>>523150 Originally they were going to take over Cairo and cripple the main Muslim power in the ME.
But then to pay debts to Venice the Crusades had to sack Christian Zara. Also I believe there was an exiled Byzantine Prince who offered the crusaders support if they took Constantinople and put him in power, but after he was on the throne he was assassinated and the successor didn't support the crusaders, which lead to the sacking.
The sacking of Constantinople definitely weakened an already dying Empire, had they not broken the horses leg they might have lasted an extra few hundred years. But due to the strength of the Ottoman Turks and the fact that Byzantium got fucked proved faulty for their success. Their end was because they were the last remnant of an empire that died nearly a millennium before they followed their steps.
>>523802 So basically like if they join the Central powers and lose during WW1, causing them to get partitioned and then rebel against the invaders while embracing their Hellenic past? Sounds pretty cool
>>523228 Well, considering there was a large amount of territory that split off and was never recovered, such as Epirus, it is a definite yes that they never recovered from the sacking. And it's not like Byzantine history just continues after it, either. There was a period of about half a century where the Catholics ran Constantinople, in the Romanian/Latin Empire. During this time, other maritime trading powers eclipsed the Byzantines.
If they had not been sacked, (completely estimation) they could possibly had held out against the Ottomans until the Ottoman state collapsed, which may have happened if they had not taken Constantinople and gotten rich. However, since their decline was at the time of the Ottoman's rise, they were conquered.
>>523827 >Latins riot against each other, essentially destroy parts of the City >LATINS WERE GOOD BOYS DEY DIDNU NUFFIN NEED MORE MONEY FOR DEM MERCHANT REPUBLICS not to say that the massacre was justified but the Latins weren't innocent people either
The Byzantines brought this on themselves, after the Ottomans took it, then the West finally could deal the Muslims deathblows, which they did, only for the Antichrist to rise in France, and the Beast to dominate the world from the US.
All of the Middle East should be Christian now, thanks Jews and Americans.
>>523870 >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. Emperor Manuel subsequently expelled most of the Genoese and Pisans from the city, thus giving the Venetians a free hand for several years.
>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. 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.
>The Venetians and the Empire remained at war, with the Venetians prudently avoiding direct confrontation but sponsoring Serb uprisings, besieging Ancona, Byzantium's last stronghold in Italy, and signing a treaty with the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. Relations were only gradually normalized: there is evidence of a treaty in 1179, although a full restoration of relations would only be reached in the mid-1180s. Meanwhile, the Genoese and Pisans profited from the dispute with Venice, and by 1180, it is estimated that up to 60,000 Latins lived in Constantinople. D I D N U N U F F I N
>>524760 >BUT MUH LONG TIME It split the empire into a bunch of smaller states, which the legitimate empire had to fucking war with to regain their land, caused the permanent loss of a lot of ground, devastation of what was left, depletion of already limited manpower, and let the turks solidify their position in relative peace.
The loss of the heart of the empires finances and administration completely fucked them.
>>525850 Of course it was Anatolia, which prospered for over two decades after Manzikert as its richest province with all its major land holdings, powerful families, and its armies and mercenaries holding together the shitstorm that was the Balkans.
>>524760 Honestly the byzantine Empire never really existed after the fourth crusade, a Greek kingdom arose but to call it an empire after that would be a farce. Also it only lasted that long because it is actually really hard to take Constantinople if you are not Venitian apparrently
venice hardly ever fought in italy, and a mayor part of their army at any point were croats and vlachs
also, consider the fact the venetian navy was basicaly muscle powered, the main ship being galeons, meaning thousand upon thousand upon thousand of chained up people, for centuries, those places were operatively like gulags, the moment the republic had a slight problem with someone hed end up in a galeon
also, why dont people mention the venetian secret services, i mean venice had one of the oldest, most efficient and most feared secret police forces in all of europe
>>526291 >Venice hardly ever fought in Italy That's wrong, they fought in Italy for most of the late medieval and rinascimental period. Their natural rival was the duchy of Milan on land and the Genoese republic on sea.
>>526250 This. Enrico Dandolo actually led the naval attack on Constantinople sitting on a wooden chair on the deck of a Venetian warship. And he was octuagenarian at the time.
As for OP's question: While the Venetians did temporarly end the Byzantine Empire they did not cause it's ultimate fall in 1453. The last line of defence against the Turks was actually hold by Genoese men, the empire could not have resisted much longer anyway. People tend to forget that the Ottomomans were close to and egemonic power in the XVth century.
>Orhan married Theodora, the daughter of Byzantine prince John VI Cantacuzenus. In 1346 Orhan openly supported John VI in the overthrowing of the emperor John V Palaeologus. When John VI became co-emperor (1347–1354) he allowed Orhan to raid the peninsula of Gallipoli which gained the Ottomans their first stronghold in Europe.
Byzantines invited the Ottomans to fight for their interests, eventually they turned against them. It was Byzantines own fault to get turked.
>>526291 >also, consider the fact the venetian navy was basicaly muscle powered, the main ship being galeons, meaning thousand upon thousand upon thousand of chained up people, for centuries, those places were operatively like gulags, the moment the republic had a slight problem with someone hed end up in a galeon
First of all, Galley. Second, it wasn't until incredibly late into the Republic's life that forced galley rowers became the norm. Previous to that it was a fairly well payed job and considered a pretty honorable position since the functioning of galleys were critical to the republic's survival. You don't entrust the majority of your military force to slaves and forced workers. Unpaid galley service was indeed used for criminal punishments, but forced workers were nowhere close to the majority.
>>525850 Listen, retard. The Byzantines recovered from mantzikert fucking RAPIDLY. They retook most of the lost ground, and some of the best territories never fell at all.
The pale fucking death got the name for a reason, and it is not because he WASN'T crushing the enemies of the empire with a reorganized and highly effective army and taking ground at a ridiculous rate.
>>526305 Both. They had to completely reorganize the military, bnut they did, and very effectively.
>>527252 The concept of calling in outsiders to kill your enemies swerved the eastern empire well for CENTURIES.
Their diplomacy is the reason we have Hungary, the avars are all dead, and some other shit you'd never chalk up to them.
>>528444 Then why the fuck didn't Byzantines retake central Anatolia and expel the Turks? for some reason its trendy now to be a contrarian and claim that accepted history is wrong but this is just ridiculous.
>>530703 One Byzantine pretendant (John VI Cantacuzenus) allowed Ottomans to settle in his lands and gave his daughter to their turkish warlord Orhan, so he can overthrow the Emperor in Constantinople (John V Palaeologus). When he was overthrown the pretendant took the throne but eventually the Ottomans turned against them because why the fuck not.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.