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 Not buying it. The religious distinctions and motivations were clear. I, a Latin myself, don't condone the "Crusader" genocide upon Constantinople btw
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
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...
@@magatismAtrocities were more common but it doesn’t mean it was more accepted. It was less punished at least. The devastations the crusaders made in the City are explained well by the inhabitants such as Nicéphore Choniates and it still resonates a lot today
@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!
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.
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'
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?
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.
@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.
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
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 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.
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.
***** 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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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".
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.
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.
@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.
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
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.
@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.
@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?
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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
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
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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 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.
@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.
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.
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. ...
I think you merely need to understand that the Fourth Crusade is far more complicated than just saying that the Crusaders were evil and attacked Constantinople. There were a lot of factors contributing to what happened, including Byzantine politics.
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.
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.
@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.
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...
The Byzantines and the Venetians tended to be hostile toward one another. That is circumstantial to the Fourth Crusade. All we can go by is the evidence, and so far that points to Venetian intentions aligned with the larger goal of the Crusade. The Venetians had been involved with Crusading for decades, such as the siege of Tyre in 1124. And we're not talking about just any scholars, we're talking about Jonathan Philips and Tom Madden, the two foremost experts on the Fourth Crusade living today.
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...
Hey, nice videos! I have a question, what happened after the 4th Crusade? I mean after dividing the lands they gained, and having secured the funds for the Venetians, why didn't the Crusaders proceed to attack Egypt?
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.
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.
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?
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.
@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.
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
@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.
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
Did you not watch the video? Your view has been refuted by current scholarship. There is no evidence that the Venetians intended to make the Crusade into a trade war, nor that there were any prior plans to attack Constantinople. All the evidence indicates that the Venetians sincerely wanted to conquer Egypt, both because of their vow to Crusade and their desire to expand their holdings into Egypt.
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.
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.
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...
Sad turn of events. I imagine the Byzantine citizens wish they hadn't massacred those 60,000 Latins before then.
5 лет назад
"Many Crusaders chose to travel to the Holy Land by means other than the Venetian enterprise". Ok but the Crusader Army that departed from Venice is 12k. Likewise the Crusader army at Zara and Constantinople numbers at around 12k. So where did the "many Crusaders" vanish? The should be a surplus of several thousand more Crusaders present at the siege of Zara and Constantinople. But there isn't. Thus, is this notion fiction/highly exaggerated or those Crusaders indeed reach Egypt or even the Holy Land? I have no info that this fraction of Crusaders existed or even went to Egypt/Holy Land.
Those crusaders who refused to take part in the attack on Zara or Constantinople either went home or traveled on to the Crusader States in Cyprus, Syria and Palestine.
Excellent videos. They are an invaluable internet resource. I just have one question regarding this video; is it true that the crusaders were excommunicated by Innocent III? If this is true, then it is too vital to be left out. If they were excommunicated for attacking another Christian land, then they had arguably no legitimacy whatsoever.
@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.
@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.
One thing that this video is not mentioning is that after Franks were not able to pay their debt to the Venetians, the later requested that the Crusaders destroy the competing ports in Adriatic. Dalmatian coastal cities were destroyed as a partial payment of debt to Venetians. It is also important to note that while the Pope and many, the religious leaders had the noble goal of defeating Islam, their soldiers were full greed, hatred and lust. They raped and murdered.
@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.
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.
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!
In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given papal blessing to the people of Christians in Iberia to launch a war against Muslims, a papal standard (the vexillum called Sancti Petri) and indulgences for the forgiveness of those who were killed during the war. Appeal from a Byzantine emperor threatened by the Seljuk army, beginning in 1074 from Emperor Michael VII to Pope Gregory VII, the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus to Pope Urban II in 1095, finally got the attention of Pope Alexander II. The Crusades happened between them to show strong loyalty to the religion that arose in the 11th century among the public. One reason this occurs is controversial investiture ceremony (in which Christian knights received recognition from the church) that began about 1075 and is still going on during the First Crusade. This has a profound impact on all Christians until they are racing to attract public support, resulting in a dramatic religious experience. The result is a Christian spiritual awareness and the emergence of a strong public interest against religion. This is reinforced by religious propaganda, and support for War Fair to recapture the Holy Land, including Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and rise of Jesus to heaven) and Antioch (the first Christian city) from the Muslims. All this ultimately expressed in mass popular support for the First Crusade during the 12th century.
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.
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.
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.
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.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
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...
@@magatismAtrocities were more common but it doesn’t mean it was more accepted. It was less punished at least. The devastations the crusaders made in the City are explained well by the inhabitants such as Nicéphore Choniates and it still resonates a lot today
@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!
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
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?
Of course there was no conspiracy for Venice to protect the Mamluk kingdom in Egypt & Palestine. But Venice was very invested in promoting Venice.
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.
@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 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.
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
***** 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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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 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.
@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.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
cybrotius Im Greek and I liked your comment.
@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?
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.
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.
@punisherot That would be a cool one! Thanks for the idea, I'll save it for a future video.
@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.
Wow... Thank You my Dearest Brother.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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!!
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
this is so well done and very informative! Thanks!
A great video on a complex subject. You do a great job on the details.
Glad you liked it!
@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.
The Turkish destruction of Constatinople was less barbaric than the Crusaders', many western historians agree to that.
Yes
The wealth looted from Constantinople is counted at around 1 m. silver marks. The debt to the Venetians for the "Venetian Enterprise" was less than 1/10 (around 70-80,000). About 300-400,000 were officialy splitted among the Crusader factions and about half a milion were secretly kept by the "valiant knights" fighting for the sake of Christianity...
