Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Constantinople 1204

Expand Messages
  • neobyzantium2002
    A scenario where Constantinople doesn t fall to the Crusaders in 1204 is an interesting concept. My guess is that the Byzantine Empire would have survived
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 21, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      A scenario where Constantinople doesn't fall to the Crusaders in
      1204 is an interesting concept. My guess is that the Byzantine Empire
      would have survived longer then it did in our timeline. This is
      because its wealth and manpower wouldn't have been drained like it was
      in real life. Still, since other powers such as the Venetians and the
      Turks were around, it seems to me that the Byzantines would have at
      best been a struggling but united Greek state that would need to
      make alliances with other European powers for its very survival. Even
      then, its a long shot at best that the Byzantines survive to the
      present day unconquered by the Turks at some point, what do you guys
      think?
    • Richard Roper
      I have seen a detailed AT., involving incidents I didn t know, on the ChangingTimes AT. site, in which the Byzantines force the Turks back to the taurus and
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 21, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I have seen a detailed AT., involving incidents I
        didn't know, on the "ChangingTimes" AT. site, in which
        the Byzantines force the Turks back to the taurus and
        continue from there.

        I think it involved Venice and other Western fleets
        acting against the Turks and attacking them with
        nmaval power on the flank as the first move.

        Of course one solution wuold be to rebuild the
        Byzantine navy, which had been a formibile force at
        one time.

        I think they changed the succession of a Byzantine
        emperor at a critical point.

        But you can check this for yourself a the Changing
        Times site.

        But the key would be to stop the Ottomans landing in
        Europe, which they did in 1369 I think, crossing at
        the Dardenelles. Byzantium was assaulted from two
        directions by the Turks and the ottoman capital had
        been at Adrianople for some time.

        There is no reason why a good statesman should not
        have formed an alliance from the Balkan nations of the
        Orthodox church if the Western Church would not
        cooperate.

        The famous battle of Kosovo Polje aginst the Serb
        kingdom was in 1389, so no landing and naval power to
        land on the flank should have changed everything.


        So;-

        The crusade goes on to attackthe Levant.

        The byzantines, after a nasty scare rebuild their navy
        and naval defences and do a trade deal with venice to
        keep them quiet, but on EQUAL terms.

        The real rise of Venice was a result of the 1204
        attack, that's exactly why Dandalo fixed it.
        Really he must answer for the subsequent history of
        the Balkans.
        The trade they gained was responsible for their huge
        rise to wealth and power.

        The islands of the Aegean remain Byzantine and not
        Venetian and Venice has no empire, only trading
        connections.

        Byzantium is much richer through trade, can afford to
        keep the new navy, and hire troops from the Balkans.

        The Ecumenical Patriach, taking a leaf from the Pope,
        calls on the Orthodox nations to a Crusade to drive
        the Turk from Asia Minor and secure the Holy City.

        This is an offer their kings and princes cannot
        refuse.
        The Turks are driven from Anatolia, whilst the
        Byzantine navy lands a flanking force on the
        southeastern coast of Turkey.

        The Venetians and Genoa cannot afford not to climb on
        the bandwagon.

        The Turks don't make it across the Straits and are
        driven back to the Caucasus.

        The Sultan tries to compensate himself by expanding
        into Islamic territory and against Persia.

        There is no reason why it should not have been a major
        power playing the same role as the Habsburgs, but in
        Asia Minor.



        --- neobyzantium2002 <macdonald33@...> wrote:
        > A scenario where Constantinople doesn't fall to the
        > Crusaders in
        > 1204 is an interesting concept. My guess is that the
        > Byzantine Empire
        > would have survived longer then it did in our
        > timeline. This is
        > because its wealth and manpower wouldn't have been
        > drained like it was
        > in real life. Still, since other powers such as the
        > Venetians and the
        > Turks were around, it seems to me that the
        > Byzantines would have at
        > best been a struggling but united Greek state that
        > would need to
        > make alliances with other European powers for its
        > very survival. Even
        > then, its a long shot at best that the Byzantines
        > survive to the
        > present day unconquered by the Turks at some point,
        > what do you guys
        > think?



        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
        http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
      • Sebastian Brier
        Actually one of the scenarios for a Byzantine AH that I HAD been working on before I got side tracked was a no 4th Crusade scenario. It basically worked like
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 21, 2002
        • 0 Attachment

          Actually one of the scenarios for a Byzantine AH that I HAD been working on before I got side tracked was a no 4th Crusade scenario.

          It basically worked like this:  Isaac II wasn't overthrown by Alexius III.  The 4th Crusade went to Egypt, overran the Delta region, then was annhialated.  What remained was taken by Venice to Crete which was then conquered by Venice.

