>>649269 >The Western crusaders were no longer able to receive their promised payments, and when Alexios IV was murdered on 8 February 1204, the crusaders and Venetians decided on the outright conquest of Constantinople. In April 1204, they captured and brutally sacked the city, and set up a new Latin Empire as well as partitioning other Byzantine territories among themselves.
Justinian bankrupted the empire by wasting the talents of Belisarius one of the greatest generals ever on pointlessly trying to reconquer the west
Heracleus continued the decline by grinding the army into the dust against the Persians which left bout empires exhausted and vulnerable to Islamic invasion. The eternal Venician was merely the straw that broke the camels back
The only smart emperors were Basil I and Basil II because they understood that securing Greece, the Balkans and most importantly Anatolia was by far the most vital thing. The empire could have survived into the present day had they been more adaptable and not stupidly tried to over expand and then lose all their gains plus more every century
The crusaders pushed the claim of a claimant to the Byzantine throne(as had happened hundreds of times within the ERE before) in return for payment, the new emperor could not pay, when deposed his successor(either son or father, i dont remember) could not/refused to pay, so they took what they were owed in cash.
Literally dindunuffin, the corrupt empire broke itself.
>>649348 Exactly, and their stupid ass impractical spiritual religion led to a magical way of thinking that caused severe military losses when morale was low ("God has abandoned us!" instead of "Fuck, let's toughen up and kill these fuckers.") and caused resentment among much of the empire's (especially eastern) population ("Kill all who don't follow the Nicene Creed." as opposed to "Pls convert/Live and let live.).
The Venetians did the Greeks a favor by dismantling their empire, bringing them under the rule of more competent Latins and eventually under the law of a rather enlightened empire (for its time, over time it degraded, and also compared to the Greek/Byzantine Empire).
I suggest you watch this video on why the 4th Crusade happened:
as far as I know the crusaders managed to hook one of the sea towers with their ships and started to tug the damn thing, shaking it until near collapse, the byzantines fled the tower, then the crusaders managed to get a foothold on the walls and won the hand to hand battle
>>649255 I was in Venice in the summer. There was so many tourists there I couldn't enjoy it at all and left in a couple of hours. What's the best time to go there (season/month with the fewest tourists)?
>>649341 >Heracleus continued the decline Bitch, Heraclius turned the tide against the Persians, who had been shit-kicking the Byzantines, turning a desperate defensive war into a great offensive victory. Keep in mind that it was only in the last couple years of a war that lasted some 27 that Persian threat to Constantinople was repelled, and the Byzantines were able to go on the offensive. If Heraclius had made that push, the Persian forces would not have crumbled, and the Byzantines would still be vulnerable. It's just that the decades-long struggle left both empires exhausted at precisely the wrong time, and vulnerable to onslaught of a newly-born Islamic army. Heraclius did nothing wrong, but was screwed by fate.
>>649269 Just read yeaterday a chapter of Norwich's book.
>Be John V Palaeologus >Be bankrupt and pressed by the Turks >Travel all around Europe begging for cash and help >The only one who answers is Urban V, the pope >In exchange for his promise of help, he asks you to submit to Papal authority >Then you go to Venice >In Venice they are not kind: they put you in prison because of your previous debts >Andronicus, your son, does not help you >Actually, he is conspiring with the son of the Turkish Emperor/Emir (I forgot): both of them want to overthrow their respective fathet >Manuel, your second son, bails you out by sending over his jewels. You get 5 more years to pay your debt to Venice >Andronicus' plot is discovered. But instead of killing him (like the Turkish chief did to his son), you just put him in prison >Genoese and Venetians struggle during the crowning of Peter II of Cyprus and Jerusalem >After 5 years you haven't paid back your debts >Venetians don't want to be cut out from the Byzantine Empire, so they show up at Costantinoples with a fleet and strike a deal: in exchange for your debt, you, the Emperor, shall rent them Tenedos... at the mouth of the Dardanells. >You are John V and broke, so you accept >But the Genoese have a post in Constantinople and because of other grievances with the Venetians, they ask you to seize their properties in the capital >You are a fucking puppet but refuse because of the debt >THEY DEPOSE YOU. Free Andronicus and instal him as the new Emperor. >People are happy because you had fucking submitted to the Pope and they all are orthodox >He is a fucking puppet so obliges to Genoese requests >Genoese try to get into Tenedos, but the governor was Venetian friendly way before Venetians got the island. So he fights them back. >Venetians refuse to submit to the new Emperor's judgement until the "true" Emperor is re-instated
Shall I continue? >Broke >No power >Beggar >Unpopular
>>649621 Venice does not enjoy the waterflow it used to. Of course it's never been 100% clean. But there used to be: - More channels - Better flow The latter, thanks to proper tide... which managed to flow into the marshlands on the coastline and then back to the sea. Nowadays industrialization has subtracted a lot of land from the "barene" marshlands (some of which can be seen when you land on the airport) and limited the tide flow. The reversal is also true. As much as the tide does not flow into the marshlands, it is also increased in height during days in which the 7 rivers that supply the lagoon are flooding (thus blocking the tides last way into the mainland -- i.e. the river themselves)
Finally, overpopulation, turism and pollution do not help.
