We all know that Henricus Dandalo managed to bribe the soldiers of the 4th Crusade to attack Constantinople, and then brought much of the booty back to Venice. But were the Venetians really to blame for it?

I'm a bit worried that this thread might be a bit too specific to get a good response, but I'm sure everyone will prove me wrong.

Yes I think. The Byzantines had been slowly recovering fr the Arab onslaught in earlier centuries and had even pushed them back out of parts of Anatolia. And then, one hit at the Byzantine power center and it all collapsed. They never recovered fr that setback....

That period of Latin occupation so weakened the Byzantines that they were effectively goners, despite hanging on for another two centuries after that. :(

Defently, the Byzantines were Venetia´s biggest competitor in trade. And though the empire recoverd it were never able to get its power back. If the Byzantines had won they might had be able to resist the Ottomans later. I do not believe that the same renaicance had come, as Byzantine immigrants were the inspiration for the Italians. I also believe that in the modern picture we would not have Turkey but a bigger Greece(Byzantium) and another country in eastern Turkey(Kurdistan?).

No.

You have to bear in mind the fact that the Crusaders were out for glory/booty as much as the were seeking to serve God in any way. Add in as well their lingering suspicion that the Greek Church was somehow heretical in it's beliefs and was doing very little to aid Christianity's retention of the Holy Land and there are plenty of reasons already for a diversion to Constantinople. I doubt they needed much persuasion at all from the Venetians.

I feel your wrong on this one Rodgers. The Venetians were defently to blame.

The Venetians wanted to put a rival contender on the Byzantine throne. However, it got out of hand and the Crusanders went on the war path. The Byzantine Empire was essentially broke at that time, so every theme and group of guards refused to fight until they were paid. Only the Varang Guards (infamous to the personal loyalty to the emperor alone) fought back. Eventually the Varangians got the situation under control, but it was too late. Constantinople was completely ravaged by the Crusaders.

So IMHO, by looking at it on the whole, had the Venetians not gone to Constantinople, it never would have happened so they are to blame. Had the Crusaders had some sort of self-control (this is the middle ages and they were from western europe, they were'nt by any means peaceful or over-religious) it never would have happened so they are also to blame. Had the Byzantine armies fought, it wouldn't have got that bad so they are also to blame. Andlast but not least, had the emperor paid the armies, they would have fought so he was also to blame.

no doubt the Venetians. They were nearly as greedy as we Dutch are. The crusade would've gon straight to the holy lands, but because of the greed of Venice they had to take Constantinopel first, leaving a very weak army that could not do anything for Jeruzalem.

Speaking as a Byzantine historian, it's difficult to say if Dandolo and Venice deserve the entire blame. Certaintly, Venice had been seeking extensive trading privileges in the Empire and took advantage of the power struggle in Constantinople. At the same time, one cannot blame Latin Christendom or the Papacy, which is ironic since in the 20th century the Pope apologized to the Patriarch in Constantinople (Istanbul) for it. Really, it isn't the Pope's fault, maybe Urban's initial fault for the very idea of Crusading, which was alien to Byzantium. Constantinople had no concept of holy war, as the regulation of war and military affairs was something the Emperor and his generals were in charge of. Priests and bishops advocating it and indeed blessing it were outrageous and strange. Anyways, it isn't the Pope's fault for 1204, he most certainly disapproved and proved it through excommunicating the entire crusading army.

However, one has to examine Byzantium as well. The Byzantines and their squabbling, following not just the decline that began "the day after Basil II died," but also the subsequent corruption of the Angeli and even the brutality of Andronicus the Terrible played a part in setting the stage. It appears even Constantinople's short term thinking and inability to effectively understand the geopolitical landscape between them and Venice was also a contributing factor.

In fact, the very idea of sacking Constantinople was presented by a Byzantine heir, Alexius, son of Isaac who begged the Crusaders (when he was found living in Hungary) to help him regain the throne for his family and remove the usurper. He promised them more than he could obviously deliver and the blind Doge certainly was aware of that. So is it possible that Venice is to blame? Not entirely, it appears it's the largest mistake in history.

That's an extremely short version, since I'm at work. Hope that helps.

sorry for posting on an old forum by the way, but randomly stumbled across this question and couldn't help clear the air some.

10-year thread revival, I was pretty sure it was going to be some nationalist drivel. Turns out you made a fairly accurate post. Props to you.

Hah, indeed. A refreshing change from some of the awful necros around here lately.

I third that sentiment. A pleasant surprise to see a necro that wasn't absolute drivel. It was a pretty good post.

sorry for posting on an old forum by the way, but randomly stumbled across this question and couldn't help clear the air some.
actually it was a very good post.

I have a question for you: do you think it would have made any difference, for the long term survival of the Byzantine empire, if the 4th crusade went to holy land instead?
I have the impression that the empire was too deep in sh... decadence to recover.

actually it was a very good post.

I have a question for you: do you think it would have made any difference, for the long term survival of the Byzantine empire, if the 4th crusade went to holy land instead?
I have the impression that the empire was too deep in sh... decadence to recover.

