Why the Fourth Crusade Attacked Constantinople 

Pope Innocent III: Go! Take Jerusalem! Reclaim God's people! Crusaders: Destroy Constantinople. Got it. Pope: ???

As a Greek I have rarely heard claims that the crusade was aimed at the City from the start. The story we learn at school in Greece is very similar, except we place a lot of emphasis on what the crusaders did IN Constantinople. Wikipedia:"The crusaders inflicted a savage sacking on Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient Greco-Roman and medieval Byzantine works of art were either stolen or destroyed. The magnificent Library of Constantinople was destroyed. Many of the civilians of the city were slaughtered, raped and looted. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's churches and monasteries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared.[49][50] " On the other hand, there had also been a massacre of Latins in Constantinople around 1185. We don't learn a lot about that. But don't think people seriously support the crusade was aimed at Constantinople!

during the greek revolution a venetian volunteer blew up the parthenon by "accident" i am really concerned about the venetians

@rahotep101 You seem to be unclear on the political realities of the West and East. In the West succession went smoothly and palace coups were almost unheard of. The rights of heirs were almost never questioned. You can't compare minor quibbles between Western nobles to the absolute political decay that plagued the court at Constantinople.

@rahotep101 It's unfortunate that a Western style government couldn't have been established in Constantinople, since the political institutions of the West were far more stable than those in the East. If Byzantine politics had been secure in the first place, the Byzantines could've used the Crusades to their advantage; the First Crusade was ready to submit to Alexios' generalship. But he wouldn't go because, as his daughter Anna tells us, he was worried about uprisings in his capital city!

After taking Constantinople the crusaders proclaimed a Latin empire and crowned their own emperor. They engaged in military campaigns claiming lands from their neighbours. How does it fit with this theory?

I am not trying to justify nor excuse anyone involved in this. Whether or not a moral crime took place depends on one's idea of morality. History is about breaking down events and understanding them, not passing sweeping generalized judgments. Conflict among the Byzantines had as much to do with the result as anything the Latins did. If you're going to blame the Latins, you can blame the Byzantines as well, but blame in general won't help you understand the event.

I'm enjoying watching all your videos. When I was in college I had a class in Medieval history and it consisted solely of this episode, the narrative being how oafish, misguided and avarice riddled the Western Crusaders were to undertake the siege of a foreign Christian bastion citadel. Second text was "the Crusades Through Arab Eyes".

***** No. He offered to pay them. He came to them asking for their help and offering them a deal. They accepted. They put him on the throne and did not try to interfere with his reign. They even waited patiently while he gathered the payment he'd promised. He visited with them regularly. They had a good relationship. The problem arose when Alexios was murdered by other Byzantines who seized the government and turned hostile toward the Crusaders. At that point the Crusaders felt that they were justified in avenging their murdered friend as much as anything. Latin culture held that murdering a legitimate ruler was among the most unforgivable of offenses.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING IT PLAIN TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO BYZANTIUM Sad but well said, you laid the vicious misinformation to rest, throwing a great amount of light over untruths . I am sure this piece of the pulse in Byzantine history will be able to enlighten many to learn from the mistakes of the past. But then again one must be willing to accept it

And they turned Hagia Sophia into stables.....western animals

@Bokababe The Crusaders never intended to take Constantinople in the first place. They were drawn into the political turmoil within the city. Also, Alexios Angelos was not a rejected ruler, he had been deposed by a palace coup instigated by a small faction within the larger political environment of Constantinople. Your explanation is ahistorical nonsense.

@eraser695 Thanks so much for the request my brother! I hope you find this video to your liking! It would never have been made had you not suggested it.

Although they were lured to the idea of going to Constantinople by a Byzantine claimant to the throne, I don't think the crusaders were innocent in their own undertaking. yes they wanted to help a "friend to their nobility" but there must be a more firm issue that should have attracted them to the city. I mean the crusaders were not that naive to divert their expedition in order just to help a claimant accomplish his political agenda.

@Pavlos952 Thomas Madden and Jonathan Riley-Smith, two of the most important Crusades historians today, both agree that Runciman's work is "not history". His books are all right for chronological information, but they're absolutely full of subjective judgments that are based on nothing more than his own prejudices. Much of what he writes should be disregarded, especially the absurd notion that the Fourth Crusade is the worst thing that happened in history.

