Live in Constantinople in 12th century

This guy knows. Greeks on suicide watch.

Tell what to Zara? The entire reason the crusading force under Baldwin took the offer for both Zara and constantinople was for logistical reasons. You do favors to get shit you need. The greeks went back on their end ó th deal and basically told the crusaders to fuck off, what other options did the crusaders have?

>12th century Constantinople
>forks

> Be greek
> don't fuck over every person that promises to help you
Senpai it's as easy as that

...

Also, 12th century? Bruh the fourth crusade was 13th century ya fucking byzaboo

stay mad

>>> /lgbt/
ya fucking greek

Nice rebuttal.

Multinational band of religious fanatics with wealthy backers who commit atrocities and invade foreign lands for religious purposes

Were Crusaders the Medieval ISIS?

>Wealthy person invites regions fanatics into into capitol in hopes of everything turning out okay
Was Alexios just medievel angela Merkel?

At the very start of the 13th century, idiot.

ISIS was created by Iraqis and works mostly in Iraq and Syria. You could have a point if they were actually invading far away lands (anecdotical attacks do not really count).

Early protestant groups were closer to ISIS.

>The greeks went back on their end ó th deal and basically told the crusaders to fuck off, what other options did the crusaders have?
The thing is that other than the failed pretender, nobody in the ERE asked for crusader "help" in the first place. Why the fuck do you think he was disposed so quickly?
>what other options did the crusaders have?
Tell their Venetian overlords to carry them back home. Oh wait, that can't be possible because le happy venetian merchant was who brought them to this mess, correct?

An independent state shouldn't have to pay for the promises by some powerless pretender.
Like, seriosly, i am not a byzaboo but those who claims that one pretenders promise counted as a real debt for the byzantines are either fucking dense or trolling.

>The thing is that other than the failed pretender, nobody in the ERE asked for crusader "help" in the first place. Why the fuck do you think he was disposed so quickly?
He wasn't a "pretender" he was the rightful ruler to the byzantine throne. His uncle Alexios has usurped the throne in an act that the west perceives as unnatural in their own system of government. It's not secret that the angelos dynasty was fucked but the crusaders were restoring the rightful ruler to the throne, they didn't care what the ERE people wanted.

>Tell their Venetian overlords to carry them back home. Oh wait, that can't be possible because le happy venetian merchant was who brought them to this mess, correct?
They were adamant on going to the holy land and the journey back would have been filled with starvation, death and ultimate collapse of the actrmy despite where they might end up. The only viable solution to making sure the army stayed intact and the loss of life was minimal was literally capturing the city. The greek people let the crusaders into the city btw when martzupholous( the final usurper) fled the city because they had nobody else.

You are sounding like those who defend Gupsy thivery by claiming they got a different view on ownership.

How powerful was the army of the fourth crusade? Could they have reached their goals in the holy land? Do we know what the muslims thought of how evertything turned out?

>he was the rightful ruler to the byzantine throne.
Yes and so was Maurice before Phokas usurped him only to be put down by Heraclius instead. What's your point?

>The only viable solution to making sure the army stayed intact and the loss of life was minimal was literally capturing the city.
Or you know, sell those ships that were exceeding the crusader limit for food?

You sound like you ran out of argument.

Your argument is fucking stupid.
Let's not forget the crusaders hero king himself, richard lionheart, had risen up in a rebellion against his own father to usurp his throne TWICE!

>Yes and so was Maurice before Phokas usurped him only to be put down by Heraclius instead. What's your point?
My point is that it didn't matter if anybidy else wanted the Latin there, the actual byzantine heir wanted them. Relations between Byzantium and the west was poor and thi was not only a chance to get good relations of it succeed but also get supplies, ships and more troops for the conquest of greece.
>Or you know, sell those ships that were exceeding the crusader limit for food?
To fucking who? The byzantines? They wanted them out, no questions asked. The fastest way was by boat but that would still not give them enough provisions ti make it back. They could raid the countryside on the way back but that also ment attacking vulgar territory which would not onky have caused a war between the Italian states and the Bulgari but also oil have destroyed the lain army. Give me any other routes they could have taken?

Are we fucking talking about Richard the lionheart? Are we talking about the politics of England? No dipshit, we're talking about the fourth crusade. No rebuttle, just sad

What i am saying is, expecting the byzantines to pay a sum that's 2-4 times as much as they can afford because they did something immoral is pretty hypocratical when you are no better yourself.

