A Viable Latin Empire

[IsadorBG]

Is it a rethorical question ?

But to answer your question if the Latin Empire was well admnisitred aka real attempt at state building and not a shared bounties between Crusaders and Venice with everyone wanting their pieces (ergo highly unlikely to stay polite) and did not suffer from severe manpower shortage because killing Orthodox wasn't as cool as fighting "pagans" in the holy land and wasn't in a constant state of war from the year 1 and was lead by a Genius then yeah I don't see why the Latin Empire could not be a success story like the Ottomans.

But I find this question futile becaue the Latin Empire never had the potential you think it had. Even Byzantium with it better admninistration and natural right over the lands had tremendous difficulties keeping off its neighbors from eating it.

I find the mere concept of thinking that the Latin Empire had better potential than Byzantium itself as ludicrous and comparing with the Ottomans is stupid.

The Ottomans state unlike the Latin one even if people forget was an effort spanning centuries growing from a small powerbase to a powerhouse and with many stepback as you mentioned which is a testament of its resilience actually not of weakness.

The Latin Empire on the other hand is basically worse Byzantium and that's why it fell pretty quickly into irrelevence and not much later completely.
Unlike the other Crusader States who had far more potential and were less reliant on external support than you think they were at least compared to the Latin Empire which survived decades only because of the walls of Constantinople and the support of Venice fleet.

 

[Enravota]

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.

Kaloyan entered into a union with the Catholic church and was the only Bulgarian monarch crowned as king a few months after the crusaders took over. Both the pope and Kaloyan sought alliance early on which the Latin Empire refused. The crusaders had a realistic option for amicable relations but decided against it.
There's also no consistent policy of Bulgaria toward Constantinople, Krum and Simeon are pretty much the only Bulgarian monarchs actively trying to take Constantinople and Kaloyan's campaigns were more focused in securing Adrianople and taking over Salonica.

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.

The Latin Empire formed during a period of centralisation in the Balkans, even the beheaded Byzantine remnants consolidated around a few, relatively strong, successor states. On the other hand by the time the Ottomans showed up central authority had largely collapsed, with large parts of the peninsula being ruled by de facto independent regional warlords. Early Ottoman conquest was indeed fuelled by Christian boys, but those were not Janissaries but the troops of those petty warlords that the Ottomans managed to vassalise and ultimately absorb bit by bit.

 

[Yakman]

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.

but that's because God was on their side.

 

[yerm]

Is it a rethorical question ?

But to answer your question if the Latin Empire was well admnisitred aka real attempt at state building and not a shared bounties between Crusaders and Venice with everyone wanting their pieces (ergo highly unlikely to stay polite) and did not suffer from severe manpower shortage because killing Orthodox wasn't as cool as fighting "pagans" in the holy land and wasn't in a constant state of war from the year 1 and was lead by a Genius then yeah I don't see why the Latin Empire could not be a success story like the Ottomans.

But I find this question futile becaue the Latin Empire never had the potential you think it had. Even Byzantium with it better admninistration and natural right over the lands had tremendous difficulties keeping off its neighbors from eating it.

I find the mere concept of thinking that the Latin Empire had better potential than Byzantium itself as ludicrous and comparing with the Ottomans is stupid.

The Ottomans state unlike the Latin one even if people forget was an effort spanning centuries growing from a small powerbase to a powerhouse and with many stepback as you mentioned which is a testament of its resilience actually not of weakness.

The Latin Empire on the other hand is basically worse Byzantium and that's why it fell pretty quickly into irrelevence and not much later completely.
Unlike the other Crusader States who had far more potential and were less reliant on external support than you think they were at least compared to the Latin Empire which survived decades only because of the walls of Constantinople and the support of Venice fleet.

Only semi-rhetorical. Also please note I am arguing that the Latin Empire had more potential than any other Crusader state, not more potential than the Empire itself (eg not-4th-crusaded and/or Nicaea's Rump state). When I argue that the Latin Empire had they been led well could have come to rule the region I argue also that had the Romans gotten their administrative and diplomatic heads out of their asses the same is true there as well. Jerusalem never had a chance - they arguably lasted longer than they "should" have; its successful creation in itself even being a stroke of great fortune.

The Latin Empire had the advantage of being Catholic and new, which theoretically allows them to overhaul the government and conduct diplomacy at an advantage when looking west. The Byzantine successor states had the advantage of legitimate claim and the local religion to use for drawing local support. The LE would have needed to compensate for its religious hurdle on top of instituting reform, and Nicaea (or whoever) had a bigger reform hurdle - arguable as to who is better poised to truly excel though I'd say a Greek state over the Latins as you do, if not as decidedly so.