@Achilles1389 Honestly we can't be entirely sure how accurate the descriptions of "orgies" and "sacrilege" really are because they were only documented by Greek sources. It is likely that some desecration and other horrible things went on, we just don't know to what extent. I did mention in the video that many horrible acts took place that were truly tragic and wrong, which the leaders could not prevent. The Fourth Crusade was a terrible tragedy, the point is it wasn't just the West at fault.

And the actions of the Byzantine nobility, in neglecting the security of the empire and instead focusing on petty internal squabbling, to the point of plotting against one another and assassinating each other, are also inexcusable. There's plenty of blame to go around to all parties involved.

@NovaGub Good comments NovaGub! I thought of all that stuff, including the massacre of the Latins in the 1180s, and the capture of Zara, but I didn't really have time to mention them in this video. Perhaps in a future video I can use some of your points as sort of an addendum. The capture of Zara is also a disgrace. The Fourth Crusade really is just an all around horrible event an example of what could go the most wrong with a Crusade.

@Oswulf1 I've heard Christopher Tyerman argue against that. He pointed out that the Byzantine holdings had been unstable long before the Crusaders arrived. The struggle among the Hungarians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians, etc combined with the instability within Constantinople itself meant that the Greeks had already lost their ability to maintain a strong state in the face of Turkish opposition once the rivalries among the Turks had been eliminated by the Ottomans.

That's one interpretation of what happened, written by a Greek. Not saying it absolutely didn't happen, but there's no absolute evidence that it did happen. Latins and Greeks both committed all sorts of "war crimes" against each other. Muslims too killed and enslaved untold numbers of Christians. Eastern Christians themselves fought each other, Byzantines themselves were constantly fighting. If you can take all that and find heroes and villains then be my guest, I think it's a futile task.

The most misconstrued part of crusading history. Glad someone finally explained why they attacked other Christians. It was two sides who did abhorrent things because they believed they had to.. and honestly they may very well HAVE had too. The eastern politics weren't exactly going to be happy with some random guy whos father had already been deposed suddenly yeeting himself into power, and the west needed funds and food otherwise both the army AND the nations they came from would have desperate ecanomic backlash. Nice video. Thank you.

By the time of fourth Crusade, Constantinople had strongly turned anti Crusaders. In the 1182purge of latins, 60,000 Latins were either killed or sold to Seljuk Turks as slaves, Whats more Constantinople had sent it's army to fight alongside turks against latins on two occassions. Needless to say, this obvious threat had to be removed for success of any future Crusades.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Video is speculative and not based on historical facts. There is no mention of true reasons Venice wanted trade routes. The persons that he mentions in text are no real experts I checked them out

What you say is true,there was no initial intention to attack byzantine lands and sack the holy city and was surely a tragedy that did not intentionally happen and happened only because they crusaders where at a very hard position and at the demand of Alexios claim to be emperor.Youre right about this im not gonna argue it even being a greek myself.Yet this question comes,why after the city was sacked the majority of the byzantine empire was divided amongst latin crusaders and the crusaders crowned their latin emperor and attacked remaining byzantine lands for their own interest? With byzantium becoming a thing only due to revolts and to the efforts of the nicean empire a lot of time after.Im sure there must be an excuse for this too right?Yet again awesome video and thanks for putting your time and devotion for my country and the biggest misunderstanding of the middle ages.You sir earned a subscriber.

@Pavlos952 The biggest problem with Runciman, according to medieval scholars today, is that he was incredibly biased in favor of the Byzantines and against the West. He wrote more in the style of a political commentator with an obvious agenda rather than as a neutral historian like Christopher Tyerman or Jonathan Riley-Smith. His very lacking research is also a problem. This is not an opinion I'm giving you, this is the consensus among scholars - they agree that Runciman is horrible.

The wealth looted from Constantinople is counted at around 1 m. silver marks. The debt to the Venetians for the "Venetian Enterprise" was less than 1/10 (around 70-80,000). About 300-400,000 were officialy splitted among the Crusader factions and about half a milion were secretly kept by the "valiant knights" fighting for the sake of Christianity...

The Turkish destruction of Constatinople was less barbaric than the Crusaders', many western historians agree to that.

Could you do one on the Massacre of Latins? People tend to forget that Byzantines massacred Latin communities prior to the Fourth Crusade.

@Pavlos952 The point about technological breakthroughs in medieval history is just that thanks to computer-assisted methods of cataloging and organizing information, we now know more about the Middle Ages than ever before. For example, Riley-Smith created a massive database of virtually every documented Crusader from 1095-1131 and demolished old myths that Crusaders went for greed or because they were landless second sons. Runciman's scanty research doesn't even compare to this.

