Why the Fourth Crusade Attacked Constantinople

[roqsanda]

The ZIONISTS who infiltrated the Western countries. And they are not the Hebrews of old, just religious "Jews" who thought they have unciton from God to hurt others. EDOMITES + Khazars.

[Zorro11144]

All empires rise and fall that's like a law. Byzantium surely made the difference as it managed to survive for 1.150 years. Very few empires have made such an achievement.

[Oswulf1]

@Zorro11144 That's true. But other posters are right that, by fragmenting the Byzantine Empire, the Crusaders paved the way for the Ottoman Turks to play the successor states and the rump empire off against on another and so get a foothold in Europe, which they then used to overrun the Balkans.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[Oswulf1]

@RealCrusadeHistory The Ottomans only unified the Turks of Anatolia under their rule in the 14th and 15th centuries, well after the Crusader sack of Constantinople had shattered the Byzantine Empire. Likewise the rivalries between the Balkan states only became acute in that period and only benefited the Turks once they had gained a foothold in Europe.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[Oswulf1]

@RealCrusadeHistory I don't really argue with that.

[Oswulf1]

The leaders of the Fourth Crusade were not naive supporters of hereditary right. They were quite familiar with struggles between rival claimants to thrones. One was raging in the Holy Roman Empire at the very time of the crusade, and they had been almost the norm in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[Oswulf1]

@RealCrusadeHistory Actually, the power struggle in the Holy Roman Empire was practically the norm, because the popes always encouraged rival claimants to rebel against the lawful emperors.

[Zorro11144]

And of course the Byzantine empire was the greatest and most powerfull state and the most advanced also in medieval Europe. Whoever doubts that is blind and doesnt want to see the truth.

[Oswulf1]

@Zorro11144 It was hardly the greatest and most powerful state in 1204. By then it had lost key territory and was already in serious decline. The Westerners would never have attacked Byzantium as it was before the Battle of Manzikert.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[Zorro11144]

@Oswulf1 Still in 1204 was one of the largest cities in Europe if not the largest, with at least 500.000 citizens and a great Hippodrome which could endorse 100.000 people. Manzikert was a major blow but the empire was far from over. Lets not forget that westerners had attacked Byzantium before and south italy fell at 1071. So the Byzantines had to face both the east and the west. The Crusaders ensured the death of the empire and gave the opportunity to the ottomans to march till vienna

[Zorro11144]

And of course they didnt took the city so easily, they besieged it for nearly one year from 1203 and finally they took the city in 1204. It was all about money and the plots of Venice in order to triumph over the Byzantines. The Crusaders had attacked Orthodox Christians in many occasions like it happened during the Teutonic Crusades against Novgorod. The key role for the divert of the 4th Crusade had Venice. Their actions gave the opportunity to the muslims to march till Vienna.

[Zorro11144]

It wasnt logistical miscalculations, Venice wanted to Conquer Constantinople in order to take control of the Byzantine trade and to access the Byzantine treasury and to loot the greatest Christian city of Europe in order to take its riches. Venice wanted to interfere in the Byzantine politics, they wanted to loot the city from the very beginning. It wasnt a crusade but a horde of looters, who burnt Constantinople, they destroyed the great library of Constantinople, they devastated Byzantium.

[Bokababe]

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.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[Pavlos952]

@RealCrusadeHistory The fact that the crusaders never intended to take Constantinople doesn't diminish their crimes. If Alexios wasn't a rejected leeader, why did he then ask the help of the Latins to get back on the throne?

[Masterfootballer23]

Really sad event, one of the worst betrayals of the west on the east. Why.... why.... why....

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@Masterfootballer23 Yeah this is definitely one of my least favorite things that ever happened during the Crusades.

[punisherot]

@Masterfootballer23 Because the pussy greeks kill and rape the latin catholic in the year 1187 and go to wikipidia and search search massacre of the latins, and the 4th crusade was revenge againts the dirty greeks!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pavlos952]

@punisherot Revenge cannot be justified, no matter how just is seems. Nor can the massacre of the Latins be justified, no matter how just that seems. The way in which the Latins massacred Constantinople should not be regarded as a logical result from the way the Byzantines massacred the Latins, it would have also occurred without this precedent. Renowned historian Steven Runciman regards the destruction of Constantinople as something that doesn't know its equal in history!

