Why the Fourth Crusade Attacked Constantinople
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- / 220051141405247
The Fourth Crusade ended up in Constantinople, but the reasons why are far more complex than you know.
This video is by request from one of my friend's here on youtube, eraser695. Thanks for a great request my brother!
Books cited:
The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople
by Jonathan Philips
God's War
Christopher Tyerman
@rahotep101
It's unfortunate that a Western style government couldn't have been established in Constantinople, since the political institutions of the West were far more stable than those in the East. If Byzantine politics had been secure in the first place, the Byzantines could've used the Crusades to their advantage; the First Crusade was ready to submit to Alexios' generalship. But he wouldn't go because, as his daughter Anna tells us, he was worried about uprisings in his capital city!
After taking Constantinople the crusaders proclaimed a Latin empire and crowned their own emperor. They engaged in military campaigns claiming lands from their neighbours. How does it fit with this theory?
it doesn't
Sir, I don't agree. From the military perspective, it makes perfect sense. They spilled much blood to take the city, so they did everything they could to keep and expand what they got. Isn't it sensible that conquerors behave like conquerors?
@@bdkim79 they behaved like conquerors and they should be perceived as conquerors and not as the victims of a giant misunderstanding as this video makes out
@@papageitaucher618 In the videos own words, it was not meant to either demonize nor to excuse what happened. You are reading into the video what is not there.
@Papagei Taucher they are not victims, the only thing this video said is that the original plan of the crusade was never to conquer constantinople or destroy the greek empire. if the greeks had not killed alexios IV and allowed him to fulfill his promises, nothing would’ve happened.
@Pavlos952 Thomas Madden and Jonathan Riley-Smith, two of the most important Crusades historians today, both agree that Runciman's work is "not history". His books are all right for chronological information, but they're absolutely full of subjective judgments that are based on nothing more than his own prejudices. Much of what he writes should be disregarded, especially the absurd notion that the Fourth Crusade is the worst thing that happened in history.
@Achilles1389
Honestly we can't be entirely sure how accurate the descriptions of "orgies" and "sacrilege" really are because they were only documented by Greek sources. It is likely that some desecration and other horrible things went on, we just don't know to what extent. I did mention in the video that many horrible acts took place that were truly tragic and wrong, which the leaders could not prevent. The Fourth Crusade was a terrible tragedy, the point is it wasn't just the West at fault.
How about the pope's own words?
"How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks, no matter how severely she is beset with afflictions and persecutions, return into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, who made their swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood, they have spared neither religion, nor age, nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys."
Was he also mislead by those perfidious Greeks?
Although they were lured to the idea of going to Constantinople by a Byzantine claimant to the throne, I don't think the crusaders were innocent in their own undertaking. yes they wanted to help a "friend to their nobility" but there must be a more firm issue that should have attracted them to the city. I mean the crusaders were not that naive to divert their expedition in order just to help a claimant accomplish his political agenda.
It was revenge for Byzantines geonociding its latin inhabitants.
@@meep3035 this is nonsense
Crusaders needed the money and the Byzantine claimant promised to pay off the crusaders’ debt to the Venetians. That’s why.
The most misconstrued part of crusading history. Glad someone finally explained why they attacked other Christians. It was two sides who did abhorrent things because they believed they had to.. and honestly they may very well HAVE had too. The eastern politics weren't exactly going to be happy with some random guy whos father had already been deposed suddenly yeeting himself into power, and the west needed funds and food otherwise both the army AND the nations they came from would have desperate ecanomic backlash.
Nice video. Thank you.
Typical western Christian Apologist. How about the RAPE and Slaughter of Christian NUNS?? Really, its because "they believed they had to?" You disgust me
@@ihsankamil6279 He talks about both sides and probably didn't mean the rape of nuns. It is not apologism in my eyes.
@Pavlos952 The point about technological breakthroughs in medieval history is just that thanks to computer-assisted methods of cataloging and organizing information, we now know more about the Middle Ages than ever before. For example, Riley-Smith created a massive database of virtually every documented Crusader from 1095-1131 and demolished old myths that Crusaders went for greed or because they were landless second sons. Runciman's scanty research doesn't even compare to this.
What you say is true,there was no initial intention to attack byzantine lands and sack the holy city and was surely a tragedy that did not intentionally happen and happened only because they crusaders where at a very hard position and at the demand of Alexios claim to be emperor.Youre right about this im not gonna argue it even being a greek myself.Yet this question comes,why after the city was sacked the majority of the byzantine empire was divided amongst latin crusaders and the crusaders crowned their latin emperor and attacked remaining byzantine lands for their own interest? With byzantium becoming a thing only due to revolts and to the efforts of the nicean empire a lot of time after.Im sure there must be an excuse for this too right?Yet again awesome video and thanks for putting your time and devotion for my country and the biggest misunderstanding of the middle ages.You sir earned a subscriber.