I mean no offense but it looks like you're getting this out of Wikipedia or a Internet website, No matter. In the Video all of this was already stated, They sacked Constantinople as they thought their "ally" was killed by rebellious Greeks, the Pope himself disagree with it, Many Crusaders disagree and such. While I agree the leaders committed a horrid act your arguing in a Bias One-sided way while I look at the whole Picture and I will agree the Venetians did this for greed at most.

@punisherot That would be a cool one! Thanks for the idea, I'll save it for a future video.

Are you a Roman Catholic?

Interesting data about it, altough this video-documentary neglects to mention that the Venetian leader Enrico Dandolo was captured and blinded by the Byzantines previously. Dandolo never forgot and forgave the latter and took good advantage of the planning and direction of the Fourth Crusade. The sacking of the city of Zara by the crusaders of the fourth crusade gave the Byzantines enough reason to shut the gates of Constantinople to the now suspicious crusaders. I understand that for the leaders of the crusade was necessary to get money for their campaign against the Ottoman Turks but the brutal and long-lasting sacking of the Byzantine capital plus the mass rape and murder of the local inhabitants and the sacrilegious looting of sacred Christian relics never justifies such an act. Didn´t Pope John Paul II asked for forgiveness to the Greek Christian Ortodox Church for the shameful fourth crusade?, because the assault was done by Roman Catholics, wasn´t it?

@rahotep101 I have read Niketas' chronicle. It's a valuable source, but it's also a biased one. You must also read the Western sources to get an accurate picture, and even then you have to realize that none of these sources are in any way free or partiality. It's pretty clear that the Greeks exaggerated the atrocities.

@Oswulf1 I will agree with you that that had been the case AFTER the death of Baldwin IV in Jerusalem. But up until then succession of kings had been very smooth in Latin Jerusalem. The power struggle in the Holy Roman Empire was actually pretty rare in the West, generally monarchies changed hands with little incident. That's why the Franks considered Constantinople such a seat of treachery and insurrection.

Yeah. What's simple enough is that you're absolutely making absurd statements. You think the reconquest of Spain was funded by the conquest of Constantinople in 1204? Hilarious! The Latin Empire of Constantinople was a DRAIN on the West's wealth! Within 60 years the whole thing was destroyed after the pope had scrambled to pour money into preserving it. I'm just shocked that anyone could be so utterly mistaken.

A great video on a complex subject. You do a great job on the details.

The Venitians, lead by Enrico Dendaldo (a 90 year old man blinded by the Byzantines) also compelled the Crusaders to pay their debt for the year's loss of trade by helping them take a Hungarian city (Zara) formerly held by Venice. The Pope also threatened the crusaders that would attack the Hungarians because their monarch (King Emeric) had taken up the cross himself. Pope Innocent went so long as excommunicating those that took part in the attack on both the Hungarians and Byzantines.

The Orthodox did nothing wrong.

this is so well done and very informative! Thanks!

Constantinople never recovered after this ''crusade''. That is the truth. of course the empire was in decline, of course Byzantines plot and fight eachother(name me one empire that didnt have plots or murders or fighting), but the 4 crusade was a disgrace, more than the first one.

No need to be defensive, i have no intention of attacking your view of history nor your credibility. from 5:52 to 6:04 you make the same statement however there is no source that specifically verifies that coups were not normal in the West but normal to the Greeks. I was hoping to find a source that could help me prove this. But none of the quotes do ( yes you referenced 2 scholars but i was looking more for a specific page in a book or at least a book, not just a name) :)

there was no good reason to attack constatiople!

Unfortunately they did not, though Crusaders did try to capture Egypt over the course of the 13th Century.

@alektoros Zionist West? What are you talking about? There was no Zionism in the Middle Ages.

this is really great, but about Dandolo you never know, it was under Manuel Comnenus that he suffered a lot of insults, who knows maybe he never intended on attacking egypt (he was gaining some profitable trade agreements on cairo while waiting for crusaders to come up with the sum agreed

Yes i know very well. But this is not an excuse to Sack Konstantinople.and the venetians had flourished with money from our trade routes so thats the reason. But the sack reveled the hatred and the jealousness of the face crusaders

You're a fool if you don't think Jonathan Philips and Christopher Tyerman are experts on the Fourth Crusade.

Educational, as always, J. Stephen.

