The Horrifying Truth of the 4th Crusade W/ Fr. Michael O'Loughlin
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 бер 2020
- Fr. O'Loughlin relates the story of the sacking of Constantinople, and how it is still a point of bitterness for many Eastern Catholics.
-Thanks to our sponsors!!!-
🌳 The Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodworker.com/ (use discount code: mattfradd)
👁️Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
🙏Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
🎥 Check out the Full Episode: • Pints With Aquinas #19...
⭐ Catholic Stuff You Should Know: catholicstuffpodcast.com/
Fr. Michael's Twitter: padremichaelo?lan...
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd
Heya, Matt. =) I'm a fan of Cameron's, "Capturing Christianity." I saw your interview there and came here to sub. I'm a protestant, but I very much appreciate your conversation with him. Keep up the great work! Peace of Christ to you, brother.
Thanks AJ! You're very welcome. My episode with Cameron (what a guy!) comes out Monday.
Same here! I'm glad I found out about Pints with Aquinas, as I suppose I'd consider myself a Protestant Thomist. Great content, Matt! God bless, brother.
Av8or “Protestant Thomist” can’t exist. It’s like considering yourself a straight homosexual. Stop doing dudes and be Catholic!
@Qwerty Awesome response!!
@@PintsWithAquinas check out a channel called real crusader history. Great content from a crusader historian.
And remember that the 4th Crusade weakened the Byzantine Empire so that it never fully recovered from the sacking of Constantinople and it was most likely a large contributing factor that led to the Ottoman Turks' conquest of Constantinople a couple hundred years later. So basically the reason all of Turkey, including Istanbul, is majority Muslim now.
@Patz13 I said it was a large reason. You really don't think the Latins holding on to large sections of Byzantine territory for almost 60 years before it was taken back, wasn't a contributing factor as to why the empire never fully recovered?
@@cannonshots2000 I agree, the Latins are largely responsible for weakening Byzantium and its later fall under the Ottomans.
@@cannonshots2000 ironically without the Turks protecting the orthodox world the Catholics would have extinguished them all. Remember the Turks reinstated the orthodox church and decriminalised their religion. Still to this day the pope of orthodoxy resides in istanbul.
The schism led to the massacre of the Latins, which led to the siege of Constantinople which led to the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. Byzantine Greek pride led to the fall of the city. The Pope did not even want the sack and specifically told them not to touch Greeks, unfortunately, certain Franks utilized Venetians to sack it separately and were excommunicated.
The most contributing factor to the sacking of constantinople was the Heresy of the "Orthodox". Just like god had the assyrians destroy the apostate northern kingdom in the old testament, he used the infidel muslims to destroy the eastern Heretics.
Interesting coincidence how the invasion stopped at my fatherlands catholic vienna and was repelled back south of spain in the west, while all 4 "patriarchs" of the pentarchy that disobeyed the roman pontiff have been crushed and destroyed. Alexandria, antioch, constantinople and jerusalem are all apostate cities now
As an Orthodox Christian about to teach the 4th crusade at our homeschool co-op, thank you for this video. Very fair, kind, and well done.
Wisdom and humility. These are always great gifts to pray for.
“What is an evil man? The man is evil who coerces obedience to his private ends, destroys beauty, produces pain, extinguishes life.”
The 4th crusade is generally excluded from most western telling (which surprisingly end at the third?) because it destroyed the Roman Empire.... yes they had a weak comeback but 1204 is when it was all over.
Cause the pope is antichrist pretty simple
The papacy is temporary, but the Roman empire is eternal
Why no mention of the Massacre of the Latins that happened just before the sacking of Constantinople?
"Here is something who is going to be on our side and they weren't.", really? The Orthodox in Constantinople were expecting the crusaders to be arriving to offer aid after they pillaged, murdered, and banished the surviving Latins that were living there, all for political and economical reasons? Both events were absolutely atrocious, but I simply do not understand why only one of them is being discussed here. It makes it sound like the Latins were out for blood for rite differences and xenophobia, when there was a whole background of political and economical conflict that escalated after their own people living in Constantinople were subjected to sacking and brutality from their native neighbors.
He's a self-loathing Latin LARPing in the East.
Give Matt a break. He may just have never heard of the attack on the Latins.
