Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: Byzantium.jpg (184KB, 1023x593px) Image search:
[Google]
184KB, 1023x593px
>"The Sack of Constantinople was justified by the Massacre of the Latins!"
I think the above statement is wrong. Let us review how first how so many Latins (Westerners) happened to settle in Constantinople in the first place.
Following the First Crusade, the Venetians responded to the calls for aid from the Kingdom of Jerusalem against several Muslim lords in the area (particularly Tyre). On the way to the Levant, the Venetians besieged the Byzantine port of Corfu, and proceeded to destroy Byzantine trade outposts and the merchant fleet in the Aegean, which was a serious blow to the Byzantine navy and economy. The Venetians did this in order to force the Empire to grant them concessions, which the Emperor was forced to do.
Following the granting of trading privileges and concessions to the Venetians, the Pisans and Genoese followed suit after making similar threats. So let it be known: the Latins were only on Constantinople due to their explicit war-like actions against the Empire! Having attacked and destroyed the lifeblood of the trade-oriented Empire, why should they have been tolerated to begin with? It was never possible: not the way the Latins made their way into Byzantine society.
Not to mention that the Latins of Constantinople often rioted violently, or that the Latins crushed native Byzantine merchants and trade.
Besides, if you happen to be so stupid as to ignore all of what I said, the Franks besieged and sacked Thessalonica in 1185 in direct retaliation - the second most important city of the Empire, so the two events (the Massacre of the Latins, and the Sack of Thessalonica) cancel out, making the Sack of 1204 completely unjustified.
>>
>>2061041
Why are there no hippos in hippodrome
>>
>>2061056
They decided your mom was a better representative of a big fat waterdwelling animal instead.
>>
File: 1444964010410.jpg (175KB, 960x960px) Image search:
[Google]
175KB, 960x960px
>>2061056
>>
You forget the numerous times that Byzantine emperors expelled and/ or hunted down Latin merchants, not to mention the invasion of Guiscard and his son, the First Crusade, etc etc.
The sack of the city doesnt have one side to be blamed. Both the Latins and the Byzantines committed undeniably horrible (and frankly stupid) acts against each other which built long lasting resentment and eventually culminated in the sack of Constantinople.
>>
File: kemohomo-wrathful-deity-dharmapala.jpg (232KB, 1312x2048px) Image search:
[Google]
232KB, 1312x2048px
>>2061082
>Both the Latins and the Byzantines committed undeniably horrible (and frankly stupid) acts against each other which built long lasting resentment and eventually culminated in the sack of Constantinople.
Most of the times, when reading, it is always the Byzantines who appear most reasonable and sensible, and the Latins who always commit idiocies.
>>
>>2061111
If we're talking only about the Venetians, we have both John II and Manuel I who break ties with the Venetians and/ or expel and seize merchants/ goods, and of course we have the massacre of the Latins.
If we're talking about the Latins as a whole, we have conflict dating back to the formation of the Eastern empire, not to mention issues with Catholicism.
There is plenty that the Byzantines did wrongly (and stupidly, considering they lost most every war with the Venetians and alienated their ally).
This in no way of course validates the actions of the West (or "Latins") but it certainly wasnt an issue of blame. Its about long term animosity that had been brewing since the beginning.
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3