Replies

Not a happy moment in history. But we must be careful not to revise:

That's exactly what you have posted, a shameful historical revision.

Did you notice the contradition between the two bogus histories, yours and the original one of this thread? The first one explicitly boasted that the 4th crusade was "well funded" from the outset, while this one said it was utterly bankrupt. Each false history is inventive in its own way, but yours is especially creative.

Of course the Latins and Franks didn't think an attack on Constantinople would be required. They had been assured that there would be a popular uprising against the usurper in favour of the true emperor. And he promised that he would also bring the Greek church under the Pope

Of course? Not of course, ridiculous! Why did the crusaders feel the need to go at all, if the king would be installed so very peacefully by the people? From the outset their plan was to forcably install their puppet ruler, newly loyal to Rome, changing the religion established there a thousand years prior. They absolutely knew the people would not willingly go along with any of this and their violent action would be necessary, it is grossly dishonest to suggest they ever believed otherwise. The Crusaders had such peaceful intent, that they butchered the populace, desecrated the christian churches, and hauled away shiploads of stolen booty. So very peaceful, the intent of the 4th Crusaders.

From the walls the Byzantines jeered at the Crusaders who found themselves in a tight spot, deep in hostile territory, on a fool's errand.

We know historically, for a fact, that this is a total lie, from accounts on both sides. If it was such a tight spot and hostile territory, then why was this army freely let *inside* the gates of the city? The Crusaders did not attack from outside the walls. They were welcomed *inside* the outer gates as fellow Christians, who falsely proclaimed they were there peaceably as defenders of Christians. Had they not used trickery and betrayal for a surprise backstab, they would have certainly lost trying to fight from outside the walls. They did not have equipment and supplies needed for a long siege. Constantinople was a near impregnable fortress at the time, withstanding numerous attacks from one muslim army after another. Only with the development of cannon and massive opposing armies (plus the weakening by this attack from fellow Christians) were muslims able to win two and a half centuries later. Isn't it amazing to see only the attitude of the Byzantine hecklers criticised here? What attitude and haughtiness do you think the crusaders had, which enabled them to readily slaughter the populace and desecrate the churches? What is the mentality -- I don't like this jeering, lets kill the Christians we are sworn to protect and descrate their churches? Does this history add up to you?

They needed the money that Angelus had offered them, if only to pay the Venetians to take them off.

This historian neglected to mention that the Venetian Prince was the one who tempted them into the looting plan in the first place. Looting was the plan from the outset, that's why the Venetians provided lots of empty ships, which came back utterly full of rich booty. This was perhaps the most profitable looting event in history. They had arrived at Constantinople with long lists of treasures they had intended to seize! A shopping list! Doors from the Hagia Sofia for the Cathedral of Notre Dame -- check.

And they were also duty-bound to help Angelus, the victim of treachery [...] So they began the attack.

You got that? The Usurper who plots to be let within the gates under false pretenses and surprise attack from within, who offers to subjugate his people to foreigners and change their religion, is the one who is the victim of treachery. The author doesn't describe the kings deposed by the surprise-attacking crusader armies as victims of treachery, but this guy gets the honor.

And the crusaders who are sworn to defend Christians, are according to this writer, "duty bound" to slaughter these christians and desecrate their churches. What Christian duty compells them to install puppet rulers and steal massive amounts of loot? There was no Christian duty that compelled this atrocity -- booty and subjugation was the goal. This historian has truth turned upside down.

However Alexius III smelt political trouble: suspecting an imminent palace coup he fled.

Is it really smelling "political trouble", when the ruling king suddenly realizes that the allied army he peaceably led into the gates is really there to overthrow him by force? Wouldn't you rather call that smelling "military trouble"? Is a sizable hostile army within the city gates imposing a puppet ruler a "palace coup"? This writer is very, very creative. It is really amazing anyone would buy this.

The people of the city restored the old blind King Issac II to the throne: shortly after Angelus was crowned Alexius IV. The crusaders had won a relatively peaceful victory.

The Crusaders chose an old blind King to be forced upon the people, precisely because being old weak and blind made him an excellent candidate to be their puppet. This author disingenuously suggests the people would have willingly chosen this candidate had the crusaders not threatened to keep slaughtering their people until they submitted.

It is a bold rewriting of history to describe this atrocity as "relatively peaceful". The crusaders systematically desecrating Christian churches did get the populace to submit earlier than they would have otherwise, however. Something a non-Christian invader would have had considerably more difficulty doing, since they wouldn't have been let peaceably into the gates.

The trouble started when Alexius IV found that he did not have enough money to meet his contract with the crusaders.

Isn't it amazing that the populace of this richest city weren't eager to hand over their treasure to a traitor usurper king and the invading army which installed him?

In short order Alexius IV became very unpopular

What a surprise, why would a puppet usurper king who betrayed his own people with slaughter and subjugation be unpopular? Why unpopular, when the armies he came with desecrated their churches, and stole the most revered relics in Christendom? Could it be the author was wrong to suggest that even the crusaders really believed this fellow was the rightful ruler?

The mob were getting tired of Alexius IV: they demanded a new emperor who would use the Imperial Army to destroy the crusaders.

That's interesting, the author earlier claimed this same king was willingly installed "by the people". Perhaps the invading crusader army had something to do with the forced choice which the people did not respect from the outset?

Realising that the Crusaders deal with Alexius IV was the moral underpinning for their attacks on Byzantium

Hint: There was no moral underpinning for their attacks on Byzantium, hauling away the largest booty in history.

It was at this point that the prelates of the Crusader camp redefined an attack on Constantinople as a legitimate function of the Crusade

Actually that was defined that from the outset, that's why they showed up with lists of items to seize and empty ships for hauling massive amounts of booty.

Of course the rank-and-file crusaders had no idea that the verdict of their bishops contradicted the commands of the Pope.

This author uses "of course" to preceed his most bold lies. Of course the crusaders had no idea that there was anything unchristian about slaughtering christians, desecrating christian churches, using a "holy crusade" to install puppet rulers, or stealing huge amounts of Christian relics. Of course! The pope was so upset by all of this that he kept the looted treasure, and confirmed the usurper rulers loyal to him.

The bishops' sermons contained much dehumanising rhetoric aimed at the Greeks inside the walls: this in time would yield bitter fruit.

Dehumanizing rhetoric from bishops which backed this atrocity took place before they even set sail.

With enormous confidence Alleumes drew his sword and ran towards the assembled greek troops - who scattered. The poorly trained Byzantine troops proved themselves unwilling to fight unless the danger to themselves was miniscule.

Isn't it heartwarming to see the author describing the leaders of this atrocity in such heroic terms? The Byzantine soldiers were so poorly trained that they resisted muslim invasions for centuries longer than their neighbors. They were trained to defend against a siege! Could the surprise attack and gaining entry to the outer walls by treachery have something to the do with the victory? How heroic is this trickery and betrayal? Constantinople would have resisted Islam for much longer had the Roman Catholic armies not severely weakened them with this crusade in 1204. For centuries it stood as a bullwark protecting Europe from invading muslim armies. Islam would have never reached the gates of Vienna without this backstabbing of the Orthodox christians by the 4th Crusade. Had Constantinople not been so weakened, many peoples in the region would have been spared from forcable conversion to islam -- some of whose decendents today are terrorists threatening civilization.