The first three crusades(well mostly the first) were indeed quite helpful. They made the reconquest of Anatolia a lot easier both by destroying the Turks at Dorylaeum(modern day Eski Sehir) and by creating a number of useful buffer states which would act as lightning rods for muslim attacks leaving the Byzantines unmolested to deal with the Turks. But there's no denying that the fourth crusade was an immeasurably catastrophic blow to the Byzantines. It's not just the capital that was sucked as a one time event but the crusaders came up with a full plan of partitioning the empire. The Balkans fell into anarchy and endless warring giving the Turks enough space to regroup and recover. Moreover the Frankish colonisation of the Balkans and the Aegean region gave rise to feudal structures which also contributed to the general anarchy of the period and further weakened Christian states making it harder to consolidate their power. Moreover maintaining the newly established crusader states in Greece would suck an enormous amount of crusader manpower which could have been very useful in defending the remaining crusader possessions in the Levant. However I'm rather hesitant about considering the catholic church directly responsible. I mean the Pope did whatever he could to dissuade the crusaders, he even threatened excommunication(and he did excommunicate them I think, at least temporalily.) I also agree that the line of emperors following the death of Manuel and leading up to the crusade included some of the most incompetent men in all of Roman history, who did everything they could to make the empire vulnerable. Anyway whatever one thinks of the crusades they can hardly be regarded as the sole reason for the eventual downfall of Byzantium. The factors which led to that are far more complex and they include everything from the countless civil wars of the late Byzantine period to even random events such as the Black Death.
I don't see any evidence that the "feudal" nature of Latin states created any sort of additional chaos. In many respects, feudal government has an advantage over imperial government in that you don't have endless jockeying for control of a capital city like Constantinople. The imperial nature of Byzantium did much to contribute to its chronic civil wars. Also, there's really no indication that large amounts of reinforcement or crusading manpower was directed toward the Latin Empire. The Latin Empire was generally poorly regarded in the West, and despite many pleas from its rulers, never got much help. Some interesting comments you made, though. Thanks for commenting.
Don't forget Manzikert! Of course, it's technically not part of the Crusades, but the First Crusade allowed the Byzantines to recover - at least to some extent.
The thing about the Fourth Crusade is that it wasn't a sanctioned crusade by the time it arrived at the Byzantine Empire. They'd been condemned by the Papacy before that point.
The Crusaders gave the Byzantines a little time and space to breath with the first crusade and then the Crusaders just brought Byzantium into catastrophe with the 4th Crusade of 1204. And that's pretty much the synopsis of the events.
I would say it is wrong to call John's reluctance to fight Zengi a mistake. Consider the unwillingness of Raymond and Joscelin to assist John. They could not be trusted to aid him; indeed, when he was in Antioch, they did their best to murder him. Moreover, they spent the whole of John's campaign dicing. Also consider Runciman's words that for Manuel and John, Zengi/Nurredin, and their kingdom at Aleppo were necessary for keeping the Crusaders afraid, because it was only when they experienced fear, that the Latins were willing to work with Byzantium. When not afraid, they incited the west, in the form of men like Roger II of Sicily and Frederick Barbarossa and various Popes against Byzantium. Also remember that Nurredin and the Zengids ended up as allies for Manuel against the Seljuks and the Anatolian Turks. In 1160, Nurredin attacked Kilij Arslan II and Kilij Arslan ended up becoming Manuel's vassal. It was this opportunity that Manuel wasted. The Byzantines needed friends in the Muslim world, like the Zengids and Fatimids, to keep themselves safe and also to ensure the Crusaders were afraid enough to fall into line.
Exactly, the Muslims were definitely willing to work with them when it was expedient, if the Byzantines had kept those types of policies and thinking there's a possibility they may have not been conquered, but it's really hard to say
A vassal is basicly a client state of a bigger empire and were often forced to pay a specifik sum of money every year, then were also expected to lend troops to their masters If they (the masters) were to get into war.