The Latin Empire formed during a period of centralisation in the Balkans, even the beheaded Byzantine remnants consolidated around a few, relatively strong, successor states. On the other hand by the time the Ottomans showed up central authority had largely collapsed, with large parts of the peninsula being ruled by de facto independent regional warlords. Early Ottoman conquest was indeed fuelled by Christian boys, but those were not Janissaries but the troops of those petty warlords that the Ottomans managed to vassalise and ultimately absorb bit by bit.

I do not expect the Latins to initiate an Osman I style military unification in the 13th century and be successful. As you say - different and unsuitable environment. What they need to do is get their shit together internally, rebuild, stabilize diplomacy, and most importantly get their economy in position to support an effective military without wholly relying on external aid all the time. Basically prosper locally for a century THEN clean up the Mongolian-caused mess. I also hold this is what the Byzantines needed to do - Michael VIII needed to fix more administrative problems than just leaving a long dynasty.

 

[Yakman]

Jerusalem had a chance. but not with both syria and egypt in saracen hands.

the crusaders underperformed spectacularly vs. egypt. had they done what they were militarily capable of doing, they could have taken it, and secured jerusalem's rear.

with only syria to contend with, it's possible that jerusalem could have been a going concern for more than the century and a half that it was.

 

[IsadorBG]

Saying that Crusader underperdomed spectacularly is like saying Germany underperformed spectularly invading the USSR or ISIS for the Kurds.

When Amalric thought it was a good idea to wage war on Egypt. Jerusalem was already on the defensive in the Eastern Front after a spectacular failure of the 2nd Crusade which led to the formation of a Syrian state more powerfull than the Crusader states.
However Nurraddin only waged limited offensive as he feared an intervention of Byzantium which was still mighty back then.

So when the Crusaders invaded it was no surprise that Egypt sought the Syrian alliance and thus forfeited any chance for the Crusader to win as you said yourself quite rightlly so.

The later invasions were only about keeping Syria from pupeeting Egypt and trying deseperatly to install a friendly regime or at least a neutral one but the Crusaders reaped what they sow.
Quite difficult to find support when you attacked first heh?

Invading Egypt was admittetly one of the biggest mistake of the Crusaders.
Altough less so than that cataclysmic disaster that was the 2nd Crusade. If you believe in Karma that was a great payback for the unbelievable luck of the 1st.

A conquest was only possible (tough by no means guarranteed) if Syria did not intervene but that it is impossible to conceive when the Crusaders offer them Egypt in a silver platter.

Tough I agree that in many ways Jerusalem position was much more secure than the Latin Empire by a long shot.
The simple fact that Jerusalem could actually invade Egypt while defending itself against Syria is telleing when you know that the Latin Empire could not withstand the assault of such petty states as Epirus or Nikea.

 

[Yakman]

Saying that Crusader underperdomed spectacularly is like saying Germany underperformed spectularly invading the USSR or ISIS for the Kurds.

When Amalric thought it was a good idea to wage war on Egypt. Jerusalem was already on the defensive in the Eastern Front after a spectacular failure of the 2nd Crusade which led to the formation of a Syrian state more powerfull than the Crusader states.
However Nurraddin only waged limited offensive as he feared an intervention of Byzantium which was still mighty back then.

So when the Crusaders invaded it was no surprise that Egypt sought the Syrian alliance and thus forfeited any chance for the Crusader to win as you said yourself quite rightlly so.

The later invasions were only about keeping Syria from pupeeting Egypt and trying deseperatly to install a friendly regime or at least a neutral one but the Crusaders reaped what they sow.
Quite difficult to find support when you attacked first heh?

Invading Egypt was admittetly one of the biggest mistake of the Crusaders.
Altough less so than that cataclysmic disaster that was the 2nd Crusade. If you believe in Karma that was a great payback for the unbelievable luck of the 1st.

A conquest was only possible (tough by no means guarranteed) if Syria did not intervene but that it is impossible to conceive when the Crusaders offer them Egypt in a silver platter.

Tough I agree that in many ways Jerusalem position was much more secure than the Latin Empire by a long shot.
The simple fact that Jerusalem could actually invade Egypt while defending itself against Syria is telleing when you know that the Latin Empire could not withstand the assault of such petty states as Epirus or Nikea.

