History

>>266523
shitty flag desu family

>>266523
My opinion is that it was good.

They led to the Great Schism

>>266523
Venetian merchants had a big part to play in the crusades, and the renaissance

Fuck Venice
Another mercantile state that couldnt into war.

Based Lagoon merchants.

>>266523

they kind of helped kill of christianity in anatolia because of a feud they had with the greek emperors.

typical capitalists, prioritizing short term gain at the expense of long term prosperity.

>>266523

They're a good example of how the the rising Medieval merchant class was worse than Feudal aristocrats and kings.

>>267471
>Couldn't into war
They were powerful, no?

>>266523
literally jew: the state

Sounds like this thread drank the 4th Crusade coolaid.

>>267671
>state literally based on guilds and monopolies
>capitalist

byzaboos in full on damage control itt lmfao

>>267301
>implying that a flag made out of bookmarks isn't the apex of proud nationalism in art

pls out

>>266523
The Venetians are really cool to be honest, but they were also absolute backstabbing kikes.

>>266523
between them and the Genoese, eastern Christianity and the Roman Empire got fucked hard.

lot of respect for the sheer organisational skills they exercised in their state capitalism ventures though

>>266523
>>267471
Jewnice more like

File: 1447361651214.png (118KB, 1000x635px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1000x635px

>>266523
They were pretty interesting as a power. Absolute backstabbing shitbags a lot of the time but interesting nonetheless

>>267471
>Profitable, long-running overseas empire
>Large mainland possessions
They couldn't into war in the standard way, it was middle ages Italy none of them could, but they really didn't need to. A military adventure to acquire some land followed by good business and shrewd diplomacy was more than enough.

>>267671
>Venice
>not long term prosperity

Tfw u realize the republic of Venice lasted longer than the roman empire

Gimme some Venice books. I've already got Norwich's and Crowley's which are pretty good companion books (one focused on Venice proper, one on the Stato da Mar). The only other big Venice history I can think of is Madden's book and like fuck if I'm picking up anything from him.

>>268830
700bc-1500ad

????

File: file_espansione_di_genova1.png (180KB, 1500x916px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1500x916px

>>266523
>>268820

Genoa >>> Venice

Is tere a meaning to the number of tassels and orbs?

File: 1413844004287.jpg (46KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 400x400px

>>267671
They screwed them but ultimately I think that the Byzantines were screwed considering that the entire Balkans didn't trust them, Catholics didn't trust them and they were right on the doorstep of Islam.

Island Jews

Their contribution to the concept of capitalism and existence as city states instead of feudal society within Europe at the time was a remarkable thing.

>>268869
Empire not republic famm

44bc-473 ad

>>268882
Go to bed, Doria.

>>267935
Yeah, fairly. At least at sea, held their own against the Ottomans for a good bit, then Austria stepped in and saved them.
>>268882
This

File: colombo_big.jpg (119KB, 450x577px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 450x577px

>>268980
Friendly reminder that the Genoese created the New World

>>268847
this thread
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S6933866#p6934921

>>268847
Thomas F. Madden, Venice A New History.
He's a better storyteller than historian I think, but enjoyable nonetheless.

File: The Venetian Empire 1200-1670-28.jpg (355KB, 1200x1557px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1200x1557px

>>267471
>Another mercantile state that couldnt into war.
>Venice
Venice can so into war. You don't want to mess with its navy and it was one of the few Italian City States that rarely bothered with mercenaries: opting to rely on its Civic Militia instead.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato_da_M%C3%A0r
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cambrai

>>271694
>one of the few Italian City States that rarely bothered with mercenaries
just wrong

one of the most prolific users of mercenaries in the whole of italy

>>271722
What I meant by that tis those cunts didn't rely on Mercs as the core of their armies.

The Citta Militia was the meat of the Venetian army. Nicolo Machiavelli even praises Venice for this fact.

If anyone relied on Mercs way too much that would be Genoa & Milan.

>>268918
muh semantics

>>271752
im not sure whether youre trolling me or not

because every point you put is literally the exact the opposite of the truth

>>271791
>CHAPTER XII — HOW MANY KINDS OF SOLDIERY THERE ARE, AND CONCERNING MERCENARIES
"The Venetians, if their achievements are considered, will be seen to have acted safely and gloriously so long as they sent to war their own men, when with armed gentlemen and plebians they did valiantly."

