I would rather see a Turkish turban in the midst of the City (Constantinople) than the Latin mitre". -Loukas Notaras Best quote summing up the 4. Crusade
You can draw stark parallels with the sacking of Rome in 410 by the Visigoths. When Alaric's army trekked through the Italian peninsula there was no Roman legion in sight. In fact the peasants he did encounter welcomed him because they were so downtrodden by Rome's high taxes they'd take their chances with the invaders.
@@bokonoo77 The Latins died because they involved themselves in the politics of the empire and their punished by the victorious side (like other groups in the empire). The Venetians nor the crusaders cared about the massacre enough to even politically punish the byzantines. The massacre happened because of the greed and godlessness of the crusaders which even the pope at the time recognised
@@fabianmiron2782 yeah it’s not like emperor Frederick I or Henry VI threatened to go war It’s not like Norman kings of Sicily attacked them for it. West truly despised them for their betrayal
Romans under the Macedonian and Isaurian Dynasties recovered strength after the Arab conquest, so did the Komnenians after the Turkish invasion of Anatolia, the 4th Crusade however was the dead end
@@ΆγιονΠυρτουΘεού Nah Rome is Rome and Romans are Romans, sorry. The majority of Eastern Roman ruling Dynasties were of non-Greek ethnic origins such as Armenian, Illyrian, Arab, Aramean,... The armies were even more diverse including Wallachs, Varangians, Normans, Turks, Franks,... Claiming Eastern Rome/Romans as Greek is nothing but nonsense
@@ΆγιονΠυρτουΘεού Nope. It was the Roman Empire also known as the eastern Roman empire. Byzantine empire is a misnomer to the highest degree. Roman citizens also spoke Greek. Greek was the language of the eastern lands since Alexander the Great and it also became something like the Romans' second language. Roman citizens spoke either Latin or Greek, but in the east Greek was more accepted. Long story short, it was the Romans who were multi-ethnic like Nenenin stated correctly, and not the Greeks.
I like your narration a lot. I'm not a native English speaker and I can understand you without captions. I appreciate it. And thank you for your history lessons. Your channel is very cool.
@UC67_GB6T3dJy7XIMXbEskaQ I say after the death of Maurice, his descendants were from his dynasty and after Phocas there was no Latin-speaking ruler of the Romans after that
@@RedPawner A lot of the eastern Roman emperors after Phocas learned Latin, even though it was not the language of the court in the later medieval age. Phocas II himself spoke Greek and Latin very fluently, which I find to be a telltale marker of Roman-ness. Phocas was rumored to be descended from the Flavian house of ancient Rome. He was not the last emperor speaking Latin, though. Even the later Palaiologians strove to learn Latin. Mostly to appear as part of the European community of those times, and they also learned Latin so that their proposal to reunite the western and eastern churches would succeed.
What I have always wondered is how the crusaders were able to overcome and sack Constantinople so quickly and easily.At that time,it was the best fortified city in the world and had a large army.The fourth cusade was by far the smallest crusade numerically and the most fractured of all.They were spread out everywhere...
Eastern romans: "Could you please try to not invade our territory...FOR FIVE MINUTES!?" Crusaders, persians, ottomans, mongols, huns, barbarians, etc: "What an awesome capital you have, guys!" 😎
@@ΆγιονΠυρτουΘεού They were ethnic greeks with roman citizenship, their nationality is roman but their ethnicity is greek. You can blame roman emperor caracalla for his edicts
Constantinople had a recurring habit of making itself very much disliked if not outright despised by the Latins, so it didn't really take much convincing by the Venezians to get the Crusaders to sack it. This persisting antipathy was also the reason the city was largely left to it's fate when the Ottomans besieged it centuries later.
You forget that the Pope excommunicated the Crusaders. Or all the Crusades that were called to fight the Ottomans before they took Constantinople. Or that the Latins had basically forced Byzantium to become their protectorate, gaining more out of its trade, than the emperor got out of taxing all its lands. Or the Crusaders invading Zara which had done nothing to anyone.
There are several particularities of that failed crusade. However the sack of the jewel of the east comes from a cave mentality. This sack is one of the top brutal of all in the history.
The bastards got what they deserved in the end. Emperor Baldwin was captured by the bulgarians his army crushed by Kaloyan together with most of the Latin high command. That bastard the red duke died of a hearth attack caused by terror thinking Kaloyan would come and take Constantinople. Most of the nobles and commanders that took part in the sack of the city died from bulgarian arrows or getting literally beaten to a pulp when they fell from their horses. The bulgarians used lassoes to get the knights of their horses and after that the infantry beat the brakes off of them with clubs and axes
@ The Byzantine monks in the city incited a mob to kill all of the Italians/Roman Catholics in the city. They decapitated the popes legate and had his head drug around the city by a dog. The ones that did survive were rounded up and sold to the Turks as slaves. So the western crusaders had a pretty good reason to sack the city when they came through.
Not really. They never really recovered from the conquest of 1204. The Byzantines would eventually retake Constantinople but the Empire was only the shadow of it's former self
@@dbdbddhdbe6009 they kind of did, sort of, basically if the civil war in the 14th century didn't happen and they managed to successfully regain Greece (they could've, but they decided to focus more on Anatolia, which they did horribly and resulted in the loss from the Ottoman Turks) they could've have had a way better chance of recovering and maybe even potientally restoring the empire again just as how Basil and Alexios had done, The man who could've made this possible was Andronikos the Third, he died more eariler thaj usual though but he was probably the last eastern roman empire who could've reversed everything that had happened after the fourth crusade but only and if only the civil war never happened
Crusader: “Hey guys, i have an idea: lets sack, plunder and ruin this fellow christian state on the edge of our greatest enemy borders!” Other Crusaders: "makes sense, lets do it!”
@@CCP-Liesthey aren’t latins, true latins are people from Rome, who speak Latin and have Latin ancestry, or people who descend from them such as some Italian, some Spaniards etc. most of the crusaders were people from France or Germany, formerly Gallic and Germanic peoples.
@@CCP-Liesalso I understand the attacking and killing of soldiers but to rape women and children is absolutely disgusting, there’s no excusing that behavior from the west, pure barbaric, just like their mud hut cave loving ancestors.
Long story short Money, by then the Crusaders are basically Rouge and Practically Mercenaries originally they wanted to just pay a debt to the Venitians but spiralled into the conquest of Constantinople.
All the crusades were based on lies, profit, most knights were adventurers who were going to seek glory and fortune or at least the forgiveness of their sins, there was nothing holy about these adventures.
I think the fourth crusade are the only time we can say that Constantinople was preached because in 1453 it was a small city state rather than a capital of empire
Doesn't matter about the terrority, the city it's self it's absolutely huge and is capable of being self-sufficent and is unassailable most of the time. So it was breached, 1204, 1261 by the Empire of Nikaea which is a byzantine successor state, and in 1453 by Ottomans there is one in 1376 which was during a civil war, but it's not well documented.
The last Crusade was the beginning of the end for the formidable Greek Empire. The millennial Byzantine Empire, was the longest and the most splendid Empire the world has even known ! ☦️ 🇬🇷
Now I know the main reason was $$$, but to be honest I think they had it coming when they blinded Enrico. If an envoy says something you don't like, deporting him is fine, maybe even fine his paymaster, but blinding an envoy is going too far.
That's a myth though, Dandolo's blindness is considered to be due natural causes as his handwritting in documents he wrote and signed show a gradual deterioration over time; that being said a lot of the leaders of the Crusade had personal reasons behind their conduct like Boniface of Monferrat whose younger brother was murdered 20 years before in the violence and massacres that happened with the accession of the throne of Andronikos Komnenos.
"The Western Europeans had long felt a jealous dislike for the Greeks; and the refusal of the Greek Church to abandon all its traditions and submit to the authority of the Roman pontificate added to their dislike. The Greeks were schismatics and not to be trusted." Steven Runciman, Greece and the later crusades, From the New Griffon, A Gennadius Library Publication, American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
@@БоянБогданов-ю6о From your surname i deduct that you are of Bulgarian ancestry. Well let's see how your ancestors referred to the Byzantines in still surviving primary sources... "In this respect, it is noteworthy that early-medieval written evidence from the Bulgar realm testifies to a Bulgar preference to the ethnonym Graikos (Greek), instead of Rhomaios (Roman), by the designation of the Eastern Romans. The use of the former ethnonym seems to have been predominant among the other Slavic peoples of the Balkans as well, should we consider the textual evidence in their languages that originates, however, from the late Middle Ages." Yannis Stouraitis, pp 130, "Byzantine Romanness: From geopolitical to ethnic conceptions: Early Medieval Regions and Identities" "The Romans and the Bulgarians viewed each other as distinct people, and many among the latter, especially the former ruling class, desired freedom from “GREEK oppression".” "Later medieval Bulgarians called the Byzantine period “the GREEK slavery.” Anthony Kaldellis, "Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade", pp. 174
@@БоянБогданов-ю6о Your ancestors referred to the "Byzantines" as "Greeks" and "Romans" interchangeably and actually showed a preference for the term Greek. Now read what In the last decades of the empire’s existence (1430's), Ioannes Kanaboutzes spelled out to his Latin masters: “One is not a barbarian on account of religion, but RACE, LANGUAGE, the ordering of one’s politics, and EDUCATION. For we are Christians and share the same faith and confession with many other nations, but we call them barbarians, I mean the Bulgarians, Vlachs, Albanians, Russians, and many others.” Kanaboutzes, Commentary on Dionysios of Halikarnassos 35.