Germany did under perform invading the USSR. They weren't even on full mobilization until early 1944...

That being said, the Fifth Crusade, had it been run by someone who could have tied his own shoes (and not been sabotaged by the Italians (really the villains of the crusades, if you ask me ;-) )), might well have dislodged the saracens from Egypt.

 

[IsadorBG]

Germany did under perform invading the USSR. They weren't even on full mobilization until early 1944...

That being said, the Fifth Crusade, had it been run by someone who could have tied his own shoes (and not been sabotaged by the Italians (really the villains of the crusades, if you ask me ;-) )), might well have dislodged the saracens from Egypt.

Maybe. I am not as confident as you of the Crusaders being able to take Cairo altough keeping the coast a long time like in Lebanon/Syria was unlikely but possible.

 

[Galaahd]

That being said, the Fifth Crusade, had it been run by someone who could have tied his own shoes (and not been sabotaged by the Italians (really the villains of the crusades, if you ask me ;-) )), might well have dislodged the saracens from Egypt.

Well I'm unfamiliar with the Fifth Crusade, what did the Italians do?

Also, when were they the villains besides the Fourth Crusade?

 

[dragoon9105]

Didn't Genovese Merchants arguably save the first Crusade Though?. If anyone is the villians of the Crusades its the Venetians and Kings and Emperors back in Europe who used the Crusades more for influence back at home rather than forming a lasting defense against the Saracens.

 

[Harpsichord]

Saying that Crusader underperdomed spectacularly is like saying Germany underperformed spectularly invading the USSR or ISIS for the Kurds.

When Amalric thought it was a good idea to wage war on Egypt. Jerusalem was already on the defensive in the Eastern Front after a spectacular failure of the 2nd Crusade which led to the formation of a Syrian state more powerfull than the Crusader states.
However Nurraddin only waged limited offensive as he feared an intervention of Byzantium which was still mighty back then.

So when the Crusaders invaded it was no surprise that Egypt sought the Syrian alliance and thus forfeited any chance for the Crusader to win as you said yourself quite rightlly so.

The later invasions were only about keeping Syria from pupeeting Egypt and trying deseperatly to install a friendly regime or at least a neutral one but the Crusaders reaped what they sow.
Quite difficult to find support when you attacked first heh?

Invading Egypt was admittetly one of the biggest mistake of the Crusaders.
Altough less so than that cataclysmic disaster that was the 2nd Crusade. If you believe in Karma that was a great payback for the unbelievable luck of the 1st.

A conquest was only possible (tough by no means guarranteed) if Syria did not intervene but that it is impossible to conceive when the Crusaders offer them Egypt in a silver platter.

Tough I agree that in many ways Jerusalem position was much more secure than the Latin Empire by a long shot.
The simple fact that Jerusalem could actually invade Egypt while defending itself against Syria is telleing when you know that the Latin Empire could not withstand the assault of such petty states as Epirus or Nikea.

Egypt waged war on the Crusaders as soon as the latter were beginning to establish themselves in Jerusalem. The Crusader's only attacked Egypt-proper well after they'd been on the receiving end of several campaigns.

 

[IsadorBG]

Egypt waged war on the Crusaders as soon as the latter were beginning to establish themselves in Jerusalem. The Crusader's only attacked Egypt-proper well after they'd been on the receiving end of several campaigns.

- First Correction:

Crusaders waged war on Egypt as soon as they discovered that Egypt were the one actually holding Jerusalem. Not that they cared about who was holding it.

They made too much sacrifice to go back even if the city was under control of Byzantium they would have taken it.

Off course if you take the point of view that Crusader were totally in their right attacking Egypt which was neither a threat to byzantium nor the one harrassing the pilgrim (that was the Seljuks) then yeah I can see how unfair Egyptian aggression toward the poor Crusader was .

- Second:

Even then I don't see the relevence of who was an ass 70 years prior (it was the Crusader like always sorry for being PC but truth is sometime shocking) .
Both Jerusalem and Egypt were vastly different states by then.
Crusaders were less zealot and on the defensive and Egypt was no more a shi'a caliphate well technically it still was but the sunni were running the show for decades by then.

But "Deus Vult" Cassus belli does not expire on infidel or heretics for that matter.

- Third:

THE POINT that you may have missed is not that it was wrong of the Crusader to attack Egypt (I mean if Crusaders can't attack infidels where do the world is going amirite ? freking PC and all that ).