Hi Real Crusades History, I enjoy your videos very much. Do you write a script for what you say in the video? If you have, I think it would be nice to post it somewhere (e.g. here or in your website). Reading will help us study your text in more detail and able to quote it to others. Just a small suggestion, thank you very much for your work
Assyrians today would be more sympathetic towards the Byzantines I think same as Armenians. I say this because they are orthodox and I live near a lot of them, most of them have pictures of the current Patriarch of Constantinople. I don't know about the Lebanese Maronite's, Egyptian Coptic, Chaldean's etc. At the time of the Crusades I would say they probably supported the Latin Christian Catholics as the Byzantines no longer had a hold in the middle east and those lucky enough to be liberated by the Crusaders from the muslims would have had supported the Crusaders Kingdoms and states. I will say that the Assyrians I have met, which are a lot, treat us Catholics as brothers in Christ (almost all the middle eastern Christians do), however, this does not happen with Greek Orthodox and Serbian Orthodox. Serbians and Greeks tend to be more hostile in attitude and discussion towards Catholics. This is from my personal experience only.
Rafael Arandas Of course the stood with the crusaders The Arab Muslims to them were invaders and they persecuted them (according to our must trusted earliest sources) See the book "seeing Islam as others saw it"
Yes but Emperor Alexios was the main supporter of the Crusades from the beginning. The Crusades or the supposedly good Christians and also a well paid force by the Greek-Byzantines, have never kept their solemn promises to return the Cities like Antioch and many other back to the Emperor....
I think battle of Myriokephalon is too much overtated as a failure. Byzantine Army in Anatolia was still capable - they deafeted Turks at Hyelion and recaptured some forts. Turks didn't became very major threat until the Ottomans in 14th century. Barbarossa and this army devastated them and captured their capital Iconium, even Niceans managed to defeat them in 1211. Byzantines would have still much chances after Manuel I Komnenos to recapture all of Anatolia if not for conflict with the West, incapable rulers, civil wars and hiring foregin mercenaries.
The crusades never benefited the byzantine empire. Byzantines were the real losers of the crusades. The Byzantines gave hegemony of the Eastern Mediterranean to the Republic of Venice with its powerful merchant and naval fleet. Byzantines signed treaties with the Venetian Republic that gave the venetians trade rights and political immunity in Constantinople. Venetians did not even have to pay tax to the byzantine state, all the tax money gained in Constantinople prior to the crusades and during went back to Venice enriching the city. Venetians were supposed to provide naval assistance to the Byzantines but this rarely ever happened. The crusader Kingdom also had a similar treaty with Venice which also hurted them as well leading to their demise at the end of the 12th century. The Venetians became the most powerful Christian Kingdom in Europe and dominated the Mediterranean until the advent of Ottoman and Spanish empires.
The 4th crusade was obviously bad for the Byzantines, but crusades prior to that were a boon to the Empire. From 634 onwards, the Byzantines were engaged in a losing war against the Muslims. Almost all Byzantine territories in Asia and Africa were lost, the Empire had no strategic initiative to speak of, and even Constantinople itself was besieged twice. The crusades changed all that. Not only did the crusaders take the Islamic military pressure off of the weakening empire, the resulting crusader kingdoms became a military buffer zone between the empire and the Muslim forces.
Charles W I would disagree. after the siege constantinople 717-18 the situation had somewhat stabilised in the east and by the ninth century were launching counter attacks in Armenia and syria along the tarus mountains which eventually culminated into the reconquests of some the eastern provinces. relations with the Arabs were the most part sometimes very smooth. a letter in 922 from the patriarch Nicholas mystikos shows the relations at the time. Seljuk turks during turks where not just causing problems for the Byzantine or the crusaders. the caliph in Baghdad and even in fatamid egypt.
Your videos always makes me to play Crusader Kings II. You would really like this game. BTW, don't you think you should use the word Roman instead of Byzantine? It's kind of insulting and it doesn't seem like you hate them.
Thanks, glad you like the videos! Historians today in all areas of the field use the term Byzantine, simply because it distinguishes them from the Roman civilization that came before them. Therefore, I use that term. It's not a negative term at all.
Real Crusades History Though they shouldn't be distinguished from the Roman civilization as there is a direct connection between them to Rome, they are simply the Eastern Empire.
