WHY

Not to mention the gigantic time they had to recover between the 4th Crusade and 1453. Instead they decided to spend it with petty fights with slavs in the balkans. And it's not like they were unaware of the turkish peril.

>one usurper
They didn't have Wikipedia. They had no idea he was a loon. Plus, the Byzantines were always chucklefucks when it came to the crusades, and often backed out of fights they instigated. They were perfidious as all fuck.

>and carried out massacre 20 years earlier.
>crusaders not carrying out massacres

Are you inept or just pretending? Where did I say crusaders didn't commit massacres? All I said that Byzantine chimp out preceded Crusader chimp out and yes it was Massacre of Latins that completely alienated Westerners from Orthoniggers. After that massacre William of Sicily sacked Thessalonica, Barbarossa threatened to invade Constantinople and etc.

That's when the hostilities started. But since you're a cuck you let people step on you and don't retaliate so it's no wonder you still don't get it.

> But since you're a cuck you let people step on you and don't retaliate so it's no wonder you still don't get it.

About the level of discourse expected from Veeky Forums catholics.

The sack of Constantinople was probably not the death blow of the Eastern Roman Empire

Nothing could save it after Manzikert

>Nothing could save it after Manzikert

Wrong.

>The sack of Constantinople was probably not the death blow of the Eastern Roman Empire

Oh but it was. The Empire in 1200 was the strongest it had been for a century. The interregnum after 1204 was the main period in which the Turks began to dominate and conquer the fertile coastal areas of Anatolia, permanently fucking them forever.

Fake Romans BTFO

Maybe they shouldn't have appropriated the name of Rome

komnenian restoration brah

>FUCKING WHY Veeky Forums, WHY DID THIS HAVE TO HAPPEN, THEY FUCKING RUINED EVERYTHING

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian-Latin_wars
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople_(1205)
They both got punished, Baldwin was starved to death, Dandolo died from a wound to the head.
>the blind 100 year old grandpa led the crossbowmen in a charge against the knights to preserve his own fleeing knights
Metal as fuck, I almost forgive him this travesty.

But if the T*rks hadn't closed off the silk road, would the Spanish have explored the new-world in the 16th cent, and would the Netherlands and England looked for trade routes around the cape? Had none of that happened would the modern world exist?

You cannot judge individual historical events in isolation because there is a percussion of history, the stone has effects after its thrown.

>590 BC
>citizens of Athens need debt relief, they're literally selling their children into slavery to pay debts
>1204
>Constantinople is sacked because they can't pay their debts
>2011-now
>Greece in a permanent state of crisis because of debt
Why can't the eternal Greek ever pay its debts?

>E
>R
>E

Manzikert is overplayed.

How do you figure? While the empire had many setbacks before, they had always recovered to some degree. There was never a protracted recovery after the 4th crusade, like points out.

Manzikert didn't actually inflict a great damage upon the Greeks
After Manzikert, we were trapped in Central Anatolia. Wars against Byzantines were always indecisive because both sides won against each other and lost against each other. Then in Myriokephalon we managed to defeat Greeks but 2 years after Myriokephalon a large Turkish raiding army got rekt while raiding a Greek town and destroying it

A strong ruler could have rallied the situation in the immediate aftermath of Manzikert and kept the Seljuks out, at least contained to the armenian highlands. The army was intact and the themata were still productive. The Seljuks didn't even hold Manzikert itself for long... Romanos' captivity and subsequent mutilation were far more damaging to the long-term survival of the Empire. It needed a strong leader in this critical time period, pressed in the West by the coming Normans and in the east by the Turks. It couldn't have held otherwise, and the spree of weak leaders following Romanos reduced it to a joke.

Oh, how history might have changed if Issac I Komnenos kept the throne long enough to produce a suitable heir.

>There was never a protracted recovery after the 4th crusade
There wasn't much recovery before the crusade either. Let's face it, the 4th crusade involved fucking piddly numbers. It was instigated and successful only due to the already present state of extreme weakness of the ERE, who was economically owned by foreign merchants and pretty much reliant on them for a great deal of military activity too.
The 4th crusade wasn't a massive campaign of annihilation, it was a fucking piddly literal merc takeover. You fall for that, you can't call yourself strong.

>Oh, how history might have changed if Issac I Komnenos kept the throne long enough to produce a suitable heir.
Probably i'd be a greek speaking Turcopole

there was no going back after manzikert

what remained of the byzantine army was either heavily damaged or scattered after manzikert, which sparked off yet another round of palace intrigue that distracted the byzantines from the real threat at their doorstep

simply keeping his army together and trading blows with the seljuks would have been the most preferable outcome

I didn't know Dnadolo had such a metal end. I can forgive him now, at least a bit.