          I'd like to eventually finish the stories I've begun.  Someday maybe I will ;-)

          Really though, I believe that if the 4th Crusade attacked Constantinople but failed there could be two possibilities:  1) The Empire would gain more respect throughout Europe (doubtful) or 2) Other powers would attempt to "avenge" the crusade.  Henry of Sicily tried to do that same thing after the Norman attack of 1182. 

          It would have been better if the 4th crusade hadn't ever come to Constantinople.  In doing so they furthered the split up of the Empire.  Once other states arose on the ruins of the Empire, each one claimed to be the successor state; nobody wanted to be a failed successor.  This ensured that the Empire could only be reunited in name only.

          Sebastian Brier

           neobyzantium2002 <macdonald33@...> wrote:

          A scenario where Constantinople doesn't fall to the Crusaders in
          1204 is an interesting concept. My guess is that the Byzantine Empire
          would have survived longer then it did in our timeline. This is
          because its wealth and manpower wouldn't have been drained like it was
          in real life. Still, since other powers such as the Venetians and the
          Turks were around, it seems to me that the Byzantines would have at
          best been a struggling but united Greek state that would need to
          make alliances with other European powers for its very survival. Even
          then, its a long shot at best that the Byzantines survive to the
          present day unconquered by the Turks at some point, what do you guys
          think?   



          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          RomanByzantineAltHist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          Do you Yahoo!?
          Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site

        • Nacho Facello
          Ok, I like this scenario, sounds realistic enough. But my question is... what are the consequences for the Russian empire? I remember something about Moscow
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 21, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Ok, I like this scenario, sounds realistic enough. But my question is...
            what are the consequences for the Russian empire? I remember something
            about Moscow being the "third Rome", and the two other Romes having
            falled in the infidel's hands, as a "legal" base for the Romanov's
            ascense. Maybe this means a weaker Russia?
            Also, what happens next? If Byzantium is still there and as a major
            power, will Austria be as powerful? Maybe they will be the worst
            enemies... so we could see a Napoleonic invasion of Austria backed by
            Byzantinian forces?
            Well, maybe I'm going too far into the alternate future, but I like
            doing that.

            On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 17:24, Richard Roper wrote:
            > I have seen a detailed AT., involving incidents I
            > didn't know, on the "ChangingTimes" AT. site, in which
            > the Byzantines force the Turks back to the taurus and
            > continue from there.
            >
            > I think it involved Venice and other Western fleets
            > acting against the Turks and attacking them with
            > nmaval power on the flank as the first move.
            >
            > Of course one solution wuold be to rebuild the
            > Byzantine navy, which had been a formibile force at
            > one time.
            >
            > I think they changed the succession of a Byzantine
            > emperor at a critical point.
            >
            > But you can check this for yourself a the Changing
            > Times site.
            >
            > But the key would be to stop the Ottomans landing in
            > Europe, which they did in 1369 I think, crossing at
            > the Dardenelles. Byzantium was assaulted from two
            > directions by the Turks and the ottoman capital had
            > been at Adrianople for some time.
            >
            > There is no reason why a good statesman should not
            > have formed an alliance from the Balkan nations of the
            > Orthodox church if the Western Church would not
            > cooperate.
            >
            > The famous battle of Kosovo Polje aginst the Serb
            > kingdom was in 1389, so no landing and naval power to
            > land on the flank should have changed everything.
            >
            >
            > So;-
            >
            > The crusade goes on to attackthe Levant.
            >
            > The byzantines, after a nasty scare rebuild their navy
            > and naval defences and do a trade deal with venice to
            > keep them quiet, but on EQUAL terms.
            >
            > The real rise of Venice was a result of the 1204
            > attack, that's exactly why Dandalo fixed it.
            > Really he must answer for the subsequent history of
            > the Balkans.
            > The trade they gained was responsible for their huge
            > rise to wealth and power.
            >
            > The islands of the Aegean remain Byzantine and not
            > Venetian and Venice has no empire, only trading
            > connections.
            >
            > Byzantium is much richer through trade, can afford to
            > keep the new navy, and hire troops from the Balkans.
            >
            > The Ecumenical Patriach, taking a leaf from the Pope,
            > calls on the Orthodox nations to a Crusade to drive
            > the Turk from Asia Minor and secure the Holy City.
            >
            > This is an offer their kings and princes cannot
            > refuse.
            > The Turks are driven from Anatolia, whilst the
            > Byzantine navy lands a flanking force on the
            > southeastern coast of Turkey.
            >
            > The Venetians and Genoa cannot afford not to climb on
            > the bandwagon.
            >
            > The Turks don't make it across the Straits and are
            > driven back to the Caucasus.
            >
            > The Sultan tries to compensate himself by expanding
            > into Islamic territory and against Persia.
            >
            > There is no reason why it should not have been a major
            > power playing the same role as the Habsburgs, but in
            > Asia Minor.
            >
            >
            >
            > --- neobyzantium2002 <macdonald33@...> wrote:
            > > A scenario where Constantinople doesn't fall to the
            > > Crusaders in
            > > 1204 is an interesting concept. My guess is that the
            > > Byzantine Empire
            > > would have survived longer then it did in our
            > > timeline. This is
            > > because its wealth and manpower wouldn't have been
            > > drained like it was
            > > in real life. Still, since other powers such as the
            > > Venetians and the
            > > Turks were around, it seems to me that the
            > > Byzantines would have at
            > > best been a struggling but united Greek state that
            > > would need to
            > > make alliances with other European powers for its
            > > very survival. Even
            > > then, its a long shot at best that the Byzantines
            > > survive to the
            > > present day unconquered by the Turks at some point,
            > > what do you guys
            > > think?
            >
            >
            >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do you Yahoo!?
            > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
            > http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > RomanByzantineAltHist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
          • Richard Roper
            No, I don t think so. really it overturns virtualy everything in modern history. Russia s attempts to get control of the staits because they are in the hands
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 21, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              No, I don't think so.