Ligad Ossadon The reality is they are distinguished from the ancient Roman Empire. The Byzantines, while they called themselves Romans, and while they did have an historical connection to the ancient Roman world, had some distinct differences from their Roman forefathers. They evolved their own distinctive civilization, and that is why we refer to them as the Byzantines.
Real Crusades History Nations evolve. No nation can stay the same for over 1000 years. If historians want to refer to a nations change as if they are a complete new civilization, could you say when they stopped being "Romans" and start being "Byzantines"? Was it right off the divide of the Roman Empire to eastern and western?
***** In the year 330 AD the Roman Empire was split to two, the Western Roman Empire that fell to barbarian invasions, and the Eastern Roman Empire who you are now labeling "Byzantine". So yeah they were every bit as Roman as the ones in the West. The differences started to come later on, with the official language turning Greek and the Theme system instead of the Legion system. But they were always called Romans, they just evolved in time.
Our of curiosity is possible for you to put the sources I. The link. I am not trying to diminish the validity of what you say even though I agree only partially with what you say and I simply wish to understand the full picture of what you are saying. What I believe is that the Byzantine empire did flourish in and needed he crusades to drive back the Seljuks and what was striking was that the byzantines had employed crusaders at the most in their armies against the Seljuks and at the very least employed them as mercenaries. The Komenian age florushied with the arrival of the crusades and I understand that the crusaders of the 4th crusade were actually contacted by a Byzantine prince wanting to reclaim his throne via Byzantine politics. Yet there are a few things I have to disagree with based on your findings, I say that the byzantines at first did suffer many raidngs and Bohemond was of Norman(Sicilian) stock who hd gone to war with the Byzantines and the normans were responsible for the loss of Sicily and the invasion of Greece. I do not know much about the history of the crusades, though I have read several documents and primary histories but I have a vast knowledge of the Byzantine empire, Love the channel and am a fervent subscriber DEUS VULT!!
I know it's taboo to comment without watching the vid, but I'm pretty sure the Byzantines would've continued to successfully resist the Turks sans Fourth Crusade, or at least would've held out considerably longer
Blaming 4th Crusade for Byzentine collapse is like blaming indian wars for American collapse today. There's a 250 year gap. Crusaders kept the southern flank safe, without them the empire would have fallen 300 years earlier.
Crusaders: Expendable manpower for the Byzantines, creating a chaos in middle East and Anatolia, neturalizing east Mediterranean. Therefore leaving Byzantines time to recover and capture vital space and even Egypt.
Both. The early crusades bought the Byzantines time to raise their empire to its last golden age. Then they got greedy and in the third and fourth Crusades, picked fights with the Crusaders. They managed to survive the third via diplomacy. They didn't survive the fourth. Even when they attacked the fourth Crusade with burning galleys and larger contingent of troops, the Venetian and Crusader forces chewed them up for breakfast then shat them out before they even figured what was happening.
The first two crusades established a precedent that anyone (including Byzantine governors) could conquer and hold former Byzantine territory for themselves.
Paradoarify You think the Crusaders established that? Nonsense! That was established long before there was a Crusade. Byzantine in-fighting, coups, and civil wars were a constant occurrence throughout Byzantine history.
Who got greedy is a matter of debate. They survived the fourth but were a mere shadow of their former strength. And the only thing they chewed were some mercenaries , cause the Byzantine army was more based on mercenaries at that time.
The Byzantines were the ones who got greedy, because they attacked first. If they didn't attack, the Crusaders would've just left for Egypt, as the Pope told them to.
I think the argument is whether Byzantine would have failed in the 11th Century if not for the 1st Crusade, which bought them an extra 300 years of "life" until the 4th Crusade. I think not. Even without the 1st Crusade, Constantinople would still be safe. Lost a large percentage of territories on the east and most of Palestine/Egypt yes, but Constantinople was unbreathable at that time. The Muslim world was not that well organised at that time and the subsequent Mongolia invasion would have given Byzantine some breather anyway. In fact, constant threat from the Muslim world might have forced better governance for an isolated Byzantine (assuming no connection with Papal Cousins), who know.