"No viable alternative"?? How about just walking away from the whole thing? Talk about blind apologetics.

Alexios IV was part of the crusade, but 1.Venetians did sack Constantinople for wealth, and also for revenge for the Massacre of Latins in 1182 that the Byzantine Emperor had nothing to do with. 2.The Massacre of the Latins was done by a Greek mob. The emperor didn't support it, he just didn't try to stop it because it gave him more control over trade.

An innocent question. Constantinople was meant to be heavily fortified and have withstood attack from the east and from the west. Why the 4th Crusade was able to breach the wall? Was it because a) they had some secret weapon b) They discovered a secret passage into the city or c) they had a friendly gatekeeper who showed them a quick city tour?

Sad turn of events. I imagine the Byzantine citizens wish they hadn't massacred those 60,000 Latins before then.

Venice was the only trading center that had trading privileges in the Islamic world. Most Venetians weren't even Christians until after the 4th crusade. And even after that they were only nominally Christians.

in my opinion it's true that there wasn't a plot with the aim to take constantinopole from the beginning of the crusade; however Venice already ruse the whole expedition for her puropse of taking Zara, and later when occasion occured, she saw the opportunity of taking a city of much more value then the far away alexandria (that was much more difficult to hold)... also Venice was, like a lot of other italian city state of that time (Florence, Milan, Pisa ecc), a sort of "republic" very trade based.The Bizantyne empire was far too much burocratic for the trade network that the italian cities had in mind so to overthrow it was something desiderable. All this was not in the aim of other western factions like the french kingdom, a very feudal kingdom. So i think that italians had the most interest in that time in changing the course of the crusade.However i have to recognise that Venetian troops stole a lot in constantinopole during the sack, but still preserve the masterpieces of that bewutiful city (stolen and brought to venice)... Insted french ignorant knights and troops just destroyed, burned and desacrate everything they could

Rodney Stark writes venomously how the sack was remembered as the key sack of the city, noting that there were previous sacks in the past of Constantinople by the Byzantine Emperor’s own thieving mercenaries, and in the past, the Byzantine citizenry turned against the Latin residents of the city, to the point that thousands died: “Nothing here about the prior sacks of the city by Byzantines themselves during political coups; in 1081 Alexius Comnenus allowed his foreign mercenaries to plunder the capital for three days. Nor is there a word to acknowledge the centuries of Orthodox brutalities against Latin Christians: in 1182 the Emperor (Andronikos I Komnenos) incited mobs to attack all Western residents of Constantinople, during which thousands, including women and children, were massacred-many more deaths than are thought to have occurred during the city’s sack by the crusaders. Not a word about the instances of Byzantine treachery that occurred during each of the first three Crusades and that cost tens of thousands of crusaders their lives. Surely it is not surprising that these many acts of betrayal built up substantial animosity towards Byzantium” Rodney Stark raises a point that was supported by other historians who have looked into the so-called “Massacre of the Latins” in 1182. Historians such as Donald Nicol and Aleksandr Vasiliev mention them strongly in their accounts of Byzantine history. Aleksandr, in his work, History of the Byzantine Empire Volume 2, he quotes a Greek bishop who was delighted when Emperor Andronicus ordered the death of Latins: “The archbishop of Athens, Michael Acominatus, one of the most precious sources for the internal situation of the empire in the 12th century, wrote in eulogistic terms: “And first of all I shall remember how, at the troublesome and painful time, the Roman Empire appealed to its former darling, the great Andronicus, to overthrow the oppressive Latin tyranny, which, like a weed, had grafted itself on the young offshoot of the kingdom. The first thing he gave the capital in return for its pure love was deliverance from the tyrannous Latin insolence and the clearing of the empire from barbarian admixture.” Nicol’s version was a lot less flattering, however, as it is not a Byzantine account from the Byzantine perspective. His work, "Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations," deals with when Andronicus was entering the city: “Andronicus sent in his Paphlagonian troops to incite the people against the Latins. The people needed no encouragement. With an enthusiasm fired by years of resentment they set about the massacre of all the foreigners that they could find. They directed their fury mainly against the merchants’ quarters along the Golden Horn. The slaughter was appalling. The Byzantine clergy shamelessly encouraged the mob to seek out the Latin monks and priests. The pope’s legate to Constantinople, Cardinal John, was decapitated and his severed head was dragged through the streets, tied to the tail of a dog. At the end some 4000 westerners who had survived the massacre were rounded up and sold as slaves to the Turks. Those who had escaped by ship took their revenge by looting and burning the Byzantine monasteries on the coasts and islands of the Aegean Sea.”

blaming the victims again...

