Turks are Anatolians under the hood?

Yes, we know: it was all the fault of the Franks, no Venetians in the councils or among the looters.

Go pick up a university level history book for Christ's sake, or even a popularized history of The Fourth Crusade.

Or even read google.

The Venetians were heavily involved in all the decisions, and that's the long and the short of it. It's all well documented whether you like it or not.


"Historians continue to debate the exact reason why the Crusaders then turned on Constantinople instead of Jerusalem, but one crucial ingredient in the troublesome mix of mutual suspicions between the western powers and Byzantium was the Republic of Venice and one man, in particular, the Doge Enrico Dandolo (r. 1192-1205 CE). Intent on winning Venetian domination of the trade in the east, he well remembered his undignified expulsion from Constantinople when he served as an ambassador. This seemed as good an opportunity as ever to finally knock out Constantinople as a trade competitor. In addition, the Pope would achieve the supremacy of the western Church once and for all and the Crusader knights would not only gain revenge on the duplicitous Byzantines for their unhelpful support of previous Crusades but also surely pick up some glory and handsome booty in the process. The riches of Constantinople could then pay for the rest of the Crusade as it marched on to Jerusalem. It may not have been so cynically planned by all parties but, in the end, it is exactly what happened with the exception that the Fourth Crusade ended with the fall of the Byzantine capital and Jerusalem was left for a later date."

""Alexios Doukas, known as Mourtzouphlos or "Bushy-Browed" attempted to put up a serious defence of his capital against unfavourable odds. For now Doge Dandolo and the Crusaders saw their golden opportunity not just to receive aid from the Byzantines but to loot the city entirely for all it was worth. "

"With the fall of the city, many of its religious icons, relics, and artworks were spirited away and the ByzantineEmpire was divided up between Venice and its allies."

" After the dust settled and everyone had their fill of pillaging and looting, the Partitio Romaniae treaty, already decided on beforehand, carved up the Byzantine Empire amongst Venice and its allies. The Venetians took three-eighths of Constantinople, the Ionian islands, Crete, Euboea, Andros, Naxos, and a few strategic points along the coast of the Sea of Marmara. Baldwin of Flanders was then made the Latin emperor (r. 1204-1205 CE) and crowned in the Hagia Sophia, receiving five-eighths of Constantinople and one-quarter of the empire which included Thrace, northwest Asia Minor, and several Aegean islands (notably Chios, Lesbos, and Samos). Boniface of Montferrat took over Thessalonica and formed a new kingdomthere which also included Athens and Macedonia. In 1205 CE, following the death of Baldwin in a Bulgarian prison, William I Champlitte and Geoffrey I Villehardouin (nephew of the historian of the same name) founded a Latin principality in the Peloponnese while the French duke Othon de la Roche grabbed Attica and Boeotia."

https://www.ancient.eu/article/1188/1204-the-sack-of-constantinople/

Post another deliberate "distortion" of the facts, and you'll get an infraction and I'll further delete the post. Then the infractions can total up under Torzio as well as Sile.

Are we clear????
 
Angela said:
Yes, we know: it was all the fault of the Franks, no Venetians in the councils or among the looters.

Go pick up a university level history book for Christ's sake, or even a popularized history of The Fourth Crusade.

Or even read google.

The Venetians were heavily involved in all the decisions, and that's the long and the short of it. It's all well documented whether you like it or not.


"Historians continue to debate the exact reason why the Crusaders then turned on Constantinople instead of Jerusalem, but one crucial ingredient in the troublesome mix of mutual suspicions between the western powers and Byzantium was the Republic of Venice and one man, in particular, the Doge Enrico Dandolo (r. 1192-1205 CE). Intent on winning Venetian domination of the trade in the east, he well remembered his undignified expulsion from Constantinople when he served as an ambassador. This seemed as good an opportunity as ever to finally knock out Constantinople as a trade competitor. In addition, the Pope would achieve the supremacy of the western Church once and for all and the Crusader knights would not only gain revenge on the duplicitous Byzantines for their unhelpful support of previous Crusades but also surely pick up some glory and handsome booty in the process. The riches of Constantinople could then pay for the rest of the Crusade as it marched on to Jerusalem. It may not have been so cynically planned by all parties but, in the end, it is exactly what happened with the exception that the Fourth Crusade ended with the fall of the Byzantine capital and Jerusalem was left for a later date."

