Massacre of the Latins was justified

>>latin crusaders originally bring aid to the Byzantines

Oh, they brought AIDS alright.

>their only city is now a foul and sinking tourist trap

Athens is pretty bad these days, yeah.

>Bringing aid

No they wanted to attack Egypt controlled Jerusalem, but even that later turned to be a ploy by the Venetian's to sack Constantinople. That's why they sacked Zara as well.

>tourist trap

>this is a tourist trap

>this is built specifically for PLEBEIAN TOURIST SCUM

>the kings of the Mediterranean built this for TOURISTS

I want Byzaboos to leave

>>latin crusaders originally bring aid to the Byzantines

What aid? The Crusaders were never an asset. They were always a threat: a nuisance at best, and a danger at worst. They were terrible at logistics (even the Tactica of Emperor Leo the Wise makes a point in mentioning that the Western Europeans were terrible at prolonged warfare due to their lack of logistics, administrative competence, or even funds), such that they usually turned on the rural populations of their allies and tried to live off the earth, invariably causing chaos and destruction in the lands which they passed, even if they were "allied" lands. The Crusaders were unruly, and never returned any of the land they captured back to the Empire.

They gave no aid whatsoever, and deserved nothing in return.

It's not a tourist trap. But it has lots of annoying tourists and it smells like shit.

Liked Siena and Firenze way more.

>samefagging this hard

Am I supposed to be impressed with that disgusting green water?

>trying to justify the massacre of nearly 80,000 innocent men, women, children (many were raped too) and selling the surviving 4000 into slavery to muslims
Yikes.

An absolute fucking swag master.

It's actually very easy to justify. The Latins forfeited their welcome by their own actions and their disregard for the law of the state in which they were hosts.

>unironically trying to justify the massacre of nearly 80,000 innocent men, women, children (many were raped too) and the selling of the surviving 4000 into slavery to muslims
Yikkity yikes.

>impose their Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic rites on Eastern heretics
Damn right they did.

>unironically defending the Latins

Please refer to the OP, as I won't repeat my points.

Here come the Christcucks to derail another historical thread.

>heretical Latin rites

> As such, it was forced to give out concessions to the Venetians, Pisans, Genoese, and other Italian merchant republics, such that these foreign powers began to gain undue influence and control over the very economy and politics of the Empire.
PAY DENBTS.

you might need to go for a walk

>The Byzantines did no wrong in massacring and expelling the foreigners who were stifling native commerce, disobeying Imperial law and order, and attempting to interfere in the political matters of a sovereign state directly.
It ended with the fate of the Byzantines sealed and their eventual decline, so in hindsight, they did almost everything wrong, diplomatically, militarily and economically.

You need to kill yourself.

>attempting to interfere in the political matters of a sovereign state directly.
How is that a problem? The Latins effectively owned massive chunks of stock in Constantinople, so they had every right to a say in how things were run.

whoa
you know what, take a long hike instead

>too poor to afford a pedestal
lmao byzantards

>too poor/stupid to have logistics or even a bureaucracy

lmao westards

Seriously, is this the first recorded instance of PAY DENBTS?

>byzantines wiped out
>west endures

>Orthodox shitting on other traditions despite their church claiming to accept them as valid
Truly a "Catholic" church

>g-guys 500 years later they totally got BTFO
>Just ignore the fact that it was by the French and not us since we'd been annexed by the Turks (Who Venice could beat regularly) centuries prior
Pathetic

>Dude if you give the emperor a headache it's alright to kill innocent women and children and sell people into slavery XD
Orthoshits and Byzaboos aren't human

What does it matter that they got defeated by the French? The Venetians got BTFOd, and it's extremely satisfying to read of their demise. Former great power of the Mediterranean, conquerors of Constantinople... reduced to grovelling on their mosquito-infested swamp city, with their navy reduced to literal antiques (LOL, fielding galleys in 1796?) and fishing boats. Didn't even have enough influence or power to put up the pretense of resistance: instead, they instantly surrendered to Napoleon's forces.

Say what you will, at least the defender's of Constantinople fought to the death in the defense of their city in 1453, instead of surrendering at the first demand. Pathetic.

it's funny because they justify literal fucking massacres like this one, yet at the same time any minor injustice done to byzantium is the end of the world.

some of the worst posters on this board by far.

>Sack of 1204
>minor

this

the narrative of disgusting merchant opportunists vs a noble faithful people is never more clearly displayed than looking at their respective demises

And Venice is still inhabited by Venetians

As if continuing to live in that swamp at the mercy of the mosquitos and tourists were a good thing.

>viewing historical events through a good-vs-bad lens
cancer of Veeky Forums

Actually, the Venetians first obtained those trading concessions from the Byzantines through raiding Byzantine coastal outposts in the Aegean and in Cilicia/Cyprus in 1122-1124, destroying the infrastructure and forcing the hand of the Greeks to concede them trading rights.

