Conquest and Fall of Constantinople - Part 12 - Fourth Crusade: Zara to Constantinople
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 січ 2022
- Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: www.wren.co/start/flashpointh... The first 100 people who sign up will have 10 extra trees planted in their name!
==================================
The arrival of Prince Alexios and his lucrative offer is just too good to pass up. The Fourth Crusade is diverted away from the Crusading in the Holy Land and instead arrives at Constantinople with the intention of putting the young Prince back on the Throne.
==================================
Massive thank you to the Art Work of Nikolaos Thessalos
nikolaosthessalosart.com/portf...
/ nikolaosthes. .
Big Thanks as always to Embrace History for the Total War Anima
Please check out his channel:
ua-cam.com/channels/Lzb.html...
A huge shout out to Know History as well - amazing renders of the first crusade characters!! Check out his channel:
ua-cam.com/channels/cwE.html...
=================================
CONTRIBUTE ON PATREON:
/ fphx
==================================
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
" The Fourth Crusade 1202 - 04 and the Betrayal of Byzantium"
- David Nicolle
" The Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople"
- J. Phillips
"Short Hx of Byzantium" JJ Norwich
"1453" Roger Crowley
===================================
DOWNLOAD THE ALL THE FREE PODCAST EPISODES:
itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/f...
FOR ANDEROID USERS:
fphistory.libsyn.com
This video was sponsored by Wren
#fourth #crusade #documentary
Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: www.wren.co/start/flashpointhistory The first 100 People who sign up will have 10 extra trees planted in their names.
I have one more video on the Fourth Crusade coming up in Feb - until then enjoy, leave some comments, and please share on social media! Take care everyone!!
True & non biased history is extremely difficult to come across bcause it teaches us many historical lessons. Hats off to your tremendous research & further your non biased effort of bringing out historical events in true👍 perspective.
Keep up the good work.
Regards from PAKISTAN 🇵🇰.
Thank you so much for this - I try to present the history with as little bias as possible
Its been a year since the inception of this series yet it is still as splendid as it has started yesterday.
Really appreciate this comment - can't believe this side journey has become such a long road. I've enjoyed making it and comments like this keep me going
The most interesting documentary series I've watched on UA-cam, may you continue making them as many as possible!
Thank you so much! - wait are you the guy w/ the bow and arrow?
Amazing work FPH! always looking forward to the next part
As always appreciate it !
I didn’t want to cry today man
Wait till the next video - you'll be bawling
@@FlashPointHx Maybe you should make an alternate history video-one where the eastern Romans are victorious, and the Pope is forced to submit to the Orthodox Church.
If Prince Alexios had never approached the Crusaders with his offer, do you think that they would have even gone to Constantinople? How important do you think is role was to the fate of the city?
Alexios III had he simply attacked… imagine what might have been saved.
Right?
Thank God this James guy was there to provide all these quotes
Good read
Saw the notification 13hrs ago , did not want to watch cause i know the impact on me ,
13 hrs managed to resist till i broke and watch it . Why Flash Point History ? Why do you make them so good ?
No i did not cry , its the onions ................................
Have a nice Sunday !
Happy Sunday to you as well! If this makes you sad, the next video is going to be really depressing
@@FlashPointHx i know .......
Can’t wait for the next episode!!
Hopefully out by the end of the month
Another great video, I love this series. Your history videos are amongst the most enjoyable to watch out there
it feels so lifelike. like I'm with the crusaders lol
@@ashleyalexander7388 hahaha - thats awesome - exactly the feeling I wanted to convey
Thank you so much Chris!
I am enjoying all the fascinating videos and appreciate how you present the facts without bias. Keep up the excellent work!
Thank you so much !
I'm glad to hear you narrating again. Thanks for the video
My pleasure! I love doing my own narration - also nice to work with other content creators
Great video as allways. Can't wait for the next part
Thanks - will have it out in late Feb.
Fantastic video keep it up your doing amazing job
Thank you!!
Perfect as always
Wow - thanks!
good job man. hank you for telling us the history and we will be waiting the next parts
Thank you so much !