Glad you liked the video. You're right, once Constantinople was captured, that particular group of Venetians and Franks decided to go all out and conquer the whole of the Byzantine Empire. But the truth is, the Fourth Crusade stopped being a crusade the moment they decided to attack Zara, at which point the bulk of the troops who'd signed up abandoned the operation, recognizing that it had become corrupt. Thanks, and take care. Glad to have your comment. I'm a big fan of Byzantine history.
Glad to hear it my friend and well done for few in the western world even know about byzantium.Yes the fourth crusade did stop being a crusade when zara was sacked and the crusaders also got excomunicated by the pope that time.It was a somewhat retorical question,you know like why would they attack fellow christians and stuff.Thamks for replying it means a lot and thanks for your time and work on this and every single video you have done.Long live the empire.:D
I mean no offense but it looks like you're getting this out of Wikipedia or a Internet website, No matter. In the Video all of this was already stated, They sacked Constantinople as they thought their "ally" was killed by rebellious Greeks, the Pope himself disagree with it, Many Crusaders disagree and such. While I agree the leaders committed a horrid act your arguing in a Bias One-sided way while I look at the whole Picture and I will agree the Venetians did this for greed at most.
this is so well done and very informative! Thanks!
The Venitians, lead by Enrico Dendaldo (a 90 year old man blinded by the Byzantines) also compelled the Crusaders to pay their debt for the year's loss of trade by helping them take a Hungarian city (Zara) formerly held by Venice.
The Pope also threatened the crusaders that would attack the Hungarians because their monarch (King Emeric) had taken up the cross himself.
Pope Innocent went so long as excommunicating those that took part in the attack on both the Hungarians and Byzantines.
Could you do one on the Massacre of Latins? People tend to forget that Byzantines massacred Latin communities prior to the Fourth Crusade.
The Pope did not order the attack. The Crusader armies did on their own which ended with their excommunication from the Catholic Church by Pope Innocent II.
Ghaztoir Just because some people in the church are pedophiles doesn't mean her teachings are false. The Catholic Church belongs to Jesus Christ and the pope is the successor of St Peter. The Orthodox should rejoin with Catholic against the new enemy of Islam.
Ghaztoir I don't see anything wrong with celibacy and there's no link between celibacy and pedophilia. Paul was a celibate man. Secondly, just because some clergymen defend the guilty doesn't mean the church as a whole is guilty. Just like we shouldn't blame entire nations on a few depraved nationals. Thirdly, while the church in Antioch can be traced back to Peter, Peter left his position at Antioch "while he was alive" and was martyred in Rome. His tomb is found under St Peter's Basilica. Jesus said that the church will be built on Peter. The successor of Peter was Bishop Linus who was mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21. It was at Rome that the final authority of the Petrine ministry was consolidated.
Imperator is a Latin word deriving from true Rome.Dont hate because Greeks cant fight.
Sad turn of events. I imagine the Byzantine citizens wish they hadn't massacred those 60,000 Latins before then.
Interesting data about it, altough this video-documentary neglects to mention that the Venetian leader Enrico Dandolo was captured and blinded by the Byzantines previously. Dandolo never forgot and forgave the latter and took good advantage of the planning and direction of the Fourth Crusade. The sacking of the city of Zara by the crusaders of the fourth crusade gave the Byzantines enough reason to shut the gates of Constantinople to the now suspicious crusaders. I understand that for the leaders of the crusade was necessary to get money for their campaign against the Ottoman Turks but the brutal and long-lasting sacking of the Byzantine capital plus the mass rape and murder of the local inhabitants and the sacrilegious looting of sacred Christian relics never justifies such an act. Didn´t Pope John Paul II asked for forgiveness to the Greek Christian Ortodox Church for the shameful fourth crusade?, because the assault was done by Roman Catholics, wasn´t it?
+halfgeekpartyboy1968 I'm A 'Yeastless'one- Roman Rite-If we hadn't slit with you guys we'd of had married priest -had 'em fo 1'000 years-I'm looking for the love of Christ in all this His glorified hand has a hole in it and doesn't hold a sword well
+halfgeekpartyboy1968 Pope John did indeed.
Rodney Stark writes venomously how the sack was remembered as the key sack of the city, noting that there were previous sacks in the past of Constantinople by the Byzantine Emperor’s own thieving mercenaries, and in the past, the Byzantine citizenry turned against the Latin residents of the city, to the point that thousands died: “Nothing here about the prior sacks of the city by Byzantines themselves during political coups; in 1081 Alexius Comnenus allowed his foreign mercenaries to plunder the capital for three days. Nor is there a word to acknowledge the centuries of Orthodox brutalities against Latin Christians: in 1182 the Emperor (Andronikos I Komnenos) incited mobs to attack all Western residents of Constantinople, during which thousands, including women and children, were massacred-many more deaths than are thought to have occurred during the city’s sack by the crusaders. Not a word about the instances of Byzantine treachery that occurred during each of the first three Crusades and that cost tens of thousands of crusaders their lives. Surely it is not surprising that these many acts of betrayal built up substantial animosity towards Byzantium”
Rodney Stark raises a point that was supported by other historians who have looked into the so-called “Massacre of the Latins” in 1182. Historians such as Donald Nicol and Aleksandr Vasiliev mention them strongly in their accounts of Byzantine history. Aleksandr, in his work, History of the Byzantine Empire Volume 2, he quotes a Greek bishop who was delighted when Emperor Andronicus ordered the death of Latins: “The archbishop of Athens, Michael Acominatus, one of the most precious sources for the internal situation of the empire in the 12th century, wrote in eulogistic terms: “And first of all I shall remember how, at the troublesome and painful time, the Roman Empire appealed to its former darling, the great Andronicus, to overthrow the oppressive Latin tyranny, which, like a weed, had grafted itself on the young offshoot of the kingdom. The first thing he gave the capital in return for its pure love was deliverance from the tyrannous Latin insolence and the clearing of the empire from barbarian admixture.”
