Watch our full-length documentary on Baldwin IV, Leper King of Jerusalem: th-cam.com/video/L7L2eWwQq84/w-d-xo.html Get my book on the Crusades: www.amazon.com/Why-Does-Heathen-Rage-Crusades/dp/152395762X
It leaves out that there was ongoing warfare, financial and religious..................as well as latin warfare amongst themselves................that they were tolerated for so long internally is amazing...........either the work of angels on the byzantine side..............or more likely..................serpents on the part of the latins............no one has raped, genocided, warred, tortured, human trafficked, child trafficked, narco trafficked, enslaved, raped little children more than the latins..............evil fucks
That's a fair point. Most popular histories tend to point to either Manzikert or the 4th Crusade. Both of them put most of the blame on outside actors. I think the most accurate reason for the fall of the Empire was the very politics for which it is so famous. Byzantine Politics has remained a by-word to the present day for a reason. If it hadn't been for treachery, Manzikert would most likely have been a Turkish defeat. Without Alexios IV's invitation, the Franks and Venetians would have never gone to Constantinople in the first place. In both cases, it was members of the Byzantine nobility putting their own short-sighted interests ahead of the state that lead to disaster.
Don’t forget that Manzikert wasn’t actually a complete because of the battle, with Alp Arslan wanting peace and only taking a few Anatolian border cities, a ransom for the Emperor, and a marriage alliance. The Turkish invasion of Central Anatolia only occurred due to the Byzantines falling into a dynastic dispute and civil war after the return of Romanos to Constantinople.
What destroyed the Byzantine empire were the corruption, overthrowing of rulers, intrigue, conspiracies among the Byzantine rulers, murder, torturing each other, incompetence, chaos, the widening gap between rich and poor, poor planning, etc.
@@ameenzakariya I doubt that’s accurate. The pope at the time roundly condemned the false crusaders and excommunicated all of them. I doubt his successors were any more supportive
I'm suprised that you didn't mention Alexius IV backstabbing the "crusaders" and then getting assassinated by his Byzantine opponents that would caused the "crusaders" to sacked the city
Don’t forget the latin massacre. That was maybe the main reason of such ferocity by crusaders and Venetian. If it were only business, they limited themselves to taking things of value (with and the normal death and devastation that pillage brings).
@GNik 7 I severely doubt that in any sack the majority of the population is killed, if the intent of the conquerors is to rule the land. (Skeletons make for bad subjects usually.)
@GNik 7 It doesn't change that they killed 60,000 people in Constantinople in a horrifically massive pogrom primarily because Latins controlled financial interests in the city and there was massive corruption in the system, not because of Thesaloniki. It was oddly similar to what happened to Jews all over. And the would be usurper Emperor whipped it up and let it keep going just so he could get rid of the Latin born and aligned Empress.
@@michelebattaggia8685 This certainly may have some truth to it, but I believe their ferocity was a culmination of many factors. This includes papal conviction to do so (mostly from crusading bishops), the continual failed promises by Byzantine emperors, most recently being that of Alexios IV, growing tensions between the current citizens and the crusaders over taxation and small quarrels, and finally the fact that most of the more righteous crusaders had already dispersed after the Siege of Jaffa and the planning of the Sack of Constantinople. Accounts from Robert de Clari, Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Nicetas Choniates, and Gunther of Pairis all give insight and support to this theory.
I personally don't think the massacres of Latin merchants were the main reason Constantinople was sacked. However, it was an aggravating factor. The main reason was because Eastern Roman Emperor Alexios IV Angelos hired the Crusaders as "mercenaries" and he failed to pay them properly. I blame the Angeloi for the sack of the city, not the Latin crusaders.
I know it's not the most popular of topics but I'd be super interested in seeing more on the 4th crusade and the subsequent Latin Emperors, especially Henry of Flanders, John of Brienne, and Baldwin of Courtenay.
You’re absolutely right. It was from within that the eastern Roman Empire fell. Much like the western empire. It almost reminds me of the situation where Empress Irene was almost married to Emperor Charlemagne but was assassinated due to petty, foolish court intrigue. Could you imagine if that marriage occurred…
This gave me renewed context to think about.. Glad you dug deeper into the corruption that weakened the Eastern Romans. No citizen should want to put their life on the line for a government that’s not representing the “collective” national interest. Its a shame that a glorious civilization should fall like this.. it’s a unfortunate ending to a still very influential society that left a indelible impression on us all. It is also disheartening & notable that this cycle repeats itself quite constant throughout history.