I wanted to ask the same thing. In other words, was the empire beyond saving by the time Constantinople was sacked, or could it have possibly survived into the modern era?

To expand the question slightly, don't just consider the fact that the Crusaders would not have attacked Constantinople, but consider that they would have attacked essentially the enemies of Byzantium (that being said, I think that would just pave the way for the Ottomans to take over, perhaps even quicker).

I wanted to ask the same thing. In other words, was the empire beyond saving by the time Constantinople was sacked, or could it have possibly survived into the modern era?
In before someone mentions 1350's and the Kantakouzenoi-Palaiologoi civil war.

In before someone mentions 1350's and the Kantakouzenoi-Palaiologoi civil war.
I'm not the best at late Byzantine history, but didn't civil war emerge over conflicts between the Empire of Byzantium/Nicaea and the Despoteate of Epirus, which emerged after Constantinople was sacked?

but didn't civil war emerge over conflicts between the Empire of Byzantium/Nicaea and the Despoteate of Epirus, which emerged after Constantinople was sacked?
Nope; Epirus was annexed by Byzantium shortly before, but the war emerged over (sorta) dynastic issues complicated by anti-landholder feelings of tradesmen.

The Venetians weren't really to blame. A few decades before the sack, the Italian residents of Konstantinoupolis were massacred by rioters, possibly with tacit imperial approval. This rather hurt the image of the Empire in the West.

More importantly, Alexios Angelos made ludicrous promises to the Crusaders in return for gaining him the throne, and when he predictably reneged, the Crusaders attacked. Of course, what with the sack of Zara, they made it clear that they considered other Christians acceptable targets. Just my two uninformed cents.

I wanted to ask the same thing. In other words, was the empire beyond saving by the time Constantinople was sacked, or could it have possibly survived into the modern era?
The Fourth Crusade had absolutely nothing to do with the eventual collapse of Byzantium. If anything, opening up the succession to the Palaeogoi may have helped the Empire, as they were somewhat more competent, on average, than most dynasties. By the time of the eventual fall of Constantinople to the Turks, the Empire had completely recovered its former greatness, driven out the Latins, and actually grown stronger than it had been in 1204. Then, as was the case with Byzantium, contingent events - a few bad rulers, a civil war, astonishing Turkish successes nearby - combined to bring about a drastic weakening of their state. But they weren't defeated until the Turks beseiged Constantinople, and I've made the argument before that they didn't necessarily have to lose that war, either.

I don't know about the modern era, but Byzantium could certainly have survived longer than it did. After all, 500+ years is a bit too much for a decent counter-factual. But assuming they'd beaten back the Turks, which would likely have led to a civil war amongst the Ottomans, they'd have gained themselves some breathing room. What they do with that breathing room is unknowable, though.

Myriocephalon, or rather, Manuel's reaction to that battle, did quite a bit of damage as well.

In before someone mentions 1350's and the Kantakouzenoi-Palaiologoi civil war.

Even that didn't manage to kill the Empire off. John VI Cantacuzenus was a solid emperor and managed to keep things going: Dushan couldn't land the killing blow, Orhan's Turks got kicked out of Thrace and he managed to finally defeat the Zealots in Thessaloniki. Granted, the Empire of John VI was weaker than it had been for any time since the restoration in 1261 under Michael VIII. But it was still capable of holding its own against its neighbours.

On that note, the Empire of 1261 under Michael VIII was anything but a rump including as it did the old core of the Empire: western Anatolia, Thrace and northern Greece. In terms of foes, the principal Latin Lords of Greece were in his hands, the Seljuk Sultan had fled to his court, Michael II Ducas Despot of Epirus and Thessaly was on the ropes and Trebizond and the Seljuks were under the Tartar's yoke.

Hell in 1262, Michael's armies were fighting on three fronts: in Achaea, the Aegean, in Epirus and still managed to deal Constantine Tich of Bulgaria a stinging blow when he invaded. Even then, the Emperor expanded his holdings: grabbing Achaea, some of the islands in the Aegean and managed to turn Michael II into an Imperial vassal. He left behind a strong army and a growing treasury. Things weren't so rosy under Andronicus II but Andronicus III was a good ruler and made still more ground.

Andronicus III's death in 1341 bought about the aforementioned Kantakouzenoi-Palaiologoi civil war, which lasted six years and the reign of John VI. What ultimately bought about the end was the plague, which crippled the Empire's armies and tax revenues, the ad-hoc power sharing arrangement between John VI and John V and the fall of Callipolis to John VI's own Turkish troops. Those events made it impossible for John VI an otherwise good ruler to right the ship of state. Had the plague not happened it's possible John VI would have made good on his military skills and stabilised the situation.

The thing only became hopeless (not impossible mind) when John V took over full control of the Empire at age 23 in 1354 and that was because the Empire had lost a good general in John VI and had little to nothing left to fight with. Annoyingly it still survived for two generations more.