Technically Venezia (Venice) never declared secession from the Roman Empire (as well as Sardinia), even if after Ravenne felt they started to be more and more indipendent de facto. So, technically, this Coul be considered a civil war.
That's wrong. Venice was considered fully indipendent by the byzantines since the age of Basil II, who tried diplomatically to ally Byzantium with Venice to defend himself by the sea raids.
@@WFASPigeonGang ok, prove it. Tell me the moment Venezia declared secession or was occupied by a foreign power. You cannot, it never happened, there were moments when Constanipolis Coul name its dux/doge (yes, it's the name of a Roman Empire magistratum), moments when they named him by themselveses, moments in the middle, the diminishing of the empetial authority was no linear thing and even in the days of Charlemagne he didn't occupy some lands, among them Venezia, not to piss off Costintinopolis, at least not too much, after taking Rome and Longobardia Major
@@Nicods Toso, te lo dico in italiano giusto perché così comprendi bene: quello che dici è storicamente e giuridicamente falso. In primis perché Carlo Magno provò a conquistare l'allora Ducato di Venezia, ma la sua flotta, guidata dal figlio Pipino, venne sconfitta dai Veneziani con l'aiuto dei Bizantini, quindi stare a dire che Venezia dipendeva totalmente da Bisanzio tra l'ottavo e il decimo secolo è mendacia. Dall'ottavo al decimo secolo infatti Venezia finì di essere un territorio amministrato dall'esarcato di Ravenna (ergo sotto amministrazione bizantina) e la Venezia marittima venne riformata in ducato di Venezia, ovvero non più un territorio ma uno stato cliente. Se non conosci la differenza te la spiego: un territorio è una parte facente parte dell'impero che deve ubbidienza all'imperatore, ma che è meno centralizzato e quindi deve minori uomini e risorse all'imperatore stesso rispetto ai Themi. Uno stato cliente è uno stato che agisce per conto proprio in temi di politica interna ed estera ma che tributa denaro in cambio di protezione. Di fatto, per rimarcare un'altra menzogna da te citata, i dogi non venivano eletti direttamente dall'imperatore a seconda della loro influenza: dopo la morte del secondo doge, Marcello Tegaliano, il doge venne continuamente eletto da un'assemblea popolare, e non direttamente scelto dall'imperatore. Comunque, ritornando sul punto della questione, dato che comunque uno stato cliente è uno stato separato da quello da cui dipende, è totalmente erroneo dire che una guerra tra uno stato cliente e quello da cui dipende sia una guerra civile, perché una guerra è civile se accade all'interno di un unico stato, non in due separati. Per citarti un esempio: la guerra tra Basilio II e Barda Foca fu una guerra civile perché Barda Foca era un generale bizantino che voleva detronizzare Basilio, mentre la guerra veneziano-bizantina del 1122-1226 non fu una guerra civile perché da un lato c'era Venezia, stato a sé, e dall'altro c'era l'Impero Bizantino, altro stato a sé. Sta di fatto quindi che Venezia era uno stato indipendente già dalla sua riforma a ducato, ma che era pur sempre cliente rispetto all'impero Bizantino. Lo stato di clientela però fu prima allentato da Basilio II e poi totalmente infranto da Alessio I quando questi divenne dipendente della flotta veneziana, di fatto considerando l'impero e Venezia pari diplomaticamente. Amen.
@@WFASPigeonGang this is a gigantic straw man fallacy. Answer what ai said if you want, not to a different argument, respecting me. And do it in English, respecting other people. Here on RUclips, if you're interested. I'm not interested in being lectured like I said things I never said, thank you.
Shias almost never had political power in the Middle East, except in very few instances. Most of Islam’s political and military history is from the main branch of Sunnis. Shias have been by and large, persecuted throughout the Islamic world. Along with Christian’s and other denominations of Islam.
Shiism isn't based on quran or hadith. Shia comes from word shia'tu ali Or group/supporters of ali. It was political movement for choosing leaders of the muslims between 2 groups. Muawiya and ali. Long story short political conflict transformed into an islamic branch.
@@DAN87DAN though it was never political? Because the successor to Muhammad was never suppose to be a political leader, he was primarily a spiritual leader and the thing they were debating about was who would be the the successor of the spiritual teachings of the prophet(saw). People supported either or, but it’s clear that Ali was suppose to be the successor. The people who politicized Islam was muawiyah and his kin, and created a political system from it and the first “dynasty” in Islamic history, then giving minor power to chosen clerics to follow the leaders beck and call.
Do you know what is the worst part? during the sacking of the city they (of course) had to burn the Imperial Library of Constantinople. There is no worse crime than book burning in my opinion for many civilizations and people (even if they and their empires had fallen) where alive (in a sense of course) because they where recorded in such places and the only immortality there is, is through these pages. But when a person, civilization or story is forgotten and their memory d*es so do they.
Its called constantinople being extremely unprepared (no one expected the event soon enough, unlike other fights), hence adding to why the 4th crusade is a shock
@@SultanSuleiman980 Ottomans? You mean the ottomans that begged the French and British to intervene Everytime the Russians starting knocking on constantinople? That Ottoman empire? British empire singlehandedly extended that sting empires life by 150 years and then ended it.
In all fairness, how did this happen? If the crusaders sacked a Christian city to pay the Venetians (why they didn’t ask for an advance I’ll never know): that would be one thing. But to then go out of their way to Constantinople? Why did any of the crusaders agree to this? How was there no mass mutiny?
This is from someone elses comment, "MPORTANT! Many people refuse to say that there is a different between a crusader and a templar knight. On this occasion those armies were composed mostly by mercenaries,new recruits and people looking for wealth attracted by the success of previous crusades. Thats why they didnt have a problem attacking other christians and basically screwing the whole point of the crusades. The thumbnail just make this worse. Is the equivalent of false news."
1204 Sack of Constantinople was 100% the reason of Eastern empire's downfall. They abandoned the only reason Europe didn't become Arab/Muslim for a millennia just because they were too butthurt with the Byzantines for being Orthodox, speak Greek instead of Latin, being more sophisticated (Theophanu Sklerena taught King Otto's German people how to use cutlery and bath every day) and honestly, being the actual legacy of Ancient Greek and Rome.Not to mention the unholy part that the Church played, in both West and East.
The summary of this film has a Grain of Truth in it,but. Most of the Crusaders withdrew from this "trip" They did not leave Venice, attack Zara, and take part in the attack on Constantinople.
10:15 As an enthusiast of crusader history I did not know Speros Vryonis before this video but it appears he is not an expert in history of the crusades and has bias towards Byzantium and Greece. This statement is simply untrue. Firstly because as far as the crusades to Holy Land countinued throught 12th and 13th centuries it did stop islamic world from advancing forward, second because there were many different theaters and times in which crusades were called. Crusades in Iberia and the Mediterrean succeded to repell islam from Western Europe, ultimetly with Grenada War (1492) and Lepanto (1571). Crusader efforts in the Balkans like Belgrade (1456) or Vienna (1683) also stopped muslim invasions even with many failures along the way and ultimetly led to decline od the Ottomans. Also each crusade should be recognized as it's own thing. Regarding crusader movement in general as a failure is simply false. Overall as far as it countinued and there was motivation for them the movement was succesful in the end. Better read Johnatan Riley-Smith, Thomas Madden, Bernard Hamilton or Thomas Asbridge - historians who really care about crusader history.
@cephasoj108 the byzantine emporer was the person to request a crusader from the pope in the 1st place. The 4th crusade was not an official crusade and the pope had nothing to do with it. Infact the pope had already excommunicated those people who fought against the port city of zara. The pope was very much furious about the events of the 4th crusade in Zara , but was helpless ,as he was unable to physically stop the crusades. Don't bring some event which happened 800 years ago ,which was formed to control the Islamic persecution , which then wandered away from its primary purpose over the modern continuing persecution of the islamists such as taliban and other terrorist organizations. No matter how many times you look into history, it is islam that has more wars than any other religion.