Niccolo Machiavelli pretty much praises Florence and Venice for relying on their own citizens and warns of Mercenaries in this chapter.

>>271838
nearly everything he writes on mercenaries and venices use of them is disparaging, and taking an sentence out of context doesn't prove otherwise

File: enrico-dandolo-peinture.jpg (37KB, 741x981px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 741x981px

Oy vey first Zadar, then Constantinople my dear latin brother

>>266523
The history of the Republic is absolutly fascinating. It clearly was one of the most successful european state and truly developed a medieval renaissance.

Byzantineboo like to complain about the 4th crusade, but if their succession line weren't so fucked up, none of this would have happened.

>>271922
can you tldr on the 4th crusade?

i know they attacked Constantinople, but what did venice have to do with it

>>269039
Milanese puppet state m80.

>>271994
not him but

>French crusade planned to take Egypt and Palestine
>venetians would transport the army by fleet
>venice built the fleet
>however, not as many franks turned up as expected, couldn't pay for it
>venice still offered transport if crusaders agreed to take zara
>they do that, but causes more desertions, cant fund crusade
>agree to go to Constantinople, install young heir alexios on throne, who would pay for crudsade in return
>they do that
>however byzantines revolt
>crusaders+venetians take Constantinople
>establish latin empire

File: 150X75CM-Venice-flag-600x315[3].jpg (102KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x315px

>>266523
>What a fucking awesome flag btw
>he posts the shit version
Superior flag coming thru

>>272085
so basically just a political clusterfuck?

it wasnt a concentrated premeditated attack on the byzantine empire?

>>271994
The Venetian's took debt collecting seriously.
The feudal crusaders took oaths seriously.
There was a miscommunication between the leaders of each camp, and a third, pro-papacy group as to what was most important.
Zara was a misguided attempt to balance the scales of debt between the two main camps.
When the Byzantine prince shows up, he already had a promise of aid from some of the french crusader leaders. Enrico and the Venetians attempted, in a REALLY half ass manner, to try and salvage what was left of a doomed crusade. Constantinople goes down.
As a fan of Venetian history, I've got to admit it is one of Venice's bigger failures, but not as great as some of its critics like to make out.
The Venetians and their government were always very good at doing what was best for them first, and others second. Pretty standard for a bunch of merchants who run a small, progressive republic on a glorified sandbar.

>>267671
The byzs were attacked because they kept genociding latins in the ERE to avoid paying their fucking debts. Not to mention that the emperor was actually trying to have Venice attacked by Genoa and Pisa. So it was kill or be killed. The ERE deserved all it got.

>>272100
basically

however no ones fully decided

it was certainly opportunistic

but some argue that seeing as enrico dandolo had spent many years as a venetian official in the empire, he probably would have known that alexios would never have been successful, and that he could ever pay for the crusade

but then at the same time, if they always intended to conquer Constantinople, theres absolutely no reason why they bothered and risked installing him as emperor in the first place

>>268887
Yes, one for each sestiere (roughly neighbourhood) of the city proper.

>>272100
The attack was premeditated, in that the political instability and continuous pogroms on the latin population of the ERE were considered a big threat to Venice, but the franks sacking the city was not premeditated. In fact, Dandolo is always praised in byzantine histories for being the only man trying to defend the city from the sack and keeping his men in check while the crusaders just rampaged like huns.

>>271694
What? No they used a bunch of them. Carmagnola, Taddeo d'Este, Niccolo di Pitigliano, Bartolomeo d'Alviano and Bartolomeo Colleoni are probably the most notable ones Venice employed.

>>272114
>The Venetian's took debt collecting seriously.
Surprise surprise, Greeks could never into paying denbts.

>>272165
you cant say with certainty it was premeditated though

its likely it was, but theres enough to argue it wasn't tbf

I mean simply the fleet itself; building that took huge expenditure and resources which the venetians committed long before Constantinople was even being mentioned

>Venice
>Sided with the Turks pretty consistently
'nough said.