""Alexios Doukas, known as Mourtzouphlos or "Bushy-Browed" attempted to put up a serious defence of his capital against unfavourable odds. For now Doge Dandolo and the Crusaders saw their golden opportunity not just to receive aid from the Byzantines but to loot the city entirely for all it was worth. "

"With the fall of the city, many of its religious icons, relics, and artworks were spirited away and the ByzantineEmpire was divided up between Venice and its allies."

" After the dust settled and everyone had their fill of pillaging and looting, the Partitio Romaniae treaty, already decided on beforehand, carved up the Byzantine Empire amongst Venice and its allies. The Venetians took three-eighths of Constantinople, the Ionian islands, Crete, Euboea, Andros, Naxos, and a few strategic points along the coast of the Sea of Marmara. Baldwin of Flanders was then made the Latin emperor (r. 1204-1205 CE) and crowned in the Hagia Sophia, receiving five-eighths of Constantinople and one-quarter of the empire which included Thrace, northwest Asia Minor, and several Aegean islands (notably Chios, Lesbos, and Samos). Boniface of Montferrat took over Thessalonica and formed a new kingdomthere which also included Athens and Macedonia. In 1205 CE, following the death of Baldwin in a Bulgarian prison, William I Champlitte and Geoffrey I Villehardouin (nephew of the historian of the same name) founded a Latin principality in the Peloponnese while the French duke Othon de la Roche grabbed Attica and Boeotia."

https://www.ancient.eu/article/1188/1204-the-sack-of-constantinople/

Post another deliberate "distortion" of the facts, and you'll get an infraction and I'll further delete the post. Then the infractions can total up under Torzio as well as Sile.

Are we clear????
Click to expand...


It wasn’t just the West that had troubled the Venetians in this period. The concessions they had been granted by Byzantine emperors became a source of friction. In 1171 the Byzantine Emperor felt ready for a drastic move and suddenly arrested all the Venetians in his empire and seized their properties.
Venetian’s retaliation came in 1204. This is the date of the Fourth Crusade, what proved to be the most profitable transaction in Venetian history. The Venetians had played a fairly passive role in the previous expeditions to reclaim the Holy Land from the Infidels for their situation in fact was already extremely favourable in the Mediterranean.
Yet, in 1204 the Venetians became protagonists.

The crusaders asked the Venetians to provide them with transportation to the Holy Land and in return they agreed to repay them with an exorbitant sum of money. The time came for the crusaders to depart, but not all the money had yet been paid. Instead of making for the Holy Land, they set sail for Constantinople… This is an obscure page of history, full of intrigues… To be brief, in the end Constantinople was captured and sacked for three days.

[h=1]The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople[/h]


Jonathan Phillips sees one of the most notorious events in European history as a typical ‘clash of cultures’.



Jonathan Phillips | Published in History Today Volume 54 Issue 5 May 2004
 
torzio said:
It wasn’t just the West that had troubled the Venetians in this period. The concessions they had been granted by Byzantine emperors became a source of friction. In 1171 the Byzantine Emperor felt ready for a drastic move and suddenly arrested all the Venetians in his empire and seized their properties.
Venetian’s retaliation came in 1204. This is the date of the Fourth Crusade, what proved to be the most profitable transaction in Venetian history. The Venetians had played a fairly passive role in the previous expeditions to reclaim the Holy Land from the Infidels for their situation in fact was already extremely favourable in the Mediterranean.
Yet, in 1204 the Venetians became protagonists.

The crusaders asked the Venetians to provide them with transportation to the Holy Land and in return they agreed to repay them with an exorbitant sum of money. The time came for the crusaders to depart, but not all the money had yet been paid. Instead of making for the Holy Land, they set sail for Constantinople… This is an obscure page of history, full of intrigues… To be brief, in the end Constantinople was captured and sacked for three days.