Thank you for this detailed video. The 4th Crusade was not a crusade. It undermined the stability of the Byzantine Empire which was already in decline. Internal struggles, strong enemies from the East and the battle of Manzikert had a more profound effect on the Empire's decline. On the other hand, the first three Crusades probably helped the Byzantine Empire regain control of Anatolia. Nonetheless, the bitterness from being conquered by fellow Christians may have made many people believe that the 4th Crusade was the final blow. Trying to be as objective as a Greek can be about the 4th Crusade.
The Battle of Manzikert had little effect on the Empire's longevity. It was the aftermath of the battle which harmed the empire. And through the Komnenian restoration, 60% of Anatolia was retaken.
Destroy no, accelerate its ultimate end, probably. By that point they were doomed to a slow painful death after the komnenus dynasty failed. However, the Venetian Expedition badly labeled as a Crusade certainly didn’t help
@@artistforthefaith9571 i think i know what your your really wanting to say lol. Maybe even i could go so far as to say never trust venetian merchants ?
@@cpt191021 Venetian merchants are bad, but there is a certain merchant tribe that is known for their usury and evil intents. They put the Venetians to shame with their ungodly ways.
The demonization of the Angeloi is way over the top. Isaac II Angelos was thrust unexpectedly into the position of emperor. He literally had no choice but to take the throne because Andronikos wanted him dead. But the empire was in complete shambles when Isaac took the throne and nobody took him seriously (why should they?). All the favors and titles that he handed out were necessary just to prevent a mutiny. This is what emperors who lack legitimacy are forced to do. Isaac was actually quite pro-active in responding to all the crises that occurred during his reign but he just didnt have the resources to solve them all. His only major accomplishment was defeating the Norman invasion. His brother Alexios obviously deserves blame for betraying and killing Isaac. But as an emperor, Alexios never stood a chance either. You really cant blame him too much for not being able to rescue the empire from either the crusaders or anyone else. It was just completely ungovernable and the state was bankrupt. If anyone is to blame, its the Komnenoi style of governance. They kept all the power & wealth within the family and didn't allow outside nobles or generals to rise through the ranks. This generated resentment and anger which simmered under the surface for decades. The death of Manuel and brutality of Andronikos finally blew the lid and all the problems lurking under the surface blew up. The Komnenoi way of doing things was a good band-aid for dealing with the post-Manzikert crises but it just wasn't sustainable in the long term. Eventually, one of the emperors would die without a strong heir and the system would collapse under its own weight. It should also be added that the Angeloi brothers were direct descendants of Alexios I Komnenos. So this idea that they were just a bunch of nobodies is not true at all. Isaac & Alexios Angelos were just as much part of the Komnenoi bloodline as John, Manuel, and Andronikos were. But being part of the Komnenoi family was not necessarily a good thing. Alot of people were unhappy with the Komnenoi and wanted to power for themselves.
These late Kommenoi and Angeloi emperors were a far cry from Basil II who’s spear hardly rested as he campaigned on the frontiers of the empire rebuilding the glory of Augustus.
I think there’s still the argument to be made that if a powerful faction had overthrown that dynasty. they might have been able to turn things around and shape things up to a more stable level to last longer. After all the empire and had had many periods of almost collapsing , only for the right family to take charge and save it.
Niš was actually under Serbian and not under Bulgarian rule at that time. Stefan Nemanja met Frederick Barbarossa and Crusaders in 1189 in Niš, and Nemanja had plans for Niš to become the capital of the Serbian state. Stefan Nemanja offered Crusaders the alliance to conquer Constantinople, but that happened a bit later, in 1204.
You see it again and again in Roman history - when the Constantinopolitan elite held power, the military weakened, and the Empire became secondary to the personal glory both of which allowed external forces to consume them. Byzantium, virtue of its geography and other factors, required a strong military and a competent Emperor who placed the needs of the state above his own in order to flourish
It is interesting how historians talk about the fourth Crusade but leave out the Massacre of the Latins, which I had not even heard of before watching this video. After hearing about that the Fourth Crusade actually seems quite justified.
You won't hear about the slaughter of the Latins. I've talked w college graduates who've never been told about it. One more clue the traditional Catholic church is the true Faith.
The revenge for this was the destruction and occupation of Thessalonica and the massacre of its citizens in 1185 by the Latins, which was the second biggest city of the Empire.