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@Pavlos952 I'm not going to comment on the rest of it, but that was certainly one of the dumbest things Steven Runciman said (and he said a lot of dumb things). Purely a matter of perspective. Personally I find the atrocities of the communist Russians a little more disturbing than the Fourth Crusade. Sheesh, Runciman was an idiot!

[Pavlos952]

@RealCrusadeHistory I agree with you that the atrocities of the communists are even more disturbing, but this doesn't change the validity of Runciman's statement. He is talking about events where cities are attacked, sacked and destroyed. Communist crimes against Christians in a ompletely different context than that of destroying cities in a one-time event. As you say, its a matter of perspective, but the fact that your perspective doesn't agree with that of Runciman, doesn't make him an idiot.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@Pavlos952 Even if you're just talking about the sacking of cities far worse things happened in the medieval world. For example, the Turkish sack of the Armenian city of Ani in the 1060's was far more murderous and bloody than anything that happened during the Fourth Crusade. Also, the Turkish capture of Constantinople in 1453 was far worse than what happened in 1204.

[Pavlos952]

@RealCrusadeHistory Maybe the subjectivity in their statements equals the subjectivity of Runciman's work? Saying that it is likely that horrible things went and but that we don't know to what extent, actually shows a hidden incline towards the idea that it wasn't all that bad after all. Objectivity would mean that someone states that we don't know the extent, but then doesn't necesarilly think that therefore the reports of greek historians are less likely to be true. 

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[Pavlos952]

@RealCrusadeHistory But I don't think Runciman would be considered a bad historian because of the fact that he didn't use modern technology to assist him in analysing medieval documents? If this were the case, many classical historians would have to be put in the same category as Runciman is put. I don't think the quality of the historian is determined be the means he uses, but by how he uses the means at his disposal. If that means that his research isn't 25% as deep, it is a false comparison.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[Pavlos952]

@RealCrusadeHistory It is indeed logical that the investigation of history, because of technological advances, is better now than it's ever been. But the higher quality of the work of Riley-Smith and Tyerman is due to these very thechnolical advances and not neccesarily to the fact that they would be inherently better historians.

[Pavlos952]

@RealCrusadeHistory If then an element of Runciman's work doesn't agree with what is later found by the aid of technology, and we therefore conclude that Runciman is horrible, and then further on look at Runciman exclusively in that frame, we might be more biased against Runciman and even against the Byzantines, than he would be biased in favor of the Byzantines.

[Pavlos952]

@RealCrusadeHistory It is also possible that an historian who is biased in favor of the Latins can very easily conclude that an historian who has said things in favor of the Byzatines is therefore biased in favor of the Byzantines. The very fact that an outwardly unbiased historian then says this, can betray his own bias. Maybe the crimes of the Latins were such that the only objective stance an historian could take is to be 'biased' in favor of the Byzantines.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@Pavlos952 I don't care for biased historians, I go for the unbiased variety. History isn't history if it's biased.

[Pavlos952]

@RealCrusadeHistory You're probably right in that, but how to see if one is unbiased?

[Pavlos952]

@RealCrusadeHistory I furthermore wanted to comment on this that you have to be careful not to be trapped in making 'ad hominem' fallacies, in which you attempt to negate the truth of a claim by attacking the person that made the claim.

[eraser695]

@Pavlos952 My friend Similarly if you are saying that the group calling Bartholomew a Heretic will be cut off from Ortho Church.

Read the Documents in which the Pope Shouted and Excommunicated the Crusaders who sacked Constantinople. These Crusaders were later executed. But an Apology Formal was Sent to Bartholomew in 2005 as Catholics believe him to be True Ecumenical Bishop by Bl. Pope John Paul II which was accepted because this Schism was disastrous to both East and West.

[Pavlos952]

@eraser695 Very interesting eraser695. Personally, I did not know about this Apology. Truth is however that East and West are still separated, and the Roman Catholic Church is not one with the One, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, as cited in the Nicean Creed by the Orthodox Church.

[eraser695]

@Pavlos952 Hence I would prefer you to be prepared as the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Moscow is never considered in the Catholic Church because they are simply not.

However Bartholomew is now the Closest friend of Benedict because of a common enemy "Islam".

Patriarch of Moscow absolutely out of business. Now the East itself is in Schism.

[Pavlos952]

@eraser695 I don't understand what you mean with "Hence I would prefer ....in the Catholic Church because they are simply not".

If the two are friends, that in itself is questionable (the mere fact that they gather now and then to discuss Christian unity, doesn't mean they have accepted each others differences), but even if they were, that doesn't mean Patriarch Bartholomew is betraying his own Faith. How could it then possibly mean that the East itself is in Schism?