Without the dramatic recovery under the Comnenoi, the Byzantine Empire would've been quite weak. And the First Crusade had everything to do with that recovery. Of course nobody can say for sure what would've happened, but the historical reality is that the twelfth century Byzantine recovery began with the First Crusade.
They learned nothimg and hence collapsed. Blaming Crusades for collapse of Byzentine empire is like blaming the nowadays fall of America on the Indian wars. There is a 250 year gap.
i don't watch the video but it was for Byzantine for the followings reasons 1- The first crusaders start pillage Byzantine cities. 2-The fourth crusade destroyed the Byzantines military making easy to otonams conquer 3- The crusades let easy for the Muslim conquer these lands
The first three crusades(well mostly the first) were indeed quite helpful. They made the reconquest of Anatolia a lot easier both by destroying the Turks at Dorylaeum(modern day Eski Sehir) and by creating a number of useful buffer states which would act as lightning rods for muslim attacks leaving the Byzantines unmolested to deal with the Turks. But there's no denying that the fourth crusade was an immeasurably catastrophic blow to the Byzantines. It's not just the capital that was sucked as a one time event but the crusaders came up with a full plan of partitioning the empire. The Balkans fell into anarchy and endless warring giving the Turks enough space to regroup and recover. Moreover the Frankish colonisation of the Balkans and the Aegean region gave rise to feudal structures which also contributed to the general anarchy of the period and further weakened Christian states making it harder to consolidate their power. Moreover maintaining the newly established crusader states in Greece would suck an enormous amount of crusader manpower which could have been very useful in defending the remaining crusader possessions in the Levant.
However I'm rather hesitant about considering the catholic church directly responsible. I mean the Pope did whatever he could to dissuade the crusaders, he even threatened excommunication(and he did excommunicate them I think, at least temporalily.) I also agree that the line of emperors following the death of Manuel and leading up to the crusade included some of the most incompetent men in all of Roman history, who did everything they could to make the empire vulnerable.
Anyway whatever one thinks of the crusades they can hardly be regarded as the sole reason for the eventual downfall of Byzantium. The factors which led to that are far more complex and they include everything from the countless civil wars of the late Byzantine period to even random events such as the Black Death.
I don't see any evidence that the "feudal" nature of Latin states created any sort of additional chaos. In many respects, feudal government has an advantage over imperial government in that you don't have endless jockeying for control of a capital city like Constantinople. The imperial nature of Byzantium did much to contribute to its chronic civil wars.
Also, there's really no indication that large amounts of reinforcement or crusading manpower was directed toward the Latin Empire. The Latin Empire was generally poorly regarded in the West, and despite many pleas from its rulers, never got much help.
Some interesting comments you made, though. Thanks for commenting.
Great answer and very well worded
It was plain bad luck, they lost an important battle coz of human elements and did not get a chance to recover.
Don't forget Manzikert! Of course, it's technically not part of the Crusades, but the First Crusade allowed the Byzantines to recover - at least to some extent.
The thing about the Fourth Crusade is that it wasn't a sanctioned crusade by the time it arrived at the Byzantine Empire. They'd been condemned by the Papacy before that point.
But I bet nobody would have told them
@Firstname Lastname you're absolutely right
The Crusaders gave the Byzantines a little time and space to breath with the first crusade and then the Crusaders just brought Byzantium into catastrophe with the 4th Crusade of 1204. And that's pretty much the synopsis of the events.
+Basil II The Purple Born The Empire was doomed after 635
The crusaders didn't give any time to the children and other local Christian civilians who the crusaders murdered.
I would say it is wrong to call John's reluctance to fight Zengi a mistake.
Consider the unwillingness of Raymond and Joscelin to assist John. They could not be trusted to aid him; indeed, when he was in Antioch, they did their best to murder him. Moreover, they spent the whole of John's campaign dicing. Also consider Runciman's words that for Manuel and John, Zengi/Nurredin, and their kingdom at Aleppo were necessary for keeping the Crusaders afraid, because it was only when they experienced fear, that the Latins were willing to work with Byzantium. When not afraid, they incited the west, in the form of men like Roger II of Sicily and Frederick Barbarossa and various Popes against Byzantium.