The city never recovered from the 4th crusade cus everything they held dear, including the 4 horsemen that now sit atop the entrance of st Mark's cathedral. When the Turks got there it wasn't the glistening beautiful military powerhouse of the past, the place was in turmoil. If only there was a before and after image of what happened to the empire during that time.
@@MikeDchy25lol byzatine lost bcz the lost statue .lol when crusaders came to byzatine it is already in a power struggle while byzatine emperor pay tribut to turkish warlods to not raid thier cities .
@groundzero5708 Taking Constatinople was a different matter altogether. The city was seen as a lost endeavour cus it could only end in defeat for anyone attempting to take the city. The Crusaders nearly lost, if not for Dandolo urging his ships forward. Even in all that turmoil, it was nearly undoable. What they did was impossible.
I would say yes, because after that, the Byzantine economy was crippled by Venetian and Genovese merchants that were sucking the blood out of the Eastern Roman Empire until its downfall in 1453.
Can you make a video about the Crusade of Nicopolis and whose fault was of the defeat at Nicopolis? And can you make also a video about Mircea the Elder?
Had the Pope not welcomed back the same crusaders which he had earlier excommunicated, this would have not indeed been labeled a Crusade. But he did, he even accepted the loot from Constantinople and the rest is history.
One thing. You don't put the massacre of the Latins in 1182 in its context. Manuel had granted trading privileges to the Latins that gave them advantages over the natives. The Latins often behaved arrogantly towards the natives and acted as if they were a law unto themselves. Manuel's wife and mother of Alexios II was also a Latin. Andronikos was able to tap into the resentment the populace felt towards the Latins when he seized power.
@@RealCrusadesHistory I never said it did. But the privileges bestowed upon the Latin merchants in Constantinople caused a lot of economic and social upheaval. The massacre was a terrible thing but it didn't just come out of thin air. There was lots of deep seated resentment in the population that Andronikos was able to tap.
@@Tommykey07 Of course it didn't come out of thin air, nothing does. It came from the evil one and people who were supposed to have known better (since they were Christian) but squarely fell for the temptation to envy and hate their neighbors instead of wishing them well and loving them. It's there in the Cain and Abel story.
@@RealCrusadesHistory wasnt but he basically Andronikos easily Used the Hate Against the Latins to get rid of Alexios II and his Mother so it was an easy way to get in the throne
I think,constant war 600 between East Roman Empire and Bulgaria screwed up both countries,the cost of manpower and resourses was too much,and in the end turks destroied both :)
Real crusaders history you say that the fourth "crusade" didnt destroy the eastern roman empire. Even tho it did distmatle it for 57 years and well it got restored but it never fully recovered and after that the empire was a shadow of its former self also real crusaders history let me ask you a question if the fourth crusade didn't happen would the empire have survived
No, the Fourth Crusade had no impact on the fate of the Byzantine Empire. The Turks still would've overrun the remnants of the Byzantine regardless of whether or not the Fourth Crusade ever occurred.
@@RealCrusadesHistory I respect your opinion but I personally disagree. I think that worst case scenario the empire loses all of Anatolia Bulgaria Serbia and some Aegean islands it just needed a good dynasty to reform the beraucraty and restore order
@@RealCrusadesHistory and I personally believe that it would have gotten a better emperor (I only think that because it can't get much worse than alexios the third and the angelid dynasty)
@@-NovaRoma.Byzantines shoud have hired sone war like christians like normans .rather than fighting them from the beginning .rather than payin tribute to turks so theybdont raid byzantine cities ..... it only happens bcz both latins and byzatines were not honest to each other but today it different time have changed
Pope undo excomunication for crusadrs army but not for Venetians. Technically crusadrs should't further cooperate with excomunicated Venetians... but they did. In that circumstances there is no way to say with 100% confidence that was or was not a crusade. Greetings from Poland! You do great job here, sire!
Real crusaders history I think you overastmate the latin empire. The empire wasn't strong.Your map of it in 4:20 is from its peak in 1204 and it was that big for one year and for most of its existence (57 years) it was way smaller . It was doomed after the battle of andrianople 1205 and after that battle it could not defend Europe from the ottomans or even survive
Well it SURE hastened its fall if not causing it. Plus, almost all of the ancient roman and Greek artifacts that you see in European museums (Britain especially) were stolen from Constantinople. Greetings from Greece...