I have enjoyed all of your series work. Fantastic detail, great visuals to grease my imagination. Keep them coming!
Thank you very much! Will do!
i was going to go to bed and then i see this. great video !!!
hahha - Hope you still get some decent sleep =)
@@FlashPointHx haha better than Alexios the 3de during the siege.
Yesterday it was a miserable evening here in Dresden, Germany this video came and saved the whole day. 💎💎💎
Glad to hear that! So good to know I got a fan in Dresden!
Thank you! Great video as always
My pleasure Mateus !!
The lad Manuel I, was considered by many the most powerful man in Europe.
24 years later... who could have imagined..
He was
Buenísimo video. Enhorabuena desde España
For the algorithm great work.
Appreciate it !
I always make time to watch these whenever they are released haha so much fun
Awesome to hear - let me know what you think of it
@@FlashPointHx great as usual. I’m really enjoying this series
Another jewel of a history video. 👌 Thank you very much.
Glad you enjoyed it Luis!
Les gooooo
Top quality as always🔥
Appreciate it Cartier
Soo good!!
Thanks!
Thank you so much 💖💖🌌💫
You're so welcome! Love the cat avatar
Let's goooo
Yup
Love it!!
Thank you!!
The whole crusade unfolding on Byzantium has many contradictions on both sides from what I can see: Dodge Dandolo, an old man in his 70’s , leading his vanguard on multiple occasions while Byzantine Emperor Alexios, who on the last battle outnumbered the crusader host many times over, decides to evacuate the battlefield and behind the walls of Constantinople.
Great video!
Thanks!
I am so glad I found your channel when it was relative small. Seeing it rise and flourish is a pleasure dear Sir. ☺️👍
As always a masterful made and narrated video.👌😎
Yes - you've really watched this grow. I've remembered your comments for while now. Always appreciate your insight
Great job
Thank you!!
Ok, Alexius III is my new arch-villain!
These videos are epic! Great job!
Cool, thanks!
1.) It's kinda funny how the conflicts between Christians and Muslims is usually depicted as one religion against another, when in reality they would fight amongst themselves as often as they fought each other
2.) Those horse ships are cool, I wonder why we don't hear about those more often, I wonder if the Mongols used them
humans are troublesome things.
@@ashleyalexander7388 Especially the ones that can adapt and advance the implements of war
Religion served as an excuse for war when it fit the need. Look at the reconquista - whenever a monarch needed funds he'd declare something a crusade or holy war. As for the Mongols - one of their greatest strengths was sizing up military talent. If something looked promising they would adapt and incorporate it. If they saw those horse ships - they would have kidnipped every sailor and engineer they could find to build them for their armies.
It's tempting to say three religions. Certainly the Eastern Church was entwined with the Byzantine empire, which saw itself as the true continuation of the Roman Empire; whereas Western Europe was seen as a bunch of barbarian upstarts, a view reinforced by the 4th Crusade.
@@sillypuppy5940 Except that Rome never ceased to exist. I think both sides have valid claims.
As far as the political Roman empire goes, it started in Rome and remained there for a long time before Constantinople. During this time, many of the barbarian tribes within its borders became Romanized. The eastern Roman empire did not have many actual Roman (Latin) people. Maybe in the first few centuries, but it was largely Greek. Also, the ER empire included so called "barbarian" peoples, like the Slavs and Bulgars (who later asserted independence.)
As far as Christianity goes, I think the eastern Romans a more legitimate claim. The Orthodox Church even today is closest to the early Church under Constantine, as established at the Council of Nicaea. Rome was originally one of the five Patriarchates, which were supposed to have equal authority. Constantinople was another, along with Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. In the first few centuries of eastern Roman rule, Rome and western Christians were part of the Orthodox Church. Politics and cultural differences caused the Roman bishops to separate themselves, to get a little too big for their britches, so to speak.
There is always two sides to every story. I find myself more sympathetic to the Orthodox cause, but the eastern Romans had a role to play in the split.