But that by attacking Egypt they shoot themselves in the foot. Egyptians were all happy doing their own shit and ruining their own country when the Crusaders had the genious idea to remember them what they had to lose and embrace the Syrian Jihad.

And man if Syria was scary you don't know the terror of a strong Egyptian state well... the Crusader discovered it you don't get kicked from the holy lands and half a dozen of falied Crusade just like this.

 

[Harpsichord]

- First Correction:

Crusaders waged war on Egypt as soon as they discovered that Egypt were the one actually holding Jerusalem. Not that they cared about who was holding it.

They made too much sacrifice to go back even if the city was under control of Byzantium they would have taken it.

Off course if you take the point of view that Crusader were totally in their right attacking Egypt which was neither a threat to byzantium nor the one harrassing the pilgrim (that was the Seljuks) then yeah I can see how unfair Egyptian aggression toward the poor Crusader was .

- Second:

Even then I don't see the relevence of who was an ass 70 years prior (it was the Crusader like always sorry for being PC but truth is sometime shocking) .
Both Jerusalem and Egypt were vastly different states by then.
Crusaders were less zealot and on the defensive and Egypt was no more a shi'a caliphate well technically it still was but the sunni were running the show for decades by then.

But "Deus Vult" Cassus belli does not expire on infidel or heretics for that matter.

- Third:

THE POINT that you may have missed is not that it was wrong of the Crusader to attack Egypt (I mean if Crusaders can't attack infidels where do the world is going amirite ? freking PC and all that ).

But that by attacking Egypt they shoot themselves in the foot. Egyptians were all happy doing their own shit and ruining their own country when the Crusaders had the genious idea to remember them what they had to lose and embrace the Syrian Jihad.

And man if Syria was scary you don't know the terror of a strong Egyptian state well... the Crusader discovered it you don't get kicked from the holy lands and half a dozen of falied Crusade just like this.

Eh, Jerusalem had only recently returned to Fatimid rule, and I'm fairly it (like much of the Levant that was in the Fatimid sphere) was only loosely controlled. I did specify Egypt-proper in my post, but then cheap point scoring comes before reading comphrension of course. I've no doubt that if the flag of Constaninople flew above Jerusalem the Crusaders would have been bitterly disappointed, but I can't imagine that in 1099 they would have besieged the city.

I'm not sure what the relevance of your "Second Great Correction", or even what it's actually correcting. I fail to see how the formative years of the Crusader states and everything following are irrelevant to the question of the longevity of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Again, your "Third Great Correction" isn't correcting anything about what I said, it's just reiterating what I originally quoted.

Did I hit the smilie quota?

 

[IsadorBG]

Eh, Jerusalem had only recently returned to Fatimid rule, and I'm fairly it (like much of the Levant that was in the Fatimid sphere) was only loosely controlled. I did specify Egypt-proper in my post, but then cheap point scoring comes before reading comphrension of course. I've no doubt that if the flag of Constaninople flew yabove Jerusalem the Crusaders would have been bitterly disappointed, but I can't imagine that in 1099 they would have besieged the city.

Dude reread what you written. You said that:

Egypt waged war on the Crusaders as soon as the latter were beginning to establish themselves in Jerusalem. The Crusader's only attacked Egypt-proper well after they'd been on the receiving end of several campaigns.

Which needed correcting because you can turn it however you like it but the fact is that the Crusaders were the one attacking while "establishing themselves in Jerusalem" like literally FFS.

I'm not sure what the relevance of your "Second Great Correction", or even what it's actually correcting. I fail to see how the formative years of the Crusader states and everything following are irrelevant to the question of the longevity of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Again, your "Third Great Correction" isn't correcting anything about what I said, it's just reiterating what I originally quoted.

And that's why I am explaining to you that the fact that the Crusaders invaded Fatimid Palestine or what you call "Egyptian wars on Crusader" has nothing to do with the invasion of Egypt 70 years later.

May seem strange but the only links between the two is lust of conquest. At best you could argue that without the first there is no invasion of Egypt but then that's pretty obvious isn't it.

Indeed. It might be wise of you to reread that post you quoted. Because the Crusaders invaded Egypt becuause it was the only easy target nearby. Simple as that.

 

[Yakman]

Well I'm unfamiliar with the Fifth Crusade, what did the Italians do?

Also, when were they the villains besides the Fourth Crusade?

The Venetians are the maligned heroes of the Fourth Crusade. Someone had to teach the BYZ what's what.

It's all the other meddling that caused so many problems.