It did absolutely nothing to hasten its fall. If anything, a Latin Empire successfully established might've prevented Constantinople's fall long term. The Fourth Crusade might've been Christendom's last chance to keep Constantinople long term.
Easily the best channel on the Crusades, Stephen. You are the forefront of Crusade storytelling in the world, our ancestors at least know there's a small blight of hope left in this deranged age with the likes of you. Also, many people forget when blaming the crusaders how a Latin crusader with the name of Conrad of Montferrat had helped the Angeloi and would've likely saved their Empire if he had stayed there (he left also because of anti-Latin sentiment, his younger brother being murdered in the massacre of 1182 by Andronikos). Conrad, according to Choniates, has saved Isaac by inspiring him to defeat Alexios Branas a usurper. Sadly, Conrad wasn't rightly rewarded by the Emperor. The man who saved Tyre against all odds, would've likely saved Byzantium in 1204 and ushered a golden age in Byzantine history. It's a great tragedy Conrad was murdered after he became King of Jerusalem. God bless you and your followers, Stephen. Keep with the awesome work. Nice template! One question, what is the source of this letter from Isaac congratulating Saladin for the conquest of Jerusalem? I had never seen this, interesting. I just know that Isaac had tried to cooperate with Saladin fearing any potential move against him by Barbarossa.
It sounds like the Byzantines were doing a great job of causing their own downfall before the warrior's of the "4th crusade" even started planning their military expedition
The Eastern Roman Empire was able to claw its way back from many setbacks. Would have Andronikos III liveld longer and avoided the devastating war after his death ther may would have been a chance to see Byzantium surving as a regional power ans shield against the turks.
lol byzantium will always loose without help of other balkan or european people . byzatines did so little to assmilate native anotolians who were not greeks .
The Byzantine Empire was going down to a path of destruction anyway, regardless if the crusaders conquered Constantinople, the crusaders were just a catalyst, if it was not the crusaders, it was going to be the Turks, or a civil war, because the feudals were fragmenting, chunk by chunk, the Empire was dying.
hoi-polloi: I heard on TH-cam that it wasn't the 4th Crusade that destroyed the Roman Empire. Byzantine Empire, via Ouija board: Well it sure didn't *HELP* now did it?!
Very good work. This channel is very important. The only mistake here is that Byzantines were not Christians anymore after the schism, since according to Catholic teaching, only Catholics are Christians.
A Christian is simply anyone who accepts and believes Jesus Christ as his Savior, has faith in Holy Spirit and follows His teaching. Who is any church to say otherwise. Stop this in fighting between brothers in Christ. Islam is our enemy.
Remember these are same guys who murdered Aurelian, Stilicho and Aetius, people who saved the empire multiple times as well as the people who bribed the Huns to be the Western Empire's problem, contributing to the West' downfall.
Watch our full-length documentary on Baldwin IV, Leper King of Jerusalem: th-cam.com/video/L7L2eWwQq84/w-d-xo.html
Get my book on the Crusades: www.amazon.com/Why-Does-Heathen-Rage-Crusades/dp/152395762X
What music was used at 12:10?
It leaves out that there was ongoing warfare, financial and religious..................as well as latin warfare amongst themselves................that they were tolerated for so long internally is amazing...........either the work of angels on the byzantine side..............or more likely..................serpents on the part of the latins............no one has raped, genocided, warred, tortured, human trafficked, child trafficked, narco trafficked, enslaved, raped little children more than the latins..............evil fucks
Have you heard of the Child crusades?
That's a fair point. Most popular histories tend to point to either Manzikert or the 4th Crusade. Both of them put most of the blame on outside actors. I think the most accurate reason for the fall of the Empire was the very politics for which it is so famous. Byzantine Politics has remained a by-word to the present day for a reason. If it hadn't been for treachery, Manzikert would most likely have been a Turkish defeat. Without Alexios IV's invitation, the Franks and Venetians would have never gone to Constantinople in the first place. In both cases, it was members of the Byzantine nobility putting their own short-sighted interests ahead of the state that lead to disaster.
That will be the fall of the US as well. Watch and see, it’s coming soon.
True.
I agree
Don’t forget that Manzikert wasn’t actually a complete because of the battle, with Alp Arslan wanting peace and only taking a few Anatolian border cities, a ransom for the Emperor, and a marriage alliance. The Turkish invasion of Central Anatolia only occurred due to the Byzantines falling into a dynastic dispute and civil war after the return of Romanos to Constantinople.