For one, they didn't help the (actual) Romans when they were being invaded by various barbarians. Pope Leo had to go talk to Attila the Hun (history doesn't record what was said, but probably something along the lines of "please don't invade our city and rape our women".) This was repeated with the Lombards and other invaders. At this time, Rome was under the rule of Constantinople, and the emperors did not send armies to protect the Latins.
Eventually, the bishop and city of Rome chose Charlemagne as their protector, and recognized him as their emperor. Why? Because Charlemagne sent protected the bishop of Rome, and championed the church. While the emperors in Constantinople did nothing. Not since the days of Justinian, anyway. The Latin Romans had been drifting apart from the Greek Romans for centuries, politically and culturally. They no longer saw any need to pay lip service to Constantinople, especially because their city was the actual Rome, original capital of the Roman empire.
It is a very difficult task for a large and ethnically diverse empire to maintain unity for any period. Diocletian may have thought he was saving the empire when he decided to split in two halves. While this may have worked in the short term, it sowed the seeds for long term division.
Also, I think that the eastern Romans were just as "barbaric" as the western Romans at times. The Nika Riots; Andronicus Komnenus; the massacre of the Latins.
Not only was the sack of Constantinople barbaric and cruel-it was STUPID and SHORTSIGHTED. Not surprising, because it was driven by greed and revenge. Emotional, not logical, without any consideration for long term ramifications. They didn't have the benefit of hindsight, and I doubt any of them could have forseen the consequences to both western and eastern Christians that would follow over the centuries.
The level of incompetence from the emperor makes you feel really bad for the byzantine people. They had the means to repel the crusader attack but then he just said “peace out”. He spat on the legacy of the empire
Couldn't have said it better myself Hazzmati
Didn't the byzantine massacre some Latin.
@@blugaledoh2669 No they didn't in the way it is being told. The story is more complicated. Ask yourself how on earth did Latin people still live inside the City in the 10s of 1000s the very next month of the massacre to the point of being able to organise a rebellion and capture and punish - note "by 2 Latin soldiers" (soldiers!) - of the anti-Venetian Emperor Andronikos I. Ask also yourself how on earth Venetians were still living in the city even at the very fateful day of 15 April 1204. It is a much more obscure story in which too much effort has been shed to justify the Venetians. Ask yourself why nobody speaks of the earlier (11 years earlier than the so-called "Massacre of Latins") attack of Venice against Constantinople.
The moral of the story is that the Greeks precisely failed to Massacre the Latins early on and they paid the price. Had they massacred them all in 1171 after beating the invading Venetian fleet they would not have to deal with all that. The price the civilised have to pay will always be payed by the blood of the civilised.
The giga chad podcaster is back again,
Hahahah
Such a big gem at these late hours.
Thanks! Where are you in the world? I released this about 1 PM my time
Amsterdam
@@FlashPointHx However it's Saturday and there's no greater pleasure to watch the Queen of Cities come to live in your podcasts !
@@1992zorro Thats right Amsterdam - need to get out there one of these days
Doge Dandolo was 96 years old (and blind) in 1203!
But could still lead his men over the wall
... Dandolo was a beast!
mmm out of expletives just so professionly done
it seems like you have made it through the entire series almost! Thank you for all the comments Joe
@@FlashPointHx going through again with grandson
@@joehedley6964 Wow - I hope your grandson likes it. Albeit there are parts of the podcast that have descriptions that may be a bit much for a 6 yo
noice... the end have me shivers. ohhh
The end of the empire is coming near
You should have a million subscribers
Working on it Matt ;)
"There was great death of Greeks that day." chronicle Devastatio Constantinopolitana.
what software tools you use to make such great videos and animations?
I have a Mac so I use Apple Motion and Final Cut Pro
"With the collapse of the empire in the west, its eastern counterpart became, in reality, an entirely new and independent state, at once Greek by language and Roman in name: 'A Greek Roman empire'."