@@nevinadrieljosephatv2572Christian’s have caused more wars historically, I study history and I know the subject well. Not saying Muslims never committed atrocities but “Christian” armies have certainly done worse. Western Christianity to be precise. Against the Muslims, Jews and even among themselves. Not to mention the horrible acts committed against the peoples of India, the americas and Africa. Like I said, Muslims aren’t free of terrible acts but western Christian’s by far are way worse, to put it into perspective the almost complete destruction of the American natives.
@@nevinadrieljosephatv2572 You do realize that the Roman Catholic Church was ecclesiologically setting up parallel Bishoprics and ecclesial bodies in Constantinople and in the Roman Empire? After they brutally sacked it, they didn't allow Orthodox Christianity to flourish and controlled the Roman empire from within for close to 70 years, it was disgusting. So much for "muh pope didn't agree with the fourth crusade" - yeah, he did, and boy did he and dozens of other popes like it.
Untill this year , Crusaders doesnt get how Muslims can arrange an army just by an Imam telling them about a holly war, they are just defending their home land,their religion without the need for money or gold or any crown. Europeen did the crusades not to defend their religion , it was only for expedition and Gold
Many investors/traders advice - that at the start of the bear market, you should sell and buy later on. My question - How do they know at the beginning of the correction - whether stocks would fall by 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% or more?
Two most important parameter to analyse while investing in a bear Mark is - 1 The business you're planning to invest is Fundamentally Strong i.e., Having Competitive Advantage or not ! 2. Even after 10% 20% 30% down from ATH, is the *Valuation" correct or not.
You are rignt! I diversified my $550K portfolio across various market with the aid of an investment advisor, I have been able to generate a little bit above $1.4m in net profit across high dividend yield stocks, ETF and bonds during this red season.
Yes indeed. One proof is in the composition of ruling princes and kings of the medieval era, across the old continent of Europe. For example contemporary Spain, despite being a native Iberian peninsula nation, was founded originally by Visigothic chieftains. The Vandals originally colonised pretty much most of northern Africa, but they got destroyed pretty quickly in a war against the Byzantine empire, under Justinian.
@@smartyrasor5435 never looked into what followed Justinian's succession, to be honest. It's hard to say what the Byzantines were trying to achieve, except to reconsolidate the founding boundaries of the empire, along the Mediterranean basin. They wanted to take back Italy and Spain by force, that much we know for certain.
Easily could have been avoided in they choose Boniface of Monferrat as Latin Emperor or Henry of Flanders, who became emperor later on but Baldwin is for the record a terrible leader./
After fourth Crusade is successful in CK2 this appears. End of an Era. Constaninople falls to great cheers of Catholic Crusaders. The world weeps as last lingering memories of Roman Empire shatter. Only Time will tell, if the Catholics remembered as the ones who broke the Christian Bulwark, or the ones who restore the Rome back to greatness?
@@dyingember8661 No, that was not why it was called Sultanate of Rum. The Turks called the citizens of the eastern Roman Empire because they were calling themselves Romans. The name Sultanate of Rum stuck, it was in reference to the Islamic rule over the eastern Romans of Anatolia. These Romans eventually converted to Islam and started speaking Turkish...and their descendants are still Turks today.
Sad fact is this same template of attacks would be repeated over the centuries, by various passing empires and kingdoms from the West. It started with Roman papist catholicism, but the same disdain for the east ended up prevailing with Protestant kings and rulers (not all though), followed by latter day atheists, occultists etc. The axis puppet state of "Croatia" during WWII, however, is a modern day copy of the crusader destroyers of 1204, because each were equally Roman papist.
If you want to know whether someone is paying lip services to the Eastern Roman Empire, just ask "do you know what happened to Constantinople in 1204"?
I thinck that the western europeans wanted the welth and the glory of the Greek speaking, orthodox remaining eastern part of the Roman Empire.So when they had the oportunity , they took the advantage.....and they proved how the barbarians treat their oponents.....
I’ve studied this crusade and read books on it by supporters of each side. On a visit to Venice I had a tour guide who spoke of it declaring that Venice “won” the 4th Crusade rather than admit they betrayed Christendom.
Not like the eastern Christians killed the Latins in Constantinople in 1182, oh wait they did. Don’t pretend that there was much of a brotherhood between the 2 Christianity denominations
@@loganicfilms1388 I don’t remember what he said. I didn’t record his response because it was stupid and petty, which is why he deleted it so others wouldn’t see.
More than 50 years later it would be restored but never being able to enjoy its former might and prestige. Yet remarkably it still managed to limp on for another two centuries before the Ottomans under Mehmet II put it out of its misery.
The main motive for the sack of Constantinople in 1204 was the desire to expand power. The Holy German Empire was involved in the events. The HRE considered itself as the Guardian power of Catholic Christianity. There was a logical tendency to expand this power over Byzantium and so become the main undisputed ruler over all Christianity in Europe. The Venetians were a rising navel and trade power. Byzantium was seen as a rival that had to be weakened and eliminated. By constant raids and attacks on Islands, ports and allied powers Venice became more and more dominant. Constantinople already had to made concessions to this new power. But still, Byzantium existed. And so, this was a great chance to push the great old rival once and for all out of the way. One of the concessions Byzantium had to make was to let traders from Italy live inside the walls of Constantinople with certain privileges. Since these new citizens became bigger in power and privileges and even dared to fight each other inside the Byzantine capital (Genuans vs Venetians), it was only a matter of time when the backlash came. And it came with the reign of Androikos I Kommenos. Directly after his coronation the quarters of the Latin population in Constantinople were attacked by angry mobs and thousands of the Latin population killed. This happened in 1182, 22 years before the brutal sack of Constantinople. This was an emotional fuel to the desire to sack Constantinople added to the strategic stimulus. What this documentary failed to include was that many new Crusaders from Venice filled up the ranks of those disappointed European knights who already had left the Cruzade. So, it was much easier for the Venetians to manipulate this cruzade in their favour.
I don’t know what’s more depressing, this event, or the people in the comment section justifying it. This event shouldn’t have happened and the Massacre of the Latins shouldn’t have happened either. There’s no justifying either of them.
Much of classic Roman literature known to us was preserved at this time and carried back to Italy. Included were Aristotle's codex and Euclid's geometry (then unknown in the West). Most famous of all is the holy Shroud of Turin. Thank heaven, a gift to the whole world.
At 7:00, "The capital of Byzantium"... the ignorance at its finest. The city of Byzantium had been renamed Constantinople one thousand years earlier, and it was a city, not an empire. The sentence "The capital of Byzantium" doesn't make any sense. Even more, it never existed anything like "The Byzantine Empire", as Byzantium had never an empire. That name, for the East Roman Empire, was an invention of a german historian in the 17th century, well after the end of the East Roman Empire, willing its "Holy Roman Empire" to be the only "Roman empire". Nobody in history had previously called the East Roman Empire the "Byzantine Empire"; even the Ottomans, having conquered it, pretended to be called "The third Roman Empire", in opposition to the German "Holy Roman Empire"; Both pretended to be the Third Roman Empire, the reason why that german historian started to call it "The Byzantine Empire" pretending to falsify one thousand years of history
The main reason because Constantinople refused to fund and help the the third crusade led by the German king Frederick Barbarossa , which ended in disaster and the annihilation of 300,000 to 600,000 crusaders [Muslim sources] due to famine, cold, disease and harassment of the Seljuks in Anatolia, which is the graveyard of the Crusaders.. No crusader army dared cross Anatolia after Barbarossa's crusade
If it was 300.000 or 600.000 crusaders the muslim they has lost not only the holy lands but entire country's and driven far far away and they not even exist the ottomans...stop talk nonsense not even close to that numbers the crusaders.
"With the collapse of the empire in the west, its eastern counterpart became, in reality, an entirely new and independent state, at once Greek by language and Roman in name: 'A Greek Roman empire'." Roderick Beaton, "The Greeks: a global history", New York: Basic books 2021, pp. 212
I am Greek, and even I do not believe this BullShit that you are spouting. Byzantium was just a continuation of the old Roman Empire. It clung onto the old Roman ways and continued the Roman state until its last breath in 29th May, 1453 when the Mehmed the II conquered New Rome and defeated the last Roman Emperor, Constantine XI.
@@ΟΑοίδιμοςΒουκεφάλας You don't seem to be able to grasp that Roman identity was solely a political identity until the empire was geographically reduced to mostly Greek speaking areas at around the 7th century A.D. But after the loss of Syria and North Africa by the Muslims, the term "ROMAIOS" gradually took an ethno-linguistic sense referring ONLY to the GREEK SPEAKING Chalcedonian Christians (who now were the majority population of the empire), utterly becoming a SYNONYM of the terms "GREEK" (which was always being used as the Latin semantic equivalent of "Hellene") and "HELLENE" itself which gradually from the 10th century onwards also revived with it's original ethno-cultural connotation (since paganism was no longer a threat) and came to refer to the same peoples till this very day. In the "Etymologicum Genuinum" of the 9th Century Graikos=Hellene. In the "Souda" Lexicon written in the 10th century Graikos=Hellene and also Graikos=Romaios and in the "Zonaras" Lexicon of the 12th century Romaios=Graikos=Hellene. But then I guess you don't even have a clue what the Souda or Zonaras Lexica even are...
