If the fourth crusade didn't fuck their shit up...

It definitely wouldnt be comfy since they needed anatolia as the breadbasket of their empire. Thats why losing it was such a big dealio.

A city state with 15k mercs was enough to annihilate them user. Do you really think they died with the 4th crusade? They were already far gone at that point.

Something that failed once the Angeloi rose to power.

They'd adapt and get their bread elsewhere.

Where? The nearby breadbaskets were in the hands of far more powerful nations by then. Are you expecting the corpse of the ERE, barely even able to defend itself, to go on a crusade against the normans for Sicily? Against the Almohads for Africa? Against the Ayyubids for Egypt?
No user. Anatolia was the easiest target, and still it wasn't easy enough.

Everything would have been fine if the gayreeks only had recognized Baldwin as the legitimate Eastern Roman Emperor

The Danube valley and delta are good enough source of food.

>1250, the population of Constantinople was around 30 000 people

>Some barbaric frog-eater
>legitimate Roman Emperor

15,000 men was a lot for that period. Byzantium as a whole probably had no more than 40,000 men under arms, counting the field army and the garrisons. You have to remember that Venice had command of 10,000 crusaders. Without the crusaders, there is no way the Venetians would have been able to overpower Byzantium.

>Buying the Fourth Crusade meme

There were literally 250 years between the Sack of Constantinople by the crusaders and its fall to the Ottoman Turks. If your civilisation can't pick itself up and get its shit together after a quarter of a millennium then it probably doesn't deserve to exist. The Byzantines failed to adapt and thus failed to survive. Sure, the crusade was a setback, but societies have shrugged off worse blows - they weren't the first great city in history to be sacked.

They're also one of the most hotly contested areas of the period. The byzs did try to conquer them more than once, but they got always repelled.

You have to remember that Venice is a city state. Its army might have been impressive compared to the extremely fragment european polities, but it absolutely wasn't compared to the eastern menaces the ERE had to face to rebuild itself. The levantine sultanates could gather far more than that if needed, and even they were overrun in the same timeframe by waves of even larger forces like the mongols.

You've never read history. Please fuck off.
Manzikert is over-emphasized. Eastern Anatolia was never that important, as it had been under constant Arab raiding, while western Anatolia and Trebizond were shielded and allowed to prosper. The Empire was at its strongest in several hundred years, stronger than under the Makedons, under the Komnenois.

Constantinople however, was everything. Look at Thomas the Slav. He controlled all of Anatolia, all the Theme armies but was never able to become the real Emperor of the Romans if he did not take Constantinople. Most of you people have no idea how Constantinople-centric the Empire was. Losing Constantinople meant the death of the Empire, and the Empire would have died if not for an amazing streak of luck when the Latins essentially gave the city back to them.
Anatolia was the last place. What the fuck do you think the Byzantines had done the past centuries? Anatolia was a shitty backwards poor region before the Byzantines lost the Levant and Egypt. The only reason it got wealthy was that the Empire had to invest in protecting and settling Anatolia. The Byzantines had spent so much effort in Anatolia that by the 700's regions in Anatolia surpassed Sicily as the breadbasket of the Empire.

The whole "muh byzantines didn't adapt" is one of the most retarded meme spouted by historically illiterate morons

t. Enrico Dandolo

surely you aren't drawing a direct connection between two events separated by 250 years?

that would be retarded

also, the byzantines DID have trouble adapting. it's called institutional ossification, and it doesn't suddenly defy universal principle just because you got fucked by a turk in the ass one day after school and have had a longing for hairy unibrow dick ever since.

>investing the entirety of the imperial wealth into a single, exposed, lowlying city, whose wealth was built around trade, is totally flexible
got it, idiot

>but it absolutely wasn't compared to the eastern menaces the ERE had to face to rebuild itself. The levantine sultanates could gather far more than that if needed, and even they were overrun in the same timeframe by waves of even larger forces like the mongols.

Again, this is wrong. The Byzantines had been fighting the Arabs for a millenia almost. The Theme system was created to fight Arabs from Anatolia. Anatolia was a connection of mountain forts. Where as the Balkans were always neglected defense wise. Krum could literally just walk from Bulgaria to Constantinople without being harassed.

Every effort of Byzantine military thought was put into defending Anatolia against larger foes because they did not expect an serious attack from the west. Sure, the Avars and then the Bulgars would raid and such but they'd never be a serious threat to the Empire.

It is completely understandable why the Venetians were able to reach Constantinople, as all Byzantine war efforts were focused in Anatolia.

>You've never read history. Please fuck off.

I have an BA in History from Oxford. Fuck off with your goddamn clown college education you insufferable Byzantiboo.

>also, the byzantines DID have trouble adapting
No they did not. They were one of the most adaptable empires in all of history.

The Theme armies, the creation of the Tagma, resettlement and investing in Anatolia etc show extreme adaptability. You just don't get the pressure the Byzantines were under.

