>>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.