So yes, it is a problem, as these rights were not freely given.

See: Venetian Crusade (for Tyre) for information.

Rethink life imo

>noble
Yeah I don't think setting the people you promised money and conversion to's fleet on fire and attempting to starve them to death is particularly noble.

That shit gonna be flooded in poop water nigga.

well, it was located in the eastern part of the former Roman Empire

It may not have been minor, but it's not an injustice, so his point stands.

>injustice
Tell that to the Balkans getting fucked over by the Ottomans

The Balkans getting fucked over by the Ottomans was more a symptom of those peoples' divided priorities and anti-centralization than anything else. The Fourth Crusade actually was a boon for the Balkan states, which extended their rule and influence southward, culminating in Dusan the Mighty's rule extending from Belgrade to the north almost down to Athens, and from the Drina and Albania all the way east to Thessalonica and Sofia, something that would've been impossible without the events of 1204 or something similar.

The Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, and this is something most people don't know, was greatly helped along by Serbian and Bulgarian lords farther away, and very weak ones up close, who joined the Turks against stronger nobles along the Ottoman borders. The Serbs were some of the Turks' greatest allies, fighting for the sultan against Timur and remaining a loyal vassal even during the long civil war that followed, and aiding the Turks in the conquest of Constantinople.

Ottoman rule was relatively lenient compared to other empires over the next 500 years. Of course there were abuses and conscriptions and taxes as in any empire, but there was freedom of religion and culture and movement, no man in the Balkans was forced to Islam or Turkified, and the fact that more than 90% of Serbs are still Orthodox is a testament to the Turks allowing freedom of religion.

Sure the Ottomans didn't build shit or invest in the Balkans at all, but you have to ask yourself: would any empire invest so much in such a backwater? The land was fertile, sure, but in all the time the Ottomans ruled it there was nothing more of value except for some silver mines, and by the time the industrial revolution rolled around the Ottoman Empire had unraveled enough that they had no drive or capital to invest in the mountainous, remote Balkans, where hajduk bands would plague their works incessantly no doubt.

One must consider too the fact that the massacre of the Latins was propagated by the mob in the wake of the ascendance of an emperor. It was spontaneous and the work of a frenzied populace.
On the other hand, the Fourth Crusade was planned, and the "Crusaders" knew exactly what they were doing.
Furthermore, everyone here has neglected to mention that nearly immediately after the massacre, the Latins came back and exterminated the city of Thessaloniki, the second largest in the empire. Ergo, by no means did the Latins still even have a "right" to revenge.
All in all though, when it comes down to it, both sides committed atrocities. The sack of Constantinople can be in no way justified, but neither can the massacre of the Latins. Both sides acted poorly, and the Byzantines clearly suffered the most for it.

So...you're saying that denbt deniers can't even use a "the population was innocent!" excuse since it was the population that committed the massacre.

>caring if some even 800 years ago was justified by an event 20 years before that
Why? It happened. There were some contemporaries that may or may not have "justified" a clearly hostile economic military action by some earlier event. But we don't have to excuse anything. I don't care or believe either side was right. And the Byzantines were already on a downward spiral.

On a slightly related point:
I've been reading a book about Habsburgs and the "Saxon" villages are mentioned in it. The constant raids by Tatars were an awful issue, but did they also raid into Ottoman territory? I mean, raids were not exactly regular or directed.

The Massacre of the Latins was completely justified.

Venetians destroy Byzantine trade outposts in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean during their Crusade for Tyre in 1122-1124, doing great damage to the Byzantine economy and demanding trading privileges and economic concessions. The Byzantine Emperor - hard pressed and preoccupied with other matters - has no option but to give the Venetians a great deal of economic power. The Venetians and the Latins did nothing by due process or through actual diplomacy. Whatever they had in Constantinople was due to their own barbaric nature.

The Venetians proceeded to burn down the Genoese quarter and vandalize Constantinople in the 70s, and the Byzantine Emperor rightfully revoked many exclusive trading rights and concessions from the Venetians. Which I find perfectly sensible, after having gone on a drunken looting rampage in Constantinople. The Venetians respond by trying to occupy some Aegean possessions, but luckily, they are struck down by the plague.

The mere presence of Venetians (the bulk of the Latins) in Constantinople itself was born from an act of war which they instigated themselves! The Byzantines had every right to destroy and massacre them, since that's exactly how the Venetians won their way into Constantinople in the first place! The Pisans and Genoese aren't blameless, as they too took the Venetian approach of threatening and even raiding Byzantine trading outposts during the early period of the Komnenian Restoration when the Imperial Navy was severely neglected.

It was justified.

