Long Term Effects of Fourth Crusade

[Greenskyguy]

The Latin States in Greece only lasted for several decades (or at least the larger ones) and their populations remained Greek and Orthodox. However had the crusaders maintained their states for longer then what would have happened to the Religious and Cultural makeup of the Greeks?

 

[Nicophorus]

Nothing, seeing how some of those Latin states survived up to the Ottoman conquest anyways without effect on the population.

 

[Lord Finnish]

Nothing, seeing how some of those Latin states survived up to the Ottoman conquest anyways without effect on the population.

And Crete held out until 1660s, last outposts falling only in 1715.

 

[Yakman]

The Latin States in Greece only lasted for several decades (or at least the larger ones) and their populations remained Greek and Orthodox. However had the crusaders maintained their states for longer then what would have happened to the Religious and Cultural makeup of the Greeks?

little. they were overtly foreign occupiers who cared little about the people under them so long as they were quiet and paid up.

 

[Lord Tim]

On the other hand, they probably prevented the Byzantine Empire's recovering from Myriokephalon in the way it did after Manzikert. Not that that was certain, but when your nation splits into several parts and loses it's capital to one group of foreigners, it's a little harder to deal with other foreign groups in quite the same way as if you retained a degree of unity and the capital.

 

[Damocles]

On the other hand, they probably prevented the Byzantine Empire's recovering from Myriokephalon in the way it did after Manzikert. Not that that was certain, but when your nation splits into several parts and loses it's capital to one group of foreigners, it's a little harder to deal with other foreign groups in quite the same way as if you retained a degree of unity and the capital.

This. The Latin States had done all the damage they could. What the Fourth Crusade really did was enable the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Yakman]

This. The Latin States had done all the damage they could. What the Fourth Crusade really did was enable the Ottoman Empire.

the Ottomans were by no means a certain bet.

most other empires probably would have collapsed after the defeat that Bayezid suffered at the hands of Timur at Ankara.

but the serbians stayed loyal and the ottomans were able to hold on. quite an amazing feat, all things considered.

 

[Damocles]

the Ottomans were by no means a certain bet.

most other empires probably would have collapsed after the defeat that Bayezid suffered at the hands of Timur at Ankara.

but the serbians stayed loyal and the ottomans were able to hold on. quite an amazing feat, all things considered.

True. But the Ottomans wouldn't have had a power base in the southeast balkans if they hadn't been able to punch through the Greeks. And I don't think anyone could argue that the Fourth Crusade was by far the most savage, self-inflicted wound that Christendom would suffer in the medieval era. It was more catastrophic for the Greeks than Manzikert, because of the immense cultural and economic damage.

 

[Yakman]

True. But the Ottomans wouldn't have had a power base in the southeast balkans if they hadn't been able to punch through the Greeks. And I don't think anyone could argue that the Fourth Crusade was by far the most savage, self-inflicted wound that Christendom would suffer in the medieval era. It was more catastrophic for the Greeks than Manzikert, because of the immense cultural and economic damage.

only counts if Christendom includes the schismatics ;-)

the fourth crusade was, in retrospect, the death of the byzantine empire. but that being said, some 250 years or so elapsed between the Sack and the Fall.

Lots of things could (and did) happen in the interim.

 

[sleath56]

only counts if Christendom includes the schismatics ;-)

the fourth crusade was, in retrospect, the death of the byzantine empire. but that being said, some 250 years or so elapsed between the Sack and the Fall.

Lots of things could (and did) happen in the interim.

I would say it's a testament to the Empire's sheer tenacity that it survived for so long right to the bitter end after a 60-year disastrous occupation. More than I could say for the anti-climax of other great empires.

 

[trybald]

On the other hand, they probably prevented the Byzantine Empire's recovering from Myriokephalon in the way it did after Manzikert. Not that that was certain, but when your nation splits into several parts and loses it's capital to one group of foreigners, it's a little harder to deal with other foreign groups in quite the same way as if you retained a degree of unity and the capital.

Byzantium splintered into several parts even before 1204. Cyprus, Komnenians in Pontus and Paphlagonia, Bulgaria etc. It was a disintegrating state, even Byzantine chroniclers admitted that.