Nicol’s version was a lot less flattering, however, as it is not a Byzantine account from the Byzantine perspective. His work, "Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations," deals with when Andronicus was entering the city: “Andronicus sent in his Paphlagonian troops to incite the people against the Latins. The people needed no encouragement. With an enthusiasm fired by years of resentment they set about the massacre of all the foreigners that they could find. They directed their fury mainly against the merchants’ quarters along the Golden Horn. The slaughter was appalling. The Byzantine clergy shamelessly encouraged the mob to seek out the Latin monks and priests. The pope’s legate to Constantinople, Cardinal John, was decapitated and his severed head was dragged through the streets, tied to the tail of a dog. At the end some 4000 westerners who had survived the massacre were rounded up and sold as slaves to the Turks. Those who had escaped by ship took their revenge by looting and burning the Byzantine monasteries on the coasts and islands of the Aegean Sea.”
France and England were the top civilizations of the time, because they had a working bureaucracy and government centered around the monarch with towns and cities having constitutional laws and kingdoms having legal documents like the Magna Carta and legal assemblies like the English Parliament and French Estates General protecting and being the voice of the people, and professional armies that didn't betray their kings when the money no longer sells. Oh, and guys like Richard Lionheart were capable of winning battles against Muslim leaders like Saladin. The Byzantines were nothing but Saladin's patsies by that time.
And as for the cultural aspect, France was the epicenter of the Scholastic culture of Europe in the late 1100s. They were debating big topics like Aristotelianism and proving God while the Byzantines drowned in their vices and ceased to innovate anything. The West was growing in science, philosophy, politics, and art while the Byzantines continued to stagnate in mind, body, and soul.
They speak of the Byzantines' civility, yet the Byzantines massacred the Latin half of their populace in the eponymous Massacre of the Latins, because fuck civility, what we needed was Latin blood on the streets of Constantinople and the Pope's legate beheaded and his head tied to the tail of a dog. They speak of the Byzantines' diplomatic solutions, yet their solution to the Ostrogoths no longer answering to them was to subject all of Italy, Roman and Ostrogoth, into the most devastating war that despoiled Italy's cities, massacred Italy's people, and made Attila the Hun look civilized by comparison. So, yeah, the only reason they were diplomatic was because they couldn't afford to inflict upon the Turks the same genocide they inflicted upon Italy. They speak of the Byzantines' scientific and philosophical knowledge, yet by the time of the Third Crusade, both the Muslims and the Latin Christians have left them in the dust in that department, especially with Latin Christendom developing Scholastic thought and philosophy in a way that EXPANDED upon the foundation Plato and Aristotle laid, not just ripped them off. Both the Muslim and Latin worlds were developing science, with the Latin West asking hard questions about the origin of evil and the proof for God in nature, while the Byzantines just rioted in their cities and killed their current ruler to replace him with another poor sap who would wind up getting killed too.
Islam got a lot of support from oppressed Byzantine citizens across the Levant and North Africa, with said support being the thing that laid down the basis for the Golden Age of Islam. If Byzantium treated its own people right, the Muslims would've been just a minor nuisance at the border of the Empire. It would've just died out in the East. Instead, what was once just a group of raiders pillaging for wealth found plenty of support from an overtaxed populace ready to submit to a foreign ruler that wasn't going to interfere in their Church business or in their finances.
in 1185 the city of Thessaloniki was also sacked by the Norman Kingdom of Sicily in retribution for the Latin massacre. Thousands killed. Looks like there are really no "good guys" in any of these tragedies and everyone suffered.
there was no good reason to attack constatiople!
Money is reason enough for much horror.
After the latin massacre two decades prior, the crusaders are pretty based for this
yeah money.
@@edwardguidry2602
If only they didn't start messing with the Balkans...
A facile explanation, that still resonates in today's politics. The very fact that the Crusaders felt a right to exploit the internal divisions in the Byzantine Empire (and indeed EVERY country has them) for money and put an already rejected ruler on the Byzantine throne, says much about the values of the Crusaders themselves. This was a crime of opportunity -- and the victimized Byzantines were not to blame.
What a terrible tragedy
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner...