@Masterfootballer23 Yeah this is definitely one of my least favorite things that ever happened during the Crusades.

I was requesting a page in a book that verified you statement between 5:50 and 6:04, the names of 2 historians cant exactly be used to cite that statement which I need to do. However I have been doing independent research Memoirs of the Crusades 17-18 has some detail to the astonishment of one knight of the coup but doesn't really prove the statement

The Byzantines and the Venetians tended to be hostile toward one another. That is circumstantial to the Fourth Crusade. All we can go by is the evidence, and so far that points to Venetian intentions aligned with the larger goal of the Crusade. The Venetians had been involved with Crusading for decades, such as the siege of Tyre in 1124. And we're not talking about just any scholars, we're talking about Jonathan Philips and Tom Madden, the two foremost experts on the Fourth Crusade living today.

Excellent videos. They are an invaluable internet resource. I just have one question regarding this video; is it true that the crusaders were excommunicated by Innocent III? If this is true, then it is too vital to be left out. If they were excommunicated for attacking another Christian land, then they had arguably no legitimacy whatsoever.

JSR, love the video. I like your older videos with text inputs. Kind of makes them easier to follow. One question I have about the 4th crusade is: who is really at fault here? Was it the Venetians for having miscalculated the demand for their ships? Was it the French for not specifying how much they will finally need? Could Pope Innocent have done more to stop the madness (a bailout of somesort hehe)? Did I say one question? If Alexios wasn't ruler of Byzantium where did he get the money to bailout the Venetians? Did he not give any collateral? OK OK I'll stop now :) cheers!

A bit hypocritical here my friend. The treasures of Byzantium stand in and outside of St. Marks in Venice as well as other Western European landmarks. It was the Westerners who when invited into the Byzantine Palace stole all of the silver cutlery after the consumed their grand meal. The Byzantines were excellent diplomats and knew the world was imperfect, so that is why they learnt to live with their neighbors - Arabs, Jews and Turks.

Weren’t the Venetians vengeful after being kicked out of Constantinople by John Komnenos (I think)?

I'm not trying to turn no one against no one, but merely stating facts and giving my opinion on the video. I thought that is what the comment box was for. Not to write your own thesis...but highlight your thoughts. Perhaps you need to go and do more research yourself....my friend.

A facile explanation, that still resonates in today's politics. The very fact that the Crusaders felt a right to exploit the internal divisions in the Byzantine Empire (and indeed EVERY country has them) for money and put an already rejected ruler on the Byzantine throne, says much about the values of the Crusaders themselves. This was a crime of opportunity -- and the victimized Byzantines were not to blame.

Hey, nice videos! I have a question, what happened after the 4th Crusade? I mean after dividing the lands they gained, and having secured the funds for the Venetians, why didn't the Crusaders proceed to attack Egypt?

@RealCrusadeHistory well, but it is the same for the islamic armies as well, they faced wars of succession. Then they got the mongols at their back. But i give crusaders credit in logistics, its a wonder how they managed to strech their supply lines. i think people wrongly blame the 4th crusade for the fall of constatinople later on. Cos the theodosian walls would not have been able to withstand the ottomans cannons anyway.

You must have lived during the onset of the 13th century to be so certain

I think you merely need to understand that the Fourth Crusade is far more complicated than just saying that the Crusaders were evil and attacked Constantinople. There were a lot of factors contributing to what happened, including Byzantine politics.

One thing that this video is not mentioning is that after Franks were not able to pay their debt to the Venetians, the later requested that the Crusaders destroy the competing ports in Adriatic. Dalmatian coastal cities were destroyed as a partial payment of debt to Venetians. It is also important to note that while the Pope and many, the religious leaders had the noble goal of defeating Islam, their soldiers were full greed, hatred and lust. They raped and murdered.

If only they didn't start messing with the Balkans...

@MingDynasty700 Not at all, just making sense of a complex issue.

What a terrible tragedy

Great videos. Love your content. The only advice id give is to not breath into the microphone before you start every sentence.

Walk where? They had no money, no food, no transportation. They had a giant army sitting right outside of Constantinople hemmed in by the sea and they had no way of going anywhere. They literally had no alternative but to capture the city.

You are incorrect and obviously biased.