Think that Venice has never been considered a "gem". In the late 1800 there was a plan to completely cover all canals and make it like any other city. About the same period: cholera outbreak.
All the past 200 years of Venetian history are mainly about industrial development (especially mills... only later it moved to the shore, in Mestre... and ruined the ecosystem in the way I described).
>>650206 Unfortunately, in his book on Venice Norwich stops because he says that all the Cyprus and Constantinople events fell in the background and most of the War of Chioggia took place in the Italian seas.
I am sorry, but I got as far as there.
Basically, I showed you a case of Byzantine inferiority during the 1370-1380 decades.
So even some 180 years after the Venetian ransack, Byzantium was back to step 1. Arguably with the difference they had to take care of all the Hellespont and Anatolia.
Another thing to consider is not just a wrecked monarchy tainted by conspiracies and family feuds. It is also the fact all commerce in the Mediterranean depended on Venetians and Genoese. It is as if... I mean, you cannot trade with the enemy... so you get mediators. The Maritime Republic thus arose from being the buffer of Mediterranean trade to be the rulers of the Sea.
In particular, after the 1380 we enter the true Venetian era (formerly it was all about the Genovese, Pisans, etc... with Venice advancing albeit more slowly).
Anyway here you are: >Dinasty issues (conspiracies, etc.) >Decision-making limited by lobbies (orhodoxes, governors) >Enemy at the gates >Bankruptcy >Foreign trade depended on Maritime Republic who use your nation as a puppet State
All of this for what? Just to preserve imperial rigidity "as it was meant to be" (i.e. perpetuating Justinian Legacy well beyond the time limit of its effectiveness). Comparatively, Maritime Republics had an economic empire and, although little territory, they had logistics and cash to hire Condottieri at will. Landmass was just a burden for the likes of Venice (see all the issues with King of Hungary Lajos I or the Carrara family, etc.). Again, comparatively, the Holy Roman-German Emprie (after the Othons) was much more a decentralized entity than it appears (in fact it allowed for the emerging of Italian free cities that later became autonomous Lordships and Principalities... same goes with Hansa League).
>>649221 Gonna try and give a summary here from what I know.
To begin with: The Eastern Roman Empire was a relic of a bygone age, a sprawling territory hinged around a single city that was ruled by a powerful emperor that had authority over nearly everything. This made it a horribly unstable and vulnerable target for enemies from both eastern and western fronts, and for upstart nobles from within.
In a time of Byzantine weakness, the nations of the west banded together to launch another crusade to take back Jerusalem from the muslims. The only problem was that they needed a navy to get all their armies over there, because marching through Anatolia suuuucks. No one was really interested in supporting this silly expedition except for Venice, the scheming island jews of Italy. They struck a deal with the Frankish/Latin/etc crusaders: Venice would build and staff enough ships to carry a shitton of crusaders over to the Holy Land, and the crusaders would pay them a great sum for it in return.
The crusaders expected lots of people to join their movement and help fund the navy. Turns out they only gathered around half of the numbers they were anticipating, and most of the Venetian ships just sat in port, their crews idle. With fewer participants than expected, the Franks/Latins/etc couldn't afford to pay for the Venetian ships: the ones they didn't even need... And so, the Crusaders were now not only weaker than they expected, but in serious debt to the Venetians.
