What the fuck was their problem?

>if you don't let new blood in, you're gonna find yourself with a fucked up ruling elite
it lasted 625 years and drew from a group of 2000 men which reduced inbreeding levels down to normal

It went from a miracle of civil spirit in the early centuries to a den of extreme corruption by the 17th century, with state secrets sold on Rialto's market.
I'm not talking about inbreeding user, I'm talking of how a dozen families managed to completely control the whole republic throught the council of ten by abusing their riches to bribe all the barnabotti (impoverished patricians with no money for a public career but still eligible to vote due to their birth) into voting for whatever they wanted. Not to mention how willing to be bought by foreign powers they were too.

Florence>Savoy=Venice>Naples>Genoa>Milan>irrelevant republics/duchies>papal states.

>Venice>Florence>Milan>Genoa>Savoy>Minors>Papal State
FTFY

Ayy φαμ you have to acknowledge that we have consistency avoiding to pay the denbts throughout our existence

that shitty grammar tho

their flag looks like a fucking carpet

Greeks couldn't, as usual, pay debts. Venice was also the only ones really taking the Ottoman threat seriously as they expanded and kept getting left holding the bag as other powers would lose interest or find other things to focus on.

Doing in the Byzantines is inexcusable

They fucked up Southeastern Europe for centuries

>Le jews! Le jews!
While Venice is big on trade dominance, niggers forget it's not afraid to get their hands dirty in military manners.

Well let's be fair, so did the jews when they had a kingdom.
Jews were THE mercenary people in the ancient levant after all.
Cleopatra's army was basically made up of jewish mercs.

We have no factual existence of the United Monarchy.

Though everyone in Canaan was a warring piece of shit, yeah.

>United Monarchy
I was actually referring to the Hasmonean and Herodian dynasties. Hence why I mentioned Cleopatra.

I would forgive them blackmailing crusaders into capturing my hometown, candian wars that fucked this region so bad that even now you can see consequences, but capturing Konstantinopolis is biggest kikery the Europe has ever seen.

How so? The whole affair was very simple: the city had capitulated to the latin supported emperor, yet in spite of that they decided to murder him with his victorious yet still unpaid army still camped right outside. It's not venetian kikery, it's greek extreme idiocy. It's a breach of the rules of surrender, they literally forced the sack upon themselves.

Because of they thirst for shekels they ruined the Europe more than the both world wars combined. Let me explain : I know that nation or country wasn't a thing at those times and I am not deluded with that kind of thinking. But because of their short term gain at the time, they screwed Europe so hard, that we still have to live with that shit.

That's retarded.
There are a thousand causes for the fall of the ERE, you're just being intellectually lazy pinning it all on a sack that happened 200 years before the turks first stepped into Europe.

>What the fuck was their problem?
Napoleon.

Fuck that guy.

you know turks owned half of the balkans before they captured THE CITY ?
also, I am not saying that is the only reason, and that Byzantines themselves weren't retarded with their constant civil wars, but establishing Latin Empire of Constantinople sure as fuck didn't help

Turkish control of the balkans started in the late 14th century, so roughly 200 years after the 4th crusade.
Also there's an abyss between "didn't help" and "ruined Europe more than the two world wars put together".
You're just as much as a clown as the guys who say christianity caused the fall of Rome. If you want to talk history through memes go to pol instead.

I deleted the first post because I misunderstood you ;)
I am not trying to meme this shit, but I still stand by the statement that the fall of Konstantinopolis ruined Europe more than the two world wars put together and that Venetians played big role in it's downfall. If that's retarded for you, so be it.

Genoa

Blame the Franks you dolt. They're the ones who went "hey, let's go on another Crusade". Venetians basically were wary of it but they just kept insisting "nah dude, we'll have like tons of guys and you'll get tons of shit we promise".

The Venetians had to shut down virtually their entire economy for a year in order to build the ships that would be needed and train the number of people to man those ships. The Franks, of course, were full of shit and couldn't muster shit meaning the Venetians had to recoup the cost of all of that somehow. Alexios promised them stuff he didn't have so again, cost had to be recouped.

It's not "nice" and it's pragmatic as hell but the Venetians were businessmen at heart. Most everyone else sat on their asses afterwards while the Venetians fought increasingly hopeless wars against the advancing Turks to the point where they just went "job well done" after Lepanto (and the faggot Genoese nearly screwed that entire endeavor up) and bravely held out for a year in Famagusta against pretty much hopeless odds.

inb4 byzantine apologists

Good post user, all true. But allow me to look at it from different angle. Franks were just a mere tool in Dandolo kikery, it all started with him, and in the end they even got 3/8 of the Empire. Pls don't tell me how Sea kikes were defenders of the faith in next couple of centuries, they were just protecting their properties and trade routes after Ottomans took over. The fact is they all got excommunicated by the pope for attacking Christian town in the first place. France Alliance with Ottomans didn't help either, as they feel threatened by HRE, while only HRE (Charles V) tried and failed miserably to crusade Ottomans. Conclusion : they were opportunistic pragmatic merchants aka Sea Kikes ,nothing wrong with that, but I just don't like them because they started chain of events that irreparable changed the history of the Europe.

Of course they were opportunistic and pragmatic and there's nothing at all wrong with that, everyone was. There was no such thing as European or Christian unity by the 15th and 16th centuries. But that pragmatism meant that they also fiercely defending what they had and thus knew more than anyone else what kind of danger the Turks faced. Even if you're fighting them because to let them overrun Europe would be "bad for business", they were still the main state aside from the HRE to fight against the Turks.

The Spanish and the like couldn't do more than muster half-assed support because they had their own thing going on in the New World which was more important to them. The Papacy was obsessed with getting back its holdings and Romagna and invited foreign powers into Italy simply to fuck over Venice and get those lands back thus screwing up the entirety of Italy for centuries.

Really the discovery of the New World sealed the fate of Europe (and Venice especially) more than anything because with the riches the New World could bring and being able to not have to deal with a bunch of middleman Muslims or sailing around Africa to get to India because now you had shit like gold, silver and tobacco that was far more profitable the European powers (i.e. Spain, England and France) had no reason to worry about what was going on in the east or the Meditteranean. They'd stopped caring long before that anyway, that just sealed the deal.

>bravely held out for a year in Famagusta
As a Cypriot I can safely say that they can go to hell, even the Turks were more preferable than them.

Good books on the
>Most
>Serene
>Republic
?

Can you elaborate, I am genuinely curious why?

Catholics were known to treat Orthodox people in their possession like shit, to the point where it was more preferable to have Turks rule over.

>that smug as fuck knight

...

>and Venice especially
Not as much as you think user. Venice was still economically prosperous as late as the napoleonic wars, the only difference was that the colonial powers had jumped to a whole another level of relevance by creating world spanning empires.

Exactly though. It was prosperous but was still regarded as a backwater despite that. It was a Mediterranean power in a global world.

This but also read Empire of the Sea by Roger Crowley as a companion piece because they cover two different things. They're both narrative pop histories but are still highly informative reads. Norwich's book focuses on Venice proper and Domini di Terrafirma. Crowley's book focuses less on the state of Venice and more on its naval history and the Stato da Mar so with both books you get a good picture of what was going on for Venice both in Italy and abroad.