed to become successful, I would assume tolerant (for its time) of religions much like the Ottomans OR totally ruthless in bringing all to heel and expelling minorities like eg Spain. I would assume the rulers would have gradually become more Hellenized just like the Romans did; probably a blending of Western and local.
I should have said successfully. They never shook the label of being foreign invaders.
As a contrast consider how Mongol and Manchurian invaders ultimately became accepted as 'Legitimate' in the eyes of Chinese. Or even further back, the various dynasties of foreign origin that became Egyptian Pharoahs.
A key difference seems to be the bureaucracy and priesthoods. Successful assimilation incorporates them into the new power structure. But the Crusaders had contempt for the Byzantine bureaucracy and by their very nature were hostile to the indigenous priesthood.
- 1
You can´t be serious.
That ridiculous hairstyle was imposed on the chinese, Taiping rebellion etc etc.
Was that sort of thing any worse under the 'foreign' dynasties though? My knowledge of Chinese history is weak, but I didn't think that the Taiping rebellion was based on any kind of 'expel the barbarians' agenda against the ruling dynasty.
I might be completely off base there. I'd still say that foreign conquerors looking to become accepted need to find a way to include existing bureaucrat and clerical classes in the new regime.
I might be completely off base there. I'd still say that foreign conquerors looking to become accepted need to find a way to include existing bureaucrat and clerical classes in the new regime.
The Ming Kicked the Mongols out, then were conquered by the Qing. The Taiping rebellion wasn't specifically to 'remove the foreign emperor' but if it had been more successful would have.
The Latin Empire is basically in the same position that was the restored the Byzantine Empire just after the restoration (so ~50 years after) but only with a far far worse organisation and support which means a lot !
The best case scenario would have been a continuous strong support from some Western countries to the Crusader State. But as any Crusader state it was under siege by Orthodox who only thought about the glory of reconquering Constantinople and restorying Byzantium.
There's no freaking way the the Latin can get over this except by conquering all its Orthodox neighbor and here we are deeply in fantasy water.
For this reason I strongly doubt the country could have survived long. It has never been anywhere near the Ottomans in time of power. The Latin Empire from day one was bullied by its neighbors especially Serbia and Bulgaria it only survived as long because Orthodox were divided on who shall reconquer the region just like muslims in the Holy Lands Crusades.
Once the Ottomans start kicking tough and eliminate the Asian Orthodox of the game there is no way the Latins can survives a two front war with far more powerfull states all around it.
The best case scenario would have been a continuous strong support from some Western countries to the Crusader State. But as any Crusader state it was under siege by Orthodox who only thought about the glory of reconquering Constantinople and restorying Byzantium.
There's no freaking way the the Latin can get over this except by conquering all its Orthodox neighbor and here we are deeply in fantasy water.
For this reason I strongly doubt the country could have survived long. It has never been anywhere near the Ottomans in time of power. The Latin Empire from day one was bullied by its neighbors especially Serbia and Bulgaria it only survived as long because Orthodox were divided on who shall reconquer the region just like muslims in the Holy Lands Crusades.
Once the Ottomans start kicking tough and eliminate the Asian Orthodox of the game there is no way the Latins can survives a two front war with far more powerfull states all around it.
That's just simply not true. Medieval Diplomacy was often personal and highly erratic sometimes. Take the first Crusade for Example, where on Paper, it should have failed at every, single, step on the Journey to Jerusalem and the Crusaders managed to do everything they needed to do correctly.
If you put the POD right after the siege of Constantinople and the Latin Leadership manages to ally with the Bulgarians and Serbians they very well could have crushed the Remaining Greek Successor States. And then from that point onwards the situation becomes unpredictable as A Powerful, unified Greece with a Catholic ruling dynasty instead of an Orthodox one is capable of getting actual military aid from states like Aragon, Naples and Hungary.