The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople




Jonathan Phillips sees one of the most notorious events in European history as a typical ‘clash of cultures’.



Jonathan Phillips | Published in History Today Volume 54 Issue 5 May 2004
Click to expand...

I will never ever defend the Byzantine Empire. I have some choice words for them. It was 11 centuries of corruption, palace coups, poisonings, heavy taxation and did I mention corruption? Just to set the record straight. But the so called crusades were nothing but an opportunity for the leaders of those crusades to enrich themselves at the expense of the local populations whose cities were sacked, their women raped, their crops confiscated or burned and their animals stolen. The Crusaders caused more damage than the rest of invaders combined (OK, maybe I am exaggerating a little, but only a little). They left the Byzantines ripe to be invaded by first the Seltzuk Turks and then the Ottoman Turks. Thanks, buddies!
 
bigsnake49 said:
I will never ever defend the Byzantine Empire. I have some choice words for them. It was 11 centuries of corruption, palace coups, poisonings, heavy taxation and did I mention corruption? Just to set the record straight. But the so called crusades were nothing but an opportunity for the leaders of those crusades to enrich themselves at the expense of the local populations whose cities were sacked, their women raped, their crops confiscated or burned and their animals stolen. The Crusaders caused more damage than the rest of invaders combined (OK, maybe I am exaggerating a little, but only a little). They left the Byzantines ripe to be invaded by first the Seltzuk Turks and then the Ottoman Turks. Thanks, buddies!
Click to expand...

agree................religion had nothing to do with it even if the pope led the charge
there has never been a religious government had has succeed in bringing harmony to its people.
 
bigsnake49 said:
I will never ever defend the Byzantine Empire. I have some choice words for them. It was 11 centuries of corruption, palace coups, poisonings, heavy taxation and did I mention corruption? Just to set the record straight. But the so called crusades were nothing but an opportunity for the leaders of those crusades to enrich themselves at the expense of the local populations whose cities were sacked, their women raped, their crops confiscated or burned and their animals stolen. The Crusaders caused more damage than the rest of invaders combined (OK, maybe I am exaggerating a little, but only a little). They left the Byzantines ripe to be invaded by first the Seltzuk Turks and then the Ottoman Turks. Thanks, buddies!
Click to expand...
There was a way to avoid the Ottoman invasion, recognizing the Papal primacy.
 
torzio said:
correct
the why it happened and aftermath is how you discuss history
Click to expand...

Then there are those who pretend their ancestors never committed any foul deeds, provoked or not, whose motives were always pure, never crass greed.
 
As always, imo, many of you take extreme positions, out of either hyper and uncritical nationalism, or atheism, or lack of detailed knowledge.

Human events, even great human events, are rarely as simple as some of you make them out to be.

There were a lot of reasons why people went on the Crusades, and to deny the religious element is to deny history. Were some just rapacious merchants eager for more markets and to cut out the Byzantines as middlemen, some second sons hungry for land, some men escaping from crime, some dragged along by their lords? Of course there were. Maybe they were even the majority. Who knows?

There were innocents too, however. What of the "Children's Crusade", none of which children even made it there? He was completely incompetent, but it really looks as if King Louis IX (Saint Louis, by the way) was sincere in his religion. We can tell from the writings of the time that emotions had been stoked high by tales of the slaughter of Christian pilgrims in the east and Christian religious sites being desecrated, tales which were largely true, if probably exaggerated. That motivated people.

For goodness' sakes, that sort of thing motivates people today. Don't you read the news?

Then there's the age old and ever present curse of ignorance and incompetence. The Franks and the knights from the Rhine in particular had no clue what they were doing, and refused to take advice. The only leader who had a good shot at a treaty allowing access to the holy sites was Frederick, and he could have done it with no war, but the other leaders hated him, and so, among other reasons, there went that.

Why do some of you always just try to score points for one side or the other instead of trying to "understand" it, and maybe, just maybe, learn from it?