>what remained of the byzantine army was either heavily damaged or scattered after manzikert, which sparked off yet another round of palace intrigue that distracted the byzantines from the real threat at their doorstep

A strong ruler would have easily rallied the army. You admit yourself the true demon was the palace intrigue - the palace intrigue that had plagued Byzantine fortunes for generations and would continue to do so in the long aftermath of Manzikert itself up till near the death knell of the Empire.

These problems were always internal, not tied to any one battle or outside enemy. There were always numerous threats trying to strike at Constantinople, be they Alans of the 5th century or Arabs of the 6th or Turks of the 10th. The only difference is that Rome had strong leaders to rally the situation when the Arabs were at Constantinople's doorstep. It didn't have that luxury after Manzikert.

He managed to lead the retreat as well, while cuman mercenaries were pursuing. Supposedly died from his wounds in the city.
And during the attack on Constantinople earlier, he was said by chronicles to be waving a sword at the helm of the leading ship.
I imagine him as some religious fanatic who thought he is doing God's work and is immortal or something.

The Byzantine losses in Manzikert weren't actually that heavy. Most of the army remained intact, the major leaders kept their lives, and Alp Arslan's demands weren't even that harsh. It was the ensuing civil war that precipitated Seljuk dominance of Anatolia rather than Manzikert itself.

>I imagine him as some religious fanatic who thought he is doing God's work
That's actually pretty unlikely. For all his belligerent intensity while leading armies, most of his life's work was diplomatic in nature, and he was every bit as machiavellian when dealing with the byzantines as he was when dealing with the papacy (which by the way excommunicated him after Zara, not that he gave a hundredth of a shit).
He was really just an astute and ruthless negotiator with balls of steel and a liking for warfare.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pliska

Look at this. The whole aristocracy and bureaucracy was with the army to witness their great victory. Foreign diplomats were with the army even. All the strategists, aristocracy, military commanders, the emperor himself, all died. Even worse, a lot of military bred horses died, that are even slower to replenish than trained men.
Byzantium sent assassins to wound the enemy king, thus ending the siege, and then recovered. They always recovered from very bad shit happening. They just need some internal stability and a few decades and they are a heavyweight again.

>The Empire in 1200 was the strongest it had been for a century.
Top fucking kek. The empire in 1200 had pretty much just spent a century getting repeatedly dicked by venetians, with a side of genoan and norman dickings.

>1200
>Venice

Literally a city state. Their glory came later.

>Literally a city state.
'no'
I mean yeah power wise they were city state tier (albeit on the very top level of the tier), but strictly speaking they were a full fledged republic of which the actual city of Venice was just the capital (the third one historically at that, after Eraclea and Metamauco). After all, the dogado was older than the city and it started out as a confederation of coastal towns and village in the lagoon.

Besides, it only helps making my point. An empire getting repeatedly dicked by a piddly 'city state' is a fucking joke.

They weren't getting repeatedly dicked, you sewer smelling venkike.
That came later. Venice wasn't strong in 1200, it had until recently been a subject of Byzantium if anything.
Venice was strong between 1381 and 1453, before that it was too small (hadn't acquired all her Balkan ports yet), and after that they were stuck in an eternal war with the Turk, and discovery of the Atlantic trade routes invalidated their strategical position. Also repeated plagues.

God's will habibi

Dude, the 4th crusade was the third war between Venice and the ERE in the 12-13th century. Militarily Venice had the upper hand in all three (tho the second one ended badly for Venice due to the fleet being ravaged by pestilence AFTER the byzs were ready to sue for peace).
Venice was effectively independent ever since the 9th century too.
I don't see why you insist that Venice was powerless just because it hadn't peaked yet. They were small, but they packed a fucking punch. On the other hand, the empire was large, but mostly unable to rule itself.
Also it's pretty weird to end Venice's period of power in 1453, considering it was a very big player in the italian wars for a century afterwards. It would be more appropriate to extend the net to the middle to late 16th century. And the atlantic trade didn't really do much to cripple trade, Venice was pretty wealthy all the way to Campoformio, just unable to match the likes of France and Austria in the game of european politics.

Of the three wars you are talking about, all were small scale. The biggest was the one Venice lost hard, basically losing her entire fleet and a lot of dudes.

>all were small scale
Because both players were small scale. Were you expecting WW2 out of a conflict between a city state and the ruins of an empire?
Also I wouldn't call raiding unimpeded through the Aegean until your enemy sues for peace "losing badly", especially when the fleet disintegrated for pestilence rather than enemy action, and the war ended with the ERE paying out a shitton of gold and restoring venetian trade privileges.

>lost all the navy
>lost all prisoners
>lost half the army to plague
>the people were so furious with the doge, they publicly murdered him

Sure, they weren't at all losing or humiliated.
>i-it doesnt count because disease killed them and not swords
Thats 90% of wars.