>>272269
simply wrong

you may aswell have said the sky isn't blue

so much complete lack of knowledge on the board

>>272218
Oh wait, I meant an act of aggression was intended, not the specific event. That was just opportunism.
I don't think you can argue against the act of aggression tho, venetian meddling in ERE politics had already been a thing for a good century and the latest emperors were threatening to switch allegiances to Genoa and Pisa to do away with the venetian stranglehold on the aegean economy, so even if the senate tried not to take umbrage to the pogroms (fat chance once Dandolo who lost family to those got elected), they sure as shit would not allow the ERE to threaten their trade.

Also top kek at the fags who say the 4th crusade started the ERE's downfall. They were already in an extremely deep crisis, and the fact that they had to juggle with mere city states to deal with their economy and military should be proof enough.

>>272269
>Sided with the Turks pretty consistently
Against who? Literally fucking when. Are you one of those mad poles that still believe the soviet propaganda about Venice and the Papal States (aka west and christianity) betraying them in I don't remember what battle?

>>272269
They had wars with the turks off and on for like two centuries, what are you talking about? Pretty much once they lost Corone, Modone and their other Aegean possessions it's like two centuries of the Turks just fucking their shit up.

>>272287
For the entirety of the siege of Malta and most of the 1500s. They held festivals at the fall of St. Elmo, and only decided to do something about the TUrk when they were directly invaded. All other times they were content to hang out with their thumbs up their asses.

>>272286
agree basically; I think as the crusade progressed they began to consider the possibility of taking Constantinople more and more seriously

however, I don't buy the idea that it was the determined intent from the beginning; not enough evidence to support that imo

>>272307
>I don't buy the idea that it was the determined intent from the beginning
>taking Constantinople
No no no you don't get what I'm saying. The predetermined part was a military attack on the empire. The actual conquest of it was something the venetians didn't actually want at all. Heck Dandolo was offered to become emperor but he refused and only picked some strategic holdings instead.

>>272305
You're are saying the exact same thing as the European monarchies who didn't lift a finger to help the Maltese. Or the deathblow against Constantinople. Or the Balkans. Or Hungary.
Venice resisted the Turks for centuries without aid, until they had nothing left to fight back with other than parts of Crete.

>>272305
They had three fucking wars with the turks in the 16th century, what the fuck are you talking about? It was pretty much a state of perennial alert and constant two sided raiding.
Venice already had a hard enough time defending its own islands, how the fuck could you expect them to also defend foreign land? Did you take them for the defenders of the faith?

>>272095

Love Venice, but it's flag is shit tier bruh. WAY too complex.

>>272349
>Defenders of the faith
They might as well have been. Pretty sure no one jumped to the Pope's call more than the Venetians. Certainly supplied more ships.

>>272332
Phillip the second was guilty of the same thing. That doesn't make it any better.
Yet the Venetians were even worse. They were backstabbers and worked both sides throughout the entirety of the affair, negotiating with the Christians and the Muslims. They should have picked a side and stuck with it, be it Turk or Christian.

>>272363
>WAY too complex.
Ah m8, only compared to modern ones. Is it really complex compared France's or Naples's? Remember that it's as old as the oriflamme.

>>272365
>They might as well have been.
But they weren't. Spain had the (dubious) honour.
So stop accusing Venice of not doing things they were not supposed to do anyway.
>Pretty sure no one jumped to the Pope's call more than the Venetians.
They didn't do it out of religious spirit tho, they did it because it was in their interest to do their utmost to curb the power of their arch-enemy.

>>272382
>They were backstabbers
Name one instance of betrayal. One.

>>272394

Just because it wasn't more complex than it's contemporaries doesn't make it less ridiculous.

These motherfuckers need vexillology.

>>272411
I'm not arguing that they should have done more anon. I think they did a hell of a lot more than they should have honestly. My only disagreement with you is that I think you're underestimating their religious spirit.
I think they just had a more modern view towards religion. You can be pragmatic and pious at the same time. Better that than being bullheaded like the franks.

>>272413
Ridiculous to you maybe. The entirety of Europe that had similarly complex heraldry back in the day would disagree with you tho.

>>272432
>My only disagreement with you is that I think you're underestimating their religious spirit.
"Venetian first, catholic second" m8.
>You can be pragmatic and pious at the same time.
Of course. But they only were pious when it didn't ruin business. Look at the crusades: they only bothered to partecipate when rulers desired to hire their naval force, or when they promised trade advantages and colonies in the Levant.