What destroyed the Byzantine empire were the corruption, overthrowing of rulers, intrigue, conspiracies among the Byzantine rulers, murder, torturing each other, incompetence, chaos, the widening gap between rich and poor, poor planning, etc.
Thank you for this video. The important takeaway was that the Fourth Crusade was no crusade at all.
But RC Church remain silent on this topic since last seven centuries until Pope John Paul II apologise to Orthodox Church for this barbarian compaign.
@@ameenzakariya I doubt that’s accurate. The pope at the time roundly condemned the false crusaders and excommunicated all of them. I doubt his successors were any more supportive
I'm suprised that you didn't mention Alexius IV backstabbing the "crusaders" and then getting assassinated by his Byzantine opponents that would caused the "crusaders" to sacked the city
Don’t forget the latin massacre. That was maybe the main reason of such ferocity by crusaders and Venetian. If it were only business, they limited themselves to taking things of value (with and the normal death and devastation that pillage brings).
@GNik 7 I severely doubt that in any sack the majority of the population is killed, if the intent of the conquerors is to rule the land. (Skeletons make for bad subjects usually.)
@GNik 7 It doesn't change that they killed 60,000 people in Constantinople in a horrifically massive pogrom primarily because Latins controlled financial interests in the city and there was massive corruption in the system, not because of Thesaloniki. It was oddly similar to what happened to Jews all over.
And the would be usurper Emperor whipped it up and let it keep going just so he could get rid of the Latin born and aligned Empress.
@@michelebattaggia8685 This certainly may have some truth to it, but I believe their ferocity was a culmination of many factors. This includes papal conviction to do so (mostly from crusading bishops), the continual failed promises by Byzantine emperors, most recently being that of Alexios IV, growing tensions between the current citizens and the crusaders over taxation and small quarrels, and finally the fact that most of the more righteous crusaders had already dispersed after the Siege of Jaffa and the planning of the Sack of Constantinople. Accounts from Robert de Clari, Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Nicetas Choniates, and Gunther of Pairis all give insight and support to this theory.
I personally don't think the massacres of Latin merchants were the main reason Constantinople was sacked. However, it was an aggravating factor.
The main reason was because Eastern Roman Emperor Alexios IV Angelos hired the Crusaders as "mercenaries" and he failed to pay them properly. I blame the Angeloi for the sack of the city, not the Latin crusaders.
I know it's not the most popular of topics but I'd be super interested in seeing more on the 4th crusade and the subsequent Latin Emperors, especially Henry of Flanders, John of Brienne, and Baldwin of Courtenay.
You’re absolutely right. It was from within that the eastern Roman Empire fell. Much like the western empire. It almost reminds me of the situation where Empress Irene was almost married to Emperor Charlemagne but was assassinated due to petty, foolish court intrigue. Could you imagine if that marriage occurred…
As fun of an idea as that is, I doubt it would’ve lasted long and may have just caused more problems for both empires
@@storymaker299 probably. But it is always that 0.1% chance that always intrigues us.
The OTP.
I don't think she got assassinated I think she was exiled
wait i know a diferent empress irene. The one that put her own kids eyes out.
This gave me renewed context to think about..
Glad you dug deeper into the corruption that weakened the Eastern Romans.
No citizen should want to put their life on the line for a government that’s not representing the “collective” national interest.
Its a shame that a glorious civilization should fall like this.. it’s a unfortunate ending to a still very influential society that left a indelible impression on us all.
It is also disheartening & notable that this cycle repeats itself quite constant throughout history.
Thank you for this detailed video. The 4th Crusade was not a crusade. It undermined the stability of the Byzantine Empire which was already in decline. Internal struggles, strong enemies from the East and the battle of Manzikert had a more profound effect on the Empire's decline. On the other hand, the first three Crusades probably helped the Byzantine Empire regain control of Anatolia. Nonetheless, the bitterness from being conquered by fellow Christians may have made many people believe that the 4th Crusade was the final blow. Trying to be as objective as a Greek can be about the 4th Crusade.
The Battle of Manzikert had little effect on the Empire's longevity. It was the aftermath of the battle which harmed the empire.
And through the Komnenian restoration, 60% of Anatolia was retaken.
Destroy no, accelerate its ultimate end, probably. By that point they were doomed to a slow painful death after the komnenus dynasty failed. However, the Venetian Expedition badly labeled as a Crusade certainly didn’t help
Never trust merchants, especially those that influence politics.