Patz13 Perhaps you could contact him to make sure he knows everything you think he should know.
To be honest, I had to reread this historical background because you don't keep everything in mind from your school days. But I knew there was more to it than Matt mentioned, and Fr. O'Loughlin only briefly hinted at it.
Sorry about my bad english but you didn't mention who are the "Latins" who are massacred??
They are Genovese and Venetian merchants who are literaly got Constantinople in they hands , meaning all economy of Byzanitum.
So that was economical occupation from "Latins" and byzantine nobles,emperer,many priests are just puppets of Venetians and Genovese.
Greeks(byzantines) had enough and kill them.
So 4 crusade is just revenge of Venetians(duzd Enrico Dandolo) for loosing economical monopole.
I am orthodox and i never blame catholic church for 4 crusade , i blame Venetians and knights mercenaries.
I recommend the UA-cam Channel Real Crusades History. It covers this episode in the Crusades, as well as the other crusades in great detail. I would say that the Fourth Crusade is the fault of Byzantine internal politics just as much as the Venetian's greed. An awful event in our shared history.
And the reasons given were not what Fr. Michael O'Loughlin gave for the sacking, in my opinion. The Emperor at the time of the sacking killed the Emperor that the Crusaders ad supported, had broken the promises of supporting the Crusader's army, and had started planning the destruction of the Crusaders army. I am sure some Crusaders had problems with ecclesiastical differences, but they weren't the main reasons. Go to Real Crusades History.
It was an excuse to get involved in the society's internal politics which it was never interested in previously. Apologists of the 4th Crusades simply support colonialism. How did it justify the ransacking murder and wholesale destruction of a city they were clearly jealous of compared to their backwater society living in the gutters looking at the stars that was Constantinople
Wasn't this event partially in response to the 'massacre of the Latins'. a large scale massacre of Roman Catholics in Constantinople. Everyone has blood on their hands.
I appreciate the sentiment of repairing relations with the Eastern Orthodox, but the history here is plain wrong and not connectable to modern day ecumenism. Geoffrey de Villehardouin was a french historian who documented the 4th crusade extensively with first-hand experience. Even prior to the fourth crusade, venetian merchants and latin citizenry had been persecuted by Byzantine subjects, so the tension was not simply religious hatred but more accurately economic. The fourth crusade itself was plagued with organizational problems, forced by debt into becoming mercenaries for the Byzantine prince Alexius IV. Whether Alexius’s claim was legitimate or not isn’t as important as the fact that he REFUSED to repay the debt that he owed the crusading band for sieging Constantinople on his behalf. The situation unavoidably led to war, and all the horrific things that come with it. The 4th crusade was not ideal and very lamentable since Byzantium’s crippled state afterward led to the rise of the Ottomans, but to simply paint it as based on religious hatred is just untrue.
John Kish
Absolutely agree, but the most lamentable thing is that Byzantium never recovered from the sack entirely and it opened the gates to the demons of Islam to the detriment of many Europeans.
It's a very.... Byzantine situation 😏
_"the fact that he REFUSED to repay the debt that he owed the crusading band for sieging Constantinople on his behalf."_
What? Pay mercenaries? But _we_ are the V a s i l e f s, don't you know?!
Same thing in 1033, Byzantine's chasing Moors from Sicily, with Norman mercenaries, who finished by taking Sicily ...
Great video, Matt. It's so awesome that you are open to other's point of view. Love watching your videos.
Will you ever interview a genuine Eastern Orthodox Priest?
Fr Josiah would be awsome
who is the guest?
I must agree with you. This interview does not at all reflect the Orthodox mindset and viewpoint.
This video was quite disappointing; it's interesting how there's pretty much no mention of how:
1) the mercenaries who raided Constantinople were already excommunicated;
2) the Byzantine empire had plenty of Western Christian blood on their hands.
Catholics did awful things, but it's not like the Orthodox were any better.
No the Catholics are objectively worse, just ask the Cathars, Huegenots, Jews in the Rheinland, Hussites, and even the Templars after the Pope turned on his own holy order for a quick buck.
It was ultimately Byzantine politics that resulted in the 4th Crusade and the ultimate destructtion of the Byzantine Empire.