It's not as if when they got Alexios on the throne it was there they made the terms. Alexios was going off information he had on the situation in the empire at the time and promised that to the crusaders. The byzantine soldiers promised would have probably been mercanaries because that's what they were mostly using during the angelos dynasty so the strain on the treasury was probably more than Alexios could afford. That doesn't excuse the fact that he found himself in a shitty position and then lied to the crusaders and then outright denied what they needed to even leave. When Alexios was killed by martzupholous the crusaders had nothing but what they could scavenge or pillage in the countryside. It's a dumb thought than anyone without supplies and facing absolute end would not take a chance on a city that you had already besieged before and know that it has the supplies you need.

>the actual byzantine heir wanted them.
You seem to be pretty new to Byzantine politics. Anyone who holds the City will be proclaimed as the Basileus; anyone who wants the capital but doesn't control ot is a pretender, not unless he takes it over and becomes Basileus himself.
>Relations between Byzantium and the west was poor and thi was not only a chance to get good relations of it succeed but also get supplies, ships and more troops for the conquest of greece.
Ah yes, I'm sure that the general populace which was already in hostility with the local Italian merchants delighted to hear the arrival of a crusading army towards the City.
>They could raid the countryside on the way back but that also ment attacking vulgar territory which would not onky have caused a war between the Italian states and the Bulgari but also oil have
You forgot that they could've also raided the coastal Anatolian areas that were already occupied by the Turks.

ISIS was funded by the United States

venice did literally nothing wrong

Pillaging was a fact of war back then, and that can hardly be blamed. Sacking churches and raping nuns, however, is something else.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

>The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered.[4] Houses, churches, and charities were looted.[4] Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the papal legate, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog

lmao

>most
>serene
>republic

fuck Latins

Greeks on suicde watch.

This is a /s4s/ tier post. Not even good enough for /pol/.

...

So?

b8

>using a Crusading army to attack Christians is justified because they would've starved and they didn't understand the politics of the Empire they were fucking with

It was a republic though.

>Typical judeo-christardian "argument"

Actually it was the Empire which didn't know whom it was fucking with.

>faggot prince gets installed
>"nah"
>tell latin shits to go back to their backwater kingdom
>they chimp out
>destroy a shit ton of priceless books
>destroy churches
>rape nuns
>be generally massive fucking heretics
>get excommunicated by the Pope

See even if we consider the Latin crusaders akin to feral niggers, I'd say the guy who walks up to a pack of armed angry negros and tells them to fuck off then proceeds to be killed is even dumber.

I'd even hesitate to call it murder. More like suicide.

But what about the guy who unleashed the pack of niggers in the first place? Surely he's to blame for the destruction. You're basically saying you got raped because you didn't consent.

It doesn't really matter for the purposes of the analogy. Having little to no means of defending yourself and going out of your way to antagonise a band of armed, frustrated young men is very rarely a smart plan.

Not to mention Alexios V wouldn't even be free to back-stab his benefactor and be an all-around cunt if the crusaders hadn't been there since he was only released from prison by Isaac and Alexios.

>be dodgy cunt in prison
>guy with a pack of niggers comes and frees me
>betray guy
>say I'm the boss now
>tell niggers to fuck off
>get killed by niggers

Basically I'm saying Alexios V was an exemplary Doukas in that he didn't half-ass fucking up.

>be Crusader
>conquer Constantinople
>degenerate Greeks (NOT MUH ROMANS) rule their domains with 'governors,' 'offices,' and 'beraucrats.'
>much too complicated for my simple Germanic mind to understand
>implement feudalism in our new domains, the best and most logical form of government, precisely because it's so easy
>1000 years later the Western world still uses the word byzantine to refer to something extremely complex and unworkable

cute

You forget that Constantinople had never been taken by storm before. The Greeks had every right to believe they could hold out, and in the end what did them in was the fact that the sea walls were taken. Had the Latins not already been in the harbor the city probably could have held out.

>You forget that Constantinople had never been taken by storm before.

It was literally taken nine months earlier by the very same crusaders.

Not by storm. The previous emperor fled the city and the pretender was elevated to emperor. The attempts made by the crusaders to take the city by storm were all repulsed.

Why not?
>has a claim to the throne
>supported by the most powerful vassal of the empire

Seems to me that the Greeks went full retard

>blaming Christianity as a whole for the actions of a bunch of stupid catholics

But you stupid fucking retard, the Byzantines tried to pay them. they raised all the silver and gold they could, yet that wasn't enough for the greedy crusaders.

>Got a claim to the throne like a bunch of other guys
>Supported by yet another power grabber
>Promises lack any basis in reality as he neither has power nor does the Byzantines have the resources required
Really?