Thanks so much for these wonderful histories. It would be something, though not part of the secular agenda to restore the rightful reputations of truly heroic men and women and the immense sacrifices they made without which who would even be here to notice. Do we not owe these great unknown people our very lives and cultures? I am not speaking specifically of the fourth crusade and its unfortunate aspects but of the totality of our ancestor's response to Islamic aggression.

im doing a school project on this, anyone wanna explain to me further about the people who pursuaded the crusaders to go to Constantinople?

"O City, City, eye of all cities, universal boast, supramundane wonder, nurse of churches, leader of the faith, guide of Orthodoxy, beloved topic of orations, the abode of every good thing! Oh City, that hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury! O City, consumed by fire..." Niketas Choniates laments the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders

I understand that very well, but this is just like blaming the woman for the rape, because she did not wear a burka. And if she wore a burka, blame her because she is the cause of all sin. Everyone should differentiate between motive (even Stalin had one) and justification.

Did you not watch the video? Your view has been refuted by current scholarship. There is no evidence that the Venetians intended to make the Crusade into a trade war, nor that there were any prior plans to attack Constantinople. All the evidence indicates that the Venetians sincerely wanted to conquer Egypt, both because of their vow to Crusade and their desire to expand their holdings into Egypt.

hey im doing a report on the topic do you have any evidence to site this? sources would be great! :)

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner...

@Pavlos952 Even if you're just talking about the sacking of cities far worse things happened in the medieval world. For example, the Turkish sack of the Armenian city of Ani in the 1060's was far more murderous and bloody than anything that happened during the Fourth Crusade. Also, the Turkish capture of Constantinople in 1453 was far worse than what happened in 1204.

Σχετικά με την εικονομαχία, η προσπάθεια του Λέοντα Γ' να περιορίσει την τεράστια δύναμη που είχαν αποκτήσει τα μοναστήρια ήταν κάτι σωστό. .Η απαγόρευση των εικόνων όμως ήταν ακρότητα κι αυτό ήταν που τρέλανε τον απλό κόσμο. Αν δεν το έκανε, ίσως η μεταρρυθμιστική του πολιτική να περνούσε. Εγώ βλέπω την επικράτηση των εικόνων σαν μια νίκη του "ελληνισμού" κατά κάποιον τρόπο! Ο Λέων προκειμένου να καταστείλει τις αποσχιστικές τάσεις πληθυσμών των ανατολικών περιοχών συντάχθηκε, Σύριος ο ίδιος,

Why didn't the Byzantine pay off the venetians in the Italian's To go home

Historians would describe your analysis as simplistic, heavily biased, and inaccurate.

Thank you so much! This has cleared up a lot of things that my revision book has missed out. Gonna rock this Alevel! ;D

That makes more sense thank you.

No need to be defencive, i have no intention of attacking your view of history nor your credibility. from 5:52 to 6:04 you make the same statement however there is no source that specifically verifies that coups were not normal in the West but normal to the Greeks. I was hoping to find a source that could help me prove this. But none of the quotes do ( yes you referenced 2 scholars but i was looking more for a specific page in a book or at least a book, not just a name) :)

Venetians were never to concerned with religious matter for what I can tell Venice always look for their own interesets they even when to the point of helping Ottomans agianst other Christians such as Albanians Hungarians Serbs Wallachians and others Christians. I always dislike Venice may they burn in what they done. A burguese capitalistic republic. Ironical Venice was created by Romans (byzantines).

Some of this response is towards the other fourth crusaders videos made.

So, I have to conclude that the crusaders were good, reasonable and holy people. They were victims of the cruel circumstances and of the cruel history that said nasty things about them. This reminds me so well of the peace bombs that the good and holy Americans offered recently as a gift and a democracy lesson to the Libyan people.

The idea that the Fourth Crusade caused the fall of Constantinople is laughable nonsense. No historian takes such an idea seriously. The Fourth Crusade was a symptom of Byzantium's decline, not its cause. Byzantium had been in decline for a long time, mainly because the Byzantines could not stop fighting with each other over the capital long enough to defend their borders against Islam.

Why should they have been interested in a Byzantine prince with they sought nothing in it for themselves?

The Amalekite Khazars of Byzantium coaxed Alexios to call in the crusaders. The Khazars of Venice were working with the Khazars of Byzantium.

And Rome's treatment of Carthage is very very high on the list.

When the Crusaders invaded Constantinople it was the Byzantine Greeks who defended the Arabs from being slayed by the knights. Read a bit more to find these unknown facts in history. You won't find this information on the internet only in out of print books.