Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Why the Fourth Crusade Attacked Constantinople
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 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
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...
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.
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
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!
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?
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.
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.
Of course there was no conspiracy for Venice to protect the Mamluk kingdom in Egypt & Palestine. But Venice was very invested in promoting Venice.
@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)
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.
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.
***** 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner...
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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?
@punisherot That would be a cool one! Thanks for the idea, I'll save it for a future video.
The Turkish destruction of Constatinople was less barbaric than the Crusaders', many western historians agree to that.
Yes
Wow... Thank You my Dearest Brother.
A great video on a complex subject. You do a great job on the details.
Glad you liked it!
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.
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
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.
I've heard the Crusaders desecrated the Byzantine churches--to the point of pissing on the altars--is that exaggeration?
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
@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!!
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.
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
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...
@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.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
cybrotius Im Greek and I liked your comment.
Excellent video. Well argued, good use of facts and very informative.
Educational, as always, J. Stephen.
this is so well done and very informative! Thanks!
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
Excellent participated in the comments section.🤓💕
Constantinople never recovered after this ''crusade''.
That is the truth.
of course the empire was in decline, of course Byzantines plot and fight eachother(name me one empire that didnt have plots or murders or fighting), but the 4 crusade was a disgrace, more than the first one.
Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. ...
@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.
There is no doubt that the Byzantine empire was already in decline by 1204, but it was the crusaders that decided to assault and who sacked the city....It is the Byzantines' defeat that can be considered as the symptom of their decline not the crusade itself. And we must not forget that th fall of Constantinople was the tip of the iceburg. Practically all byzantine territory (exept for Peloponessos) was divided in more than 10 farakish-venetian kingdoms/states. That devasted what was left of...
Lol when you have only one big city to control everything .whaat good go wrong lol
An innocent question. Constantinople was meant to be heavily fortified and have withstood attack from the east and from the west. Why the 4th Crusade was able to breach the wall? Was it because a) they had some secret weapon b) They discovered a secret passage into the city or c) they had a friendly gatekeeper who showed them a quick city tour?
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.
Thank you so much! This has cleared up a lot of things that my revision book has missed out. Gonna rock this Alevel! ;D
You're a fool if you don't think Jonathan Philips and Christopher Tyerman are experts on the Fourth Crusade.
The 4th Crusaders set up the coming events for the Fall of Constantinople. They provided the knock out punch that left the Byzantine Empire too weak to defend itself. All in all, because of internal strive too, the Byzantine Empire crumbled.
Good, the Greeks practice a heretical form of Christianity and were not True Christians.
-Albert Fairfax II
Unfortunately they did not, though Crusaders did try to capture Egypt over the course of the 13th Century.
@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.
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.
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
Great video, I would recommend the book "Byzantium and the Crusades" by Jonathan Harris for anyone interested in this historic relationship. It's very easy to read and comprehend.
Once again, another awesome video
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.
@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.
JSR, love the video. I like your older videos with text inputs. Kind of makes them easier to follow. One question I have about the 4th crusade is: who is really at fault here? Was it the Venetians for having miscalculated the demand for their ships? Was it the French for not specifying how much they will finally need? Could Pope Innocent have done more to stop the madness (a bailout of somesort hehe)?
Did I say one question?
If Alexios wasn't ruler of Byzantium where did he get the money to bailout the Venetians? Did he not give any collateral?
OK OK I'll stop now :)
cheers!
The Orthodox did nothing wrong.
True story.
And now we move on
Nah they were cowards
Massacre of the Latins
@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.
Alexios IV was part of the crusade, but 1.Venetians did sack Constantinople for wealth, and also for revenge for the Massacre of Latins in 1182 that the Byzantine Emperor had nothing to do with. 2.The Massacre of the Latins was done by a Greek mob. The emperor didn't support it, he just didn't try to stop it because it gave him more control over trade.
Walk where? They had no money, no food, no transportation. They had a giant army sitting right outside of Constantinople hemmed in by the sea and they had no way of going anywhere. They literally had no alternative but to capture the city.
12,000 ,,, giant army? couldn't they ask for enough money to buy their way back home (or to Egypt if you like) in return for lifting the siege? couldn't they "confiscate" the Venetian ships to sail wherever they wanted? Why did they have to kill and rape civilians if all they wanted was funding??? I really admire your desperate and staunch defense of the Crusades in general ,,, but you can't claim to be objective at the same time. After all, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
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
Oh, I see. Well I got that from Jonathan Philips' book "The Fourth Crusade". He discusses the Western reaction to the betrayal of Alexios, and how their culture influenced their reaction. I don't remember exactly where it is in the book, but it's in there.