Roderick Beaton, "The Greeks: a global history", New York: Basic books 2021, pp. 212
Nice quote. Spot on
Yeah i find it really hard to think that this is the same rome of caesar and trajan... Not since justinian at least
@@AbdelEmperor People and cultures do change. We need to accept this fact. Anyone could argue that China today ain't the same China of 2th Century, but Chinese are Chinese despite all social, cultural, religious, political changes. Romans of the East considered themselves Romans and besides Latins (but only after 800 A.D.) everyone at the international scene recognised their Romanness.
@@adrianocarvalho6113 What i mean is: look at Aetius for example even if the empire has changed so much from the days of scipio and caesar it still feels like the same empire , and i think the main reason is the language and the fact that it was in still italy. The esatern after as you said the 800 with its greek cloak does not echo the roman empire of old this is the roman empire that the greeks today are so proud of and feel like its theirs while i assume the poeple of rome and italy reminisce only up to the fall of the west.
Even for all the changes it went through as long as there was a western empire it still felt like the rome of old was still around.
@@adrianocarvalho6113 Let me inform you that Chinese and Greek happen to be the two most ancient languages worldwide that are still being spoken to this very day. The Chinese of the 2nd century and the Chinese of today speak the same language. That's why they are both considered Chinese even though they didn't always self-identified as "Chinese". The Greeks speak unstoppably Greek from 1500 B.C. to this very day. The Medieval Romaioi were Greek speakers and the Greek language was an essential part of their identity. From the 7th century onwards only Greek speakers were considered to be "Romaioi" and that's why in all Lexica from the 8th century onwards Romaios and Greek are SYNONYMOUS TERMS.
You wrote: "Everyone at the international scene recognized their Romanness"?! That's not accurate at all. All western Europeans, even the Vikings, recognized their Greekness and called them Greeks. All Eastern Europeans like the Bulgars and Rus also identified them mostly as Greeks. Only the Arabs downplayed their Greekness and called them Romans (Rum), simply because they wanted to appropriate Greek philosophy and promote themselves as the true continuators of the ancients Greek heritage
Good thing the Crusaders are usually known for their patience and respectful demeanor when it comes to foreign lands. Otherwise they might have considered taking what was owed to them via less than savory means.
hahahah - yeah manners is the key word here. First thing that comes to mind when I think of the Crusades
Im waiting for the entire series in 1 video like the others. Will there be one ? Every time I see another part I think this should be the last one before the whole series in 1 video.
There will be one more video - which will cover the fall of the empire next. Then I'll make two compilation videos - one on the 4th crusade and a big one that will combine parts 6 - 13.
@@FlashPointHx great looking forward to it. Love your work🙂
I was just reading the JJ Norwich section on the 14th century as regards the Byzantine Empire. Spoiler: Ah, it's so sad.
Oh yeah
I've made my way thru parts 1 to 12 and am quite hooked... but it seems it ends here? I can't find part 13 or any additional parts here on UA-cam. But I need to know what happens next! Where can I find it?
I'm making it now - it should be out at the end of the month =)
Alexios ||| is the worst emperor ever
Wait till we get to Alexios IV even worse and then Alexios V - worst than that
👍👍👍
hahha - Thanks Henkster!
Who were the Turkish allies during the capture of Constantinople in1453?
Then the crusaders turned against him and the varangians abondened him
Eastern roman empire seem to often have well organized and equiped armies. But alitle resistance and they run like chickens. The Varangians was the contrast but what can you do when the Emperor himself runs🙄
The video is great but the fourth crusade is kinda meh doesn't feel like a crusade at all. I do am curious to see how Alexios IV handle the situation.
hahaha - good point. As for Alexios IV - what can I say? It was a job to die for.
hardest try not to cry challenge
Wait to you get to the end of this one
From now on, it will become depressing
All good things come to an end
@@FlashPointHx sadly yes. Nevertheless, very good video
"Sword-bayoneted"??? I wasn't aware that they had bayonets in the 11th century!😀
Well its meant to indicate the action of the sword - just sounded cool
So _that's_ why Constantinople got the works!
Yup - but from what I've heard it was nobody's business but the turks
Cursed notification :(
Wait till the next video ;)
Alexios III really was an incomptent idiot. Do you have any theory as to why he chose not to attack the Crusaders when victory was within his grasp? Was he so terrified that he'd lose?