>oh they killed all those children and raped all those women by accident, they didn't know what they were doing :^)

get the fuck outta here

>replying more than once is samefagging

you seem pretty new, friend

>The Byzantines had every right to destroy and massacre them

if the massacre of the latins was justified, then the 4th crusade was justified.
end of story.

This is fucking Andrea Gritti, why is this painting always posted in conjunction with Dandolo?

What is this meme? Sure the venetian fleet was far from being a naval power by 1796, but it was still on par with the ottoman navy and other secondary powers. Galleys were far from obsolete in the Mediterranean btw, and regardless the republic had a score 60+ cannon ships at its demise, plus another 20 frigates and sloops and 20 galleys.

>Holy
Vicar of Christ literally chosen by the people
>Catholic
Literally, yes
>Apostolic
please

If you consider Albanians to be Venetians then yes

>Albanians
With the house prices in Venice, noone but rich fucks, university/government workers and old people residing there since the 50s can afford to live on the island itself. Certainly not scummy albanians, who at best may live landside, in the shithole that is Mestre.

>what is the Albanian mob

Something that operates prevalently in the south, and when goes north keeps to the countryside where they hide their shit.
Jesus Christ talk about climbing mirrors. As if a criminal element could make up a sizeable demographic segment.

The sicilian mob while it has lost most of its infamy and power, it doesn't let the albanians cross to their lands, which is Southern Italy, whereas the Albanian mob that works with great numbers really bases itself on Northern Italy and especially Venice, where some Venetians want to secede from Italy.

>the sicilian mob's land is southern italy
Top kek, what about camorra, ndrangheta, SCU, etc? You're fucking clueless, give up.
>it doesn't let the albanians cross to their lands
The albos are muscle that everyone employs, it's not like in your american movies where there's Joe and Angelo slinging dope, all street level shit and smuggling is outsourced to foreigners nowadays.

>albos are muscle that everyone employs
I know, that would've been my next point, especially about the richfags in Venice
>Cosa Nostra isn't the power behind all the other southern Italian mobsters
Top kek lad

>Cosa Nostra isn't the power behind all the other southern Italian mobsters
Jesus Christ the delusion. Are you some kind of sicilian diaspora?

Not this guy but the Camorra is way stronger than the Cosa Nostra atm and there are even more organizations who are not CN.

>Camorra
Pretty sure ndrangheta is the top dog right now senpai.

>Albanian mob
>keeps to the countryside
The fuck are you talking about? What the fuck are your sources? Have you ever read anything on organized crime?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Germany#Albanian_mafia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_mafia

Might be so but it doesn't contradict what I posted.
Also all those Italians fucks are so damn strong in Western Germany. Talking about immigrants and rape? It's mobsters who employ those people and planned the attacks. They are also the ones reselling the stolen mobiles

You do realize that I was talking about Itlay right? The fuck are you posting shit about Germany for?

You were talking about Albanians. And maybe Venice which is hardly countryside. Also good job ignoring my questions. And don't get me started on the actions of Albanians in Rome itself.

I was talking of albanians in Venice. You've posted nothing to prove that they operate there. You're just sperging about albanians in general.

The Venetian scum and their crusader friends destroyed countless pieces of art and artifacts. They deserve to die.

no, the idiot """emperor""" who promised them money realized he didn't have any and decided to melt down metric tons worth of art and artifacts to pay his denbts

>The Byzantines did no wrong in massacring and expelling the foreigners who were stifling native commerce, disobeying Imperial law and order, and attempting to interfere in the political matters of a sovereign state directly.
Then get fucking sacked. Byzantium didn't help fight the crusades, murdered people who lived there, and you wanna whine and bitch about how cruel it is to get attacked?

And then the Venetians and crusaders destroyed or stole the rest

t. Constantine

It was already theirs by right
They were just repossessing it

ottoman navy was never the biggest of threats for any european power or even other muslim ones.
indeed just before the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 Mehmet II had built a quite professional navy,but still ottomans and turks generally in their history were never quite the capable seamen.the batlle of lepanto in the middle of the 16th century really made them quite irrelevant by naval standards

>muh mafia is stronger than ur mafia
jesus cringe it's like I'm on youtube

Hello Turkish diaspora.

Furthermore, you must be utterly ignorant of Balkan history, if you would seriously call the Ottoman rule over some parts the Balkans lenient.

>No social rights.
>Heavy taxation on natives.
>Devşirme.
>Attractive females, and sometimes men, often taken by force for slavery.
>Forced religious conversation.
>Massacres and more massacres.
>Land taken and given to Muslim colonizers.

Why some people, especially Turks, have this need to spread lies about the Ottoman Empire is beyond me.

>It was already theirs by right

No, it was not. See these posts:
()
()

You're welcome.