Venetians were never to concerned with religious matter for what I can tell Venice always look for their own interesets they even when to the point of helping Ottomans agianst other Christians such as Albanians Hungarians Serbs Wallachians and others Christians. I always dislike Venice may they burn in what they done. A burguese capitalistic republic. Ironical Venice was created by Romans (byzantines).
And Rome's treatment of Carthage is very very high on the list.
hey im doing a report on the topic do you have any evidence to site this? sources would be great! :)
Excellent videos. They are an invaluable internet resource. I just have one question regarding this video; is it true that the crusaders were excommunicated by Innocent III? If this is true, then it is too vital to be left out. If they were excommunicated for attacking another Christian land, then they had arguably no legitimacy whatsoever.
Christian Darmanin Yes they were excommunicated. Later after they repented the Pope removed their excommunication.
Christian Darmanin And thanks!
Wink, wink. How convenient.
Some of this response is towards the other fourth crusaders videos made.
Why should they have been interested in a Byzantine prince with they sought nothing in it for themselves?
The Amalekite Khazars of Byzantium coaxed Alexios to call in the crusaders. The Khazars of Venice were working with the Khazars of Byzantium.
8:16 "What happened next is really the most difficult part of the crusade to defend, as the Latins then put the city to sack"
It's not only difficult, its impossible to defend this act, considered by many to be the greatest crime against humanity. Such attrocities as those in the sack of Constantinople were not even commited by the Turks, which were still considered quite barbaric.
Και τελειώνοντας να σου πω δύο λεπτομέρεις που διαλύουν την ψευδαίσθηση μας ότι οι Λατίνοι ήρθαν ξαφνικά ένα πρωί στην Πολή επειδή ήταν βάρβαροι χωρίς εμείς να τους έχουμε κάνει τίποτα. 1) Αυτός που έφερε τους Σταυροφόρους έξω απ την Πόλη ήταν ο εκθρονισμένος Αλέξιος Δ'! Τους έδωσε πολλές υποσχέσεις αν τον ανέβαζαν στο θρόνο. Όταν τον ανέβασαν όμως, δεν μπόρεσε να εκλπηρώσει τις υποσχέσεις του και μετά έγινε η άλωση. 2) Το 1182, είκοσι χρόνια πριν την Άλωση, οι Βυζαντινοί αφάνισαν τη λατινική
The idea that the Fourth Crusade caused the fall of Constantinople is laughable nonsense. No historian takes such an idea seriously. The Fourth Crusade was a symptom of Byzantium's decline, not its cause. Byzantium had been in decline for a long time, mainly because the Byzantines could not stop fighting with each other over the capital long enough to defend their borders against Islam.
Really sad event, one of the worst betrayals of the west on the east. Why.... why.... why....
This makes sense to me. I never did think it was a well thought out plan.
I agree a muslim/venetian plan to save Egypt is a joke.
thank you
When the Crusaders invaded Constantinople it was the Byzantine Greeks who defended the Arabs from being slayed by the knights. Read a bit more to find these unknown facts in history. You won't find this information on the internet only in out of print books.
East vs West
I understand what you are saying and I agree to a certain extend. However, dealing with history is more than a rational understanding of the events. The Arabs even now have a sense of terror when they hear the word crusade. History is also or even more about justice and never repeating the crimes. The crusaders entered our churches, killed the priests and peed into the holy blood of Christ. Do you expect me to rationalize that?
Nice documentary. But your way off the mark with this one fellow.
Cheers
Thank You Very Much Brother. God Bless You .... :)
Interesting videos...but this one is tough. Seems a tacit, at least, defense of the unconscionable.
Ray Adamson Not trying to defend it at all, just trying to delve into the complexity of what actually happened.
Oh, How convenient. Shame
Honestly I have no interest in excusing the atrocities committed by Crusaders in Constantinople. The main point of this video is to show that a complex set of circumstances led to the ultimate final battle at the queen of cities. The events of the Fourth Crusade are truly horrible in my mind and reflect a division between east and west that should have never existed. I blame both sides for this division.
In some stories I've read the Byzantines blinded the Venetian doge Dandolo but more importantly there was a massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182, I would say I have no doubts that this vile act contributed to the savage sacking of Constantinople, I would say that plenty of Italians ( theoretical but human nature is the same than as it is now ) would have had links to this massacre and it was well within living memory of the attack in 1204. Byzantine behaviour certainly needed to be a lot better and in my world view, what goes around comes around, even if the 1204 wasn't premeditated if you look at it with the context of 1182 it looks like poetic justice, sorry to say, people just need to behave better than and now.
What atrocities, it was war and norm in those days. Hostiles were crushed ruthlessly.
As a serious historian, you shouldn't link present day sensibilities to what is a historical fact. You are tainting the facts with emotions...
Pope Innocent III: Go! Take Jerusalem! Reclaim God's people!
Crusaders: Destroy Constantinople. Got it.
Pope: ???