@@artistforthefaith9571 i think i know what your your really wanting to say lol. Maybe even i could go so far as to say never trust venetian merchants ?
@@cpt191021 Venetian merchants are bad, but there is a certain merchant tribe that is known for their usury and evil intents. They put the Venetians to shame with their ungodly ways.
@@cpt191021no all of them be it Genoese, pisan or venetian. As treacherous as today's bankers.
The demonization of the Angeloi is way over the top. Isaac II Angelos was thrust unexpectedly into the position of emperor. He literally had no choice but to take the throne because Andronikos wanted him dead. But the empire was in complete shambles when Isaac took the throne and nobody took him seriously (why should they?). All the favors and titles that he handed out were necessary just to prevent a mutiny. This is what emperors who lack legitimacy are forced to do. Isaac was actually quite pro-active in responding to all the crises that occurred during his reign but he just didnt have the resources to solve them all. His only major accomplishment was defeating the Norman invasion. His brother Alexios obviously deserves blame for betraying and killing Isaac. But as an emperor, Alexios never stood a chance either. You really cant blame him too much for not being able to rescue the empire from either the crusaders or anyone else. It was just completely ungovernable and the state was bankrupt.
If anyone is to blame, its the Komnenoi style of governance. They kept all the power & wealth within the family and didn't allow outside nobles or generals to rise through the ranks. This generated resentment and anger which simmered under the surface for decades. The death of Manuel and brutality of Andronikos finally blew the lid and all the problems lurking under the surface blew up. The Komnenoi way of doing things was a good band-aid for dealing with the post-Manzikert crises but it just wasn't sustainable in the long term. Eventually, one of the emperors would die without a strong heir and the system would collapse under its own weight.
It should also be added that the Angeloi brothers were direct descendants of Alexios I Komnenos. So this idea that they were just a bunch of nobodies is not true at all. Isaac & Alexios Angelos were just as much part of the Komnenoi bloodline as John, Manuel, and Andronikos were. But being part of the Komnenoi family was not necessarily a good thing. Alot of people were unhappy with the Komnenoi and wanted to power for themselves.
These late Kommenoi and Angeloi emperors were a far cry from Basil II who’s spear hardly rested as he campaigned on the frontiers of the empire rebuilding the glory of Augustus.
I think there’s still the argument to be made that if a powerful faction had overthrown that dynasty. they might have been able to turn things around and shape things up to a more stable level to last longer. After all the empire and had had many periods of almost collapsing , only for the right family to take charge and save it.
Do a video of the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 done by the Orthodox Christians.
Byzatines fell one of the reasonbcz latins and byzatines were not honest for each other
Great episode! I love your channel. It brings history to life.
The whole thing is th Crusade sounds like a joke of a crusade though. I mean, u decide to pillage TWO of who are meant to be ur allies.
More like sussy allies who dont fight the truks insteas pay tribute to them
Excellent Historical coverage
Niš was actually under Serbian and not under Bulgarian rule at that time. Stefan Nemanja met Frederick Barbarossa and Crusaders in 1189 in Niš, and Nemanja had plans for Niš to become the capital of the Serbian state. Stefan Nemanja offered Crusaders the alliance to conquer Constantinople, but that happened a bit later, in 1204.
You see it again and again in Roman history - when the Constantinopolitan elite held power, the military weakened, and the Empire became secondary to the personal glory both of which allowed external forces to consume them. Byzantium, virtue of its geography and other factors, required a strong military and a competent Emperor who placed the needs of the state above his own in order to flourish
It is interesting how historians talk about the fourth Crusade but leave out the Massacre of the Latins, which I had not even heard of before watching this video. After hearing about that the Fourth Crusade actually seems quite justified.
Finally someone says it
They were all justified
You won't hear about the slaughter of the Latins. I've talked w college graduates who've never been told about it.
One more clue the traditional Catholic church is the true Faith.
Dondolo was apparently there, he saw it all before he was blinded in the massacre.
The revenge for this was the destruction and occupation of Thessalonica and the massacre of its citizens in 1185 by the Latins, which was the second biggest city of the Empire.
Not totally agreed: what about the sack of Costantinople ?
Without its riches, much of Byzantine power was lost forever
The city never recovered from the 4th crusade cus everything they held dear, including the 4 horsemen that now sit atop the entrance of st Mark's cathedral. When the Turks got there it wasn't the glistening beautiful military powerhouse of the past, the place was in turmoil.
If only there was a before and after image of what happened to the empire during that time.