Also remember that Nurredin and the Zengids ended up as allies for Manuel against the Seljuks and the Anatolian Turks. In 1160, Nurredin attacked Kilij Arslan II and Kilij Arslan ended up becoming Manuel's vassal. It was this opportunity that Manuel wasted. The Byzantines needed friends in the Muslim world, like the Zengids and Fatimids, to keep themselves safe and also to ensure the Crusaders were afraid enough to fall into line.
Exactly, the Muslims were definitely willing to work with them when it was expedient, if the Byzantines had kept those types of policies and thinking there's a possibility they may have not been conquered, but it's really hard to say
A vassal is basicly a client state of a bigger empire and were often forced to pay a specifik sum of money every year, then were also expected to lend troops to their masters If they (the masters) were to get into war.
like I said, crazy that they didn't work closer together... I would, if I ran the Byzantine Empire...
Good video. First time I heard anything in detail about John komnenos. Anywhere else I can find out more about him?
Hi Real Crusades History, I enjoy your videos very much.
Do you write a script for what you say in the video? If you have, I think it would be nice to post it somewhere (e.g. here or in your website). Reading will help us study your text in more detail and able to quote it to others.
Just a small suggestion, thank you very much for your work
I do for some of them and I sometimes post them in the about box. For some I just start talking, and this would be one of those videos.
could you cite your art choices in this vid (the first one)? i really like it!
I wonder...which side did the ARAB CHRISTIANS or the Christian minorities in the Middle East support? Like the Assyrians and other people?
Assyrians today would be more sympathetic towards the Byzantines I think same as Armenians. I say this because they are orthodox and I live near a lot of them, most of them have pictures of the current Patriarch of Constantinople. I don't know about the Lebanese Maronite's, Egyptian Coptic, Chaldean's etc. At the time of the Crusades I would say they probably supported the Latin Christian Catholics as the Byzantines no longer had a hold in the middle east and those lucky enough to be liberated by the Crusaders from the muslims would have had supported the Crusaders Kingdoms and states.
I will say that the Assyrians I have met, which are a lot, treat us Catholics as brothers in Christ (almost all the middle eastern Christians do), however, this does not happen with Greek Orthodox and Serbian Orthodox. Serbians and Greeks tend to be more hostile in attitude and discussion towards Catholics. This is from my personal experience only.
Did they fight alongside the Crusaders though against the Muslims ruling the Holy Land?
Im Lebanese Catholic and we fully support Rome and ALL the crusades.
Rafael Arandas
Of course the stood with the crusaders
The Arab Muslims to them were invaders and they persecuted them (according to our must trusted earliest sources)
See the book "seeing Islam as others saw it"
Roman Catholic they are not orthodox, both armenians and assyrians are different churches. Nothing to do with the EO church.
Yes but Emperor Alexios was the main supporter of the Crusades from the beginning.
The Crusades or the supposedly good Christians and also a well paid force by the Greek-Byzantines, have never kept their solemn promises to return the Cities like Antioch and many other back to the Emperor....
The Alexiad is a great read if anyone was skeptical
God bless you Real Crusader.
I think battle of Myriokephalon is too much overtated as a failure. Byzantine Army in Anatolia was still capable - they deafeted Turks at Hyelion and recaptured some forts. Turks didn't became very major threat until the Ottomans in 14th century. Barbarossa and this army devastated them and captured their capital Iconium, even Niceans managed to defeat them in 1211. Byzantines would have still much chances after Manuel I Komnenos to recapture all of Anatolia if not for conflict with the West, incapable rulers, civil wars and hiring foregin mercenaries.
These are all good points.
SHEESH YOU ARE ON POINT.... MAKE GOOD SOLID POINTS AND SPEAK VERY WELL....
KEEP ON KEEPIN ON DUDE....
the thumbnail to this video is very striking
Skanderbeg is a pro in destroying Ottoman armies :)
Shame, that the Albanians lost by converting to Islam
The first crusades were indeed quite helpful.
