>Hire a bunch of Crusaders to make him Emperor
>They do it
>refuse to pay
>Get killed by fellow Greeks
How was this memed into the worst thing in humanity by American Chuds?

>>17859671 (OP)
>The Latins proceeded to take the city, sack the shit out of it, and tried to consolidate power over the Roman Empire.
Kinda shitty eh

>>17859673
>Venetians actually sack and capture a Catholic city
>Russian propaganda and Americhuds: who cares?
>Greek on Greek stupidity causes harm to Greeks
>Russians and Americans: noooooooo anything but the Chungus city

>>17859671 (OP)
because "muh end of roman empire"
and it's actually hilarious to think of it as the final demise of the once all-powerfull roman empire:
>economy in ruins
>constant retarded civil was
>trade privileges given to venetians by alexios komnenos already
>tresury stolen by Alexios III
>only way to pay off the crusaders is to loot churches (by the same state that promoted christianity in the first place 900 years ago)
>citizens are too retarded to see how shitty their empire became, cannot think one step ahead, kill the emperor and get beaten by latins

>>17859671 (OP)
>>refuse to pay
He didn't. He continued to pay them until he was deposed.
The Latins were there in the first place for completely cynical reasons and wanted to carve out Byzantium in the first place. Alexios was just an easy justification for a war they wanted anyway.

>>17859673
They had a right to take what they were owed by force. That was standard for the times.
>>17859736
>He continued to pay them until he was deposed
No he didn't. He stopped the payments around November 1203 because the crusaders were contracted until March 1204. Alexios believed he could get away with not paying the full amount and that they would screw off when their contract expired.
>The Latins were there in the first place for completely cynical reasons and wanted to carve out Byzantium in the first place.
The crusaders wanted nothing more to receive what they were owed so that they can be on their way to Egypt. They never had any intention of conquering Constantinople until Alexios IV was murdered and replaced by Alexios V

>>17859736
>He continued to pay them until he was deposed.
wrong. he payed them off partially, like a half, also by looting churches and such, but then declared he won't pay any more (he really couldn't, the empire was indeed broke). the crusaders probably planned to depose him, but greekoids did it sooner.

It wouldn't have been that bad if the Latin Empire that replaced the Byz was not even more incompetent that they were

>>17859753
well there already was a (holy) roman empire

flaws of the byzantine empire:
no charismatic historical figures, irrelevant political/historical importance in terms of military expansion, or trading, or evolution of the “way of life”, no poetry/literature, little to none scientific and technological advancements.

qualities of the byzantine empire:
marginally, the byzantine architecture. Which isn’t very different from the late roman one, but we can see post-constantine Rome and the byzantine empire as one.
Their only distinctive trait is: the byzantine icon. Which is beautiful and evolved in the even more beautiful russian icon.

>>17859775
by byzantine icon is also include the byzantine mosaic of course

>>17859750
>The crusaders wanted nothing more to receive what they were owed so that they can be on their way to Egypt
They would have gone to Egypt then. The adventure to Constantinople was entirely self serving as an attack on the Empire. If they wanted to go to Egypt they wouldn't have diverted it to Constantinople in the first place, they would have followed the lead of a great amount of Crusaders who were disgusted by them and left to Outremer on their own terms.
>They never had any intention of conquering Constantinople
At best they were trying to be kingmakers and reduce the Empire and that is the most generous interpretation you can give they didn't just 'stumble in' as you're suggesting. This was a very clear deliberate policy to divert Crusading forces by Venice and Bonifacio to make an attack on the Byzantines. In fact even before the Crusaders knew they had a 'debt' to Venice Bonifacio and Phillip were lobbying for a war against Constantinople with the Pope even saying that Phillip had been pushing for this war and his intentions were too subordinate Byzantium to his crown. You can't get any clearer than this. The three most important supporters of the Crusade wanted war on Byzantium and two of them, Venice and Bonifacio lead it themselves.

>>17859812
>The adventure to Constantinople was entirely self serving as an attack on the Empire.
you're retarded. alexios iv promised them 200.000 silver marks, 10.000 men and supplying for a year. that's a formidable support. it was only alexios' fault. don't make promises you cannot fulfil.

>>17859977
You didn't even read the rest of the post.

>>17859705
>the final demise of the once all-powerfull roman empire:
The byzantranny was never powerful, it was never Rome because Christcucks cannot be Roman.