He never minded the booty he took 😏
The Pope condemned these fail lords.
lmao this needs to be memed
The beheaded and powerless capital of the Byzantine Empire faced crusade plunder and destruction, which is considered one of the most terrible that befell any city. During the four days that lasted, according to some, the crusaders raged through the city, during which most of the people survived the torture, massacres and rapes to which all persons were exposed, regardless of age or gender. The Crusaders destroyed a large number of churches, courtyards, monasteries and sculptures (among them were sculptures made by the ancient masters Phidias and Praxiteles) and looted a good part of the icons, relics and sculptures that were kept in the city. The leader of the Crusaders, Boniface of Monferrato, took the castle of Bukeleon with all his treasures, while Henry of Flanders (brother of Baldwin of Flanders) did so with the castle of Vlahern.
@@SheryAwan123 pervert
@rahotep101
You seem to be unclear on the political realities of the West and East. In the West succession went smoothly and palace coups were almost unheard of. The rights of heirs were almost never questioned. You can't compare minor quibbles between Western nobles to the absolute political decay that plagued the court at Constantinople.
now its the opposite (sorry 9 years ago, but i can't help xD)
I am not trying to justify nor excuse anyone involved in this. Whether or not a moral crime took place depends on one's idea of morality. History is about breaking down events and understanding them, not passing sweeping generalized judgments. Conflict among the Byzantines had as much to do with the result as anything the Latins did. If you're going to blame the Latins, you can blame the Byzantines as well, but blame in general won't help you understand the event.
"I am not trying to justify "
what led you to the analysis? Objectivity? No.
It is your intuition that something is not right here.
As a Greek I have rarely heard claims that the crusade was aimed at the City from the start. The story we learn at school in Greece is very similar, except we place a lot of emphasis on what the crusaders did IN Constantinople. Wikipedia:"The crusaders inflicted a savage sacking on Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient Greco-Roman and medieval Byzantine works of art were either stolen or destroyed. The magnificent Library of Constantinople was destroyed. Many of the civilians of the city were slaughtered, raped and looted. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's churches and monasteries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared.[49][50] " On the other hand, there had also been a massacre of Latins in Constantinople around 1185. We don't learn a lot about that. But don't think people seriously support the crusade was aimed at Constantinople!
@BulgaroSlav Which is why only Latins were massacred. Yea, sure...
@BulgaroSlav Not buying it. The religious distinctions and motivations were clear. I, a Latin myself, don't condone the "Crusader" genocide upon Constantinople btw
@BulgaroSlav lol if you wanna debate then debate among yourself to find the truth instead of trying to win trophies (non Orthodox) over to your faith
no but some uneducated Catholics try to deny it or try to go around it and say it was all politics, but yet they are very cold. Their mission was to help us yes, but envied us instead and wanted other interests. here in NY They even envy since we have more tradition. The way we show our faith, the way we celebrate it.. THey hate us for saying we are the true faith and they know deep inside their church has so many errors, that is why there was a protestant reformation afterwards. Even they did not like the pope idea
@BulgaroSlav And Thessaloniki was sacked in 1185 in retribution for the Latin massacre. No excuse for sacking Constantinople.
Of course there was no conspiracy for Venice to protect the Mamluk kingdom in Egypt & Palestine. But Venice was very invested in promoting Venice.
during the greek revolution a venetian volunteer blew up the parthenon by "accident"
i am really concerned about the venetians
Correction: Morosini blew up the parthenon. He wasn't a volunteer, he was a doge...or he became one after. Anyhow that happened in the 1600s not during the revolution.
He called it a 'fortunate shot'
Big greek revolution of 727 against Vizantine army..after 1261,greeks took the control of Constantinople until 1453.Later the control had the sultan.
@BulgaroSlav Why we should have?
@Based Basedness Meaning?
Long story short: Problem of Byzantium started after the battle of Manzikert when they lost almost all of Asia minor to Turks in 10 years 1071-1081. Most of their army originated from these areas. Shortly afterwards the Lombards threatened them badly to even capture the empire so they were forced to give special trade rights to Venice so that they would support them against Lombards. So they did. Year after year Venice controlled almost all trade of the state (they were not paying ANY taxes due to their rights) eliminating the local merchants and not paying anything to the state, so they had to take measures to regain their income, so this was the turning point when Venice decided to conquer Byzantium with 4th crusade and break it to pieces. They even had their agreements made before starting about what parts of the empire each one would take and they had a FULL list from their merchants living in the city of Constantinople of what precious artifacts and monuments to loot. this is the truth I am saying and nothing more. Byzantium fell due to butterfly effect actually: Something happens that provokes a series of events.
Since some years, historian have changed their minds abour the battle of manzikert which was not really desastrous for the byzantin army. Byzantian army could reconquest the central anatalia
@@marathamarrak7037 name one piece of literature where they say this
@@elitemangudai1016 Nearly all modern Byzantine history textbooks. Under John II Comnenos they recovered most of Anatolia.
Yeah but the more densely populated regions of Anatolia came back firmly under Byzantine control under Alexios and John. In truth the sack of 1204 was much more deadly than Manzikert, although your explanation makes a lot of sense.
@Bokababe The Crusaders never intended to take Constantinople in the first place. They were drawn into the political turmoil within the city. Also, Alexios Angelos was not a rejected ruler, he had been deposed by a palace coup instigated by a small faction within the larger political environment of Constantinople. Your explanation is ahistorical nonsense.