The crusades never benefited the byzantine empire. Byzantines were the real losers of the crusades. The Byzantines gave hegemony of the Eastern Mediterranean to the Republic of Venice with its powerful merchant and naval fleet. Byzantines signed treaties with the Venetian Republic that gave the venetians trade rights and political immunity in Constantinople. Venetians did not even have to pay tax to the byzantine state, all the tax money gained in Constantinople prior to the crusades and during went back to Venice enriching the city. Venetians were supposed to provide naval assistance to the Byzantines but this rarely ever happened. The crusader Kingdom also had a similar treaty with Venice which also hurted them as well leading to their demise at the end of the 12th century. The Venetians became the most powerful Christian Kingdom in Europe and dominated the Mediterranean until the advent of Ottoman and Spanish empires.
Venice acted more like Jews then Christians...
@@Ghost-vi8qm unironically true
The 4th crusade was obviously bad for the Byzantines, but crusades prior to that were a boon to the Empire. From 634 onwards, the Byzantines were engaged in a losing war against the Muslims. Almost all Byzantine territories in Asia and Africa were lost, the Empire had no strategic initiative to speak of, and even Constantinople itself was besieged twice. The crusades changed all that. Not only did the crusaders take the Islamic military pressure off of the weakening empire, the resulting crusader kingdoms became a military buffer zone between the empire and the Muslim forces.
The crusaders didn't give any "boon" to the children and other local Christian civilians who the crusaders murdered.
Charles W I would disagree. after the siege constantinople 717-18 the situation had somewhat stabilised in the east and by the ninth century were launching counter attacks in Armenia and syria along the tarus mountains which eventually culminated into the reconquests of some the eastern provinces. relations with the Arabs were the most part sometimes very smooth. a letter in 922 from the patriarch Nicholas mystikos shows the relations at the time. Seljuk turks during turks where not just causing problems for the Byzantine or the crusaders. the caliph in Baghdad and even in fatamid egypt.
After 634, losing the war against the Muslims? You don't believe your own words, do you?
Your videos always makes me to play Crusader Kings II.
You would really like this game.
BTW, don't you think you should use the word Roman instead of Byzantine? It's kind of insulting and it doesn't seem like you hate them.
Thanks, glad you like the videos! Historians today in all areas of the field use the term Byzantine, simply because it distinguishes them from the Roman civilization that came before them. Therefore, I use that term. It's not a negative term at all.
Real Crusades History Though they shouldn't be distinguished from the Roman civilization as there is a direct connection between them to Rome, they are simply the Eastern Empire.
Ligad Ossadon The reality is they are distinguished from the ancient Roman Empire. The Byzantines, while they called themselves Romans, and while they did have an historical connection to the ancient Roman world, had some distinct differences from their Roman forefathers. They evolved their own distinctive civilization, and that is why we refer to them as the Byzantines.
Real Crusades History Nations evolve. No nation can stay the same for over 1000 years. If historians want to refer to a nations change as if they are a complete new civilization, could you say when they stopped being "Romans" and start being "Byzantines"? Was it right off the divide of the Roman Empire to eastern and western?
***** In the year 330 AD the Roman Empire was split to two, the Western Roman Empire that fell to barbarian invasions, and the Eastern Roman Empire who you are now labeling "Byzantine". So yeah they were every bit as Roman as the ones in the West.
The differences started to come later on, with the official language turning Greek and the Theme system instead of the Legion system.
But they were always called Romans, they just evolved in time.
Our of curiosity is possible for you to put the sources I. The link. I am not trying to diminish the validity of what you say even though I agree only partially with what you say and I simply wish to understand the full picture of what you are saying. What I believe is that the Byzantine empire did flourish in and needed he crusades to drive back the Seljuks and what was striking was that the byzantines had employed crusaders at the most in their armies against the Seljuks and at the very least employed them as mercenaries. The Komenian age florushied with the arrival of the crusades and I understand that the crusaders of the 4th crusade were actually contacted by a Byzantine prince wanting to reclaim his throne via Byzantine politics. Yet there are a few things I have to disagree with based on your findings, I say that the byzantines at first did suffer many raidngs and Bohemond was of Norman(Sicilian) stock who hd gone to war with the Byzantines and the normans were responsible for the loss of Sicily and the invasion of Greece. I do not know much about the history of the crusades, though I have read several documents and primary histories but I have a vast knowledge of the Byzantine empire, Love the channel and am a fervent subscriber DEUS VULT!!