@@MikeDchy25lol byzatine lost bcz the lost statue .lol when crusaders came to byzatine it is already in a power struggle while byzatine emperor pay tribut to turkish warlods to not raid thier cities .
If byzatine elected norman war like christian .this would have been stoppped .lol
@groundzero5708 Taking Constatinople was a different matter altogether. The city was seen as a lost endeavour cus it could only end in defeat for anyone attempting to take the city.
The Crusaders nearly lost, if not for Dandolo urging his ships forward. Even in all that turmoil, it was nearly undoable. What they did was impossible.
I would say yes, because after that, the Byzantine economy was crippled by Venetian and Genovese merchants that were sucking the blood out of the Eastern Roman Empire until its downfall in 1453.
Never trust a Venetian.
Can you make a video about the Crusade of Nicopolis and whose fault was of the defeat at Nicopolis? And can you make also a video about Mircea the Elder?
Yes, please.
Had the Pope not welcomed back the same crusaders which he had earlier excommunicated, this would have not indeed been labeled a Crusade. But he did, he even accepted the loot from Constantinople and the rest is history.
Yeah so as it turns out popes are Christian, so they do the forgiving people thing.
Those loot came to catholic chruch after pope's death lol
One thing. You don't put the massacre of the Latins in 1182 in its context. Manuel had granted trading privileges to the Latins that gave them advantages over the natives. The Latins often behaved arrogantly towards the natives and acted as if they were a law unto themselves. Manuel's wife and mother of Alexios II was also a Latin. Andronikos was able to tap into the resentment the populace felt towards the Latins when he seized power.
Not sure behaving arrogantly justifies the mass slaughter of men, women, and children.
@@RealCrusadesHistory I never said it did. But the privileges bestowed upon the Latin merchants in Constantinople caused a lot of economic and social upheaval. The massacre was a terrible thing but it didn't just come out of thin air. There was lots of deep seated resentment in the population that Andronikos was able to tap.
@@Tommykey07 Of course it didn't come out of thin air, nothing does. It came from the evil one and people who were supposed to have known better (since they were Christian) but squarely fell for the temptation to envy and hate their neighbors instead of wishing them well and loving them. It's there in the Cain and Abel story.
@@Tommykey07 Envy and pride are the fruit of all evil and more coming from the populace.
@@RealCrusadesHistory wasnt but he basically Andronikos easily Used the Hate Against the Latins to get rid of Alexios II and his Mother so it was an easy way to get in the throne
I think,constant war 600 between East Roman Empire and Bulgaria screwed up both countries,the cost of manpower and resourses was too much,and in the end turks destroied both :)
Why romans kept attacling north all the time lol .rather than thier like enemy lol
Glad to hear this narrator is back, just sounds mint voicing the video's.
Great video! It gave me a lot to think about
Real crusaders history you say that the fourth "crusade" didnt destroy the eastern roman empire. Even tho it did distmatle it for 57 years and well it got restored but it never fully recovered and after that the empire was a shadow of its former self also real crusaders history let me ask you a question if the fourth crusade didn't happen would the empire have survived
No, the Fourth Crusade had no impact on the fate of the Byzantine Empire. The Turks still would've overrun the remnants of the Byzantine regardless of whether or not the Fourth Crusade ever occurred.
@@RealCrusadesHistory I respect your opinion but I personally disagree. I think that worst case scenario the empire loses all of Anatolia Bulgaria Serbia and some Aegean islands it just needed a good dynasty to reform the beraucraty and restore order
@@RealCrusadesHistory and I personally believe that it would have gotten a better emperor (I only think that because it can't get much worse than alexios the third and the angelid dynasty)
@@-NovaRoma.Byzantines shoud have hired sone war like christians like normans .rather than fighting them from the beginning .rather than payin tribute to turks so theybdont raid byzantine cities ..... it only happens bcz both latins and byzatines were not honest to each other but today it different time have changed
@@groundzero5708 bro you are ill informed they hired christian mercenaries and Normans( and for content the Normans mercenaries rebelled )
Pope undo excomunication for crusadrs army but not for Venetians. Technically crusadrs should't further cooperate with excomunicated Venetians... but they did. In that circumstances there is no way to say with 100% confidence that was or was not a crusade.
Greetings from Poland! You do great job here, sire!
