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.