I would say it's a testament to the Empire's sheer tenacity that it survived for so long right to the bitter end after a 60-year disastrous occupation. More than I could say for the anti-climax of other great empires.

The fact that it fell prey to a rag-tag band of impoverished knights doesn't prop up the theory of Byzantine tenacity.

 

[Nicophorus]

Byzantium splintered into several parts even before 1204. Cyprus, Komnenians in Pontus and Paphlagonia, Bulgaria etc. It was a disintegrating state, even Byzantine chroniclers admitted that.

The fact that it fell prey to a rag-tag band of impoverished knights doesn't prop up the theory of Byzantine tenacity.

1. Plans were already in the works to reabsorb the Bulgarian provinces when 4th crusade struck. And one charismatic Emperor could of brought Pontus back into the fold with a marriage deal or two.

2. Those knights were controlled and supported by the richest and most powerful naval state at the time, Venice.

Really there is no reason to think history could not repeat itself and a restoration could of happened (yet again, for the 100th time) if some strong Emperors were on the throne and the center held (i.e. no 4th crusade taking the center during a period of weak leadership and civil war).

 

[trybald]

1. These "plans" were being repeatedly executed since 1185, always with disastrous results. The attemps to regain Cyprus were also unsuccessful. There's nothing to suggest that it would be different next time, considering that more and more provinces were breaking away. Byzantium was in decline and falling apart. It was obvious even to Byzantines themselves.

2. So, you admit that the Empire was weaker than a merchant city state? That's more or less my point. And mind that Venice mostly just ferried said knights to the gates of Constantinople. They did the fighting.

Crusade if anything, quite ironically prolonged the life of the Byzantine civilization. Because it refocused its attention back onto Anatolia, the most important and so much neglected part of the Empire. It's not coincidence that the rapid decline restarted after the City was regained.

 

[keynes2.0]

I'm still not convinced the Roman Empire ever fell. I'm pretty sure they just went underground and will rise again soon.

 

[Calad]

I'm still not convinced the Roman Empire ever fell. I'm pretty sure they just went underground and will rise again soon.

Ideas of Rome lives in EU and what it really was lives in Russia.

 

[greendevil]

2. So, you admit that the Empire was weaker than a merchant city state? That's more or less my point. And mind that Venice mostly just ferried said knights to the gates of Constantinople. They did the fighting.

Uh, that's not really true. Venice actively took part to the fighting. In fact, half of the army was venetian.

 

[greendevil]

By the way, the feudal lords who took part to the crusade were the lords of rich and wealthy regions such as Flanders, Champagne, Blois and Monferrato (this family in particular had intermarried with the kings of Jerusalem and the byzantine imperial family).
The fact that they couldn't pay for the transport of their troops doesn't mean that they were poor, the cost was just enormous. That doesn't make them a "rag-tag band of impoverished knights".

 

[Lwantssugar]

The 4th crusade forever sealed the fate of Byzantium, sure it briefly came back and reclaimed the city but it would never be as grand, prestigious, or beautiful again until after Ottoman conquest. The reason Venician troops were able to enter the city in the first place was because apparently they paid off some of the garrison to open a gate for them, the Theodosian walls were all but invincible to contemporary siege weapons which is why the city held out so long against Mehmet who needed cannon to bring them down. Point being Venice didn't sack Constantinople through brute force alone, it was conspiracy and subterfuge that defeated the Greeks that day. If the 4th crusade didn't end with the sacking of Constantinople even if it was ultimately a failure could've bought the empire time to gather forces to repel the Ottomans, strong emperors could've won the loyalty of the Balkan nations and possibly stopped the European part of the empire from falling

 

[trybald]

I believe you mistake the leaders with the bulk of their army. And that army was a rag-tag band consisting of all those who sought fortune away from home - younger sons with no inheritance, men who fell into poverty etc.

 

[greendevil]

And that army was a rag-tag band consisting of all those who sought fortune away from home - younger sons with no inheritance, men who fell into poverty etc.

Exactly like any other army in medieval times? Heck, I'd say any army ever.