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
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.
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?
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.
@MingDynasty700 Not at all, just making sense of a complex issue.
@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.
@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.
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
Educational, as always, J. Stephen.
Excellent participated in the comments section.🤓💕
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. ...
Once again, another awesome video
I think you merely need to understand that the Fourth Crusade is far more complicated than just saying that the Crusaders were evil and attacked Constantinople. There were a lot of factors contributing to what happened, including Byzantine politics.
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.
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.
You're a fool if you don't think Jonathan Philips and Christopher Tyerman are experts on the Fourth Crusade.
@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.
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
The Byzantines and the Venetians tended to be hostile toward one another. That is circumstantial to the Fourth Crusade. All we can go by is the evidence, and so far that points to Venetian intentions aligned with the larger goal of the Crusade. The Venetians had been involved with Crusading for decades, such as the siege of Tyre in 1124. And we're not talking about just any scholars, we're talking about Jonathan Philips and Tom Madden, the two foremost experts on the Fourth Crusade living today.
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...
Hey, nice videos! I have a question, what happened after the 4th Crusade? I mean after dividing the lands they gained, and having secured the funds for the Venetians, why didn't the Crusaders proceed to attack Egypt?
Because Egypt was too strong for the Crusaders.
lazaros zissis Well if the byzantine empire had the crusaders backs they could of conquered Egypt together.
In your dreams haha. The crusaders couldn't even take the whole of the Levant and you think they could take Egypt?
It's almost like it was a BS excuse to sack Constantinople and start the Renaissance...
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.
Unfortunately no they did not, though Crusaders tries to conquer Egypt over the course of the next century.
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.
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?
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.
@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.
Excellent video. Well argued, good use of facts and very informative.
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
Weren’t the Venetians vengeful after being kicked out of Constantinople by John Komnenos (I think)?
@Pavlos952 I don't care for biased historians, I go for the unbiased variety. History isn't history if it's biased.
@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.
Wow, so this is how you make some type of truce...
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
Did you not watch the video? Your view has been refuted by current scholarship. There is no evidence that the Venetians intended to make the Crusade into a trade war, nor that there were any prior plans to attack Constantinople. All the evidence indicates that the Venetians sincerely wanted to conquer Egypt, both because of their vow to Crusade and their desire to expand their holdings into Egypt.
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.
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.
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...
Sad turn of events. I imagine the Byzantine citizens wish they hadn't massacred those 60,000 Latins before then.
"Many Crusaders chose to travel to the Holy Land by means other than the Venetian enterprise".
Ok but the Crusader Army that departed from Venice is 12k. Likewise the Crusader army at Zara and Constantinople numbers at around 12k. So where did the "many Crusaders" vanish? The should be a surplus of several thousand more Crusaders present at the siege of Zara and Constantinople. But there isn't. Thus, is this notion fiction/highly exaggerated or those Crusaders indeed reach Egypt or even the Holy Land? I have no info that this fraction of Crusaders existed or even went to Egypt/Holy Land.
Those crusaders who refused to take part in the attack on Zara or Constantinople either went home or traveled on to the Crusader States in Cyprus, Syria and Palestine.
Excellent videos. They are an invaluable internet resource. I just have one question regarding this video; is it true that the crusaders were excommunicated by Innocent III? If this is true, then it is too vital to be left out. If they were excommunicated for attacking another Christian land, then they had arguably no legitimacy whatsoever.
Christian Darmanin Yes they were excommunicated. Later after they repented the Pope removed their excommunication.
Christian Darmanin And thanks!
Wink, wink. How convenient.
@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.
@alektoros Zionist West? What are you talking about? There was no Zionism in the Middle Ages.
don't forget the destruction of templars by philip the fair. it was like: oh, i owe you the money, my layer said that you are heretics... sorry
@Pavlos952 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.
One thing that this video is not mentioning is that after Franks were not able to pay their debt to the Venetians, the later requested that the Crusaders destroy the competing ports in Adriatic. Dalmatian coastal cities were destroyed as a partial payment of debt to Venetians.
It is also important to note that while the Pope and many, the religious leaders had the noble goal of defeating Islam, their soldiers were full greed, hatred and lust. They raped and murdered.
@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.
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.
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!
In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given papal blessing to the people of Christians in Iberia to launch a war against Muslims, a papal standard (the vexillum called Sancti Petri) and indulgences for the forgiveness of those who were killed during the war. Appeal from a Byzantine emperor threatened by the Seljuk army, beginning in 1074 from Emperor Michael VII to Pope Gregory VII, the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus to Pope Urban II in 1095, finally got the attention of Pope Alexander II.
The Crusades happened between them to show strong loyalty to the religion that arose in the 11th century among the public. One reason this occurs is controversial investiture ceremony (in which Christian knights received recognition from the church) that began about 1075 and is still going on during the First Crusade. This has a profound impact on all Christians until they are racing to attract public support, resulting in a dramatic religious experience. The result is a Christian spiritual awareness and the emergence of a strong public interest against religion. This is reinforced by religious propaganda, and support for War Fair to recapture the Holy Land, including Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and rise of Jesus to heaven) and Antioch (the first Christian city) from the Muslims. All this ultimately expressed in mass popular support for the First Crusade during the 12th century.
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.
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.
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.
Excellent point.
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.
I've heard the Crusaders desecrated the Byzantine churches--to the point of pissing on the altars--is that exaggeration?