“Living creatures, if nothing else, have the right to life. It is their only truly precious possession, and the stealing of life is a wicked theft”
So your speaking of the catholic crusaders
the best solution is to recognize that it was evil and to seek forgiveness, whether it is about 4th crusade or Massacre of the Latins
Venice acted more like Jews then Christians
Enrico Dandolo pulled a game of thrones move with the 4th crusade, brutal but brilliant strategy
I have met many people from western Europe who gloated (to my face) for what their ancestors have done. Only once I met a French woman who told me that she regretted for what their people had done and she was saying to me that "I am not like them". She justified herself from the fact that she was studying greek medieval history and that she was trully interested in the Orthodox without having hate for them..... However, given the enormity of the damage done, I do not feel that the descendants of the crusaders will ever trully repent nor that the descendants of the Orthodox will ever trully forgive. The fourth crusade did not deviate... what happened was always the untold intention of the christian West. The fourth crusade is a foundational sin for western Christianity and has deep theological and spiritual implications.
The idea of repenting for what other people did is absolutely wild to me. Collective guilt is an evil idea that has justified all manner of intergenerational hatred, tribalism, and violence. Acknowledge the wrongs of the past, let go of generational grudges, and whether you move on separately or together, move on.
I completely agree with some of the previous comments that this event is much more complex than this and would deserve a longer and more historically accurate description. Far from me to defend the Sack of Constantinople, I just want to place this event in its context and distinguish it from the notion of Crusade, building on what some people have already said in this thread.
Disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of Matt Fradd and his videos
In a nutshell, the Byzantines themselves had a very ambiguous attitude towards the crusades. At times they even supported and joined in crusading efforts against the Muslims (thanks to a few Western-friendly Emperors or when it was clearly in their interest to do so) but then at other times, they turned on the crusaders to make deals with the Muslims.
Initially, the 4th Crusade was not aimed at Constantinople at all. It was intended to target the Egyptian Caliphate in an effort to weaken the Ayyubids and to secure Christian lands in the Levant. That is what was ratified by Pope Innocent the III who also explicitly banned attacks on Christian lands. The Byzantines themselves are partly responsible for the Sack, not just because of the massacre of the Latins twenty years prior (which was just as horrible as the 1204 Sack was), but also because Alexios IV himself (a Byzantine prince) hijacked the 4th crusade by making a deal with the Venetians who were, and it's also worth noting, the real culprits behind the Sack. The Templars and Hospitallers actually had little to no involvement in this. Alexios IV wanted to depose Alexios III Angelos, Byzantine Emperor at the time, and take his place on the throne. In the end, human pride, and political scheming within the Byzantine Empire itself were the driving factors that led to its downfall. It's awful to think that the West participated in it in such a horrible way, but it's a grave injustice to blame Western Christians alone for what happened, or for the ultimate Fall of Constantinople.
I'm starting to notice a trend for Eastern Catholics or Eastern Rite lovers (and I can be guilty of that myself) to idealize their Orthodox brethren and accuse the Catholics for all the problems that exist between the two groups. If you really study the history though, you can notice just how often the Byzantines matched the Western Christians in human pride and cruelty. I am convinced that if they had kept their promises just once, Union would have been achieved already in the Middle Ages. In fact, Union was achieved several times during that period, on a few occasions and after the Sack! (Council of Lyon, Council of Florence etc...) but these were systematically rejected at a later stage. If they hadn't been, Islamic conquests would have probably been thwarted for many many more centuries. Who knows, Constantinople might even still be Christian today, and I believe this would have been possible even after the Sack of 1204. As horrible as this event was, I do think there have been enough apologies from our side by now. Apologies become pointless when they are never accepted by the other party. I think the Orthodox need to take the next step and accept the apologies that have been expressed, and potentially offer their own apologies for their wrongdoings towards the Catholics (yes I said it) before we can start hoping for a true Union.
One other thing to add is that after Manuel Commnenos death in 1180, the Empire fell into chaos. Manual's successor was killed by a rival relative or only have been killed by a revolt, resulting in Issac Angelus reign. But the Empire under Isaac got even worse for the Empire because he spent too much money on pleasure things and then his successor wasn't any better off. So weak emperors and the massacre of the Latins resulted in the "4th Crusade"
1:30 ah but the holy land wasn't being invaded then. It was invaded centuries before that. It was the Byzantine Empire that was at risk.