[eraser695]

@Pavlos952 My means is not with the Istanbul rather the primacy of Patriarch of Moscow has been challenged in various Orthodox Churches. Many of Them has even left the communion Orthodox Church. I cannot initiate anything right now but it is a beginning of Eastern Schism.

[punisherot]

you should make a video about the ninth crusade and talk about the Crusader/Mongol Alliance

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@punisherot That would be a cool one! Thanks for the idea, I'll save it for a future video.

[punisherot]

@RealCrusadeHistory thanks an they should a movie about it

[zrah1092]

this is so well done and very informative! Thanks!

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@zrah1092 Glad you found it useful!

[MingDynasty700]

blaming the victims again...

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@MingDynasty700 Not at all, just making sense of a complex issue.

[stopcommunistmedia]

Thank God you use primary sources rather than some stupid conspiracy books.

[stopcommunistmedia]

lol, its not just the Latins and the french who attack the Byzantines. Serbian Stephen Uroš IV Dušan Orthodox "Christian" took advantage of the Byzantines in their weak moment. Also the Russians repeatedly tried to sack and siege the Byzantines Rus'–Byzantine War (1043) led by Vladimir of Novgorod, the Russians were burned with Greek Fire, lol

[Hitman49]

As a Greek I hate the 4th Crusade and I think it was a big mistake as was the Latin Massacre. But I do blame the my ancestor for not helping the crusaders in the 3rd crusade. In my opinion the emperors should have been more like Manuel, who had an alliance with Latin Jerusalem.

[Justinian43]

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

[NovaGub]

Sorry for writing so much about this sad event, but it is quite important in my nation's history. It should be noted that it didn't deteriorate the relations between Croatians and the Holly See, as the very next Crusade, the Fifth Crusade was by a large part Hungarian-Croatian crusade. Instead it was seen rather as a part of long lasting struggle of Venetians and Croatians over the dominance in eastern Adriatic that didn't stop until the end of 18th century.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[NovaGub]

@RealCrusadeHistory

Of course, the occasions surrounding the Fourth Crusade are to complex to put them in a single video. But as you said, it is hard to understand the position Crusaders found themselves in and most of accusations are just nonsense based on lack of insight.

[NovaGub]

As Crusaders were attacking Zadar, people hanged flags over their windows marked with crosses to indicate that they are fellow Catholics and that this was an act of insanity. When Zara was conquered pope Innocent III excommunicated the Crusade, but the leaders held this concealed from their men as they knew it would ruin their morale. So things went bad for Crusaders even before they left Western world.

[NovaGub]

When French Crusaders saw in 1202 there were too little of them in Venice to pay for all the costs of the campaign, Venetians demanded some other way of compensation. Thus French agreed to conquer Zara and hand it over to Venice. This was an act of treason as the Hungarian king himself joined the Crusade (though only formally, there was no Crusading army) and pope Innocent III threatened to excommunicate those who attacked Catholic city of Zara. Some French even abandoned Crusade altogether.

[NovaGub]

Secondly I wish to speak of a tragic event of the Fourth Crusade that happened in my own country which put great shame on Crusaders. In 1181 a Dalmatian city of Zara (today Zadar in Croatia) rebelled against the Venecian dominance and monopoly over the city to ally with the Hungarian-Croatian kingdom which granted them economic liberty, so preciously valued in these times.

[NovaGub]

Once again RCH, great work on covering the Forth Crusade. However I would like to add a few details about this expedition that I think should be noted. Firstly to understand the attitude of Byzantinians towards the Latins one should remark the Massacre of the Latins of 1182 when tens of thousands Latin merchants and their families were massacred within the walls of Constantinople. This was a result of jealousy of Greeks who couldn't run their own economy but had to turn it over to Venetians.

[SinisterSkeptic]

The Greeks of then were not that different of the Greeks of today. Nutty squabbling anarchists...lol

[rahotep101]

'Did these madmen, raging thus against the sacred, spare pious matrons and girls of marriagable age, or those maidens who, having chosen a life of chastity were consecrated to God?' (eyewitness Niketas Choniates)

Not exactly imitatio Christi, is it?

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[Gwynsek]

Thank you so much for this !

[JulianThePhilosopher]

The byzantines beat back the crusaders right ? an re took the city ? what happened to the latins then i guess they were put to the sword. i guess no army ever when to war without thinking that the creator is on their side.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[Gwynsek]

@RealCrusadeHistory Blame it on Rome,Byzantium didn´t start it,did it ?