              really it overturns virtualy everything in modern
              history.

              Russia's attempts to get control of the staits because
              they are in the hands of their sworn enemies and can't
              get shipping out of them.

              Austria as the bulwark of Europe against the Turk.

              Russia, as you say being the Third Rome. The Romanovs
              will have to go on being Grand Princes, but will be
              stronger not having the problem of the Turks in the
              South to contend with - there were endless wars which
              we forget about.

              The Romanovs can turn West against Sweden and Poland.
              There will be wars will Imperial Poland and Sweden.

              Austria can concentrate on getting control of Germany
              and fighting France. The great quarrel began over the
              Franche Conte - roughly Burgundy.
              But will the Counter-reformation triumph fist or will
              orthodox Byzantium march to the aid of the
              protestants?

              Britain can't spend most of the 19th century propping
              up Turkey and stopping Russia getting to
              Constantinople.





              --- Nacho Facello <nachof@...> wrote:
              > Ok, I like this scenario, sounds realistic enough.
              > But my question is...
              > what are the consequences for the Russian empire? I
              > remember something
              > about Moscow being the "third Rome", and the two
              > other Romes having
              > falled in the infidel's hands, as a "legal" base for
              > the Romanov's
              > ascense. Maybe this means a weaker Russia?
              > Also, what happens next? If Byzantium is still there
              > and as a major
              > power, will Austria be as powerful? Maybe they will
              > be the worst
              > enemies... so we could see a Napoleonic invasion of
              > Austria backed by
              > Byzantinian forces?
              > Well, maybe I'm going too far into the alternate
              > future, but I like
              > doing that.
              >
              > On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 17:24, Richard Roper wrote:
              > > I have seen a detailed AT., involving incidents I
              > > didn't know, on the "ChangingTimes" AT. site, in
              > which
              > > the Byzantines force the Turks back to the taurus
              > and
              > > continue from there.
              > >
              > > I think it involved Venice and other Western
              > fleets
              > > acting against the Turks and attacking them with
              > > nmaval power on the flank as the first move.
              > >
              > > Of course one solution wuold be to rebuild the
              > > Byzantine navy, which had been a formibile force
              > at
              > > one time.
              > >
              > > I think they changed the succession of a Byzantine
              > > emperor at a critical point.
              > >
              > > But you can check this for yourself a the Changing
              > > Times site.
              > >
              > > But the key would be to stop the Ottomans landing
              > in
              > > Europe, which they did in 1369 I think, crossing
              > at
              > > the Dardenelles. Byzantium was assaulted from two
              > > directions by the Turks and the ottoman capital
              > had
              > > been at Adrianople for some time.
              > >
              > > There is no reason why a good statesman should not
              > > have formed an alliance from the Balkan nations of
              > the
              > > Orthodox church if the Western Church would not
              > > cooperate.
              > >
              > > The famous battle of Kosovo Polje aginst the Serb
              > > kingdom was in 1389, so no landing and naval power
              > to
              > > land on the flank should have changed everything.
              > >
              > >
              > > So;-
              > >
              > > The crusade goes on to attackthe Levant.
              > >
              > > The byzantines, after a nasty scare rebuild their
              > navy
              > > and naval defences and do a trade deal with venice
              > to
              > > keep them quiet, but on EQUAL terms.
              > >
              > > The real rise of Venice was a result of the 1204
              > > attack, that's exactly why Dandalo fixed it.
              > > Really he must answer for the subsequent history
              > of
              > > the Balkans.
              > > The trade they gained was responsible for their
              > huge
              > > rise to wealth and power.
              > >
              > > The islands of the Aegean remain Byzantine and not
              > > Venetian and Venice has no empire, only trading
              > > connections.
              > >
              > > Byzantium is much richer through trade, can afford
              > to
              > > keep the new navy, and hire troops from the
              > Balkans.
              > >
              > > The Ecumenical Patriach, taking a leaf from the
              > Pope,
              > > calls on the Orthodox nations to a Crusade to
              > drive
              > > the Turk from Asia Minor and secure the Holy City.
              > >
              > > This is an offer their kings and princes cannot
              > > refuse.
              > > The Turks are driven from Anatolia, whilst the
              > > Byzantine navy lands a flanking force on the
              > > southeastern coast of Turkey.
              > >
              > > The Venetians and Genoa cannot afford not to climb
              > on
              > > the bandwagon.
              > >
              > > The Turks don't make it across the Straits and are
              > > driven back to the Caucasus.
              > >
              > > The Sultan tries to compensate himself by
              > expanding
              > > into Islamic territory and against Persia.
              > >
              > > There is no reason why it should not have been a
              > major
              > > power playing the same role as the Habsburgs, but
              > in
              > > Asia Minor.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- neobyzantium2002 <macdonald33@...>
              > wrote:
              > > > A scenario where Constantinople doesn't fall to
              > the
              > > > Crusaders in
              > > > 1204 is an interesting concept. My guess is that
              > the
              > > > Byzantine Empire
              > > > would have survived longer then it did in our
              > > > timeline. This is
              > > > because its wealth and manpower wouldn't have
              > been
              > > > drained like it was
              > > > in real life. Still, since other powers such as
              > the
              > > > Venetians and the
              > > > Turks were around, it seems to me that the
              > > > Byzantines would have at
              > > > best been a struggling but united Greek state
              > that
              > > > would need to
              > > > make alliances with other European powers for
              > its
              > > > very survival. Even
              > > > then, its a long shot at best that the
              > Byzantines
              > > > survive to the
              > > > present day unconquered by the Turks at some
              > point,
              > > > what do you guys
              > > > think?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > > __________________________________________________
              > > Do you Yahoo!?
              > > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
              > > http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
              > >
              > >
              > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > > RomanByzantineAltHist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > >
              >
              >
              >