@@ΟΑοίδιμοςΒουκεφάλας "The Greek ideal that was revived in Byzantium surpassed the Roman ideal, which was left to the "Latins", a term that included without distinction the various peoples of western Europe who were treated as a compact set in opposition to the Greeks." "The Byzantine empire was clearly, despite its multinational dimension, a GREEK empire while its neighbours considered it so, and whose unity was based on the power of authority, in the dominance of Orthodoxy and the use of Greek as the official language." Sylvain Gouguenheim, "La gloire des Grecs", 2017, pp. 72,73
Prophet Muhammed (sav) said: "Constantinople will be conquered twice" which means Greeks (maybe Russians) will take İstanbul and according to hadith muslims will retake the city after some time. Maybe it will take hundreds of years.
you mean grifter muhammed, right? since there is no testable claim about any deity, sane adults have no reason to THINK that anybody hears any deity ever. you can believe it, of course, but belief is for children.
First of all, thank you so much for giving the crusader in the thumbnail and at the end of the video a germanic appearance. The vast majority of people and channels forget or don't know that the majority of crusaders had a Dolph Lundgren appearance. A FULL GERMANIC appearance. Flemish, Normans, Franks. The minority were the gallo-roman French and other whites that contained admixtures and therefore had more black hair and looked more mixed. But the dominant appearance of a Western European at that time was that of Dolph Lundgren. Extremely common. Now very rare. I say this because most people and channels tend to give the crusaders and the Western Europeans of those times an arab appearance which is very inaccurate
False, the majority of the Crusaders were French-speaking (Norman, Picard, Lorraine, Champagne) and Occitan, not Germanic, moreover Old French was the vehicular language in the Holy Land, never German
@@clement7652 Idk why you're bragging about language here My comment didn't talk about language as far as I know I talked about physical appearance and genetics and what I said is correct
Im a Croat and learning this about the city of Zadar (Zara) just shows how amazing is history i respect and look upon crusaders but what they did there was not good. ✝️❤️🇭🇷
This is a practical show that Unity in Diversity and Oneness keep the People Strong and we Stand sidelining all the Differences whatever may be the case, matter ! Divided we fall as there is nothing in the World where differences don't exist !
The predatory raids were a tradition for the "civilized peoples" of northern Europe.. Simply the 4th Crusade was with the sign of the cross on the chest. But the goal was always the same.. Gold. Tribes don't change, neither do their habits.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
"we did it Patrick we saved the city!"
*Constantinople burning in the background*
Constatinople suffer less damage conquered by the muslim ironically 😂
krindzh
christianity at its worst, mentored by paedophilic holy men
@@heslakunama4744 under the Muslim rule it became international city again after long painful decalin since 7 century
@@starcapture3040 im sorry bro, you had too much typo to comprehend
I would rather see a Turkish turban in the midst of the City (Constantinople) than the Latin mitre". -Loukas Notaras
Best quote summing up the 4. Crusade
You can draw stark parallels with the sacking of Rome in 410 by the Visigoths.
When Alaric's army trekked through the Italian peninsula there was no Roman legion in sight.
In fact the peasants he did encounter welcomed him because they were so downtrodden by Rome's high taxes they'd take their chances with the invaders.
They probably thought when they were selling the wives and children of massacred latins(done by them)
@@legiran9564 except that the citizens and nobility hated the latins and didn’t want their candidate. Did you watch the video
@@bokonoo77 The Latins died because they involved themselves in the politics of the empire and their punished by the victorious side (like other groups in the empire).
The Venetians nor the crusaders cared about the massacre enough to even politically punish the byzantines. The massacre happened because of the greed and godlessness of the crusaders which even the pope at the time recognised
@@fabianmiron2782 yeah it’s not like emperor Frederick I or Henry VI threatened to go war
It’s not like Norman kings of Sicily attacked them for it.
West truly despised them for their betrayal
Romans under the Macedonian and Isaurian Dynasties recovered strength after the Arab conquest, so did the Komnenians after the Turkish invasion of Anatolia, the 4th Crusade however was the dead end
mate, there is actually a nuance between war, invasion and conquest.
@@ΆγιονΠυρτουΘεού Nah Rome is Rome and Romans are Romans, sorry.
The majority of Eastern Roman ruling Dynasties were of non-Greek ethnic origins such as Armenian, Illyrian, Arab, Aramean,... The armies were even more diverse including Wallachs, Varangians, Normans, Turks, Franks,... Claiming Eastern Rome/Romans as Greek is nothing but nonsense
@@ΆγιονΠυρτουΘεού Nope. It was the Roman Empire also known as the eastern Roman empire. Byzantine empire is a misnomer to the highest degree. Roman citizens also spoke Greek. Greek was the language of the eastern lands since Alexander the Great and it also became something like the Romans' second language. Roman citizens spoke either Latin or Greek, but in the east Greek was more accepted. Long story short, it was the Romans who were multi-ethnic like Nenenin stated correctly, and not the Greeks.
@@ΆγιονΠυρτουΘεού nope its Eastern Roman Empire, they were Romans not greeks, stop larping
@@nenenindonu As the first Roman emperor, I must agree with you ^^
So upsetting that the last bulwark of Roman power was razed to the ground in such an unnoble way.
Julius Caesar would have built a wall while running low on supplies
Oh hey, look! An imposter Augustus... That you Otho? Vitellius?
It is the fault of the Romans who cannot pass a year without some revolt, coup, or assassination attempt. Besides, they had a bad foreign policy.
Isn’t your name the other way around? Caesar Augustus rather than Augustus Caesar.
It doesn’t make much sense otherwise
I feel your pain princeps.
Fantastic work as always. Nice video production, investigation and historical interpretation. Thank you!
Declares Crusade, proceed to attack own faction.
Christians ☕️
Like ISIS did Jihad against own Muslims in Iraq.
@THE LEFT CAFFE
Not really, they told the byzantines that the siege already failed and that a seljuk army was on the way, so alexios turned back
Me casually using the Crusade to attack ex-communicated factions in MTW2
@@leonflaithiuil6596 Catholic Christians**
I like your narration a lot. I'm not a native English speaker and I can understand you without captions. I appreciate it.
And thank you for your history lessons. Your channel is very cool.
Congratulations, as an avid language learner i know how impressive that is
@@deaadrestia2129 Thank you
The true fall of the eastern Roman empire was in 1204, after the sack Constantinople was a shadow of it's former glory.
@UC67_GB6T3dJy7XIMXbEskaQ I say after the death of Maurice, his descendants were from his dynasty and after Phocas there was no Latin-speaking ruler of the Romans after that
@@RedPawner A lot of the eastern Roman emperors after Phocas learned Latin, even though it was not the language of the court in the later medieval age. Phocas II himself spoke Greek and Latin very fluently, which I find to be a telltale marker of Roman-ness. Phocas was rumored to be descended from the Flavian house of ancient Rome. He was not the last emperor speaking Latin, though. Even the later Palaiologians strove to learn Latin. Mostly to appear as part of the European community of those times, and they also learned Latin so that their proposal to reunite the western and eastern churches would succeed.
christianity at its worst, mentored by paedophilic holy men
What I have always wondered is how the crusaders were able to overcome and sack Constantinople so quickly and easily.At that time,it was the best fortified city in the world and had a large army.The fourth cusade was by far the smallest crusade numerically and the most fractured of all.They were spread out everywhere...
I believe its because most were already in the city
"There never was a greater crime against humanity than the Fourth Crusade" - Sir Steven Runciman
Untill the 20th century
You put a crown on an idiot and this happened.
tell that to red indians in america :)
@@mehmed13 *native american
I don't know. The Mongols did some pretty horrific things on a massive scale IMO.
Possibly one of the biggest examples of "losing the plot" of all time
Eastern romans: "Could you please try to not invade our territory...FOR FIVE MINUTES!?"
Crusaders, persians, ottomans, mongols, huns, barbarians, etc: "What an awesome capital you have, guys!" 😎
literally everyone tbh
You forgot there's one time the Arab Muslim tried to conquered it too
@@SiPakRubah 2 times*
It’d be a shame if someone were to sack it
@@ΆγιονΠυρτουΘεού They were ethnic greeks with roman citizenship, their nationality is roman but their ethnicity is greek. You can blame roman emperor caracalla for his edicts
had been waiting for this for a LONG time.