The Seljuks were splintered and divided during the time of the 4th crusade, even if the Byzantines never managed to reclaim east anatolia, they could have kept western anatolia and pontus with relative ease, much better if they managed to strike a deal with the Ilkhanate and the Timurids.

>enemy capitulates
>achieve all objectives
I'm not saying the war was costless to Venice, I'm saying they didn't "LOSE BADLY" like you claimed. They didn't lose at all, strictly speaking.

1204 is the main reason why eastern orthodoxy and the west will never be truly friends.

The conquest of the balkans by the Ottomans, only cemented that division. Long term it was a catastrophic decision, but on the other hand it gave Russia the free reigns to assert itself as the leading spiritual leader of Orthodoxy. Because Russia was and is Orthodox they can never find anything common with the West, and view it with sometimes suspicion and sometimes with outright hatred.

Had 1204 not happened and the schism had mended sometime in the late middle ages or teh Renaissance, history would have been very different, and that civilizational split would have not happened. Since it was the Greek clergy and patriarch of Constantinople that was calling the shots in the orthodox church. When the siege of Constantinople by the Ottomans was happening and Constantine XI converted to Catholicism, both the patriarch and the greek people called it an outright betrayal. Loukas Notaras, the emperor's first minister famously said "I would rather see a Turkish turban in the midst of the City than the Latin mitre", all because of 1204.

I also suggest to any Veeky Forumstorian to watch this documentary that shows 1204 from the Russian perspective. The priest talking is Putin's spiritual advisor btw.

youtube.com/watch?v=f1CWG-2GLU4

THEY ALSO SENT THE MAGYARS TO RAID EUROPE. THE VENETIANS DEFEATED THE MAGYARS, THEN ULTIMATELY DESTROYED THE BYZANTINES.

Byzantines had it coming. Literally one of the shittiest empire. Been in decay for centuries

greeks wouldn't pay denbts

>genocide latins in the city
>sell them to turks
>thankless for all the other crusades we did to help their bitch asses out
>hurr it's not fair

byzaboos are retarded.

The end result of Latin niggatry.
>Deus Vuld :DD
>Can't pay for fleet Venice made for them to go deus vulting
>Attack christian towns around the adriatic.
>The pope excommunicates them.
>DGAF we thuggin' now
>Follow a pretender to the byzantine throne back to Constantinople.
>Siege the biggest christian city in Europe.
>Overthrow the Emperor.
>Incompetent usurper is a shit Emperor.
>Can't pay them for their deus vulting and perfidy
>Crusaders chimp out, and siege the city again, massacre the people, loot and rape

Best part is when they say Christians had a holy duty to protect Byzantium.
>great schism brah

The killing of the Latins was a popular uprising, it was not organised by the state.

It is interesting to note, why it happened in the first place though. The Latin merchants were given free reign to buy, sell and use usury in the city because of the golden bull the emperor issued. The Latin merchants there were not only syphoning the wealth of the city and Byzantium in general, but were placing heavy debts on the state and the populace . What the Constantinople's citizens did, was no different than what catholic western europeans did a hundred times and more to the Jews in the middle-ages.It just seems that the Latins were so surprised that they themselves would be the victims this time, that the sentiment of risible revenge arose enforced by arms against a far more advanced civilization that none the less refused to base itself on the principle of "money power".

Also concerning the crusades, sentiments between the Byzantines would have been more amicable had the crusaders returned the cities on the syrian border to them, and did not break their oath.

>hurr we so broke we need money from usurers
>durr let's chimp out and kill our moneylenders
So advanced. So civilized.
Insane fucking byzaboos.

>had the crusaders returned the cities on the syrian border to them, and did not break their oath.
This. Everyone and their mother cries about Byzantine perfidy, yet they forget that the 1st crusade was funded by The Byzantines, and in return, the Crusaders didn't keep their oath to Alexios. Not to mention the debacle of having crusader rabble show up at your city gates all the time.

I am not justifying it, I am merely saying western catholics did the same thing to the Jews who were engaged in the same practices a dozen times:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_France#Persecutions_under_the_Capets_.28987.E2.80.931137.29

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England#Persecution_and_expulsion

So what? I'm failing to see your point.
It's not like it's a mindboggling discovery that more than a few jew expulsions had economic rather than religious reasons.

>meanwhile the Latins were prepping the serbs up to revolt
Venetians didnu nuffin

It's hilarious watching you people try to assign blame around for what in the end are run of the mill affairs going back all the way to the dawn of civilization.
Really, is looking out for oneself maliciousness now?