He was only thinking of his own skin. Too bad Constantine XI wasn't emperor a the time. He had the misfortune of inheriting the scraps of the empire, thanks to his incompetent and cowardly predecessors like Alexios III. Constantine XI ultimately lost, but he showed tremendous courage and resolve in the face of insurmountable odds. He did not abandon his city or his people, he died with them.
Not all heros are victorious, a man's character in the face of certain defeat is even more telling than a man's character in the face of victory. If the eastern Romans had a leader like Constantine XI, things could have turned out very differently. Even is they had an average or mediocre leader, they could have won. But they didn't. They were ruled by the most incompetent emperor from the most incompetent dynasty in eastern Roman history.
Eric Agos said so well. A III just never had any fight in him. The fires also did the most damage to his credibility and he felt his support evaporating - he took the cowards way out. His encounter with the 4th crusade reminds of that adage: 'An army of sheep led by a lion will always defeat an army of lions led by a sheep. '
Eric - what an epic response! Agree completely!!
@@FlashPointHx The strange thing here is how he marched the army out of city, which was quite an aggressive move, and not strictly necessary in those circumstances. Perhaps he swung from despair as the sea walls were breached, to wild elation as the initial attacks were repulsed, and right back to despair when the outnumbered crusaders didn't flee before his host. The debacle at Galata was no doubt fresh in his mind. Rather pathetic showing, whatever the case. Better to be led by an honest sheep than one who pretends to be a lion.
I love how your sponsorship is actually a meaningful advert. and of help to the planet no simple cashgrab Operation without any real sense like other UA-camrs with their Rise of kingdoms advertising are doing
Thanks for this. TBH I post similar ads - but this one I felt good about. In fact I only charged them half the price as it was such a good cause.
I’m surprised to see you didn’t use the fourth crusade by Thomas F. Madden as a source it’s the go to book for this subject. Phillips is good but madden would have added more perspective.
He was my professor in college. You're right - good prospective. Just, been there done that.
@@FlashPointHx That is awesome! I did a lot of research on the crusades in college. There is a lot of interesting books worth checking out. Christopher Tyerman wrote a book all about the evolution on the crusades that was essential for my paper.
Sultan Murad Kiosk was around in 1203? 😉
Not sure :)
Nothing good 👍 can come from a random prince 🤴 makes outrageous promises like that yo.
Its either gona end bad or really bad - that said, if the deposed prince of Nigeria sends you an email. . . .
venetian huh?..hm interesting...cool video.cheer!
same like king and general.you really should get more view
Hey thanks so much!!
@@Xaries82 Tell me about it =)
@@FlashPointHx what your email..i got some idea.you could get more view.it about next chapter that i proposed.
@@Xaries82 I'll take a look
I will never understand why they tore down Zara's walls before leaving
It was a rival - without walls it could never pose as much of a threat - if it did or attempted to rebuild the walls, Venice would be right there.
@@FlashPointHx A rival to whom, Venice?
@@HittokiriBatosai yes - zara was a rival for trade in the Adriatic - it annoyed Venice that Zara also aligned itself with Hungary - Venice wanted to destabilize that for its own benefit
The enemy within
The "Massacre of the Latin" was not at all the root-cause of the Venetian belligerence against Constantinople. Nor was it a "Massacre" in the sense that it was later presented in Venetian-influenced western historiography. If anything the very next day of the Massacre there were still 10s of 1000s of Venetians alone let alone other Italians within the city who were instrumental in helping the Angeli clan bring down Andronicos I - a strict but just Emperor who was posthumously only attributed "extra-bad-deeds" to justify the Venetian belligerence. Basically whatever you read of Venetians, whether contemporary (mostly non-existing) or later (mostly fabrications), on this has to be brushed off as Venetian anti-Greek propaganda. The end tale of the story is that even as Venetians and Franks stormed the walls from earth and sea in 1204 there were still lots of Venetians inside the city including maintaining their own militia.... and that could be your answer to why somehow defences disappeared and basically Franks and Venetians were climbing, for the most, empty walls apart a few clashes. It explains why armies of 100s of 1000s had failed to capture Constantinople even when it was defended by a few 1000 soldiers and its civilians and fell to a bunch of no more than 20,000 (extremely small army for the deed) Franks and Venetians. BTW the Greek historian Nicetas Choniates was an employee of a Venetian merchant (magic! not massacred!) and it was him who gave him one of the uniforms and armour of his Venetian armed guard, one of many Venetian guards that guarded the Venetian houses within Constantinople (magic! not massacred! LOL!). so Choniates dressed as as a Venetian he stood outside his family's house marking it as a Venetian house so that Franks and Venetians did not harm his wife and kids.
