>>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.