>set out on a crusade to fight infidels
>loot several Christian cities (Zara and Constantinople) on your way there
>realise the shit you've done and hastily set up a "Latin Empire xDDDD" on captured land
>pretty much kill only Christians in the process
>shocked when said Latins are kicked out
Crusaderboos are retarded

im just gonna post this again desu

>Byzantine mobs charged into the Italian concessions and began massacring everyone in sight. The new Emperor did nothing at all to stop them or to restore order and the result was butchery on an unimaginable scale. Some of the Italians, sensing the danger, managed to escape before the attack but the vast majority of the 60,000 were trapped and helpless in the face of the Byzantine rampage. Men, women and children were killed in horrific fashion. Homes were destroyed, Catholic churches desecrated, even charitable houses were looted. Priests were tortured and murdered, women and girls were raped and the papal legate was decapitated and had his head tied to a dog and chased through the streets. Sick and dying people were stabbed to death in their hospital beds. It was savagery on an unbelievable scale. Those who were not killed in the bloodbath were sold into slavery to the Muslim Turks. They may well have envied the dead. The boys might have been forced into any number of forms of servitude, the men as well, perhaps serving as galley slaves, the women and girls had it worst of all, many forced into sexual slavery in the harems of the powerful.

the 4th crusade was justified

good riddance
Latins were catholic Jews

Cuz a Greek nobleman and claimant to Byzantine throne promised the knights financial and military support in Egypt if they helped him overthrow the Byzantine emperor and install him as emperor. Siege went overboard and ended up ruining Constantinople.

Of course the war of Greek aggression was justified, the 4th crusade was an act of self-defense

Why did Greeks call an ecumenical council every 15 minutes and alienate their Armenian neighbors who could unite their armies and fend off islam forever?
Why did they call the most important council when they were literally in the middle of an invasion and severed ties between orthodox nations for nearly a millennia?

Was it autism?

>(((Enrico Dandolo)))
wtf was his problem?

There's a fun bit where the teutonic order called for the extermination of poles before pagans because y'know fuck poles was a pretty common sentiment for folks in the region.

I can never forgive the Crusaders for fucking up the Byzantines so bad. Sure, there were our rivals for like 700 years and we were at constant war for most of those, but they were Christian and they provided the bulk of European's defense against the Muslim hordes. The way the Latins did them in is just despicable.

I'm glad we made them pay.

> there were our rivals
> our rivals
> our
t. 14.88% Italian burger

>muh islam was bad for the middle east meme!

Islam was a lot more culturally accepting and syncretic than any other major religion in the region. Many practices survived if mutated or bastardised and those that went went in the same manner one might complain of druidic practices being absent during Victorian england.

Consider that their were sizeable minorities in the middle east well into the 20th century of such diverse customs and practices - the Yazidis for instance. Now let's look at the USA or Europe and see any comparable outlier group like that still existing which hasn't been wiped out or diminished to the point of total obscurity.

> most culturally and status quo destructive events

If we're going down that line there are far far worse things to have happened but this is entirely a subjective statement with emotional welly behind it anyway.

hold still, m*slim revisionist

if were being honest this was setup with the very first crusade, where the latins were supposed to give all their gains to the byzzies(and everyone forgets this was started thanks to the byz emperor petitioning the pope for help atter manzikert) yet after they comquered shit they went full venetian and set up their own little fiefdoms.
the eternal latin knows no bounds

>Bantu expansion.
Can I get a quick rundown?

>lists islamification of the middle east but doesn't list mongol invasions in the middle east

fag

Ghengis did LITERALLY nothing wrong

Certainly not at Samarqand, he didn't. They deserved what happened to them

Ghengis didn't, but his descendants certainly did

If it was so strong, why was it sacked by some jew leaded germaniggers?

Buzzword no jutsu is not an argument.

>some retarded turk kills an ambassador because he's a savage steppenigger
>this means innocent urban people oppressed by him deserves to be massacred by another savage steppenigger while the faggot flees

>enemy capitulates

Venice tried to sue for peace 5 times, and were denied the first 4 times.
How is their ambassador finally being allowed to see the inside of the palace a capitulation?

First of all, 4th crusade killed Roman Empire. Romans coud always recover because of wealth and big Constantinople(f. e. look how Romans coud wreck persian thanks to gold from Constantinople) - after sack of the city Romans had no gold nor manpower to recover. Constantinople like empire never truly reclaim its glory and power.
Also after Latin Empire meme "byzantin" cities gain big authonomy within the empire

How is acceding to venetian demands of privileges restoration and war reparations not capitulating?

>after sack of the city Romans had no gold nor manpower to recover
Yes, nevermind that they were fielding tens of thousands of men in the bulgarian wars through the 13th century. Clearly they were destroyed by the sack of their capital.

>Medieval Orthodox Greeks
>Romans
If anything the Venetians were the true Romans.