Constantinople had a recurring habit of making itself very much disliked if not outright despised by the Latins, so it didn't really take much convincing by the Venezians to get the Crusaders to sack it. This persisting antipathy was also the reason the city was largely left to it's fate when the Ottomans besieged it centuries later.
Half right
You forget that the Pope excommunicated the Crusaders. Or all the Crusades that were called to fight the Ottomans before they took Constantinople. Or that the Latins had basically forced Byzantium to become their protectorate, gaining more out of its trade, than the emperor got out of taxing all its lands. Or the Crusaders invading Zara which had done nothing to anyone.
Their narcissistic nature of the Byzantines was the cause of their Downfall.
There are several particularities of that failed crusade. However the sack of the jewel of the east comes from a cave mentality. This sack is one of the top brutal of all in the history.
@@joaoomega6627 honestly how could they even see themselves as superior while letting some peasant or known boy from Armenia to be their emperor
"Oh, not more crusaders? Frederick Barbarossa, I do not want that filthy army in my city, turn back at once!" - Constantinople
The bastards got what they deserved in the end. Emperor Baldwin was captured by the bulgarians his army crushed by Kaloyan together with most of the Latin high command. That bastard the red duke died of a hearth attack caused by terror thinking Kaloyan would come and take Constantinople. Most of the nobles and commanders that took part in the sack of the city died from bulgarian arrows or getting literally beaten to a pulp when they fell from their horses. The bulgarians used lassoes to get the knights of their horses and after that the infantry beat the brakes off of them with clubs and axes
Same Kaloyan and Bulgarians did alot of damage to Greek rump Byzantine states too
Actually remnants of the Latin empire continued to exist until 1715.
@@paulpaul1771
Which ones??? The Latin empire itself fell in 1261
@@paulpaul1771 What Where How tell
which battle is that i want to read about it
Should have mentioned the massacre of the latins 20 years before… that didn’t help Constantinople at all.
What happened here
@ The Byzantine monks in the city incited a mob to kill all of the Italians/Roman Catholics in the city. They decapitated the popes legate and had his head drug around the city by a dog. The ones that did survive were rounded up and sold to the Turks as slaves. So the western crusaders had a pretty good reason to sack the city when they came through.
It is impressive that the Romans could recover from the magnitudes of such a siege, even if only partially.
For a time, but then everything went wrong for them, not related to the fourth crusade.
Not really. They never really recovered from the conquest of 1204. The Byzantines would eventually retake Constantinople but the Empire was only the shadow of it's former self
@@maxtomlinson8134 All major scholars and podcasters agree a regime change would have seen them recover. The betrayal ruined them
@@dbdbddhdbe6009 they kind of did, sort of, basically if the civil war in the 14th century didn't happen and they managed to successfully regain Greece (they could've, but they decided to focus more on Anatolia, which they did horribly and resulted in the loss from the Ottoman Turks) they could've have had a way better chance of recovering and maybe even potientally restoring the empire again just as how Basil and Alexios had done, The man who could've made this possible was Andronikos the Third, he died more eariler thaj usual though but he was probably the last eastern roman empire who could've reversed everything that had happened after the fourth crusade but only and if only the civil war never happened
Crusader: “Hey guys, i have an idea: lets sack, plunder and ruin this fellow christian state on the edge of our greatest enemy borders!”
Other Crusaders: "makes sense, lets do it!”
Sounded quiet hilarious and eerie at the same time. 😅😂😬
Don't massacre thousands of latins
Before Constantinople they also attacked the very pious city of Zara so they attacked 2 main Christian cities in the crusade
@@CCP-Liesthey aren’t latins, true latins are people from Rome, who speak Latin and have Latin ancestry, or people who descend from them such as some Italian, some Spaniards etc. most of the crusaders were people from France or Germany, formerly Gallic and Germanic peoples.
@@CCP-Liesalso I understand the attacking and killing of soldiers but to rape women and children is absolutely disgusting, there’s no excusing that behavior from the west, pure barbaric, just like their mud hut cave loving ancestors.
Ironic how every crusade involved attacking, killing, and sacking Christians before getting to the Holy Lands
All non Catholics
aren’t Christians tho by there standards
well they're not Christian ,thou shall not kill.
@@johncane2304Yeah but is killing heretics killing?
You see now, why they did the deed?
@@JamesZheyuXu No
If your aren’t Catholic you aren’t a Christian you are a apostate
Fantastic video keep it up your doing amazing job
ayyyyyy
Long story short Money, by then the Crusaders are basically Rouge and Practically Mercenaries originally they wanted to just pay a debt to the Venitians but spiralled into the conquest of Constantinople.
All the crusades were based on lies, profit, most knights were adventurers who were going to seek glory and fortune or at least the forgiveness of their sins, there was nothing holy about these adventures.
I think the fourth crusade are the only time we can say that Constantinople was preached because in 1453 it was a small city state rather than a capital of empire
Doesn't matter about the terrority, the city it's self it's absolutely huge and is capable of being self-sufficent and is unassailable most of the time. So it was breached, 1204, 1261 by the Empire of Nikaea which is a byzantine successor state, and in 1453 by Ottomans there is one in 1376 which was during a civil war, but it's not well documented.
The last Crusade was the beginning of the end for the formidable Greek Empire. The millennial Byzantine Empire, was the longest and the most splendid Empire the world has even known ! ☦️ 🇬🇷
It wasn't Greek..it was roman. You are pathetic going to every video spreading your nationalist nonsense
Now I know the main reason was $$$, but to be honest I think they had it coming when they blinded Enrico. If an envoy says something you don't like, deporting him is fine, maybe even fine his paymaster, but blinding an envoy is going too far.
That's a myth though, Dandolo's blindness is considered to be due natural causes as his handwritting in documents he wrote and signed show a gradual deterioration over time; that being said a lot of the leaders of the Crusade had personal reasons behind their conduct like Boniface of Monferrat whose younger brother was murdered 20 years before in the violence and massacres that happened with the accession of the throne of Andronikos Komnenos.
"The Western Europeans had long felt a jealous dislike for the Greeks; and the refusal of the Greek Church to abandon all its traditions and submit to the authority of the Roman pontificate added to their dislike. The Greeks were schismatics and not to be trusted."
Steven Runciman, Greece and the later crusades, From the New Griffon, A Gennadius Library Publication, American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
As today they are pitting the EU against Greece
As today they are pitting the EU against Greece
Greeks = Byzantines, Greek church = Orthodox church. Don't be too arrogant...
@@БоянБогданов-ю6о From your surname i deduct that you are of Bulgarian ancestry. Well let's see how your ancestors referred to the Byzantines in still surviving primary sources...
"In this respect, it is noteworthy that early-medieval written evidence from the Bulgar realm testifies to a Bulgar preference to the ethnonym Graikos (Greek), instead of Rhomaios (Roman), by the designation of the Eastern Romans.
The use of the former ethnonym seems to have been predominant among the other Slavic peoples of the Balkans as well, should we consider the textual evidence in their languages that originates, however, from the late Middle Ages."
Yannis Stouraitis, pp 130, "Byzantine Romanness: From geopolitical to ethnic conceptions: Early Medieval Regions and Identities"
"The Romans and the Bulgarians viewed each other as distinct people, and many among the latter, especially the former ruling class, desired freedom from “GREEK oppression".”
"Later medieval Bulgarians called the Byzantine period “the GREEK slavery.”
Anthony Kaldellis, "Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade", pp. 174
@@БоянБогданов-ю6о Your ancestors referred to the "Byzantines" as "Greeks" and "Romans" interchangeably and actually showed a preference for the term Greek.
Now read what In the last decades of the empire’s existence (1430's), Ioannes Kanaboutzes spelled out to his Latin masters:
“One is not a barbarian on account of religion, but RACE, LANGUAGE, the ordering of one’s politics, and EDUCATION. For we are Christians and share the same faith and confession with many other nations, but we call them barbarians, I mean the Bulgarians, Vlachs, Albanians, Russians, and many others.”
Kanaboutzes, Commentary on Dionysios of Halikarnassos 35.
I consider this as a crime, history is powerful
A crime? Why?
The biggest christian city in the world was destroyed by christians thats why@@maxtomlinson8134
Technically Venezia (Venice) never declared secession from the Roman Empire (as well as Sardinia), even if after Ravenne felt they started to be more and more indipendent de facto. So, technically, this Coul be considered a civil war.
christianity at its worst, mentored by paedophilic holy men
That's wrong. Venice was considered fully indipendent by the byzantines since the age of Basil II, who tried diplomatically to ally Byzantium with Venice to defend himself by the sea raids.