>investing the entirety of the imperial wealth into a single, exposed, lowlying city, whose
wealth was built around trade, is totally flexible
Yes. It is a sign of flexibility. In fact, Constantinople saved the Empire from falling to Arabs. What happened to the Sassanids? After initial defeats, Ctesiphon was captured by the Arabs and thus the Shah had no way to co-ordinate any resistance and his empire fell.

Having most of your administration in a single, almost un-conquerable city is actually quite smart and as stated, showed that the Byzantines understood their strategic situation.

>exposed
No. Constantinople was one of the best fortified cities in the world. It almost never fell because of an direct attack.
>whose wealth was built around trade
This is a Total War meme. Constantinople wasn't heavily reliant on trade, and in fact trading was heavily ostracized in Byzantine culture. The Byzantines were not traders.

Well, then you did not study Byzantine history. Your post shows a clear inability to understand the situation in Byzantium and horrible ignorance of Byzantine history.

By the time the 4th crusade rolled around the ERE had already lost most of Anatolia and had been more occupied fighting bulgars, serbians and hungarians than arabs. What does it matter what they used to do centuries before the time we're talking about?

And it's completely understandable that the venetians could reach Constantinople because the byzantine navy was a fucking joke at that point, and in fact they had been relying on Venice itself for a good century at that point for all their naval needs. That's actually why Venice was so politically powerful in the ERE and why the Angeloi jumped at the chance to stab them in the back.

>the byzantines were smart without inventing anything, in a port town that was "defensible" and wealthy without trade (in a position perfectly suited for trade) as well as having a robust structure iwthout a backup plan
well I guess everything is just magic then. I guess if I believed inmagic I might like them too.

Wait, are you calling Constantinople "exposed"? It was one of the most naturally and artificially well defended locations of the pre-gunpowder era. There's a reason it took the turks so long to capture it, in spite of the empire being to weak and poor to properly maintain its defenses and field armies big enough to match its opponents.

>By the time the 4th crusade rolled around the ERE had already lost most of Anatolia
No. It controlled the important parts, Western Anatolia and Trebizond.

>more occupied fighting bulgars, serbians and
hungarians than arabs.
This is true, but the strategic emphasis on the Balkans was still different. This is because the Byzantines engaged in more conventional, pitched battle style warfare in the Balkans thus they did not see it necessary to build a defensive infrastructure there.

>What does it matter what they used to do centuries before the time we're talking about?
It matters a lot. The reason why the Arabs were able to overtake the Levant so easily was that all Roman strategic infrastructure in the East was built around the Persians. Infrastructural decisions and strategic thinking dating back to Crassus had an influence the Romans losing Levant several hundred years later.

>And it's completely understandable that the venetians could reach Constantinople because the byzantine navy was a fucking joke at that point, and in fact they had been relying on Venice itself for a good century at that point for all their naval needs. That's actually why Venice was so politically powerful in the ERE and why the Angeloi jumped at the chance to stab them in the back.
Exactly. This just goes back to my point that the Byzantines did not expect Latins to attack them. Thus the Byzantines losing their capital to the Venetians wasn't anything implied.

there's a difference between tactical exposure and geographical exposure. constantinople was accessible to pretty much every empire imaginable, even if there were problems mounting an actual attack.

setting up the haed of your empire around a honeypot nvites stupid enemies and constant attack

also, natural harbors are never "naturally" defensible

forgot 4th crusade picture

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Constantinople wasn't geographically exposed, I have no idea where you got this idea. One of the main reasons Constantine picked the location was that it was such a good position for defense.

Even the currents favor Constantinople, as going north in the Eastern Mediterranean is harder than going South. (One of the main reasons why the Arabs started attacking Byzantine islands so late)

user, how does it feel to be retarded?

>Byzantines did not expect Latins to attack them
Jesus Christ dude, just look at pic related. How could you possibly keep spouting this meme about the byzantines not expect to be attacked from the west when most of their military activity since Manzikert was against the west? If they didn't expect it after a century of almost constant warfare they deserved to get rekt.
Especially if the venetians were doing the rekting, considering all the backstabbing the byzantines did.

My point was more of about the grander scheme of strategy in the Balkans. The Byzantines did not expect any major attacks that would threaten the existence of the Empire from Europe. It had always been raids, minor skirmishes or wars without any crucial losses. In fact only one of those wars you listed attempted to attack Constantinople, the Sicilian expedition.

Allow me to continue on this a bit. All of the conflicts for example with the Venetians were trade related and focused on western Greece. Wars with Hungary were all about northern Balkans and usually the Byzantines were the aggressors.

As it stands, the only ones with the intention or the ability to destroy Roman civilization would have come from the east in Byzantine eyes.