That's one interpretation of what happened, written by a Greek. Not saying it absolutely didn't happen, but there's no absolute evidence that it did happen. Latins and Greeks both committed all sorts of "war crimes" against each other. Muslims too killed and enslaved untold numbers of Christians. Eastern Christians themselves fought each other, Byzantines themselves were constantly fighting. If you can take all that and find heroes and villains then be my guest, I think it's a futile task.
I'm enjoying watching all your videos. When I was in college I had a class in Medieval history and it consisted solely of this episode, the narrative being how oafish, misguided and avarice riddled the Western Crusaders were to undertake the siege of a foreign Christian bastion citadel. Second text was "the Crusades Through Arab Eyes".
Thanks, glad you're enjoying the videos! Sounds like the class wasn't providing a sound perspective on the Crusades at all.
no, your description fills in a lot of holes about this event. What
really was missing was an overarching understanding of the dire threat to Europeans that the Crusades were aiming to address from Islam.
That's absolute nonsense and there isn't a shred of evidence to verify what you're claiming.
Is what you're referring to the Renaissance and departure from Feudalism being enabled by the wealth taken in the sack of Constantinople?
This is try annd/or (in any ace) admitted by most Western European students. At least, it helped. Of course, we are mainly talking about art and literature. The departure from Feudalism in term of mind attitudes democracy and respect for the single citizen (individuals) is different story.
And the actions of the Byzantine nobility, in neglecting the security of the empire and instead focusing on petty internal squabbling, to the point of plotting against one another and assassinating each other, are also inexcusable. There's plenty of blame to go around to all parties involved.
***** No. He offered to pay them. He came to them asking for their help and offering them a deal. They accepted. They put him on the throne and did not try to interfere with his reign. They even waited patiently while he gathered the payment he'd promised. He visited with them regularly. They had a good relationship. The problem arose when Alexios was murdered by other Byzantines who seized the government and turned hostile toward the Crusaders. At that point the Crusaders felt that they were justified in avenging their murdered friend as much as anything. Latin culture held that murdering a legitimate ruler was among the most unforgivable of offenses.
When the Ottomans were about to conquer Istanbul,(Constantinople)the Byzantine Empire was in a poor state.The Europeans said they would help only if the Byzantines converted to Catholism.But the Byzantine Empire was the head of Orthodoxy, and so could not obey the Pope.Immense hostility existed between the two branches of Christianity.for various historical reasons. Even so on 12 December 1452,a ceremony was directed by Cardinal Isidore,sent by Pope,
The Byzantines themselves knew that their city was a den of vice and greed by that point. Perhaps if they left the Crusaders alone, or perhaps if they actually HELPED THEM, the Crusaders would've ignored or helped Byzantium maintain itself.
So what you're saying is, if the Crusaders kept the city's wealth there and just settled in after taking the city, it'd be all okay?
They tried and failed. The problem is, they betrayed the Crusaders three times already. They let the Crusaders starve in Crusade number one, led them to Muslim ambushes in Crusade number two, and attacked them in crusade number three. They shouldn't have attacked the crusaders with armies of draftees and disloyal mercenaries. If they kept Basil II's citizen-army intact, they'd probably have conquered the Muslims on their own and not need the crusades.
It wasn't greed. It was vengeance. If the Byzantines left the Crusaders alone, the Crusaders would've left them alone. The Pope even continually pressured them to NOT involve themselves with Byzantium.
That was on Venice's orders, and that was because the Crusade was threatening to break up. The Pope reprimanded them for that. Said cities were engaged in a military rebellion against Venice, which was allied with the Crusaders at that time.
And they turned Hagia Sophia into stables.....western animals
The punishment for your schism
Borgia had sex with her daughter.
@@Huczek141 what??
Well it is easier to carry off all that heavy stuff they took with horses and carts..... engineering solution i guess
And from this,many greeks and italians were killed.
Only a fool would consider this the worst thing done in history. I would say the Armenian genocide was worse, as well as the Holocaust. And the Turkish destruction of Constantinople in 1453 was FAR worse. Far more killing, far more desecration, far more rape. There is no comparison.
Real Crusades History first there is no such thing as armenian genocide they don't even have proof all the western lands accepts armenian genocide it's a bullshit if you ask me second what about al the native indians (25mil)who died by the hands of the americans they don't even exist now why don't america apologize about this genocide third ottomans didn't kill anyone when they entered Istanbul infact the sultan allowed everyone his own religion it is highly forbiddin to kill an innocent man in islam al the bullshit about islam on Wikipedia they don't now nothing but you now what you can all go to hell especially you piece of shit.
By the time of fourth Crusade, Constantinople had strongly turned anti Crusaders. In the 1182purge of latins, 60,000 Latins were either killed or sold to Seljuk Turks as slaves, Whats more Constantinople had sent it's army to fight alongside turks against latins on two occassions.
Needless to say, this obvious threat had to be removed for success of any future Crusades.