>>17860000
I cannot argue with those quads

>>17859671 (OP)
ALEXIOS, ALEXIOS, GUESS WHO'S BACK
*looks at credit card score and bank balance* DADDY KNOW'S YOU'VE BEEN A REALLY, REALLY NAUGHTY BOY
*gets out beating rod*

Kill Greeks. Behead Greeks. Roundhouse kick a Greek into the concrete. Slam dunk a Greek baby into the trashcan. Hang filthy Greeks on a wooden gibbet. Defecate on Greek bread. Launch orthodox filth into eternal hellfire. Steal Greek Gold. Toss Greeks into active volcanoes. Urinate into a Greek's wine. Launch a heavy Frankish cavalry charge into a mass of Greeks. Twist Greeks heads off. Slice greeks in half with a sword made in France. Curb stomp pregnant Greek women. Trap Greeks in an olive press. Crush greeks under the Horses of Saint Mark. Roast Greeks on a spit. Eat Greeks. Dissect Greeks. Exterminate Greeks in the Hippodrome of Constantinople. Stomp Greek skulls with Frankish steel. Drown Greeks in crap. Incinderate Greeks with Greek fire. Feed Greeks to the lions.

>>17859812
>They would have gone to Egypt then.
With no money to pay their troops and transport? They were waiting for that from Alexios.
>If they wanted to go to Egypt they wouldn't have diverted it to Constantinople in the first place,
The reason they went o Constantinople is because they were promised money support, both things they desperately needed.
>At best they were trying to be kingmakers
That's a fair assessment, but being kingmkaers does not mean they were intending to conquer Constantinople.
>This was a very clear deliberate policy to divert Crusading forces by Venice and Bonifacio to make an attack on the Byzantines.
Venice had nothing to gain by attacking Byzantium. Dandolo had previously been working his whole career to build better relations with Constantinople and had a very beneficial trade agreement with them before the crusade. Do you know where Venice did not have much success in trade? Egypt, the target of the crusade.
>In fact even before the Crusaders knew they had a 'debt' to Venice
Why is debt in quotation marks? Are you suggesting the debt wasn't real?
>with the Pope even saying that Phillip had been pushing for this war and his intentions were too subordinate Byzantium to his crown.
I'm gonna need a source for this, chief.

>>17860372
funny stuff

>>17861018
>With no money to pay their troops
They bought their own money for that. The only thing they had to do was pay part of the transport fee, which was paid by the sack of Zara.
>The reason they went o Constantinople is because they were promised money support, both things they desperately needed.
While not really provable, there is likely little actual belief that Alexios would have even been able to pay up when it came to any material support. Regardless, it didn't stop other Crusaders from leaving, they had no reason to go to Constantinople if their goal was Egypt, they had the men, they had the material to do so already. Unless they were willing to wait half a decade for an unrealistic army of 10,000 from Alexios they weren't going to get anything.
>Venice had nothing to gain by attacking Byzantium. Dandolo had previously been working his whole career to build better relations with Constantinople and had a very beneficial trade agreement with them before the crusade. Do you know where Venice did not have much success in trade? Egypt, the target of the crusade.
Venice did have successful trade agreements with Egypt, they concluded one not too long ago with the state. Venice in much of the later 12th century was hostile to Byzantium and tried to wring out concessions whenever they could. Attacking and being hostile does not mean having bad trade agreements, for the Venetians they got the exact opposite.
>Are you suggesting the debt wasn't real?
I'm suggesting that it was already the goal of the Crusade leaders to go to Constantinople before any issue with Venice arose. In fact it wasn't even related to Constantinople because all the Venetians asked for was Zara.
>I'm gonna need a source for this, chief.
Innocent, Register 5:121 and Philip of Swabia Treaty with Innocent III in MGH Dipl 2:9. Even other Crusade leaders who were not part of this plot knew the intention was to conquer. Villehardouin puts it so in 122 of his work

>>17862071
>While not really provable, there is likely little actual belief that Alexios would have even been able to pay up when it came to any material support.
Well, how would the crusaders have known this? probably not even true. If you know your Byzantine history you know the Byzantines were always eager to straight up pay off any enemy eager for conflict with gold or silver by the tons.

>>17862077
>Well, how would the crusaders have known this?
For the past 20 years the Empire had been in terminal serious decline. While Philip and Bonifacio might not have known the Venetians certainly would have considering their position within the empire. Even the Sicilians knew this and thought that they would be able to put the French king on the throne in 1200.
>probably not even true.
Well it certainly was because the state was almost bankrupt before the Crusaders even showed up. Alexios could not pay the indemnity. Nor would he be able to supply such an army because earlier emperors in the period could hardly muster one.