              __________________________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
              http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
            • Richard Roper
              I agree, if there was no pretender the Venetians and the Pope couldn t use, there was no pretext to go to Constantinople. Had the attack failed, revenge
              Message 6 of 6 , Oct 21, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree, if there was no pretender the Venetians and
                the Pope couldn't use, there was no pretext to go to
                Constantinople.

                Had the attack failed, revenge attempts might be
                difficult unl;ess a fleet was available to transport
                them.

                --- Sebastian Brier <sebastianbrier@...> wrote:
                >
                > Actually one of the scenarios for a Byzantine AH
                > that I HAD been working on before I got side tracked
                > was a no 4th Crusade scenario.
                > It basically worked like this: Isaac II wasn't
                > overthrown by Alexius III. The 4th Crusade went to
                > Egypt, overran the Delta region, then was
                > annhialated. What remained was taken by Venice to
                > Crete which was then conquered by Venice.
                > I'd like to eventually finish the stories I've
                > begun. Someday maybe I will ;-)
                > Really though, I believe that if the 4th Crusade
                > attacked Constantinople but failed there could be
                > two possibilities: 1) The Empire would gain more
                > respect throughout Europe (doubtful) or 2) Other
                > powers would attempt to "avenge" the crusade. Henry
                > of Sicily tried to do that same thing after the
                > Norman attack of 1182.
                > It would have been better if the 4th crusade hadn't
                > ever come to Constantinople. In doing so they
                > furthered the split up of the Empire. Once other
                > states arose on the ruins of the Empire, each one
                > claimed to be the successor state; nobody wanted to
                > be a failed successor. This ensured that the Empire
                > could only be reunited in name only.
                > Sebastian Brier
                > neobyzantium2002 <macdonald33@...> wrote:A
                > scenario where Constantinople doesn't fall to the
                > Crusaders in
                > 1204 is an interesting concept. My guess is that the
                > Byzantine Empire
                > would have survived longer then it did in our
                > timeline. This is
                > because its wealth and manpower wouldn't have been
                > drained like it was
                > in real life. Still, since other powers such as the
                > Venetians and the
                > Turks were around, it seems to me that the
                > Byzantines would have at
                > best been a struggling but united Greek state that
                > would need to
                > make alliances with other European powers for its
                > very survival. Even
                > then, its a long shot at best that the Byzantines
                > survive to the
                > present day unconquered by the Turks at some point,
                > what do you guys
                > think?
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > RomanByzantineAltHist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                > Terms of Service.
                >
                >
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                > Do you Yahoo!?
                > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site


                __________________________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
                http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.