>>271694
there's a whole book dedicated to how venetians used mercenaries to conquer their portion of mainland italy lel

Mallett, Michael Edward, and J. R. Hale. The Military Organization of a Renaissance State: Venice, c. 1400 to 1617. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
>The challenge of mainland expansion required Venice to develop what it had never had before: an army, necessarily a mercenary one, though under the supervision of patrician legates. It innovated effectively, controlling its hired captains, managing new technologies, and handling the problems of recruitment and pay.

>>272451
I get what you're saying, but considering they were a naval, maritime empire, it makes sense that they would want a clear agreement on them getting trade benefits rather than land like the other powers.
Besides, they were significantly smaller than the other powers, even though they were decentralized at the time. As well as being closer to the threat. Is it really so bad of them to want clear evidence that they would have support in the event that plans backfired....like they often did? I mean, look at Pope Pious II. Calls for a crusade which all of Europe agrees to. And sure enough, only the Venetians show up.

>>271922
venice was byzantine spawn anyway. the latter heavily influenced its art and architecture

>>272305
Most of the time they were the ONLY state actually fighting the Turks while the other states fucked around. Cyprus was probably lost regardless but it at least would have had a fighting chance if Gianandrea Doria hadn't purposely been slow to meet up with the rest of the Holy League in Sicily (under express orders from Phillip to basically do nothing) for example which meant they were too late in the season to actually set out for Cyprus.

>>272525
Architecture yes, art not really, venetian art, pictorial, literary and musical is pretty much 100% western.

>>272544
not him but depends what period youre looking at

ask someone living in a venetian fortress anything

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmanova

>>273228
I literally live in venice lol

>>273232
>lol

>>>/reddit/
>>>/terronia/

>>272451
>"Venetian first, catholic second" m8.

You mean like every single other European power when it came to foreign policy? The difference is that when Venice said they were going to do it, they actually tried to do it. Compare that to the king of Hungary during the 4th crusade who used the Cross as an aegis against other Christians.
The Venetian citizenry was well known for being pretty fucking pious. This is attested by the sheer number of (expensive) churches and scuoles that were in Venice.

>>273252
>The Venetian citizenry was well known for being pretty fucking pious
hahaaahahahahahahahha

>This is attested by the sheer number of (expensive) churches and scuoles that were in Venice.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAH

Venice was the most progressive and degenerate place of its times

>>273271
nice argument.
Venice had a ridiculous number of churches per capita, around which neighborhood communities almost completely revolved, excepting most of Canaletto (since they had the Aresnale). Most primary evidence suggests that ordinary Venetian people were highly pious. Don't forget that the merchant patriciate was only like 1% of Venice's population.

>>266523
the fourth crusade alone makes their influence entirely negative. the sacking of Constantinople set Europe back hundreds of years and outweighs any good deeds they did over the years. further their dealings with the Ottoman's weakened and divided Europe for years, although the French and British also contributed to this instability... thank christ for Eugene of Savoy

>>268903
the Byzantines were ripped apart by dynastic disputes and an inability to rally support to defend their territory from Muslim aggression but Venice definitely didn't help and have some culpability in their demise as a power

>>273548
>the sacking of Constantinople set Europe back hundreds of years
How.
>their dealings with the Ottoman's weakened and divided Europe for years
What fucking deals? I always hear this bullshit and never a man pointing me to anything. The seajews traded with the turks alright, but so did everyone else. What other kind of dealings had they? Fucking seriously. The Ottoman Empire was the literal arch-enemy of Venice from the fall of Milan onward.

>>273548
>further their dealings with the Ottoman's weakened and divided Europe for years

Venice directly fought the Ottomans probably more than any other unconquered European power. Meanwhile, the Genoese literally ferried the Ottomans across the Bosphorus

>>273571
>Venice definitely didn't help
Yes, well, aside from being pretty much their fleet for 500 years, loaning shitloads of gold to them (which they always refused to repay until they got crusaded), helping them every time the turks attacked them, etc. But sure that one sack of an already weak and unstable Constantinople balances all the help they gave and even puts them in the wrong. Sure buddy.