Why did the Byzantine Empire trigger mediaeval Europeans so much...

All caused and instigated by the emperors who wanted to rule as the one Christian empire on earth that would eventually spread Christianity to the world

ebin

just fuck off

>paedophiles and slavs arguing over who's religion is most heretical

Fourth Crusade wasn't justified in any way and ruined any chances of mending the schism.

>Financed by the Ottoman Empire to cause more schisms among already divided Christians.

>the ottoman empire wouldn't exist if shit tier christians could fight as well as protestants
Clearly god doesn't favour you heathens.

So who was the true Rome?
The Latin "Roman" Empire, the "Roman" Despotate of Epirus with a claim on restoring the Empire, the "Roman" Nicaean Empire with another claim to restoring the Empire or the Sultanate of "Rome"? Or the "Holy" "Roman" "Empire"?

Rome caused the schism.
The Bishops of Rome were seduced by the Devil with promises of temporal power, so they bit the apple. Rome chose the path of knowledge, not God, by following legalism and becoming as the Pharasees are. The Popesecond did not humble themselves, but gave into their passions and sin. The RCC became decidedly more violent as well once they broke from the Church.. again, a deal with the Devil.
The RCC has many innovations that weren't a part of the Early Church, such as Papal Supremacy and Immaculate Conception, preist celibacy, among other things.
The West has always hated the Roman Empire, so it's no surprise they attacked it in 1204 yet again.

>While Latin guilt is a matter of perspective
Ah yes, of course the Latins didn't cause any problems to their relations, especially when they crowned fucking Charlemagne as the Roman Emperor and dismissed any claims of the ERE.

The venetian war was totally justified, the byzantines had broken treaties and allied with Venice's enemies.

Venetians dindu nuffin

>Enrico Schlomonito detected
Look up the Venetian Crusade.

>successors of Rome?
They were Rome, fuck off faggot.
Sage

It was Trebizond, ya cunt

>Look up the Venetian Crusade.
John II's fault. He broke his father's treaty.

>deny trading rights that were already more than enough
>OY VEY IT'S LIKE ANOTHER SHOAH
Venetians really are the christian jews.

>Catholics
>Christians
Pick one

No nigger, John outright refused to honour a preexisting treaty signed by his father. The further trade rights came as reparations due to Venice having to start a fucking war to get what was her due.

>doesn't hold rome
>best claim
Why are byzantaboos so insufferable?

>John outright refused to honour a preexisting treaty signed by his father.
Because he was enraged by some Venetians who abused a member of his family.

>when they crowned fucking Charlemagne as the Roman Emperor and dismissed any claims of the ERE.
Irene was a woman. If the Empire of the Greeks wanted to maintain their claims to being Roman, they should've followed the Roman laws which forbade women from ruling.

Speaking of Irene, had she not broke off her son's engagement with Rotrude, Charlemagne's daughter, he may've never been crowned Emperor. Or, at the very least, there would've been a chance to move towards a Co-Emperor system like the days of the WRE and ERE.

I can't find any reference to that, but even if true, it's still not a justification. It'd be like having you punished for something your brother did (not that the byzantines were unfamiliar with that kind of bullshit, that's basically what happened during the massacre of the latins).
More like he was just looking for an excuse to weasel out of a costly treaty, just to be reminded that you can only get out of paying debts when you're stronger than your creditors. Which he wasn't.

>thinking that messing with the imperial family is something that should be taken lightly
You're a fucking retard.

>that's basically what happened during the massacre of the latins
The massacre happened because of the ever-growing distrust of the Roman people against the Latins. Even the Emperor would give them loads of chances but they would continue fucking shit up that's it's no surprise that he went "fuck it" and let the massacre happen.

>just to be reminded that you can only get out of paying debts when you're stronger than your creditors
Oh so you're one of the shitposting veniceboos.

>thinking a government can be faulted with the doings of its private citizens
You better accept the 4th crusade as legitimate then. Also you haven't provided evidences for your claim.
Besides you don't even have an argument about how whatever abuse might have happened and the treaty are related. Why specifically refuse to uphold that treaty? Why not a fine, or an execution, or a declaration of war (since apparently it was such a big deal), or anything else? Face it, even if it happened, it was just a very stupid excuse for yet another greek emperor to weasel out of his obligations.

>The massacre happened because of the ever-growing distrust of the Roman people against the Latins.
The massacre was just a pogrom against a community of rich foreign and heretical merchants, for no other reason that they were rich, foreign, and heretical. Even had some greeks had fair complaints among specific latins, it still didn't warrant a general pogrom, anymore than you'd be justified in killing all niggers just because a nigger robbed you.

>The massacre was just a pogrom against a community of rich foreign and heretical merchants, for no other reason that they were rich, foreign, and heretical.

The predominance of the Italian merchants caused economic and social upheaval in Byzantium: it accelerated the decline of the independent native merchants in favour of big exporters, who became tied to the landed aristocracy, who in turn increasingly amassed large estates.[1] Together with the perceived arrogance of the Italians, it fueled popular resentment amongst the middle and lower classes both in the countryside and in the cities.[1]

The religious differences between the two sides, who viewed each other as schismatics, further exacerbated the problem. The Italians proved uncontrollable by imperial authority: in 1162, for instance, the Pisans together with a few Venetians raided the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, causing much damage.[1] Emperor Manuel subsequently expelled most of the Genoese and Pisans from the city, thus giving the Venetians a free hand for several years.[7]

In early 1171, however, when the Venetians attacked and largely destroyed the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, the Emperor retaliated by ordering the mass arrest of all Venetians throughout the Empire and the confiscation of their property.[1] A subsequent Venetian expedition in the Aegean failed: a direct assault was impossible due to the strength of the Byzantine forces, and the Venetians agreed to negotiations, which the Emperor stalled intentionally. As talks dragged on through the winter, the Venetian fleet waited at Chios, until an outbreak of the plague forced them to withdraw.[8]

Are you agreeing with me? Because your text supports what I'm saying.

>A heretic trying to decide who counts as Christian
How cute.

The text implies that the Latins were cunts to the locals and fucked them over when given the chance. Not to mention the constant infighting between the Latins which tried the emperor's patience. It's no surprise that the Byzantines would develop hatred for the Latins because of all these reasons.

"Perceived arrogance" does not mean "they fucked them over", it just means they looked down on the locals. You're reading into it what you wanna see. Regardless it matters nothing if they developed hatred. Hating someone is not a justification for doing anything to him unless you stand by right of force, which you shouldn't, since you don't condone either venetian crusade on Byzantium (not that force was the only justification for either, but if you need justifications at all it follows that you don't acknowledge force).

Arrogance isn't a reason that would drive someone to kill, you're not looking at the bigger picture.
Not trying to justify the massacre, but you have to understand the motivations behind it, like how you understand the motivations for the Venetian crusade's actions.

>Not trying to justify the massacre, but you have to understand the motivations behind it
Oh I totally understand the massacre from a feels and from a conveniency point of view.
It's just that I like pointing out the hypocrisy of people (mostly /pol/tards with a hard on for the ERE because muh shield of the faith) who think the massacre was justified whereas the venetian wars weren't.

I don't think anyone justifies the massacre, but I've seen people try to justify the 4th crusade because the massacre happen (even though the sack of Thessalonica by the Normans happened a little later)

Venetians are dirty lying jews who traded with Turkroaches and backstabbed their fellow Christians for Money. Truly deplorable sub-humans, but maybe thats my Byzantine Medieval 2 playthrough speaking.

>I don't think anyone justifies the massacre
You haven't been here long then.