Crusaders are war like people .if byzatines sided with them .turks would have won
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING IT PLAIN TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO BYZANTIUM
Sad but well said, you laid the vicious misinformation to rest, throwing a great amount of light over untruths . I am sure this piece of the pulse in Byzantine history will be able to enlighten many to learn from the mistakes of the past. But then again one must be willing to accept it
+2coryman Thanks, glad you enjoyed the analysis.
Why should it be so hard?
The facts are not disputed: They did indeed commit mass-murders and rapes. They also did steal all the treasures they could get their hands on and destroyed priceless art.
You don't need to have recordings of their words about their emotions, the actions speak for themselves.
@NovaGub
Good comments NovaGub! I thought of all that stuff, including the massacre of the Latins in the 1180s, and the capture of Zara, but I didn't really have time to mention them in this video. Perhaps in a future video I can use some of your points as sort of an addendum. The capture of Zara is also a disgrace. The Fourth Crusade really is just an all around horrible event an example of what could go the most wrong with a Crusade.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
cybrotius Im Greek and I liked your comment.
@JulianThePhilosopher
The Byzantines took the city back in 1261 after a sneak attack while the Latin army was away. I'm not sure to what extent there was even a battle. The Latin Empire of Constantinople actually did not attract much Crusading enthusiasm and didn't really divert any resources from the Holy Land. It really is a tragedy that the Greeks and Latins ever fought at all, rather than cooperating against Islam.
I agree with you! Both of them had to fight together against the Turks!!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner...
@Oswulf1 I've heard Christopher Tyerman argue against that. He pointed out that the Byzantine holdings had been unstable long before the Crusaders arrived. The struggle among the Hungarians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians, etc combined with the instability within Constantinople itself meant that the Greeks had already lost their ability to maintain a strong state in the face of Turkish opposition once the rivalries among the Turks had been eliminated by the Ottomans.
Yeah. What's simple enough is that you're absolutely making absurd statements. You think the reconquest of Spain was funded by the conquest of Constantinople in 1204? Hilarious! The Latin Empire of Constantinople was a DRAIN on the West's wealth! Within 60 years the whole thing was destroyed after the pope had scrambled to pour money into preserving it. I'm just shocked that anyone could be so utterly mistaken.
Constantinople elites fighting over power and one bought Latin mercenaries who were already excommunicated (and therefore no more crusaders). When the dirty job went out of hand, they have since then kept holding the pope and the Catholic church responsible for it till date.
1)Who asked for help from the Pope? Constantinople.
2) Who made a deal with the excommunicated Latin mercenaries for a political purpose? A noble from Constantinople.
3) When it went wrong, who are being blamed till date, the Pope and the Catholic church.
Nobody ever holds the primary culprits from the elite class of Constantinople responsible. Their elites are the number one culprits and the ''crusaders'' are just accomplices. Call it what it really is, Self-inflicted, and then there is some need to be a victim and shift the blame to someone else.
@Pavlos952 In terms of classical historians, there is no question that in the last forty years virtually all fields of history have been kicked into hyper drive because of the exhaustive capabilities of technology. The simple fact is that history is better now than it's ever been, and yes, present day historians simply know more than historians of any other period.
a) So if you did your 'research', you would have known about the massacre of Latins in Constantinople and removal of Venetian merchants from the Adriatic, by the Byzantine. Then with the inability for the Crusaders to pay the Venetians 85'000 silver marks as promised for the 450 War gallerys many hundred transporters, the Venetians halted the Crusade until the money was paid. This led to the Crusaders and Venetians to sack and capture Zara from Hungary, which was incidently a Catholic city.
Zara/Zadar was part of Croatian kingdom. Hungarian king had held Hungarian and Croatian crown.
@rahotep101
I have read Niketas' chronicle. It's a valuable source, but it's also a biased one. You must also read the Western sources to get an accurate picture, and even then you have to realize that none of these sources are in any way free or partiality. It's pretty clear that the Greeks exaggerated the atrocities.
@Pavlos952 The biggest problem with Runciman, according to medieval scholars today, is that he was incredibly biased in favor of the Byzantines and against the West. He wrote more in the style of a political commentator with an obvious agenda rather than as a neutral historian like Christopher Tyerman or Jonathan Riley-Smith. His very lacking research is also a problem. This is not an opinion I'm giving you, this is the consensus among scholars - they agree that Runciman is horrible.
The fourth crusade= army of darkness, the army of devils, massacre people,army of robber,army of rapper, army of destroyer, army of murderers, army of thief, slaughter their own allies; main objective to fight Egypt army= they started with motivation and distracted at the end=failed, most of them after loots most of their booty, went back to Rome...this is the army that carry the banner of Righteous n holy mission...
@Oswulf1 I will agree with you that that had been the case AFTER the death of Baldwin IV in Jerusalem. But up until then succession of kings had been very smooth in Latin Jerusalem. The power struggle in the Holy Roman Empire was actually pretty rare in the West, generally monarchies changed hands with little incident. That's why the Franks considered Constantinople such a seat of treachery and insurrection.