Fwiw, I sincerely doubt that even a unified "Christian" front would have saved the east from the Muslims. The Byzantines were too weak by that point to help much. They eventually got to the very gates of Vienna let's not forget, and almost took the whole Mediterranean.
 
LABERIA said:
There was a way to avoid the Ottoman invasion, recognizing the Papal primacy.
Click to expand...


:unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

again religious stupidity?

:useless: :useless: :useless: :useless:

recogn the papal supremacy,hm, but who should do this?
the east Roman nobility? who lost and disband and were attacked? if they recogn papal supremacy they would have been restored?
or the crusaders of 4rth Crusade? who collapse the stability and brought Latinocracy? were n't they on a 'bless mission'?


As always and typical of you,
you think and post only poison and hate, :depressed: :depressed:
 
Angela said:
As always, imo, many of you take extreme positions, out of either hyper and uncritical nationalism, or atheism, or lack of detailed knowledge.

Human events, even great human events, are rarely as simple as some of you make them out to be.


There were a lot of reasons why people went on the Crusades, and to deny the religious element is to deny history. Were some just rapacious merchants eager for more markets and to cut out the Byzantines as middlemen, some second sons hungry for land, some men escaping from crime, some dragged along by their lords? Of course there were. Maybe they were even the majority. Who knows?

There were innocents too, however. What of the "Children's Crusade", none of which children even made it there? He was completely incompetent, but it really looks as if King Louis IX (Saint Louis, by the way) was sincere in his religion. We can tell from the writings of the time that emotions had been stoked high by tales of the slaughter of Christian pilgrims in the east and Christian religious sites being desecrated, tales which were largely true, if probably exaggerated. That motivated people.

For goodness' sakes, that sort of thing motivates people today. Don't you read the news?

Then there's the age old and ever present curse of ignorance and incompetence. The Franks and the knights from the Rhine in particular had no clue what they were doing, and refused to take advice. The only leader who had a good shot at a treaty allowing access to the holy sites was Frederick, and he could have done it with no war, but the other leaders hated him, and so, among other reasons, there went that.

Why do some of you always just try to score points for one side or the other instead of trying to "understand" it, and maybe, just maybe, learn from it?

Fwiw, I sincerely doubt that even a unified "Christian" front would have saved the east from the Muslims. The Byzantines were too weak by that point to help much. They eventually got to the very gates of Vienna let's not forget, and almost took the whole Mediterranean.
Click to expand...

Oh there was. There was a People's crusade under Peter the Hermit. Misguided but probably of pure motives. But even those committed atrocities, perpetuating the Rhineland Jew massacres (the first Holocaust) and then the massacre at Zemun in which 4,000 Hungarians were slaughtered.

My only problem with all these Crusades was all of them were over land. Why would they not attack by sea?

I also think that it was too late for the Byzantine Empire by the time of the Crusades. It had been fighting on too many fronts for far too long. Constantinople shed too bright a light and everybody and their brother wanted to sack and plunder it. Lots of infighting first between the aristocrats and the emperors, religious schisms that the empire got dragged in, civil wars, etc., etc.
 
Angela said:
As always, imo, many of you take extreme positions, out of either hyper and uncritical nationalism, or atheism, or lack of detailed knowledge.

Human events, even great human events, are rarely as simple as some of you make them out to be.

There were a lot of reasons why people went on the Crusades, and to deny the religious element is to deny history. Were some just rapacious merchants eager for more markets and to cut out the Byzantines as middlemen, some second sons hungry for land, some men escaping from crime, some dragged along by their lords? Of course there were. Maybe they were even the majority. Who knows?

There were innocents too, however. What of the "Children's Crusade", none of which children even made it there? He was completely incompetent, but it really looks as if King Louis IX (Saint Louis, by the way) was sincere in his religion. We can tell from the writings of the time that emotions had been stoked high by tales of the slaughter of Christian pilgrims in the east and Christian religious sites being desecrated, tales which were largely true, if probably exaggerated. That motivated people.

For goodness' sakes, that sort of thing motivates people today. Don't you read the news?