[JulianThePhilosopher]

@RealCrusadeHistory well, but it is the same for the islamic armies as well, they faced wars of succession. Then they got the mongols at their back. But i give crusaders credit in logistics, its a wonder how they managed to strech their supply lines. i think people wrongly blame the 4th crusade for the fall of constatinople later on. Cos the theodosian walls would not have been able to withstand the ottomans cannons anyway.

[thefreeman8791]

Once again, another awesome video

[eraser695]

Okay now I understand it was not Catholics vs. Orthodox.

It was and it still is Orthodox vs. Orthodox.

[Pavlos952]

The Latins knew all to well which valuable treasures were to be found 'Konstaninoupolis', and could even be hoping that Alexios would not be able to keep his promise so that they would have a motive to attack, plunder and destroy this once so glorious city. Had they decided to attack the City merely to get money to pay off their debts, they would not have plundered and destroyed it the way they did. In no way did the instability of Byzantine politics give need to such crimes against humanity.

[eraser695]

@Pavlos952 I still don't believe it...

If Byzantines were United then how a Total Third Party of Crusaders got the Confidence to Sack the City?

They were absolutely never United as they still are. The Bishop of Constantinople has a Deep friendship with Bishop of Rome as it was but Patriarch of Moscow never consider it instead his followers calls Bartholomew a Heretic.

Orthodox calling a Orthodox Heretics? Explain.

[Pavlos952]

@eraser695 If Bartholomew is an heretic, it will be shown by history. Important is that the Orthodox Church as a whole, as the Body of Christ, doesn't regard the Patriarch of Constantinople as a heretic, regardless if there actually is group of Orthodox Christians who do believe so. However, if any members of the Body continue to have opposite views with regard to the Body, they will sure enough be cut off from it, and they will be shown to be heretics themselves.

[eraser695]

Byzantine Emperor will never provide any food supplies to the Crusaders on their way to Jerusalem hence they were frustrated and refused the appeal of the Pope of Rome. An Idea of Sedevacantism also erupted during the Fourth Crusade in which Crusaders declared the Pope an Anti - Christ. The Documents clearly depicts it.

[eraser695]

Wow... Thank You my Dearest Brother.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@eraser695

Thanks so much for the request my brother! I hope you find this video to your liking! It would never have been made had you not suggested it.

[Achilles1389]

The Crusaders of the Fourth Catholic Crusade not only sacked the Christian city of Constantinople to solve their financial problems, they also committed acts of unforgivable sacrilege against Orthodox Christianity that had nothing to do with solving their financial problems.The Crusaders had sex orgies inside the greatest Church in Orthodox Christendom, the Church of Saint Sophia, inviting prostitutes to dance on the altar.This can only be viewed as a Catholic assault on Orthodox Christianity !

[rahotep101]

There was deception involved in the Fourth Crusade from the offset, if only in so far as that the recruits weren't told that they were supposed to be going to Egypt rather than Jerusalem. The Venetians did hijack the crusade even before the diversion to Constantinople, as they used it to recover Zara. The Doge Dandolo also had an animus against the Greeks after the attack on and expusion of the Venetian merchants in Constantinople in 1182, which he had been caught up in.

[Cocteau120]

@rahotep101

Did you watch the video dumbass? He quoted two historians who said that there was no preconceived plot to attack Constantinople.

[Achilles1389]

@Cocteau120 Catholic Crusaders had sex orgies inside the greatest church in Orthodox Christianity (Church of Saint Sophia) raped the nuns, smashed the icons & got drunk out of the chalices that were used to serve holy communion to the Orthodox Christian faithful. The uploader of this video says that the sacking of the city was "unavoidable because the Crusaders had no other way to finance their crusade". Not true! Their sex orgies served no economic purpose & were designed to insult Orthodoxy.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[rahotep101]

@RealCrusadeHistory It wasn't as if the leaders were less brutal or greedy than the rabble. The exploits of Abbot Martin don't make edifying reading, forcing an old Greek monk on pain of death to show him where certain religious treasures were hidden. The raping and robbing was ghastly. The only consolation I find in the story of the 4th Crusade is that the fellons were mostly French, whereas the Byzantine defenders were augmented by Anglo Saxon mercenaries, not that they evidently helped much.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@rahotep101

Abbot Martin was not a military leader. The leadership did not sponsor nor participate in massacre. But yes, atrocities did take place and they are incredibly tragic and horrible. I suppose you have no problem with the Greek massacre of Westerners which took place a few years earlier. That was perfectly acceptable to you, right? Since you're just simply anti-Western.