There is so much more to the deeds of the Latins inside Constantinople but prevailing propagandas - in the past Catholic, today those of multi-culti- do not want you to open up your eyes and see what really happened there. When you see you will realise that the main error of the Greeks was precisely the fact that they had NOT massacred the Latins and expulsed them out of the Empire in their entirety. The reason was the treason of the Constantinopolitan oligarchies (talk about a small group of bankers....) which profited from the presence of Italians and who had already intermarried their kids with mostly Venetian merchant aristocracy. Lots of lessons to be learnt here. 1) you need to get rid of the foreigners or it ends up in blood, yours 2) your oligarchies will always be ready to betray you. Always. Thus they need checks and balances.
27:00 Thumbs down for a Weakling Leader defending his city
Right?
I think the fight between Latin/Orthodox is what killed Constantinople.
Imagine if they fought together side by side?
We could've retaken the Holy land and who knows even have it to this day under it's rightful people.
I would rather have a Byzantine Empire over the current rulers of the Middle East.
Well said - I think you’re right. Had they been truly allied as co-religionists they could have been a formidable force
That is what the first Crusade thought also.
I cannot believe this. To you to, @Flash Point History.
This video is a video that should be enlightening the people about the realpolitik and makes them peel through the bravado.
Yet this person with a kings name is still perceiving the world with a bravado. If one wants to change the Middle East, they should start with changing the foreign policies of all Western powers. Stop hating the lands you have ruined. This video is literally about the West ruining the East and yet you are still here spewing hatred.
Romance after the Eastern Roman Empire as much as you want, their successors were better by orders of magnitude. And the people living in that region choose accordingly. Eastern Roman kings had names and titles such as the ''Bulgar Slayer'', titles that screamed of torture and death. They were the most pompous and most intolerant monarchs in history. Their pompousness was the catalyst for their isolation, it exacerbated the Great Schism and sealed their fate.
The people living in those lands were not only betrayed and abandonned, but also ransacked and plundered by the West. The same people that did that also bankrupted Greece in the last decade and have been invading and plundering the Middle East for more than a century. So please, keep your ignorant bravado to yourself, not under this video.
Not to mention, there is no rightful people. You are a moral failiure. Shame on @Flash Point History commenting on you.
@@FlashPointHx Come on man. Who is the rightful people now?
@@emreus1 This video is a recounting of historical events. Everyone is free to draw whatever conclusions they like, and state whatever opinions they have.
"This video is literally about the West ruining the East and yet you are still here spewing hatred."
This is such a tiresome victimhood narrative, most of all it is false. Throughout history, eastern powers caused great devastation to the west-without any provocation.
Early Islamic armies invaded from India to Africa to Persia, and as far WEST as Spain-centuries before the Crusades. The Mongols of the east poured WEST into Europe, leaving a massive death toll and smouldering ruins.
"Romance after the Eastern Roman Empire as much as you want, their successors were better by orders of magnitude"
Which brings us to the next western invader, the Turks. I'm guessing by your name that you are one, which puts your comment in perspective.
You speak of torture and death, of intolerant monarchs, of ransack and plunder. The Ottomans did all this and more. Please explain how they were "better by orders of magnitude" than the Eastern Romans?