Then there's the age old and ever present curse of ignorance and incompetence. The Franks and the knights from the Rhine in particular had no clue what they were doing, and refused to take advice. The only leader who had a good shot at a treaty allowing access to the holy sites was Frederick, and he could have done it with no war, but the other leaders hated him, and so, among other reasons, there went that.

Why do some of you always just try to score points for one side or the other instead of trying to "understand" it, and maybe, just maybe, learn from it?

Fwiw, I sincerely doubt that even a unified "Christian" front would have saved the east from the Muslims. The Byzantines were too weak by that point to help much. They eventually got to the very gates of Vienna let's not forget, and almost took the whole Mediterranean.
Click to expand...

That is 2 centuries after fall of Con/polis to Mohamet 2nd and 4 centuries after the 4rth crusade,

yet Genova and Venice, with the mercenairies East Romans and East Roman failed nobility, manage to hold, and hold for centuries.

It was other things, that drove Byzantium to weakness,
and one of those is considered the 4rth crusade, in fact the catalytic factor is 4rth crusade,
and while some other crusades help East Rome to stabilize,
4rth was a disaster for East Roman,

just to mention 2 other factors,
1 the ratio among monks and soldier, turn to monks with much heavier percentaces, it said that young boys at the age of 16 run to church instead of jobs, military, family, etc etc
2 the lost of Africa to Islam brought new roads of rare merchandise,
3 the Kiev Ross gained the almost zero taxation on merchandise from Con/polis, by providing the Warrangian guards
etc etc

the warning sign is considered Majikert battle,
the catalytic day of pass from empire collapse, to a local kings federation or confederation is the 4rth Crusade.

There is a castle at Thrace, called DIDYMOTEICHO
it is a castle that 3 emperrors were crowned there,
and famous for its relation with crusaders,

East Rome had problem with youth that went to church, and taxation,
but in 3rd and 4rth crusade the sacked from inside of crusaders, just droped the myth of unbeatable Roman,
and drop morale,

read the story od Didymoteichon castle against crusaders, you will understand very well,
you will find it very interesting for what happened that era,
especially the how many families from all over Europe West and East, North and South wanted it
 
All of the Christian forces had literally no chance in the conflicts with Turks,during those periods.


The main problem with the Crusaders, South Slavs and even the Byzantines was that they were used(and even obliged) with highly ideological warfare,as the main form of the State/dynastic perpetuation,thus,making constant advancements and extremely energetic charges as their basic tactics.



Unfortunately, in these combats,with all the stamina drained... berserkely,we didn't see good defensive standstills...either-to the contrary,as a rule ,after the failed charges,panic followed.



This is what the Turks really wanted, because they knew very well how to counter these actions.


At Nicopolis,Mircea the Elder ,who was the Hungarian's king military advisor, as many of the Wallachian warlords, had advised the Crusaders for a more tactical start of the battle ,meaning, that his experienced infantry ,against the Ottomans, to form the first line;they were probably hardly to lure by the Ottomans.
 
To amplify, monks or priests did not have to serve in the army or pay taxes. Eventually the monasteries owned so much land and did not pay taxes to the point where the taxes on the remaining peasants were crushing!
 
Gentlemen,

We have gotten way off topic. If you want to continue the conversation, let me know and I'll move every pertinent post to a dedicated thread.
 
torzio said:
The populace was not big from records from the medieval period, so I do not understand what is the issue here

when venetians took the island after 1204, they state only 110,000 was the cretan populace, they then placed 10000 venetian families on the island ( only place outside of italy and istria where venetian families where allowed to colonise ) , then the last venetian census says

in 1669, after an unsuccessful attempt to break the siege. Francesco Morosini, the Venetian commander, started negotiations with Fazil Ahmet Pacha, the Grand Vizier who was leading the Ottoman army in person. The 23 year war had strained the resources of both Venice and the Ottoman Empire, so an acceptable agreement was welcome by both parties. The Venetians were allowed to leave Candia without being attacked during this phase. With them most of the population left and many Cretan families settled on Corfu, Zante and Cefalonia, the largest Ionian Islands.