@@WFASPigeonGang ok, prove it. Tell me the moment Venezia declared secession or was occupied by a foreign power. You cannot, it never happened, there were moments when Constanipolis Coul name its dux/doge (yes, it's the name of a Roman Empire magistratum), moments when they named him by themselveses, moments in the middle, the diminishing of the empetial authority was no linear thing and even in the days of Charlemagne he didn't occupy some lands, among them Venezia, not to piss off Costintinopolis, at least not too much, after taking Rome and Longobardia Major
@@Nicods Toso, te lo dico in italiano giusto perché così comprendi bene: quello che dici è storicamente e giuridicamente falso. In primis perché Carlo Magno provò a conquistare l'allora Ducato di Venezia, ma la sua flotta, guidata dal figlio Pipino, venne sconfitta dai Veneziani con l'aiuto dei Bizantini, quindi stare a dire che Venezia dipendeva totalmente da Bisanzio tra l'ottavo e il decimo secolo è mendacia. Dall'ottavo al decimo secolo infatti Venezia finì di essere un territorio amministrato dall'esarcato di Ravenna (ergo sotto amministrazione bizantina) e la Venezia marittima venne riformata in ducato di Venezia, ovvero non più un territorio ma uno stato cliente. Se non conosci la differenza te la spiego: un territorio è una parte facente parte dell'impero che deve ubbidienza all'imperatore, ma che è meno centralizzato e quindi deve minori uomini e risorse all'imperatore stesso rispetto ai Themi. Uno stato cliente è uno stato che agisce per conto proprio in temi di politica interna ed estera ma che tributa denaro in cambio di protezione. Di fatto, per rimarcare un'altra menzogna da te citata, i dogi non venivano eletti direttamente dall'imperatore a seconda della loro influenza: dopo la morte del secondo doge, Marcello Tegaliano, il doge venne continuamente eletto da un'assemblea popolare, e non direttamente scelto dall'imperatore. Comunque, ritornando sul punto della questione, dato che comunque uno stato cliente è uno stato separato da quello da cui dipende, è totalmente erroneo dire che una guerra tra uno stato cliente e quello da cui dipende sia una guerra civile, perché una guerra è civile se accade all'interno di un unico stato, non in due separati. Per citarti un esempio: la guerra tra Basilio II e Barda Foca fu una guerra civile perché Barda Foca era un generale bizantino che voleva detronizzare Basilio, mentre la guerra veneziano-bizantina del 1122-1226 non fu una guerra civile perché da un lato c'era Venezia, stato a sé, e dall'altro c'era l'Impero Bizantino, altro stato a sé. Sta di fatto quindi che Venezia era uno stato indipendente già dalla sua riforma a ducato, ma che era pur sempre cliente rispetto all'impero Bizantino. Lo stato di clientela però fu prima allentato da Basilio II e poi totalmente infranto da Alessio I quando questi divenne dipendente della flotta veneziana, di fatto considerando l'impero e Venezia pari diplomaticamente. Amen.
@@WFASPigeonGang this is a gigantic straw man fallacy. Answer what ai said if you want, not to a different argument, respecting me. And do it in English, respecting other people. Here on RUclips, if you're interested. I'm not interested in being lectured like I said things I never said, thank you.
Islam: Hi catholicism and orthodoxy from Christianity.
Christianity: Hi shia and sunni from Islam.
Islam and Christianity: * INTENSE FRIENDLY FIRE *
Shias almost never had political power in the Middle East, except in very few instances. Most of Islam’s political and military history is from the main branch of Sunnis. Shias have been by and large, persecuted throughout the Islamic world. Along with Christian’s and other denominations of Islam.
Shiism isn't based on quran or hadith.
Shia comes from word shia'tu ali
Or group/supporters of ali.
It was political movement for choosing leaders of the muslims between 2 groups.
Muawiya and ali.
Long story short political conflict transformed into an islamic branch.
@@DAN87DAN though it was never political? Because the successor to Muhammad was never suppose to be a political leader, he was primarily a spiritual leader and the thing they were debating about was who would be the the successor of the spiritual teachings of the prophet(saw). People supported either or, but it’s clear that Ali was suppose to be the successor. The people who politicized Islam was muawiyah and his kin, and created a political system from it and the first “dynasty” in Islamic history, then giving minor power to chosen clerics to follow the leaders beck and call.
Your production is really improving
Do you know what is the worst part? during the sacking of the city they (of course) had to burn the Imperial Library of Constantinople.
There is no worse crime than book burning in my opinion for many civilizations and people (even if they and their empires had fallen) where alive (in a sense of course) because they where recorded in such places and the only immortality there is, is through these pages. But when a person, civilization or story is forgotten and their memory d*es so do they.
The Fourth Crusade: Whoops! Wrong holy city
When the term "friendly fire" began earlier than video games
Ottomans: struggled for years to capture Constantinople.
Christian Crusaders: Took Constantinople in a couple of days 😭
Its called constantinople being extremely unprepared (no one expected the event soon enough, unlike other fights), hence adding to why the 4th crusade is a shock
Allahu Akbar
prophet Muhammad have prophecy about concuaqing Constantinople
Also ottomans kick infield crusader ass in every War 😭
@@EndTimeNarrative his prophecy of taking Rome never came true.
@@SultanSuleiman980 Ottomans? You mean the ottomans that begged the French and British to intervene Everytime the Russians starting knocking on constantinople? That Ottoman empire? British empire singlehandedly extended that sting empires life by 150 years and then ended it.
Greed, the root of all evil- is of course one of if not the largest reason why as per usual when things get looted.
In all fairness, how did this happen? If the crusaders sacked a Christian city to pay the Venetians (why they didn’t ask for an advance I’ll never know): that would be one thing. But to then go out of their way to Constantinople? Why did any of the crusaders agree to this? How was there no mass mutiny?
Western europe didn't like the byzantines that's why they were ok with it
This is from someone elses comment, "MPORTANT! Many people refuse to say that there is a different between a crusader and a templar knight. On this occasion those armies were composed mostly by mercenaries,new recruits and people looking for wealth attracted by the success of previous crusades. Thats why they didnt have a problem attacking other christians and basically screwing the whole point of the crusades. The thumbnail just make this worse. Is the equivalent of false news."
Well they get their money when he is crowned emperor.
Since then he would have the funds to actually pay them.
Didn't the Byzantines murder all catholics within Constantinople a few years prior? That would certainly explain the motivation of the crusaders.
Nice video.
1204 Sack of Constantinople was 100% the reason of Eastern empire's downfall. They abandoned the only reason Europe didn't become Arab/Muslim for a millennia just because they were too butthurt with the Byzantines for being Orthodox, speak Greek instead of Latin, being more sophisticated (Theophanu Sklerena taught King Otto's German people how to use cutlery and bath every day) and honestly, being the actual legacy of Ancient Greek and Rome.Not to mention the unholy part that the Church played, in both West and East.
Crusaders were just mercenaries so of course profit was the game.
Not really. As stated in the video; the crusaders who sacked the city were a minority.
@@attika3145 a minority. Lol
Overly cynical, I'm sure some did have some true faith motives. But they were largely used for the profits of the nobility.
Extraordinario documental, enhorabuena desde España
The summary of this film has a Grain of Truth in it,but.
Most of the Crusaders withdrew from this "trip"
They did not leave Venice, attack Zara, and take part in the attack on Constantinople.
10:15 As an enthusiast of crusader history I did not know Speros Vryonis before this video but it appears he is not an expert in history of the crusades and has bias towards Byzantium and Greece. This statement is simply untrue. Firstly because as far as the crusades to Holy Land countinued throught 12th and 13th centuries it did stop islamic world from advancing forward, second because there were many different theaters and times in which crusades were called. Crusades in Iberia and the Mediterrean succeded to repell islam from Western Europe, ultimetly with Grenada War (1492) and Lepanto (1571). Crusader efforts in the Balkans like Belgrade (1456) or Vienna (1683) also stopped muslim invasions even with many failures along the way and ultimetly led to decline od the Ottomans. Also each crusade should be recognized as it's own thing. Regarding crusader movement in general as a failure is simply false. Overall as far as it countinued and there was motivation for them the movement was succesful in the end.
Better read Johnatan Riley-Smith, Thomas Madden, Bernard Hamilton or Thomas Asbridge - historians who really care about crusader history.
Funny how these people complain about Vikings, Pagans and Muslims and yet commit atrocities to one another despite being same faith to a degree.
Those were committed out of greed and not in the name of religion. They were not called by the pope
@@nevinadrieljosephatv2572the pope threatened Micheal Paleologos with a crusade multiple times
@cephasoj108 the byzantine emporer was the person to request a crusader from the pope in the 1st place. The 4th crusade was not an official crusade and the pope had nothing to do with it. Infact the pope had already excommunicated those people who fought against the port city of zara. The pope was very much furious about the events of the 4th crusade in Zara , but was helpless ,as he was unable to physically stop the crusades. Don't bring some event which happened 800 years ago ,which was formed to control the Islamic persecution , which then wandered away from its primary purpose over the modern continuing persecution of the islamists such as taliban and other terrorist organizations. No matter how many times you look into history, it is islam that has more wars than any other religion.