[rahotep101]

@RealCrusadeHistory I seem to remember Jonathan Harris' book makes much of the deteriorating relations between Greeks and Latins, especially during the time of Andronicus Comnenus, when Latins in Constantinople were attacked and several members of the royal family of Frankish origin were assassinated. I wonder if this anti-Latin 'pogrom' was exaggerated, as Choniates still had Venetian friends living in Constantinople to shelter under in 1204. Andronicus was as cruel to Greeks as to Latins.

[rahotep101]

@rahotep101 In answer to your insinuation, I happen to be very pro-western and anti-Islam. I just don't think a rosy gloss should be put on the Crusades. Some military response to Islamic expansionism was necessary but the Crusades after 1204 especially were tragic and farcical, and counter-productive. I think the 4th crusade outweighs any good done by any of the previous expeditions, since Byzantium would have fared better on its own rather than being turned on so brutally by a supposed ally.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@rahotep101

There's no historical evidence that the Fourth Crusade caused the decline of Byzantium. Rather, the Fourth Crusade was a symptom of deadly internal unrest in the politics of Constantinople. Had the Byzantine Empire been politically secure, the Fourth Crusade would've never been diverted to Byzantium. Even back during the First Crusade Alexios couldn't take up leadership of the Crusade because he was worried about coups in his capital city. Therein lies the real problem.

[rahotep101]

@RealCrusadeHistory The Fourth Crusade left Constantinople in flames, and stripped of its treasures. It became the seat of a morally and financially bankrupt 'Latin Empire'. The Greeks, who should have been partners, were turned into subject people in their own land, with papal sanction. I agree, failings at the top within Byzantium contributed to the disaster that befel the city. It's not as if Latins never stabbed each others' backs, though, or took advantage of rivals being absent on crusade.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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.

[rahotep101]

@RealCrusadeHistory A case could be made that Byzantium would have remained perfectly stable had not the Fourth Crusaders intervened against Alexius III on behalf of the young pretender Alexius IV and his washed-up father Isaac II (Isaac was never a fried of Latins, and he was only a yonger brother of Alexius III). The Crusaders were pretty naive if they believed the pretender 'Alexius IV' was ever likely to be able to deliver on his extravagant promises once 'restored'.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@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!

[rahotep101]

@RealCrusadeHistory The Byzantines with some justification saw themselves as the true continuation of the Roman Empire, so accepting their lot as just another kingdom would have been difficult. They also saw the Holy Land as their protectorate. The alliance of Manuel Comnenus with the Latin East was promising, but it was a major error to ignore the Turks and to see the Arabs as the main enemy. It was also insane to worry about Egypt when Anatolia was not secured.

[eraser695]

@Achilles1389 ONE WORD... ITS FAKE.

[eraser695]

@Achilles1389 THE WORST NIGHT MARE OF CHRISTENDOM IS THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY MIXED WITH FREEMASONARY.

[Achilles1389]

@eraser695 If your looking for the freemasons (who are a satanic cult, who have their roots in the Jewish kabbalah) then you will find them in overwhelming numbers in todays Catholic Church.

Did you witness Pope John Paul II kissing the Islamic koran (a book that denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God). How many Orthodox Christian leaders have you seen kiss the Koran ? NONE ! How do you think Jesus feels about the head of the Catholic Church kissing a book that denies he is the Son of God.

[stopcommunistmedia]

@Achilles1389

No better than Russian Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow being a Soviet KGB. These are the same soviets who raped underage Christian girls in Eastern and Western Europe and killing Christian clergy. Russia is arming Islamic Iranians who persecute Persian Christians. Russian Orthodox don't worship Jesus as son of God.

[rahotep101]

@Cocteau120 Did I contradict that, dumbass? One of those historians I know personally, by the way.

[Cocteau120]

@rahotep101

Ha! I don't believe for five seconds that you know any of these historians. In your comment you implied that the Italians had a secret plot to get the Byzantines. Not true!

[scatteredmist]

Interesting channel .... thanks for uploading

[bullpeople]

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.

[freeman8128]

Very interesting & informative. For some years I have been confused over the 4th Crusade & sack of Constantinople, which I was told was due to Crusader ignorance & greed.

Thank you for enlightening me.