Please explain how Basil the Bulgar Slayer is any worse than Sultans like Sulayman, who watched hundreds of Hungarians get beheaded from his throne? The Sultans who ordered the Chios massacres, the Armenian genocides of the late 19th and early 20th century? The time- honoured Ottoman tradition of Sultans killing their brothers?
After conquering Anatolia and Constantinople, the Turks invaded Europe for centuries. They committed large scale civilian massacres of Christians at Otranto (Italy) Chios (Greece) Batak (Bulgaria), to name a few.
The Ottoman slave trade was the backbone of the economy, with a 1609 Census showing that 20% of Constantinople's population was Greek Christian.
The Devshirme blood tax that lasted for over 400 years, took thousands of young boys from Christian families in Europe and elsewhere, forcibly converted them to Islam and made them fight Ottoman wars-almost always against other Christians.
Modern Turkey was in some ways even worse. You said " Stop hating the lands you have ruined." If you are a Turk, tell this to your nation. Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians lived in Anatolia since ancient times. They all adopted Orthodox Christianity early on, long before the Turks invaded.
Look at Turkey today, there is almost no trace of any of these people or their culture. From 1913-1922, Turkey killed 2.5 million Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians. These Christian people represented 25% of the population in 1914 at the start of the genocides. By 1927, they were reduced to 4%. Today, they make up less than one percent.
After the genocides, Turkey passed a series of laws designed to finish the job, collectively known as Turkification.
There was Varlik Vergisi, where Turkish Muslims paid 4% tax while Christians and Jews paid over 200% tax.
There were laws that prohibited Greeks/Armenians/Christians from practising most trades and professions, everything from hairdresser to lawyer.
There was the Surname Law, that forced non Turks to adopt Turkish surnames, with the result that many "Turks" today do not know their true heritage.
All names that referenced the older nations of Anatolia were changed: geographical, civic, human, even species. This was designed to erase the memory of the older Christian civilizations that inhabited Anatolia, in order to make it 100 percent Turkish Muslim state.
In 2005, the Turkish government felt the need to change the names of several species, because the animal's original names referenced the ancestral homelands of the Armenians and Kurds.
Quote: "Unfortunately there are many other species in Turkey which were named this way with ill intentions. This ill intent is so obvious that even species only found in our country were given names against Turkey's unity."
Historical Christian monuments in Turkey have been subjected to one of two fates. They are destroyed, or the price for their survival is being stripped of all Christian identity, and appropriated as part of Islamic Turkish culture.
In recent years, church after church has been seized and subjected to these fates.
In 2015, Turkey seized the Armenian churches of Diyarbakir.
They closed the historic Halki Seminary.
The Hagia Sophias of Trazbon and Nicaea (of great significance to Christian history, site of First and Seventh councils (Nicene Creed and ending Iconoclasm.) In 2020, the Chora Church and THE Hagia Sophia of Constantinople followed.
Apparently, having 3000 mosques in Istanbul isn't enough, Turkey cannot find the decency to leave even a few historic churches to the people who they killed and enslaved for centuries.
Keep in mind that the Hagia Sophia has the same significance to Orthodox Christians that the Kabaa in Mecca has to Muslims.
Keep in mind that the Hagia Sophia was first used as a mosque after Turkish troops broke down the doors and killed thousands of Greek Christian civilians seeking refuge inside, selling the survivors into slavery.
Has it ever occurred to you that the Hagia Sophia wouldn't exist without Christians and the Eastern Roman empire? Without them, Turkey would have no Hagia Sophia. The HS and Eastern Roman culture had a great impact on the Turks. Subsequent Ottoman mosques were heavily inspired by the Greek Orthodox architecture. For this reason alone, Turkey owes a tremendous debt to the people who lived in Anatolia before them.
Yet Turkey responds by trying to eradicate those people and their culture, religion and memory. "Stop hating the lands you have ruined", indeed!
"The same people that did that also bankrupted Greece in the last decade and have been invading and plundering the Middle East for more than a century."
How ironic that you mention Greece. The nation that just celebrated 200 years of independence, after living under Turkish slavery for 400 years.