Yea, 3 centuries before that. Calling it a "defensive war" is misleading. As you said, the only ones at risk were the eastern Romans and the crusaders couldn't have cared less about them, they were just a cause for war.
Fr. Mike! I miss hearing you on “Catholic Stuff You Should Know.”
It's all heretical apostate trash anyways
The Papacy's drive for homogenous Christianity encouraged crusades against any group with which there were differences such as:
the Dutch Drenther peasants from 1228 to 1232;
Bosnians fighting the Hungarians from 1227;
the Stedinger peasants from 1232 to 1234;
English rebels in 1216, 1217 and 1265;
Matt, you need to let your guests finish their sentences. You keep interrupting them and then they lose their train of thought.
I find that really annoying, I've noticed it with other UA-camrs too.
What Greek do ? They lose Jerusalem antioch and nicea,in other hand latin catholic was fight for get it back,they fight in enemy teritory,many get killed
Are orthodox greek ever help latin catholic during holly war ?
A Greek Orthodox homosexual Byzantine Emperor and violent usurper was teaching a class on Manuel Komnenos, a known heretic.
”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Manuel Komnenos and accept that he was the most majestic Roman Emperor the world has ever known, even greater than Constantine the Great!”
At this moment a chivalrous, Catholic Frankish Knight, who had vanquished 1500 Muslims on a Crusade and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decisions made by the Pope, stood up and held up a fresh Septuagint.
”Who compiled this Bible, pinhead?”
The treacherous Emperor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “The Roman scribes, you stupid barbarian”
”Wrong. It’s been 1,000 years since the Roman Empire fell. If it is 1,400 years old and Greece is the home of the Romans… then why don't you possess the Eternal City of Rome itself?”
The Emperor was visibly shaken and dropped his gaudy icon and copy of Plutarch's Parallel Lives. He stormed out of the room crying those Greek crocodile tears. The same tears Greeks cry for the “disgraced Romans” (who today live in such luxury that most bath daily). There is no doubt that at this point our Emperor wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and more strictly enforced the East-West Union as agreed upon at the Council of Florence. He wished so much that he had the Imperial Sword to kill himself from embarrassment, but he himself had pawned it off to the Venetians!
The students applauded and all joined the Holy Roman Empire that day and accepted Pope Eugene IV as Christ's Vicar on Earth. A double-headed eagle named “Church and State” flew into the room and perched atop the German Imperial Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. Dies Irae was sung several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a church tithe across the country to renovate St. Peter's Basilica.
The Emperor lost Constantinople to the Turks and was killed beneath its walls the next day.
Could you please do a video on the knights templar II was talking to somebody about the crusades an even amongst some Christian’s they think the whole thing was evil an condem the Catholic Church for it God bless
Just have them google the first crusades, its so blatantly obvious what really happened that it is on top of the wikipedia page.
I have no sympathy for the retards that cry out when hollywood slanders christianity but willingly believe its mainstreamed lies about catholicism
So good. #universalchurch #reconciliation
At least you can all unite on your mutual disdain for Protestants.
Seriously, though, I wonder if there was a way we could try to buy back Instanbul from Turkey and make it part of Greece or something. Not that I would ever expect Turkey or any Muslim person to be cool with that, but I wonder how that might impact things. Make Istanbul Constantinople again as far as I'm concerned.
Massacre of the Latins muh?
Yeah, I don’t think unification is going to happen this side of heaven.
You should invite Father Josiah Trenham an Orthodox priest for a discussion. He is very knowledgeable :)
I doubt Matt will invite Father Josiah, a great defender of Orthodoxy.
Anyone strong in their faith should not fear disagreements; truth is not afraid of criticism.
He knows Fr. Josiah would destroy him lol
You need to read Jewish history of Crusades. Also, forgiveness is not denial.
The Pope should settle with how things were before 1054.