>>17862071
>they had no reason to go to Constantinople if their goal was Egypt, they had the men, they had the material to do so already.
Their reason was that the Byzantine emperor was promising them money to pay off their transport debts and additional soldiers. The treaty of Zara stated that Crusaders would be contracted by Alexios until a certain date, upon which they would depart to Egypt. That demonstrates that they were intending to go to Egypt after their business in Constantinople was concluded.
>Venice in much of the later 12th century was hostile to Byzantium and tried to wring out concessions whenever they could.
See pic. Venice had a comparative advantage when it came to trading in Constantinople. However, their commercial hold over Egypt was much less than their largest rival, Genoa. Venice had much more to gain by conquering Egypt than Byzantium.
.I'm suggesting that it was already the goal of the Crusade leaders to go to Constantinople before any issue with Venice arose
That's ridiculous. All the documents signed up until 1204 clearly stated that the objective was Egypt. Moreover, Inroads had already been into Egypt during previous conflicts. Militarily, it made more sense to attack there than to attack Constantinople, which had never fallen to a foreign army.
>Even other Crusade leaders who were not part of this plot knew the intention was to conquer. Villehardouin puts it so in 122 of his work
That's not what he or anyone else says. Some of the leading crusaders had entered into negotiations with Alexios to restore him to the throne before the departure from Venice. But that doesn't mean they were scheming to conquer the empire.

>>17859750
>greeks not paying denbts
why am I not surprised?
but yeah the 4th was hijacked by greedy venetians and self inflicted by greedier (and dumber) greeks
The Crusaders themselves ran out of money and options from the get go. They had ordered more boats than they had soldiers so the doge had them by the balls metaphorically speaking. It got off to a bad start with the Zara 'detour' which really pissed off the Pope but what could he do from Rome?

>>17862131
>Their reason was that the Byzantine emperor was promising them money to pay off their transport debts
They already paid off their debts at Zara.
>The treaty of Zara stated that Crusaders would be contracted by Alexios until a certain date, upon which they would depart to Egypt. That demonstrates that they were intending to go to Egypt after their business in Constantinople was concluded.
Signing something does not indicate the intentions to do something. That's incredibly naive to believe. Even the initial aims of the Crusade leaders was lied about proclaiming to go to Jerusalem and instead planning to divert it to Egypt. It also obviously goes against the stated intentions Crusade leaders and patrons.
>Venice had a comparative advantage when it came to trading in Constantinople. However, their commercial hold over Egypt was much less than their largest rival, Genoa. Venice had much more to gain by conquering Egypt than Byzantium.
This is still ignoring that they could (and did) get more concessions from attacking Constantinople. Already having good terms does not mean not getting better ones through hostile actions. Which is how they built it up to begin with.
>Militarily, it made more sense to attack there than to attack Constantinople, which had never fallen to a foreign army.
If anything it did. The Venetians knew that they had dismantled their fleet and that Constantinople no longer had any sea defences. They were an easier target than Egypt, which was under the strong control of Saladin's brother.

>>17862164
>That's not what he or anyone else says
I quite literally gave you the sources where they say it. Here's Villehardouin 122
>One sergeant let himself down over the side of the ship into the boat. He called out to the people on board the ship, "Whatever belongings of mine still on board are yours. I'm going with these men since it looks certain they must conquer lands.' This was a great credit to the sergeant and he was warmly welcomed into the army.
So yes, there was a real idea that they were out to conquer even amongst the rank and file which was agreed with by one of the leaders of the Crusade.

>>17859684
who cares about catholic suffering? don't you have to confess your fapping habits to your brown pederast eunuch priest, gonzalez?

>>17862164
>They already paid off their debts at Zara.
No they didn't. See pic, from Queller and Madden's The Fourth Crusade. The Crusaders still had an outstanding debt to Venice after Zara.
>Signing something does not indicate the intentions to do something
Of course it does. Are you suggesting we can't trust any documents from the period because they could potentially be lies?
>Already having good terms does not mean not getting better ones through hostile actions
Of course. But my point is that the Venetians would have been very unlikely to agree to conquer Byzantium because they had much to lose in a high-risk venture. Whereas they had much more to gain from Egypt.
>They were an easier target than Egypt
It was not. Constantinople had never fallen to an enemy force once in their lifetimes, and Dandolo himself would know this well.
>>17862167
>I quite literally gave you the sources where they say it. Here's Villehardouin 122
This quote does not back up what you're saying. Villehardouin says that the agreement between the crusaders and Venice decided on Egypt as the target:

>All the good and beautiful words that the Doge then spoke, I cannot repeat to you. But the end of the matter was, that the covenants were to be made on the following day; and made they were, and devised accordingly. When they were concluded, it was notified to the council that we should go to Babylon (Cairo), because the Turks could better be destroyed in Babylon than in any other land; but to the folk at large it was only told that we were bound to go overseas.

>>17862087
>Well it certainly was because the state was almost bankrupt before the Crusaders even showed up. Alexios could not pay the indemnity.
we have the power of hindsight, which the crusaders didn't have. the empire was able to pull civil war stuff like many times before, there was no obvious reason to think they're bancrupted to the bone.

>>17859753
>Lost Constantinople to 500 mercenaries lead by literally who general
>Emperor had to run away in his pajamas and forgot his own fucking crown there
Latin excellence

>Byzantine history

Is just boring and endless episodes of back stabbing and plain old fucking up.