@@nevinadrieljosephatv2572Christian’s have caused more wars historically, I study history and I know the subject well. Not saying Muslims never committed atrocities but “Christian” armies have certainly done worse. Western Christianity to be precise. Against the Muslims, Jews and even among themselves. Not to mention the horrible acts committed against the peoples of India, the americas and Africa. Like I said, Muslims aren’t free of terrible acts but western Christian’s by far are way worse, to put it into perspective the almost complete destruction of the American natives.
@@nevinadrieljosephatv2572 You do realize that the Roman Catholic Church was ecclesiologically setting up parallel Bishoprics and ecclesial bodies in Constantinople and in the Roman Empire? After they brutally sacked it, they didn't allow Orthodox Christianity to flourish and controlled the Roman empire from within for close to 70 years, it was disgusting. So much for "muh pope didn't agree with the fourth crusade" - yeah, he did, and boy did he and dozens of other popes like it.
Always have fun watching
ayyyyy
You seem to have completely forgotten about Venice's role in this. Did the Doge of Venice pay you of or something?
really love the maps in this channel
Untill this year , Crusaders doesnt get how Muslims can arrange an army just by an Imam telling them about a holly war, they are just defending their home land,their religion without the need for money or gold or any crown. Europeen did the crusades not to defend their religion , it was only for expedition and Gold
Many investors/traders advice - that at the start of the bear market, you should sell and buy later on. My question - How do they know at the beginning of the correction - whether stocks would fall by 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% or more?
Two most important parameter to
analyse while investing in a bear Mark is - 1
The business you're planning to
invest is Fundamentally Strong i.e.,
Having Competitive Advantage or not !
2. Even after 10% 20% 30% down from
ATH, is the *Valuation" correct or not.
@Casino Şimşek Your assertion that as we age we
become more risk averse rings so much true
to me. Can you recommend any fiduciary
Financial Advisor?
You are rignt! I diversified
my $550K portfolio across various market
with the aid of an investment advisor, I have
been able to generate a little bit above
$1.4m in net profit across high dividend
yield stocks, ETF and bonds during this red
season.
Im a novice that made 4.7 btc in my first attempt to trade, all thanks to him, he's everything y'all need
right now..
fuckin bots
It's cool that the video duration is 12.02 :)
Can it be said (roughly), it was the extension of Germanic powers attacking Romans?
Yes indeed. One proof is in the composition of ruling princes and kings of the medieval era, across the old continent of Europe. For example contemporary Spain, despite being a native Iberian peninsula nation, was founded originally by Visigothic chieftains. The Vandals originally colonised pretty much most of northern Africa, but they got destroyed pretty quickly in a war against the Byzantine empire, under Justinian.
G*rman barbar
@@markeedeep and then justinians heir ruined the possibility of a reunified roman empire
@@smartyrasor5435 never looked into what followed Justinian's succession, to be honest. It's hard to say what the Byzantines were trying to achieve, except to reconsolidate the founding boundaries of the empire, along the Mediterranean basin. They wanted to take back Italy and Spain by force, that much we know for certain.
@@markeedeep i honestly dont know much about what happened after justinian died but inkniw that his successer lost most of the territory he gained
The thumbnail is on point
You should have included what happened to the crusaders in April 1205 - The battle of Adrianopol. Karma sucks for sure.
Easily could have been avoided in they choose Boniface of Monferrat as Latin Emperor or Henry of Flanders, who became emperor later on but Baldwin is for the record a terrible leader./
After fourth Crusade is successful in CK2 this appears.
End of an Era.
Constaninople falls to great cheers of Catholic Crusaders. The world weeps as last lingering memories of Roman Empire shatter.
Only Time will tell, if the Catholics remembered as the ones who broke the Christian Bulwark, or the ones who restore the Rome back to greatness?
So theres a country called "Rum" on that map i think we need a video on them
Everybody wants to be Rome, even the Turks.
@@dyingember8661 No, that was not why it was called Sultanate of Rum. The Turks called the citizens of the eastern Roman Empire because they were calling themselves Romans. The name Sultanate of Rum stuck, it was in reference to the Islamic rule over the eastern Romans of Anatolia. These Romans eventually converted to Islam and started speaking Turkish...and their descendants are still Turks today.
@@Moons-of-Jupiter152
It is a part of Seljuk empire after mongol invasion of seljuk the Seljuk goes to Anatolia and make empire sultan of rum
Seljuks invaded Anatolia in 1071 AD, after the Battle of Manzikert, before the Mongols @@a.slion-gamerz9762
Sad fact is this same template of attacks would be repeated over the centuries, by various passing empires and kingdoms from the West. It started with Roman papist catholicism, but the same disdain for the east ended up prevailing with Protestant kings and rulers (not all though), followed by latter day atheists, occultists etc. The axis puppet state of "Croatia" during WWII, however, is a modern day copy of the crusader destroyers of 1204, because each were equally Roman papist.
If you want to know whether someone is paying lip services to the Eastern Roman Empire, just ask "do you know what happened to Constantinople in 1204"?
Thank you
Wow!!!A fascinating history of the Constantinople fall indeed,good friends!!!
I thinck that the western europeans wanted the welth and the glory of the Greek speaking, orthodox remaining eastern part of the Roman Empire.So when they had the oportunity , they took the advantage.....and they proved how the barbarians treat their oponents.....
It's not the East or the West Side! (No, it's not.) It's not the North or the South Side! (No, it's not.) It's the Dark Side!!!
@ أبو وزرة الـ خـ و لا نـ ي I did not. Sounds legit. I believe you.
Buenísimo documental.. enhorabuena desde españa
I’ve studied this crusade and read books on it by supporters of each side. On a visit to Venice I had a tour guide who spoke of it declaring that Venice “won” the 4th Crusade rather than admit they betrayed Christendom.
Not like the eastern Christians killed the Latins in Constantinople in 1182, oh wait they did. Don’t pretend that there was much of a brotherhood between the 2 Christianity denominations
@@sebe2255 Don’t try to put words in my mouth.
@@dustyk103 What did he say?
@@loganicfilms1388 I don’t remember what he said. I didn’t record his response because it was stupid and petty, which is why he deleted it so others wouldn’t see.
@@dustyk103 shame.
Could you please talk about interwar Romania?
The sack of Constantinople brings pain to my romaboo heart.
as a former Catholic I'm fairly disgusted by the German empire attacking the Roman Orthodox empire. royal families royal problems.
This event spell the end of the Eastern Roman Empire
More than 50 years later it would be restored but never being able to enjoy its former might and prestige. Yet remarkably it still managed to limp on for another two centuries before the Ottomans under Mehmet II put it out of its misery.
@@barbiquearea the eastern Roman Empire after the fourth crusade was dead by that point
Crusaders :- I got the holy land .
Pope :- Perfect .
Civilians :- But at what cost ...
The main motive for the sack of Constantinople in 1204 was the desire to expand power.
The Holy German Empire was involved in the events. The HRE considered itself as the Guardian power of Catholic Christianity. There was a logical tendency to expand this power over Byzantium and so become the main undisputed ruler over all Christianity in Europe.
The Venetians were a rising navel and trade power. Byzantium was seen as a rival that had to be weakened and eliminated. By constant raids and attacks on Islands, ports and allied powers Venice became more and more dominant. Constantinople already had to made concessions to this new power. But still, Byzantium existed. And so, this was a great chance to push the great old rival once and for all out of the way.
One of the concessions Byzantium had to make was to let traders from Italy live inside the walls of Constantinople with certain privileges. Since these new citizens became bigger in power and privileges and even dared to fight each other inside the Byzantine capital (Genuans vs Venetians), it was only a matter of time when the backlash came.
And it came with the reign of Androikos I Kommenos. Directly after his coronation the quarters of the Latin population in Constantinople were attacked by angry mobs and thousands of the Latin population killed. This happened in 1182, 22 years before the brutal sack of Constantinople. This was an emotional fuel to the desire to sack Constantinople added to the strategic stimulus.
What this documentary failed to include was that many new Crusaders from Venice filled up the ranks of those disappointed European knights who already had left the Cruzade. So, it was much easier for the Venetians to manipulate this cruzade in their favour.
I don’t know what’s more depressing, this event, or the people in the comment section justifying it. This event shouldn’t have happened and the Massacre of the Latins shouldn’t have happened either. There’s no justifying either of them.
Much of classic Roman literature known to us was preserved at this time and carried back to Italy. Included were Aristotle's codex and Euclid's geometry (then unknown in the West). Most famous of all is the holy Shroud of Turin. Thank heaven, a gift to the whole world.
