What if the Crusades succeeded?

Hello, I am here to ask the question of, what if every crusade had succeeded? First off we would need to find a way for each of the crusades that failed a way to succeed. Then we need to see how that would effect things.

Seraph wrote:Hello, I am here to ask the question of, what if every crusade had succeeded? First off we would need to find a way for each of the crusades that failed a way to succeed. Then we need to see how that would effect things.

In what material way did the First Crusade fail?

If Jerusalem hadn't been recovered by Muslim forces 90 years later, there never would have been a 3rd Crusade, at least. The I'm not sure about the 2nd Crusade, I don't even know what the point of it was, I guess I need to do some wikipedia research today. LOL!

The 4th Crusade captured the ancient capital of the Roman Empire. Not sure what it was supposed to do, but that's pretty damn successful if you ask me! LOL!

If the 5th Crusade had captured Egypt and held it, along with Jerusalem, I'd say the Ottoman Turks would eventually have captured both. But possibly not. Egypt still had a huge Coptic population in the 14th Century, and it's possible a new, stable, Coptic Kingdom would have been established, allied with Jerusalem (assuming it was never retaken) and Armenia (another Crusader state). If so, there would have been a huge power base that could have counter-balanced the Ottomans in Asia Minor. There would have been frequent wars, but...
NO! I take that back. The 1st Crusade DID fail. It was supposed to take out the Turks in Asia Minor first, but didn't quite get the job done before moving on to Jerusalem. If the 1st Crusade had succeeded completely, there would have been no Ottoman Empire either.

Thorfinn Karlsefni wrote:

Seraph wrote:Hello, I am here to ask the question of, what if every crusade had succeeded? First off we would need to find a way for each of the crusades that failed a way to succeed. Then we need to see how that would effect things.

In what material way did the First Crusade fail?

If Jerusalem hadn't been recovered by Muslim forces 90 years later, there never would have been a 3rd Crusade, at least. The I'm not sure about the 2nd Crusade, I don't even know what the point of it was, I guess I need to do some wikipedia research today. LOL!

The 4th Crusade captured the ancient capital of the Roman Empire. Not sure what it was supposed to do, but that's pretty damn successful if you ask me! LOL!

If the 5th Crusade had captured Egypt and held it, along with Jerusalem, I'd say the Ottoman Turks would eventually have captured both. But possibly not. Egypt still had a huge Coptic population in the 14th Century, and it's possible a new, stable, Coptic Kingdom would have been established, allied with Jerusalem (assuming it was never retaken) and Armenia (another Crusader state). If so, there would have been a huge power base that could have counter-balanced the Ottomans in Asia Minor. There would have been frequent wars, but...
NO! I take that back. The 1st Crusade DID fail. It was supposed to take out the Turks in Asia Minor first, but didn't quite get the job done before moving on to Jerusalem. If the 1st Crusade had succeeded completely, there would have been no Ottoman Empire either.

Interesting, so you are saying they would have eradicated the Ottoman Empire? Makes a lot of sense, but I also mean to ask, if they did eradicate the Ottomans. What nation would they make to replace that?

If the Crusaders took out the Turks (BIG if), they’d probably establish something like the short-lived Latin Empire they tried to create after the 4th Crusade. Even if they did establish a Crusader state across Anatolia, though, it would get squashed out by its more powerful neighbors. The Latin Empire got taken out by Bulgaria, if I recall. It wasn’t a very stable state in the least.

Seraph,
The Ottomans are actually a much later Turkish empire, like 200 years later, after the Mongols took out the Seljuk Turks. The 1st Crusade (c.1095-1099?) went up against the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, theoretically a vassal state of the Baghdad Caliphate, I believe. But the Roman ("Byzantine") Emperor led both the Catholic forces from Europe and his own Orthodox troops. The 1st Crusade was called by the Pope in response to the Emperor's plea for help. After the first one, the Crusades became more about establishing Roman Catholic states in the East, and not helping Constantinople beat back the Turks. It is interesting how the Catholics rejected Constantinople's authority in the Levant immediately, but they did give them back part of Anatolia that was liberated from the newly arrived Turks. If they had taken the rest of it, they probably would have given most of it to Constantinople.

DuceMoosolini,
57 years after the 4th Crusade took Constantinople, the Greek city-state of Nicea took it back. Maybe Bulgaria had it at the time, I don't know anything about that. Not sure how long the "Latin Empire" lasted. (Why did everybody name everything "Empire" during that time anyway? LOL!) The Niceans naturally claimed to be the revived Roman Empire (since they now held the capital city don't-cha-know), but of course the Ottomans conquered it in 1453, leading some historians to suggest that date as the true "fall" of the Roman Empire. Of course, that's completely ridiculous, what fell in 1453 was really the relatively minor "Empire" of the Nicean Greeks. The former "Roman" provinces of Epirus and Trebizond remained for a few years before also falling victim to the Ottoman expansion. The "Emperor" at Trebizond actually had a hereditary claim to the Imperial Title, and wrote letters to everyone he could think of after 1453 saying, "Hey, the Roman Empire is still alive, it's now located at Trebizond!" which was kinda true considering the Trebizond "Roman" Empire seceded from Constantinople just before the 4th Crusade sacked the city, and the founder of the newly independent fragment always claimed to be the real successor to the "Roman" throne.

To me, it all looks really Medieval at best, and not at all "Roman" but they threw that title around for centuries after 1204. Even the Tsars (Czar = Ceasar) claimed to have inherited the role through marriage alliances with Constantinople during its heyday.

Has our host thought about doing a video on the "true" fall of the Roman Empire based on Constantinople, it's successor states, and the historical beginnings of the term "Byzantine"? That'd be worth the price of admission... I'd do it myself, but I'm no good with the visuals and maps side of things.

Thorfinn Karlsefni wrote:
57 years after the 4th Crusade took Constantinople, the Greek city-state of Nicea took it back. Maybe Bulgaria had it at the time, I don't know anything about that. Not sure how long the "Latin Empire" lasted. (Why did everybody name everything "Empire" during that time anyway? LOL!)

The Bulgarians never managed to take Constantinople. However, they were the largest threat to the Empire, attacking the Empire for most of its existence and inflicting many devastating defeats and setbacks. Eventually, when the Niceans got their shit together and started going after the Crusader state as well, they signed a treaty with the Bulgarians and started double-teaming the Crusaders, which finally led to the Empire's collapse.

Thorfinn Karsefni wrote:
Has our host thought about doing a video on the "true" fall of the Roman Empire based on Constantinople, it's successor states, and the historical beginnings of the term "Byzantine"? That'd be worth the price of admission... I'd do it myself, but I'm no good with the visuals and maps side of things.

I second that idea! Sounds like it would be an interesting video.

Thorfinn Karlsefni wrote:
The Niceans naturally claimed to be the revived Roman Empire (since they now held the capital city don't-cha-know), but of course the Ottomans conquered it in 1453, leading some historians to suggest that date as the true "fall" of the Roman Empire. Of course, that's completely ridiculous, what fell in 1453 was really the relatively minor "Empire" of the Nicean Greeks.

Hey, man. They were good enough for EU4.