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
blaming the victims again...
@Masterfootballer23 Yeah this is definitely one of my least favorite things that ever happened during the Crusades.
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.
Reminds me of Isis. That's how Crusaders are.
correct!
Standard Observer Standard Observer
Isis is more civil than them.
Τhe holy lands were christian then conquered by the jihadists who attacked Christendom without stopping. The crusades were the answer to stop muslim invaders at their source. Just like bombing Talibans and Daesh today. If you look at the invasions of Muslims in Europe vs the invasions of Europeans is like comparing 1000 elephants with an ant
XplaneZ
Latin Christians should have converted to Islam from the beginning like the Christians of Najran , Habasha, Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia and North Africa who converted to Islam from the beginning.
XplaneZ
But no the Pope wanted to be a God who teaches people that in his hands Heaven and hell, and that he can give you forgiveness and a ticket to Paradise
this is really great, but about Dandolo you never know, it was under Manuel Comnenus that he suffered a lot of insults, who knows maybe he never intended on attacking egypt (he was gaining some profitable trade agreements on cairo while waiting for crusaders to come up with the sum agreed
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.
@Oswulf1 Excellent point. The fall of Constantinople in 1204, unfortunately, had already been set in motion decades before by mismanagement of the Empire within the capital city.
The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable.
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
Sad turn of events. I imagine the Byzantine citizens wish they hadn't massacred those 60,000 Latins before then.
Great videos. Love your content. The only advice id give is to not breath into the microphone before you start every sentence.
Thanks for the tip. This is a very old video though. I've since eliminated all breaths.
The explanation given from my perspective does not hold water cause it intentionally overlooks the fact that before Constantinople, Crusaders with Venetians sacked and captured city of Zadar which was under Hungarian crown. Much of the forth crusade was an economical and political play to take hold of dominance in the Adriatic and to diminish the Byzantine power in eastern Mediterranean. It is not a myth that Venice dreamed about it for a long time, which can be even found in their art...
"No viable alternative"?? How about just walking away from the whole thing? Talk about blind apologetics.
exacly
Very good video. Honest and to the bone. Love it
@alektoros Zionist West? What are you talking about? There was no Zionism in the Middle Ages.
in my opinion it's true that there wasn't a plot with the aim to take constantinopole from the beginning of the crusade; however Venice already ruse the whole expedition for her puropse of taking Zara, and later when occasion occured, she saw the opportunity of taking a city of much more value then the far away alexandria (that was much more difficult to hold)... also Venice was, like a lot of other italian city state of that time (Florence, Milan, Pisa ecc), a sort of "republic" very trade based.The Bizantyne empire was far too much burocratic for the trade network that the italian cities had in mind so to overthrow it was something desiderable. All this was not in the aim of other western factions like the french kingdom, a very feudal kingdom. So i think that italians had the most interest in that time in changing the course of the crusade.However i have to recognise that Venetian troops stole a lot in constantinopole during the sack, but still preserve the masterpieces of that bewutiful city (stolen and brought to venice)... Insted french ignorant knights and troops just destroyed, burned and desacrate everything they could
+ale bett Sì: le città stato italiane, incluse le repubbliche marinare, trassero vantaggi dalle Crociate, anche perchè il loro supporto logistico era quasi indispensabile.
@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.
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.
Unfortunately no they did not, though Crusaders tries to conquer Egypt over the course of the next century.
@MingDynasty700 Not at all, just making sense of a complex issue.
A bit hypocritical here my friend. The treasures of Byzantium stand in and outside of St. Marks in Venice as well as other Western European landmarks. It was the Westerners who when invited into the Byzantine Palace stole all of the silver cutlery after the consumed their grand meal. The Byzantines were excellent diplomats and knew the world was imperfect, so that is why they learnt to live with their neighbors - Arabs, Jews and Turks.
Why didn't the Byzantine pay off the venetians in the Italian's To go home
That's a good question. I don't remember all the details of what happened when the Venetians first arrived, perhaps there was some attempt to negotiate something like that?
Real Crusades History
Or maybe they were just Cheapskates
I know the empire's resources were very depleted at that point. There had been lengthy civil wars going on in Byzantium over the past couple of decades.