Catholics have barbarically stolen it all.
I love the thumbnail
*Question:* Why did the Crusaders sack Constantinople in 1204?
*Answer:* Because it felt good
Because money.... I mean God!! Please don't tell our men we've condemned them to hell by order of our own Pope...
It wasn't just because it felt good but because they got cheated and weren't payed.
@@zxylo786 because it felt good
To be honest they had it coming.
Because italy hated greece
5:17 PayPal legate?? So why didn't they just pay the Venitians via that?
At 7:00, "The capital of Byzantium"... the ignorance at its finest. The city of Byzantium had been renamed Constantinople one thousand years earlier, and it was a city, not an empire. The sentence "The capital of Byzantium" doesn't make any sense.
Even more, it never existed anything like "The Byzantine Empire", as Byzantium had never an empire. That name, for the East Roman Empire, was an invention of a german historian in the 17th century, well after the end of the East Roman Empire, willing its "Holy Roman Empire" to be the only "Roman empire". Nobody in history had previously called the East Roman Empire the "Byzantine Empire"; even the Ottomans, having conquered it, pretended to be called "The third Roman Empire", in opposition to the German "Holy Roman Empire"; Both pretended to be the Third Roman Empire, the reason why that german historian started to call it "The Byzantine Empire" pretending to falsify one thousand years of history
This video needs re-edited to be 3 seconds longer!
I feel so bad for the innocent people of Constantinople 😢😢😢
The main reason because Constantinople refused to fund and help the the third crusade led by the German king Frederick Barbarossa , which ended in disaster and the annihilation of 300,000 to 600,000 crusaders [Muslim sources] due to famine, cold, disease and harassment of the Seljuks in Anatolia, which is the graveyard of the Crusaders..
No crusader army dared cross Anatolia after Barbarossa's crusade
lmao not even close to that number
If it was 300.000 or 600.000 crusaders the muslim they has lost not only the holy lands but entire country's and driven far far away and they not even exist the ottomans...stop talk nonsense not even close to that numbers the crusaders.
please also made a video about restoration of byzantium after this.
It ends with Michael the 8th becoming emperor by blinding the emperor he was serving.
"With the collapse of the empire in the west, its eastern counterpart became, in reality, an entirely new and independent state, at once Greek by language and Roman in name: 'A Greek Roman empire'."
Roderick Beaton, "The Greeks: a global history", New York: Basic books 2021, pp. 212
Similar to 501st Journal. Noice
I am Greek, and even I do not believe this BullShit that you are spouting. Byzantium was just a continuation of the old Roman Empire. It clung onto the old Roman ways and continued the Roman state until its last breath in 29th May, 1453 when the Mehmed the II conquered New Rome and defeated the last Roman Emperor, Constantine XI.
@@ΟΑοίδιμοςΒουκεφάλας At last, a Greek who knows the truth ^^
@@ΟΑοίδιμοςΒουκεφάλας You don't seem to be able to grasp that Roman identity was solely a political identity until the empire was geographically reduced to mostly Greek speaking areas at around the 7th century A.D. But after the loss of Syria and North Africa by the Muslims, the term "ROMAIOS" gradually took an ethno-linguistic sense referring ONLY to the GREEK SPEAKING Chalcedonian Christians (who now were the majority population of the empire), utterly becoming a SYNONYM of the terms "GREEK" (which was always being used as the Latin semantic equivalent of "Hellene") and "HELLENE" itself which gradually from the 10th century onwards also revived with it's original ethno-cultural connotation (since paganism was no longer a threat) and came to refer to the same peoples till this very day.
In the "Etymologicum Genuinum" of the 9th Century Graikos=Hellene. In the "Souda" Lexicon written in the 10th century Graikos=Hellene and also Graikos=Romaios and in the "Zonaras" Lexicon of the 12th century Romaios=Graikos=Hellene. But then I guess you don't even have a clue what the Souda or Zonaras Lexica even are...
@@ΟΑοίδιμοςΒουκεφάλας "The Greek ideal that was revived in Byzantium surpassed the Roman ideal, which was left to the "Latins", a term that included without distinction the various peoples of western Europe who were treated as a compact set in opposition to the Greeks."
"The Byzantine empire was clearly, despite its multinational dimension, a GREEK empire while its neighbours considered it so, and whose unity was based on the power of authority, in the dominance of Orthodoxy and the use of Greek as the official language."
Sylvain Gouguenheim, "La gloire des Grecs", 2017, pp. 72,73
My simple answer is greed.
I think the mongol's crimes don't even compare to these crimes
Bingo
What happened in Constantinople happened to most cities the Mongols conquered.
not sure about that one
One of the worst and most untrue takes of all time
A video suggestion why did Belgium empire collapse
Prophet Muhammed (sav) said: "Constantinople will be conquered twice" which means Greeks (maybe Russians) will take İstanbul and according to hadith muslims will retake the city after some time. Maybe it will take hundreds of years.
Second was in 1922 I guess, after Brits left.
@@herneyse11 I'm not sure if that counts because war was in Anatolia. There was no war in Istanbul it was just diplomacy.
you mean grifter muhammed, right?
since there is no testable claim about any deity, sane adults have no reason to THINK that anybody hears any deity ever.
you can believe it, of course, but belief is for children.
@@emirhantekin1800 Well they did take over Istanbul the British until the Turks fought back and retake it
who care what pedo mo said
This is why the Crusaders rank 2nd (right under the the Conquistadors) in my list of the most greedy, money-hungry Catholic fighting forces.
crusaders killed 80 thousand muslim in jerusalem alone, what did you expect
Seljuks did the same things after capturing cities like Antioch, Nicaea and Iconium
Can you make a video about battle of firaz 15k vs 300k?
First of all, thank you so much for giving the crusader in the thumbnail and at the end of the video a germanic appearance. The vast majority of people and channels forget or don't know that the majority of crusaders had a Dolph Lundgren appearance. A FULL GERMANIC appearance. Flemish, Normans, Franks.
The minority were the gallo-roman French and other whites that contained admixtures and therefore had more black hair and looked more mixed. But the dominant appearance of a Western European at that time was that of Dolph Lundgren. Extremely common. Now very rare. I say this because most people and channels tend to give the crusaders and the Western Europeans of those times an arab appearance which is very inaccurate
False, the majority of the Crusaders were French-speaking (Norman, Picard, Lorraine, Champagne) and Occitan, not Germanic, moreover Old French was the vehicular language in the Holy Land, never German
@@clement7652 Nobody is speaking about German. Only you.
Germanic doesn't mean "German"
Also, the Flemish didn't speak French. They spoke old Dutch
@@clement7652 Idk why you're bragging about language here
My comment didn't talk about language as far as I know
I talked about physical appearance and genetics and what I said is correct
@@clement7652 Maybe go to a doctor
@@chadsupporter4093 I never spoke of the Flemish...
How can you know the genetics and their appearance it was in the middle ages... idiot
So England has moved from Great Britain to next door to France!!!
If they didn’t sacked Constantinople, Byzantine would have not conquered by the Turks
I'm pretty sure the Byzantines were always fated to be conquered since they constantly were at the mercy of their own allies.
@@theawesomeman9821 Plus before the Fourth Crusade the Byzantines had large regions of their country being broken away.
@@theawesomeman9821 Yea but they would probably fall in 1550s in that case.
Eurasian history is so interesting. No surprise that those countries score the highest on IQ tests by far.
Im a Croat and learning this about the city of Zadar (Zara) just shows how amazing is history i respect and look upon crusaders but what they did there was not good.
✝️❤️🇭🇷
that they killed muslim children is for you okey?
@@blackbox3431Overly religious people who don't do research ☕️
Does anyone know how someone could start learning to animate like this? Thanks in advance
they didn't talked about the latin mass murder?
This is a practical show that Unity in Diversity and Oneness keep the People Strong and we Stand sidelining all the Differences whatever may be the case, matter ! Divided we fall as there is nothing in the World where differences don't exist !
Fantástico trabajo, enhorabuena
The thumbnail crusader be like:yeah we sacked it what you gonna do about it
It was an epic crusaders trick, heretics will never understand
The predatory raids were a tradition for the "civilized peoples" of northern Europe.. Simply the 4th Crusade was with the sign of the cross on the chest. But the goal was always the same.. Gold. Tribes don't change, neither do their habits.
Even though this happened MANY moons ago, if the sacking of Constantinople didn't happen in 1204 or 1453, how would everything end up?
"Religion is good, gold is better" - Every catholic ever
Islam is worst, I'm atheist & proud.
Sounds like a jew.
every religious power person ever (minor and major leaders)
Sounds more like a jewish proverb to me
France and Italy always a loser country