@alektoros Zionist West? What are you talking about? There was no Zionism in the Middle Ages.
@rahotep101
To call the Latin Empire morally bankrupt is a value judgment that's entirely subjective. One might just as easily dismiss all governments as morally bankrupt. The Latin Empire that was left in the wake of the Fourth Crusade was not so different from the Byzantine government that came before it. The physical damage done to the capital by the Fourth Crusade was nothing compared to the political instability that was brewing for decades.
@Masterfootballer23 Yeah this is definitely one of my least favorite things that ever happened during the Crusades.
@punisherot That would be a cool one! Thanks for the idea, I'll save it for a future video.
blaming the victims again...
@rahotep101
Abbot Martin was not a military leader. The leadership did not sponsor nor participate in massacre. But yes, atrocities did take place and they are incredibly tragic and horrible. I suppose you have no problem with the Greek massacre of Westerners which took place a few years earlier. That was perfectly acceptable to you, right? Since you're just simply anti-Western.
Well, there's absolutely no conclusive evidence that the Fourth Crusade pre-planned to take Constantinople. Even when it comes to the Venetians, all evidence indicates that they intended to fight a war against Islam. Whether or not the Venetians welcomed the opportunity to attack Constantinople is another matter. We can't go by anything other than the evidence, and so far the evidence points to the siege of Constantinople as an unplanned consequence of dicy circumstances.
Excellent participated in the comments section.🤓💕
@Pavlos952 Wrong. Runciman's research wasn't 25% as deep as Riley-Smith or Madden. He was working with old data before computer technology allowed medieval historians to learn far more about medieval documents than ever before. Runciman is not a reliable source for anything but VERY general chronology, and that's the consensus in the field of medieval scholarship.
Also you forgot to mention the Latin Massacre in Constantinople prior the Latin Siege and the underlying reasons behind them. It would make the whole picture look more clear to everyone irrespective of nationality.
Yes i know very well. But this is not an excuse to Sack Konstantinople.and the venetians had flourished with money from our trade routes so thats the reason. But the sack reveled the hatred and the jealousness of the face crusaders
b) Alexios IV, who was the son of the recently deposed Byzantine Emporer, promised to pay the crusaders all the money if, they could place him in power again. When the Crusaders realised that the money would not be paid, they went to sack and plunder Constantinople. The crusade ended before it even started. Since then the divisions were permanent. As said before the crusades were all about region control and wealth.
You are incorrect and obviously biased.
THe history continuous until today the balkans are not have enough srtengh to prosper like the West or to defend themselves from west and east political and economical opressions. the history is united not broken seperate parts my friend. Our greek culture is always in danger first from our choises and second to the foreigners. I dont blame the world more than our country
You're a fool if you don't think Jonathan Philips and Christopher Tyerman are experts on the Fourth Crusade.
I've heard the Crusaders desecrated the Byzantine churches--to the point of pissing on the altars--is that exaggeration?
Unfortunately they did not, though Crusaders did try to capture Egypt over the course of the 13th Century.
don't forget the destruction of templars by philip the fair. it was like: oh, i owe you the money, my layer said that you are heretics... sorry
@Pavlos952 I don't care for biased historians, I go for the unbiased variety. History isn't history if it's biased.
Are you a Roman Catholic?
rch is a roman catholic. That explains why he portrays people like richard the lionheart, louis ix of france and isabella of castille as good guys, ommiting the controversial actions.
Im a Roman Catholic
@@franciscomm7675he is not .i think he anglican british
You said they arrived to the city in June 1203 and they ran out of funds around Feb 1204... why did they stay there instead of continuing to egypt?
Unfortunately no they did not, though Crusaders tries to conquer Egypt over the course of the next century.
Video is speculative and not based on historical facts. There is no mention of true reasons Venice wanted trade routes. The persons that he mentions in text are no real experts I checked them out
Venice was the only trading center that had trading privileges in the Islamic world. Most Venetians weren't even Christians until after the 4th crusade. And even after that they were only nominally Christians.
@Oswulf1 The problem here is you're viewing the events of 1204 as the cause of the Byzantine Empire's weakness, it wasn't the cause, it was the result of that weakness. Had the Byzantine state been strong 1204 would not have been possible. Byzantium really had been weak for a long time, it was just that Alexios I and his immediate successors held off that weakness for a little while longer. The idea that the Fourth Crusade was the cause of that weakness is simply absurd.
The Turkish destruction of Constatinople was less barbaric than the Crusaders', many western historians agree to that.
Yes
The wealth looted from Constantinople is counted at around 1 m. silver marks. The debt to the Venetians for the "Venetian Enterprise" was less than 1/10 (around 70-80,000). About 300-400,000 were officialy splitted among the Crusader factions and about half a milion were secretly kept by the "valiant knights" fighting for the sake of Christianity...
This crusade is very easy to understand, my friend. Constantinopol politics at that time was different and apart from politics of Venetians and prince Alexios.
Historians would describe your analysis as simplistic, heavily biased, and inaccurate.