I know it's taboo to comment without watching the vid, but I'm pretty sure the Byzantines would've continued to successfully resist the Turks sans Fourth Crusade, or at least would've held out considerably longer
With the Angeloi in charge? That’s a big doubt for me.
Blaming 4th Crusade for Byzentine collapse is like blaming indian wars for American collapse today. There's a 250 year gap.
Crusaders kept the southern flank safe, without them the empire would have fallen 300 years earlier.
@@magatism You know what, you're probably right
@@georgelabe-assimo4365 they would have been dethroned sooner or later.
Crusaders: Expendable manpower for the Byzantines, creating a chaos in middle East and Anatolia, neturalizing east Mediterranean. Therefore leaving Byzantines time to recover and capture vital space and even Egypt.
This is well argued.
Both.
The early crusades bought the Byzantines time to raise their empire to its last golden age. Then they got greedy and in the third and fourth Crusades, picked fights with the Crusaders. They managed to survive the third via diplomacy. They didn't survive the fourth. Even when they attacked the fourth Crusade with burning galleys and larger contingent of troops, the Venetian and Crusader forces chewed them up for breakfast then shat them out before they even figured what was happening.
Well put, my friend.
The first two crusades established a precedent that anyone (including Byzantine governors) could conquer and hold former Byzantine territory for themselves.
Paradoarify You think the Crusaders established that? Nonsense! That was established long before there was a Crusade. Byzantine in-fighting, coups, and civil wars were a constant occurrence throughout Byzantine history.
Who got greedy is a matter of debate. They survived the fourth but were a mere shadow of their former strength. And the only thing they chewed were some mercenaries , cause the Byzantine army was more based on mercenaries at that time.
The Byzantines were the ones who got greedy, because they attacked first. If they didn't attack, the Crusaders would've just left for Egypt, as the Pope told them to.
I think the argument is whether Byzantine would have failed in the 11th Century if not for the 1st Crusade, which bought them an extra 300 years of "life" until the 4th Crusade. I think not. Even without the 1st Crusade, Constantinople would still be safe. Lost a large percentage of territories on the east and most of Palestine/Egypt yes, but Constantinople was unbreathable at that time. The Muslim world was not that well organised at that time and the subsequent Mongolia invasion would have given Byzantine some breather anyway. In fact, constant threat from the Muslim world might have forced better governance for an isolated Byzantine (assuming no connection with Papal Cousins), who know.
Without the dramatic recovery under the Comnenoi, the Byzantine Empire would've been quite weak. And the First Crusade had everything to do with that recovery. Of course nobody can say for sure what would've happened, but the historical reality is that the twelfth century Byzantine recovery began with the First Crusade.
The 4th crusade destroyed byzadium
They learned nothimg and hence collapsed. Blaming Crusades for collapse of Byzentine empire is like blaming the nowadays fall of America on the Indian wars. There is a 250 year gap.
False equivalence
@@Michael_the_Drunkard How so ???
good video
10:10 So sad, something great could have come out of there.
i don't watch the video but it was for Byzantine for the followings reasons
1- The first crusaders start pillage Byzantine cities.
2-The fourth crusade destroyed the Byzantines military making easy to otonams conquer
3- The crusades let easy for the Muslim conquer these lands
So basically what you're saying is you don't know the history of this period.
But who i'am to talk about medieval times
Then why did you comment?
for the reason many people comment on youtube........ atention
I watch your video about child and poor crusade, esplendid, now i understand more about this "infamous" crusade
ธนาคารไทยพาณิชย์. คู่กับโชว์รูม. โปรตอน. เทียน. 1. ดอกตั้งโต๊ะ. ในกระถางธูป. ธูป. 9. ดอกตามความนึกถึง. cookbook. two. fat. ladies