If the orthodox had done that, god may have spared them but he had to destroy the heretics
And no Christian, so far as I am aware, has approved of the Sack of Constantinople by the Western mercenary troops (called for/ hired by the Eastern emperor as a crusade, then left to dandle, unused and unpaid nearby the richest pickings in the European field of consciousness); the Venetians and Genoese btw were not renowned for delicacy of nuance in money matters, pay up or put up. The odd bit is, no one (very much) equates this temporary, though harrowing, calamity with the lasting and repeated catastrophes of the Justinian Reconquest of the West; this too was a misfired 'crusade' of sorts not merely a temporal affair, aimed at removing the Arian influences, restoring Roman (Catholic) orthodoxy, and boosting the Eastern emperor's prestige (and tax base). So the real/ rhetorical question - both unanswered and unasked - is .. why is there no still-abiding bitterness in the West toward Eastern pride, malice, and abuse * ..
Answers on a postcard, please. Not to the hardworking Pints With Aquinas bods, nor to me. Try a local university Research Fund moneybags - but don't go holding your breath.
;o)
* Delete or expand according to taste.
*cough* Massacre of the Latins *cough*
cough - it happened after the massacre of Orthodox in the first 3 Crusades, and after the tyranny of the Latin Empress - cough.
Here's a good video explaining the fourth crusade.
ua-cam.com/video/-QDdUXnFeZg/v-deo.html
As someone who wants to become a catholic, this hurts to know this happened and that it could've been completely avoided.
and are you aware that the westerners already retaliated in the form of Sack of Thessalonica (1185)? are both of the sacks justified then?@@nadreb13
@@nadreb13 but in your comment you seemed to cite the massacre of the latins as a valid precedent to the sack
@@nadreb13 right but your rhetoric of calling the greeks proud does seem to imply that the context was a justification. I replied with that the notion of relatiation was already manifested in another sack that is more relevant imo, as the 4th crusade had a huge number of factors outside the latin massacre.
William Tyndale's translation was the first English Bible to draw directly from hebrew and Greek texts, the first English translation to use Yehowa ("Iehouah") as God's name as preferred by English Protestant Reformers, the first English translation to take advantage of the printing press, and first of the new English Bibles of the Reformation. It was taken to be a direct challenge to the hegemony of both the Catholic Church and the laws of England maintaining the church's position.
Tyndale was tried on a charge of heresy in 1536 and was condemned to be burned to death, murdered by the Roman Catholic church.
1st 👍 love from India...👌🏿
Keep dreaming of your union. It's called coming back to Orthodoxy, not union.
Based and orthopilled
Wow...
Make The Crusades Great Again
The attrocities go both ways, but it was mainly the fault if the Venetians (especially of Enrico Dandolo, who hated the Greeks because they tried blind him but failed), not of all the Latins (Genova was an ally of Byzantium for ex.).
Patz13
Actually I don't disagree with you, you could have read my comment more charitably
The first 3 Crusades were not much better either. The First 3 Crusades had driven out Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Archbishop of Cyprus to Constantinople, and their flocks too were massacred and churches looted. When Crusaders captured Alexandria, they turned the Patriarch's Cathedral in to their fortress and sacked the Patriarchate of Alexandria as well. The 4th Crusade managed to sack the Constantinople's Patriarchate. The crusaders dragged the local prostitute and forced her to sit on the throne of the Constantinople's Patriarch and to sing and swear, to mock the Patriarchate.
And the Pope of Rome, accepted all the lootings from the Eastern Churches, to this day, Vatican keeps almost all Orthodox Eastern Relics, arts and other treasures.
The persecutions continued until the Second World War (Croatian Catholic genocide against the Orthodox in NAZI occupied Yugoslavia.).
Now that the Roman-Catholic Church has became a pathetic Novus Ordo "please worldly culture like us." band, you want to hold hands. lol
We see through that. Well the Bartholomew does not see, but he was educated in Vatican, and he too belongs to "please worldly culture like us" club.
Rubbish. The first Crusade was an entirely rational response to decades of aggressive Islamic jihad.
Both Patriarchs were exiled by muslims. The Arcbishop of Cyprus was not exiled. The Alexandrian Crusade happened much later and wasn't part of any particular Church's crusade. The army of the 4th Crusade was excommunicated before even entering Constantinople. You're nothing more than a pathetic liar.
While the actions of the Crusaders who sacked Constantinople were detestable..... I thought the guest’s treatment of the 4th Crusade was off. He makes it seem like their primary motivation was to conquer those who they thought were heretics. It wasn’t. In addition to the economic factors they also thought they were avenging the rightful ruler to whom they had sworn a feudal oath. Not to mention there were already warring factions within the city and a history of hostile military takeovers that very recently preceded the Crusaders’ actions. This was a very over simplified presentation that certainly slanted the “facts “ to slight the Latins.