>>650336 Venice essentially blackmailed them with this debt, and began using the crusaders as a mercenary corps, ordering them to intimidate christian cities on the Adriatic cost for Venetian benefit. The pope condemned this, but it made no difference in the end: his word was either suppressed or ignored to keep up morale. The crusaders were fucked by the island jews: they needed money desperately if they were ever going to break free and actually CRUSADE like they intended.
Eventually, the Crusaders turned to Byzantium for help. The City of the World's Desire was rich as fuck, and its imperial coffers quite full. The crusaders made a deal with a pretender to the imperial throne: to support the pretender, in exchange for loadsamoney when he rose to power, that could pay for the boats and then some. Oh, and the pretender would also bow to the Pope and banish Islam to the Shadow Realm... Needless to say, these big promises by the pretender did not actually happen, but that didn't stop the crusaders from believing it and the Venetians from using it as a casus belli for an attack on Constantinople.
The Venetians and the crusaders laid siege to the city many times, by land and sea. The Crusaders believed the people would greet them as liberators, come to install the rightful Basileus to his place on the throne: but instead they were seen as hated invaders. Even after the pretender was installed on the throne, he was overthrown by rebels a year later. Needless to say the crusaders never got their money, and they were still in debt. But there was still another way to obtain wealth from the city...
>>650339 The sack was horrifying. Like, so horrifying that the Pope is STILL apologizing for it EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS LATER. So bad that the Byzantines believed they'd be safer under Turkish rule than to suffer another "crusade". Roman and Byzantine icons were melted down and made into silver marks and gold pieces to pay the Venetians and stuff Crusaders' pockets. Nuns and laypeople were raped and slaughtered. Hundreds of thousands were made homeless in massive fires lit by the invaders. The Library of Constantinople, the final remaining library of ancient knowledge, was destroyed. The Fourth Crusade laid Constantinople low, and never again did it achieve greatness: the same can be said for the Byzantine Empire.
What that map in the OP is is what happened after this fuckstorm was over. The empire was carved up by the victors, and various successor states popped up, founded by Byzantines. Eventually the empire was reunited, but it was never truly restored. The Fourth Crusade was the straw that broke the camel's back for the Roman Empire.
Chioggia War (1378 I think) was fought with, on the Genoese side: >King Lajo I of Hungary, who was after Dalmatia >Francesco da Carrara (count of Carrara, segnor of Padua), who was after Venetian mainland (Treviso. Possibly Friuli) On Venice side: >King of Cyprus and Jerusalem (Venetian Puppet) >Duke of Milan (if I remember correctly he was uncle or father in law of the King of Cyprus). Of course Milan looked at expanding south to Genoa
But Venice hired a lot of mercenaries to guard the lidi (singular lido: it means sandy beach; one of them is the sandy island itself called "Lido" with capital L).
Many of them were Englishmen, who revolted over lack of pay but accepted promise of bigger rewards if they kept fighting.
When the siege was broken and Genoese defeated, one Englishman called William Gold was granted 500 ducats for his heroism.
>>650336 >The Eastern Roman Empire was a relic of a bygone age, a sprawling territory hinged around a single city that was ruled by a powerful emperor that had authority over nearly everything. This made it a horribly unstable and vulnerable target for enemies from both eastern and western fronts, and for upstart nobles from within If I may add: separation of powers gives stability to a country. Romans always had that, of course especially in the Republic.
Republics have a lot of infighting but tend to perform better at the foreign level because the infighting is just political. Instead, when there is only bloodline, to lobby you need to have the approval of the ruler. So all politics is about debasing or killing the other contenders. Problem is all contenders belong to the same family. If the family is strong, well. If the family is weak, then its state is reflected on the executive. In Republics, weak rulers are just superseded. In Monarchies it is harder to substitute an entire bloodline. It is almost a legal issue, in a sense, because sovereignty depends on the bloodline. These flaws weigh much more if the Empire is not on an expanding trend (unlike the Roman one).
If you look back at the best Roman emperors, they were mostly generals who rose to power. Maybe their sons. But that's it.
>>650336 >>650339 >>650343 This is what happens when you are a cunt to your allies and a debt defaulter. One would call it a cautionary tale, but we can well see that the greeks still haven't learned 800 years later.
>>650336 >Venice, the scheming island jews of Italy I see 4chan pol is strong with this one.
