[kawaii]

Sorry for the late response, K, but I felt one point needed to be clarified here. The phrase "soldiers of the Pope" implies that the Crusaders acted on His Holiness's behest and his approval.

Its true innocent was unhappy but keep in mind he did un-excommunicate these folks after he'd excommunicated them following Zara. Further he didn't re-excommunicate them after constantinople. Further note that the Venice Bishops hold much of the responsibility. First hand accounts state that they preached it was a good act to sack the greeks who were 'dogs worse than Jews' and before the sack they pre-forgave any sins the crusaders might commit.

Following all this the churches throughout southern italy were lavish in stolen loot from Constantinople and in fact is still the largest collection of Byzantine works. St mark's Basilica still is adorned by the Horses stolen during the sack. There is a reason JPII apologized for the sack.

[Claud]

I'm not a historian, but that's generally my reading as well. I certainly don't want to defend the sack or even Latin bishops or Innocent III, whatever their sins in this might have been. That's all fair game for criticism from either side, frankly.

I'm just making the limited point that the sack was not done with papal approval. Whether or not he responded to it in the best way is another matter.