The last Venetian census, in 1644, showed a Cretan population of 257,066.
In 1671, according to the first Ottoman census, the total Christian population was 133,370;
by 1693 it had dropped to 91,230.
The Christian population of Crete certainly declined.Is this drop in Christian population the result of war and the departure of the Venetians, or is it the effect of Christian conversion to Islam? One traveler estimated that, within a few years of the conquest, 60% of the Cretan population had converted to Islam.

Another gave the population in1679 as 80,000: 50,000 Christians and 30,000 Muslims.

so from 1644 a populace of 257066 to war for 23 years, to cretans departure after 1669 to a populace of 133370 ..................thats 125000 cretans died and departed for the ionion islands
Click to expand...
Never underestimate the impact of the barbarism of Ottomans. You should read some records about how they treated Venician prisoners after the fall of Cypriot and Cretan cities.
Here is a taste from the fall of FAmagusta:

Famagusta's defenders made terms with the Ottomans before the city was taken by force, since the traditional laws of war allowed for negotiation before the city's defenses were successfully breached, whereas after a city fell by storm all lives and property in the city would be forfeit. The Ottoman commander agreed that, in return for the city's surrender, all Westerners in the city could exit under their own flag and be guaranteed safe passage to Venice-held Crete; Greeks could leave immediately, or wait two years to decide whether to remain in Famagusta under Ottoman rule, or depart the city for any destination of their choice. For the next four days, evacuation proceeded smoothly. Then, at the surrender ceremony on August 5[3] where Bragadin offered the vacated city to Mustafa, the Ottoman general accused him of murdering Turkish prisoners and hiding munitions. Suddenly, Mustafa pulled a knife and cut off Bragadin's right ear, then ordered his guards to cut off the other ear and his nose.
There followed a massacre of all Christians still in the city, with Bragadin himself most brutally abused[4]. After being left in prison for two weeks, his earlier wounds festering, he was dragged round the walls with "sacks of earth and stone" on his back; next, he was tied to a chair and hoisted to the yardarm of the Turkish flagship, where he was exposed to the taunts of the sailors.[5] Finally, he was taken to his place of execution in the main square, tied naked to a column, and flayed alive.[6] Bragadin's quartered body was then distributed as a war trophy among the army, and his skin was stuffed with straw and sewn, reinvested with his military insignia, and exhibited riding an ox in a mocking procession along the streets of Famagusta. The macabre trophy, together with the severed heads of general Alvise Martinengo, Gianantonio Querini and castellan Andrea Bragadin, was hoisted upon the masthead pennant of the personal galley of the Ottoman commander, Amir al-bahr Mustafa Pasha, to be brought to Constantinople as a gift for Sultan Selim II
Click to expand...
All Venician soldiers captured were massacred too.
 
Angela said:
Then there are those who pretend their ancestors never committed any foul deeds, provoked or not, whose motives were always pure, never crass greed.
Click to expand...

I do not know what you mean....the veneti where not part of the 4th crusades, only the venetians participated.....the veneti did not go under venice until circa 1400......besides my ancestors did not enter veneto from trentino until circa 1600
 
torzio said:
I do not know what you mean....the veneti where not part of the 4th crusades, only the venetians participated.....the veneti did not go under venice until circa 1400......besides my ancestors did not enter veneto from trentino until circa 1600
Click to expand...

further on this IIRC

only Venetian held lands at the time of the 4th crusade was the Venetian lagoon area plus western istria

Treviso was held by the swabian, Carrera family
Padua by the Este family who eventually fled to Ferrara circa 1430
Vicenza by the Bavarian, Ezzellini family
Verona by the Swabian, Scaliger family ( italians sometimes call this family, La Scala )

All the above taken by Venetians circa 1400

Friuli plus croatia and Dalmatia was held by the Hungarians at the time of the 4th crusades and all given to the Venetians in 1436 after an on-off 400 year war
 
It's now quite clear, and I assure you I'll remember it. You're not a Venetian and don't have Venetian ancestry. You can claim none of their accomplishments for your ancestry. You can claim only things specifically done by people from the Trentino or whatever "Alpine" villages you hail from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 76331 times.

Back
Top