But as a charity to his lurker, let's maje clear the real Jews of Venice had little say in the politics of the town, especially after the closure of the great council (which blocked access to politics to new families and established true oligarchy). The Jews lived in the ghetto of Venice, which -- durinf 1200 and 1300 became a little enclave with doors locked at night and guards at its gates.
But I see why anon says Venetians = Jews. He is talking of the attitude. Being sly merchants and bankers and traders.
>>650423 Yeah, I didn't mean it literally, just meant they could be portrayed in the story of the 4th crusade as the stereotypical scheming merchants and bankers. Actual Jews were demonized back then, to a crazy level. People would compare their enemies to Jews to make them look bad. Though I guess history repeats itself in that regard.
>>650454 >Why don't you accept Venice played a part? Not him, but because people like you act like they played an "entirety", not a part. The truth is that the empire fucked up, multiple times, and put itself in a vulnerable and culpable position towards Venice, and they promoted their own interests by fucking them up. There's nothing inherently wrong with this (especially since NOT fucking them up would have been downright suicidal for Venice, for it would have crippled trade and advantaged its rivals), but byzaboos need a scapegoat for their empire turning to shit after 1000AD so they choose Venice.
>>650494 Okay so I just want to make it clear yesterday I studied Choggia wars and since someone asked today about Byzantine instability I told them the story of how John V got in debt many a time in the 1370s.
I never meant it to be an all-encompassing explanation with Venetian scapegoating (or glorification). I think Republics took vantage over an unstable kingdom. It is just I speak of what I know. I leave other areas to others.
In fact, I think the Venice episode is a symptom rather than a cause.
I am less knowledgeable about the sack of 1205. Others have written about it.
But in none of my posts on Venice I claimed they are the only ones to blame.
I hope now it is clearer. There is some anon who goes around saying otherwise. But I just made the green texts above.
>>650524 >But in none of my posts on Venice I claimed they are the only ones to blame. I don't know if >>650336 was you, but I was referring mostly to him. When you state things in such an obviously biased way, you shouldn't be surprised if those who read decide to argue the exact opposite argument.
>>649441 >so they took what they were owed in cash. they took a lot more than money: > Furthermore, in the subsequent partition of the Byzantine lands, Venice gained a great deal of territory in the Aegean Sea, amounting to three-eighths of the Byzantine Empire. This included the islands of Crete (Candia) and Euboea (Negroponte); the present core city of Chania on Crete is largely of Venetian construction, built atop the ruins of the ancient city of Cydonia. The Aegean islands came to form the Venetian Duchy of the Archipelago.
>>650454 >Byzantine Empire had no growth plan. Venice did. Christians had one too. Muslims had one too. Byzantines didn't The thing about Byzantine growth is that unlike the growth of a feudal state like the others, Byzantine expansion hurts the state more than it helps it. What made the ERE really advanced diplomatically and administratively is also what made expansionism incredibly dangerous, whereas the opposite dynamic sustained the less complicated kingdoms around them.
The same thing that always happens: Greeks failing to pay debnts.
The Byzantiboos on /his/ need to understand that it is literally impossible for a Greek state to succeed without constant bailouts, interventions, and extensive contributions of support from far-flung Western powers. This has been true for almost a millennium.
>>649221 How the Byzantine Empire declined: The short version: - Lost rich Egypt and Syria after Muhammed's successors conquests. - This triggered reforms in the eastern roman empire transforming it into a greek, very christian and heavily miliarized state. - This state managed to stay alive because it controlled trade routes and rich Anatolia. - The power of the Emperor was an unstable power that caused huge fraction within the leading aristocrazy of the Empire. - Eventually the Byzantine empire was unable to stop the Muslims from taking Anatolia. This happened 400 years after the original Muslim conquests are were done by the Turkish step hordes. - After the loss of Anatolia the Empire faces huge decline and splintering. - Western European kingdoms and states grew more powerful than the Byzantines. The crusaders were the final death blow to the Byzantine empire. The crusades were originally supposed to help the Empire, but ended by destroying it and replacing it by other "western" noblemen. - The Turks, controlling rich Anatolia, was able to invade and conquer the weak and fractioned Empire.
Thus it went to shit.
Thread replies: 87 Thread images: 6
Thread DB ID: 504816
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.