Real crusaders history I think you overastmate the latin empire. The empire wasn't strong.Your map of it in 4:20 is from its peak in 1204 and it was that big for one year and for most of its existence (57 years) it was way smaller . It was doomed after the battle of andrianople 1205 and after that battle it could not defend Europe from the ottomans or even survive
still it the decendants of the latins that braught ottomans to thier knees . now they are mad when someone call them turkey instead of turkiye
Well it SURE hastened its fall if not causing it. Plus, almost all of the ancient roman and Greek artifacts that you see in European museums (Britain especially) were stolen from Constantinople. Greetings from Greece...
It did absolutely nothing to hasten its fall. If anything, a Latin Empire successfully established might've prevented Constantinople's fall long term. The Fourth Crusade might've been Christendom's last chance to keep Constantinople long term.
I knew some of this information but I did not know all of it. Thank you
AWESOME
Easily the best channel on the Crusades, Stephen. You are the forefront of Crusade storytelling in the world, our ancestors at least know there's a small blight of hope left in this deranged age with the likes of you. Also, many people forget when blaming the crusaders how a Latin crusader with the name of Conrad of Montferrat had helped the Angeloi and would've likely saved their Empire if he had stayed there (he left also because of anti-Latin sentiment, his younger brother being murdered in the massacre of 1182 by Andronikos). Conrad, according to Choniates, has saved Isaac by inspiring him to defeat Alexios Branas a usurper. Sadly, Conrad wasn't rightly rewarded by the Emperor. The man who saved Tyre against all odds, would've likely saved Byzantium in 1204 and ushered a golden age in Byzantine history. It's a great tragedy Conrad was murdered after he became King of Jerusalem. God bless you and your followers, Stephen. Keep with the awesome work. Nice template! One question, what is the source of this letter from Isaac congratulating Saladin for the conquest of Jerusalem? I had never seen this, interesting. I just know that Isaac had tried to cooperate with Saladin fearing any potential move against him by Barbarossa.
Will you make a video about Zengids?
Thanks for the great video. It was very interesting to watch.
Interesting
It sounds like the Byzantines were doing a great job of causing their own downfall before the warrior's of the "4th crusade" even started planning their military expedition
I think that the resurrection of the Bulgarian Empire in the late 12th century was a bigger blow. Byzantines really cocked up there.
i hate venice
Byzantine empire during the 13th century was already internally fragmented with different nobles trying to become emperor.
The Eastern Roman Empire was able to claw its way back from many setbacks. Would have Andronikos III liveld longer and avoided the devastating war after his death ther may would have been a chance to see Byzantium surving as a regional power ans shield against the turks.
lol byzantium will always loose without help of other balkan or european people . byzatines did so little to assmilate native anotolians who were not greeks .
Corrupt and incompetent leadership will always yield failure in every condition. Good video.
Fredrick smartly didnt want the awful publicity too
The Byzantine Empire was going down to a path of destruction anyway, regardless if the crusaders conquered Constantinople, the crusaders were just a catalyst, if it was not the crusaders, it was going to be the Turks, or a civil war, because the feudals were fragmenting, chunk by chunk, the Empire was dying.
Muy buen documental, enhorabuena
YES
hoi-polloi: I heard on TH-cam that it wasn't the 4th Crusade that destroyed the Roman Empire.
Byzantine Empire, via Ouija board: Well it sure didn't *HELP* now did it?!
Short answer: yes
Short answer: No.
HAMEN 👐
Very good work. This channel is very important.
The only mistake here is that Byzantines were not Christians anymore after the schism, since according to Catholic teaching, only Catholics are Christians.
That Catholics stopped being Christians when they added the filioque.
A Christian is simply anyone who accepts and believes Jesus Christ as his Savior, has faith in Holy Spirit and follows His teaching. Who is any church to say otherwise. Stop this in fighting between brothers in Christ. Islam is our enemy.
You guys are the greatest historians in history!!!!!!
The Byzantines also broke the Council of Florence unity. They were good at driving nails in their own coffins.
Remember these are same guys who murdered Aurelian, Stilicho and Aetius, people who saved the empire multiple times as well as the people who bribed the Huns to be the Western Empire's problem, contributing to the West' downfall.
The greatest enemy of the Romans are their fellow Romans themselves.
Byzantium = The Great Macedonia
You mean Greece?
@@ΘΕΟΦΑΝΩΚΟΜΝΗΝΟΣ hahahah that country made after WW1 europ made plastic country ...but soon turk have to show you somthing...
im macedonian dont want to be part of cringe byzatines