Complex politics? Usurpers galore with hostile military takeovers? You could describe it with one word...
Byzantine 😏
The whole crusade was base on ideology not religion, in this day the world was ruled by the western and middle eastern and both their power was from religious belief
Are you going to cover Alexis Angelis, Enrico Dondaldo, the excommunication of the former crusaders BEFORE their attack on Constantinople, or any of the surrounding circumstances?
These guys were terrible, but not Catholic any more.
The excommunication didn't stop the RC church from receiving some of the loot from the sack of the Constantinople.churches and monasteries were plundered. Not even the Tombs of the past Roman emperors like constantine and justinian were spared.
@@Abk367, His Alexios Angelos was the one that plundered the emperor's tombs in order to pay off the excommunicated crusaders that he took in a confidence scheme in order to help him to regain his throne that was stolen by his uncle.
Most of the extras that were taken from Constantinople ended up in Venice, who had already suffered at the hands of Constantinople previously.
Ask Enrico Dondaldo.
Do Greeks not study this?
@@Abk367 He mentioned to u abt Angelos emperor plundering the tombs cos he saw it in the kings and generals video posted 1 month ago. Hes just humiliating himself by trying to justify the crusaders and catholicism and blame it on the Byzantines completely. Thank god Kings and generals plublished a whole video abt the atrocities of the catholics, so he can just shut up now. I exposed him in another convo under this video.
Unity is delusional
You'll get nothing from the Vatican in return for joining it except : RreeEEEEEEEEE
How about the Emperor betraying the 1st Crusade? How about the Emperor betraying every crusade attempt?
I love the Byzantine Rite and the Orthodox, but they forget about the betrayals both ways.
One crusade was specifically called to save the city of Constantinople, and both the Patriarch and Emperor agreed to reunite with Rome because of it. . . until the crusaders were defeated.
Fault does not cut only one way.
In what way was the 1st crusade betrayed? That they helped them cross through Byzantine territory (which they had already started to plunder..) and move to Asia minor and further beyond? Why should the Romans have helped barbarians who openly hated them and considered them heretics to create their own principalities, just for their own profit? Alexios had asked for help to push back the Seljuks in Asia minor, not in Syria and Palestine. John and Manuel Komnenus were also two of the most honorable emperors, most of the western sources praise them. In fact Bohemond had attacked Byzantium in 1081, broke his oath to the emperor later and attacked again in 1107...
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese, that isn't normally numbered in Crusades because it wasn't called by the pope.
@@geoousp, no, the Emperor did not "help them" cross through the territory, they sold out their route and locations to the Saracens, never provided the promised provisions, and when it finally came to taking back a city (Antioch), the representative of the Emperor left them to thirst and starve, never returning with the yet to be provided provisions.
All of the primary sources from the 1st crusade indicate severe perfidy on the part of the emperor. Fulcher, Albert of Aachen, Peter of Tudebode, the Gesta, Hugh; All of the accounts talk about how poorly the latins were treated by the emperor and the terrible things he had done to them.
The emperor's own forces attacked Raymond and his men before they even got to the court. Where was asked about the incident, he admitted to it and simply said that those forces were not under his control.
This of course runs contrary to the fact that they were in the suburbs of Constantinople and that they were in official Imperial panoply.
The latins still aided the emperor in the reconquest of Nicea.
The conduct of the emperor was atrocious the entire time.
Thrace and Constantinople should still be returned to Greece, but do not pretend that the Emperor of the Romans during the 1st crusade was somehow innocent and virtuous.
As a condition for aid rendered during the Varna Crusade, both the emperor and patriarch of Constantinople agreed to reunification with Rome. That was later abandoned by the Greeks as well.
@@kingbaldwiniv5409 There r many problems n inaccuracies in what u just wrote plus u ignore many of the points I mentioned. Its really amusing that u mention only the western sources of the 1st crusade n u take only them into account. There's also the book of Anna Comnene talking abt the crusaders.. but I'll reply later in detail.
Are these two for real? They are defending the fourth crusade???? LOL
Yes..omg and i also couldn't believe the comments under the video...crazy