If you put the POD right after the siege of Constantinople and the Latin Leadership manages to ally with the Bulgarians and Serbians they very well could have crushed the Remaining Greek Successor States. And then from that point onwards the situation becomes unpredictable as A Powerful, unified Greece with a Catholic ruling dynasty instead of an Orthodox one is capable of getting actual military aid from states like Aragon, Naples and Hungary.
The Taiping rebels were a kind of utopian cult, actually. It's a recurring theme in Chinese history that mass rebellions are centered on religious sects or secret societies (the same was true of the rebellion against the Yuan, which was spearheaded by a Buddhist-Manichean secret society). Generally speaking the Yuan and Qing ruling houses brutalized China during the initial conquests but afterwards were very careful to fit into Chinese state ideology, and ethnic resentment was a subtext in the rebellions that eventually overthrew them but not the primary motivator.
The reason why the first Crusade was successfull has nothing to do with diplomacy. It succeeded because of the collapse of the Seljukid Empire occuring at the same time.
Muslims were far more busy fighting each others than fighting the invaders and after the Crusader States were established they were surrounded by petty islamic state too weak to do anything aginst them.
It did not last tough and their fall was inevitable when the Levant stabilised there's a reason why only one Crusade succeeded bro the suprise effect was over after.
The problem of the Latin Empire is that it was NEVER surrounded by petty states . It was THE petty state surrounded by wolves.
And pray thell me why Bulgarians and Serbians would have allied Crusaders against their brother of the same fate who are even worse no threat to Serbia or Bulgaria (unlike the Latin Empire).
They have nothing to gain from this than like you said yourself a potential powerfull enemy down the road.
On the other hand the historical motivation is pretty clear.
The gain is unmeasurable the city of world's desire that both countries dreamed of conquering for centuries and now within their reach like never before then. And what's more, no more Church discouraging them to follow the path in fact the contrary.
Because the Bulgarians and Latins did ally if only for a shorter time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_of_Bulgaria,_Latin_Empress So clearly there was motivation not to simply murder the Latin Empire. The Bulgarians only switched sides when they found more benefit in siding with Nikea. If the Bulgarian-Latin alliance is formed when Kaloyan first offers (During the conquest itself) and holds together things end much differently.
What are you talking about ? Kaloyan spent his whole reign fighting the Latin Empire. Boril did the same thing before being defeated by Latins and making peace with them. Which eventually costed him the throne.
His successor merely continued the millenia long policy of Bulgaria toward Constantinople.
The alliance you are talking about implied giving to Bulgaria Byzantine lands not giving it to the Latin Empire (as the Crusader did when conquering Greece) as you implied in your former posts.
I can agree that there wasn't always motivation to not "simply murder the Latin Empire" as long it can defend itself but you said that it was possible that both Serbia and Bulgaria could have allied the Latin Empire so it conquers the Byzantine remnants.
That's fantasy.
The point was the Latin Empire was so weak that it was not able to defend itself from its neighbors which is why the "murdering" part was so tempting.
Jerusalem was in a far better position the Latin Empire ever was.
WHY was the Latin Empire so weak? They had a decent strip of land with people on it and in a very profitable spot, and couldn't utilize it. Compare to the Ottomans coming in later, moving their capital across the strait, and then later up to Constantinople. They were able to utilize the resources of the region quite well. Their armies were full of Christian boys. I don't see why a well-administered Latin Empire with a top notch leader couldn't have done something similar with the various post-Crusade Christian states and then over into Anatolia that Osman and his successors did with the remnants of post-Mongol Anatolia and then into Greece.
Jerusalem was in a better position but never had the Latin Empire's potential. They completely lacked a natural border, were wholly reliant on external support, and were just too remote. Without a successful crusade into Egypt they were always doomed. The Latin Empire was at least parked on a major trade hub and could use their land defensively had they been better about it all.
Jerusalem was in a better position but never had the Latin Empire's potential. They completely lacked a natural border, were wholly reliant on external support, and were just too remote. Without a successful crusade into Egypt they were always doomed. The Latin Empire was at least parked on a major trade hub and could use their land defensively had they been better about it all.