Were the Crusades beneficial to Byzantium?

The question is: Did the crusades prolong the existence of the Byzantine Empire? If yes, then how and by how much time.
What about the infamous fourth crusade? Were the Venetians solely responsible for the sacking of Constantinople by the crusaders?

The first one probably helped. The fourth one, not so much.

if i remember correctly, they were *supposed* to help byzantium and i think the first one did, at least until the fourth one.
and no, the venetians weren't the only ones to blame. they weren't even leading the crusade. of course, it would come back a little more than half a century later and last awhile...to be conquered again.

It was in no small part due to Alexios IV Angelos.

The Venetians had gambled their economy on the success of the Fourth Crusade; for a year, they had built no new ships but those meant for the Crusade, they had provided a lot of the supplies, and they had expected to be paid for each crusader who arrived. They'd expected tens of thousands to show up, but after months of waiting, not nearly enough had arrived. The crusaders had had to wait for months in a dirty camp on a glorified sandbar and itching to go, while the Venetians' bet was going poorly and their wealth was at stake. Dandolo had managed to get the Crusade to sack Venice's rebellious vassal and rival Zara to help pay off their debt to Venice. This got the Crusaders excommunicated, but IIRC, they didn't hear of that until much later. The Crusade might have fallen apart then and there if they had.

Alexios Angelos promised that he'd supply the Crusaders with all the ships they needed and ten thousand soldiers, as well as pay off the debt and give a huge amount of money to the Crusaders themselves if only they'd detour and install him as Emperor, the Crusaders and Dandolo agreed. Angelos had even promised to end the Great Schism and lead the Empire to the Holy See. Obviously, he'd promised them the bloody Moon and had no way of even coming close to fulfilling his promises. So, after he got installed as Emperor, it became clear to everyone that this was the case, and things got... heated.

That the Fourth Crusade was a series of atrocities perpetrated is beyond question. However, it's also clear that a power-hungry Roman idiot made promises that were impossible to fulfill, and in the process, turned the wrath of the Crusade towards Constantinople.

Phrossack said:

That the Fourth Crusade was a series of atrocities perpetrated is beyond question.

Click to expand...

The same can be said of the First. It's not like this crusading business attracted the fine fleur of Europe. People were out for loot, pillaging and some Jew killing on the side if possible. All under the banner of the True Cross.

Blaming the outcome of the 4th crusade on Alexios is naive, to say the least. As you mention yourself, he'd promise the moon if that got him the help he wanted - and he didn't stop far short of that in the event. Already with the 'help' of the 1st Crusade Byzantium was anxious to get this rabble as fast as possible through its territory and keep it outside of its cities. Alexios led them right into the biggest city they could find - with the result already expected since the 1st Crusade.

Did the Crusades prolong Eastern Rome's existence? Possibly. But they also ended it effectively.

JEELEN said:

The same can be said of the First. It's not like this crusading business attracted the fine fleur of Europe. People were out for loot, pillaging and some Jew killing on the side if possible. All under the banner of the True Cross.

Blaming the outcome of the 4th crusade on Alexios is naive, to say the least. As you mention yourself, he'd promise the moon if that got him the help he wanted - and he didn't stop far short of that in the event. Already with the 'help' of the 1st Crusade Byzantium was anxious to get this rabble as fast as possible through its territory and keep it outside of its cities. Alexios led them right into the biggest city they could find - with the result already expected since the 1st Crusade.

Did the Crusades prolong Eastern Rome's existence? Possibly. But they also ended it effectively.

Click to expand...

There's nothing naive about suggesting that Alexios lured a bunch of desperate, greedy, violent and heavily armed warriors to the city with promises he could not possibly keep, then provoked said desperate crowd of warriors into extracting what had been promised, all in the name of personal ambition and greed. Because that's exactly what he did. So stop treating me like I'm an idiot.

If he hadn't done that, it's a lot less likely that Constantinople would have been sacked. The Crusade had not set out for Constantinople, after all. Even Dandolo hadn't planned it in the beginning. Alexios led them on a diversion, kept them there with promises, and enraged them by not fulfilling those promises. The Crusaders had never planned on camping out in Constantinople for ten months, but he changed that.

Eh, don't blame Alexios. He wasn't aware the coffers had been squander to emptiness (happens a lot in the region). And the crusaders weren't technically greedy or violent, they were just desperate and, a point people ignore, suffering some fairly uncool prejudice by Greek speakers. Moral of the story, the Greeks got what they deserved for being liars with no money.