In 1821 and 1955, the entire Greek community of Constantinople was destroyed in pogroms. In the 1955 pogrom, the Turkish government, media and citizens conspired to falsely accuse a greek of planting a bomb in Ataturk's birth home. A Turk did it, the Turkish media knowingly ran the false story, and before the news was even printed, busloads of Turks and weapons were driven into Istanbul from the suburbs to attack the Greek community.
As far as "invading and plundering the Middle East for more than a century"....even if that were true, the Turks invaded and plundered the West for 500 years. Anatolia; Greece; Romania;Bulgaria; Serbia; Italy; Hungary; Austria. And that's only the Turks, not counting the invasions of earlier Islamic powers and the Mongols.
Turkey has never acknowledged, let alone apologize, for any of these things. Not the genocides, the destruction and theft of cultural heritage, the pogroms or discriminatory laws. Until they do, you can stop pointing the finger at the "wicked west".
Western people haven't been perfect, but eastern people are no better. So stop calling people "a moral failure" just because they see things differently than you. Unlike Turkey and most eastern states, freedom of speech still exists here.
Innocent III did condemn this. Below are letters to the "Crusaders" and the Doge. This was not a crusade. It stopped being a crusade when Zara was attacked. From then on it was a mercenary adventure.
To Baldwin, Count of Flanders and Hainault
You took upon yourselves the duty of delivering the Holy Land from the Infidel. You were forbidden under pain of excommunication from attacking any Christian lands, unless they refused you passage or would not help you (and even then you were to do nothing contrary to the wishes of my legate). You had no claims or pretensions to the lands of Greece. You were under the most solemn vows of Our Lord-and yet you have totally disregarded these vows. It was not against the Infidel but against Christians that you drew your sword. It was not Jerusalem that you captured but Constantinople. It was not heavenly riches upon which your minds were set, but earthly ones. But far and above all of this, nothing has been sacred to you-neither age nor sex. In the eyes of the whole world you have abandoned yourselves to debauchery, adultery and prostitution. You have not only violated married women and widows, but even women and virgins whose lives were dedicated to Christ. You have looted not only the treasures of the Emperor and of citizens both rich and poor, but have despoiled the very sanctuaries of God's Church. You have broken into holy places, stolen the sacred objects of altars-even including crucifixes-and you have pillaged innumerable images and relics of the Saints. It is hardly surprising that the Greek Church, beaten down though it is, rejects any obedience to the Apostolic See. It is hardly surprising that it sees in all Latins no more than treachery and the works of the Devil, and regards all of them as curs.
To Doge Enrico Dandola of Venice
"It was you who deliberately deflected a crusading army designed to make war upon the Saracens. You despised my legate and treated my excommunication of you with contempt. You have broken your Christian vows, and have despoiled the churches and their treasures. Tell me, if you can, how you can ever redeem yourselves-you who have turned aside a Christian army destined for the Holy Land ? With this great and powerful army not only Jerusalem but even part of Babylon might have been captured. The proof of this is that an army which could so easily take Greece and Constantinople could equally well have captured Alexandria and the Holy Land from the Infidels."
His condemnation worked out to a slap on the wrist. That excommunication order was lifted just at the right time.
@@FlashPointHx The one after Zara? Yes, he lifted the excommunication of the Crusaders but never lifted it on the Venetians.
This letter was written in 1205. He was pretty pissed at the whole affair.
Continue on, I still like your work.
@@doylekitchen9795 Oh he was totally annoyed at it - but I'm curious what his inner mind thought of the idea of the Greek Orthodox Church being under Latin Rule
@@FlashPointHx Me too! It was a weird situation. What happened had happened. I bet he was smart enough to know that it was never going to work. That it would be counter productive. This was probably the big nail in the coffin for any hope of reconciliation.
I am surprised he didn't create a crusade against the Venetians.
Crusaders are _always_ Oscar Mike, hoorah!
HA!! I was waiting for someone to notice that!! Really appreciate it!!
@@FlashPointHx Bravo Zulu and Deus Vult!
Poor Isaac, Alexios was a garbage emperor and a terrible person
No argument here
What’s with this carbon offset BS?!