Not him, but off the top of my head I know Bohemund of Antioch tried and failed to march on Constantinople before all that, and the war in the 1170's with Venice involved them attempting to reach Constantinople but failing.

I think you're giving the Byzantines too much credit in the Balkans by saying it was part of some strategic consideration when most likely they were just overwhelmed by the constant Slavic, Bulgar, and Latin attacks and couldn't organize a defensive infrastructure to resist it like they could in Anatolia against the Arabs (and not against the Turks).

Don't forget the threats from Barbarossa on the Third Crusade. There wasn't anything novel about the Fourth really, and the Byzantines were well aware of the threat from the Crusades since the very first one.

He had the backing of the strongest vassal state of the empire

I don't see what point you're trying to make. Through thr 11th and 12th centuries, western nations had proven to byzantium that they were both willing and capable to wage wars against them for whatever reasons. If they failed to acknowledge that fact, it's their own fault.
If anything, the fact that they didn't expect the west to be an existential threat in spite of their constant aggressive behaviour (wars of conquest against Sicily and Hungary, constant undermining of their own best ally Venice) is an aggravating circumstance.

Probably, no.
The Bulgars from west had just gained their indepndence in 1187 and were growing stronger and stronger since then.
The Turks also succeded in Manzikert(1071) and had captured east and central Anadolia, which is a direct threat to Constantinopole.
Also, lets not forgot the (((venetians))) who despite losing in the IV crusade(like you say), would not stop their efforts to capture the precious city of Constantinopole, which is between three continets, allowing them to use more trade routes)

So why didn't the crusaders just sail to Mecca

The more you learn about the crusaders the more you realize how fucking retarded they are

The Ottomans would probably not even exist if it wasn't for the Fourth Crusade fucking ERE up though

It would be incredibly retarded to attack Mecca.

What could the fourth crusade possibly have to do with the formation of the ottoman empire? Osman's emirate was already a regional power comparable to Rum by the time it started dealing with the ERE.

It fucking did though, alexios conquered nearly all of anatolia before he had to call the west for help because he was confined to his capital with all the plots happening around him

They were already pretty fucking weak.

The Ottomans only came to be because the Byzantines could only focus on either Greece or Anatolia and they chose Greece. Had the 4th crusade never happened, the Byzantines would continue focusing on both Greece and Anatolia. It would more likely to say that the Turks wouldbe the ones who would be more vulnerable in this scenario because the Mongols would fuck them up regardless leaving the Byzantines to gobble their remains.

You do know the people who made the House of Osman gr8 came AFTER the Mongol Empire disintegrated. Power vacuum displaced a lot of talented people form central asia & the middle east into Osman's lap.

You fags are forgetting that there was a power vacuum in Anatolia after the Sultanate of Rum got rekt by the Mongols. Romans could have restored some of their power if it wasn't for D*ndolo.

I will never get over the fact that the faggot lived to be 100 or something, holy shit.

>the people who made the House of Osman gr8 came AFTER the Mongol Empire disintegrated.
Exactly, which would mean that if the Byzantines expanded while the Turks were weakened by the Mongols, a butterfly effect could happen and the Ottoman dynasty would've never existed.

Because that would've been retarded. It would make more sense to go for egypt instead.

>I will never get over the fact that the faggot lived to be 100 or something, holy shit.
He was already like 98 before the crusade. Motherfucker scaled the fucking walls of the city at his age. Motherfucker died coming back from a cavalry raid in which he fought personally.
You can dislike his actions but motherfucker was a badass.

The greeks could have avoided spending two centuries antagonizing the west too for that matter.

I doubt they would exist in same form until today, but yeah 4th Crusade was a crippling blow.
It wasn't just that though, there were other blows that followed even after Constantinople (though impoverished and depopulated) was recovered, and 4th Crusade would've never happened if Angeloi weren't so incompetent.
And even without crusaders Slavs would keep pushing the empire from the west, though they would arguably not ruin the Constantinople and other lands as much as Latins did.

The fall of the byzantines came about from all the way back to Justinian wasting time, money and men trying to retake the western empire when he should have just tried to deal with his rich as fuck Egyptian and Levant lands.

4th Crusade was an opportunistic move by a group of people, it had nothing to do with "East" antagonizing "West", especially since both didn't even exist. You're projecting modern geopolitics on the past or something.
In fact only thing simbolizing "West" was the Pope and Pope didn't support the sack in any way.

You're reading more in my post that there is to it. By west I meant literally the countries to the empire's west. Byzantium spent two centuries antagonizing the catholic world at large (betraying crusaders, pogroming catholics), and its immediate neighbours and traditional allies (Venice, Sicily, Hungary) by attempting military invasion and breaching every treaty it signed. It's not surprising at all that someone would want reprisal for these act, and if the means by which said reprisal was accomplished were opportunistic, it doesn't change the reality that it was justified.

>Nearly all of Anatolia
>About 3/5ths
>Never properly cemented