Which makes the people of Constantinople more guilty in my mind. Had it been the last Komnenan Emperor's fault alone, the fact that he was gone by the time of the 4th Crusade would have meant something. Given that the people carried out much of the brutality alone they are responsible for their own suffering.
So a riot is as reprehensible as a deliberate decision by the people responsible? Or worse? What?
But even if we accept that - I disagree. An atrocity twenty years ago does not justify another atrocity in the present. Hell, it doesn't justify one in the first place.
Now, if you were arguing that they deserved to be held accountable, I'd agree - but sacking Constantinople isn't holding anyone accountable, its at best pure revenge.
Its a mark against Andronicus that he didn't do anything about this, but its not something where "turn about is fair play" isn't anything other than an ugly looking thing.
In this instance and others like it, Byzantium's mind joins the west in the gutter.
The West's mind is more or less permamently in the gutter when it comes to war and punishment. The East...no. (Seriously, take a look at ERE law some day, its pretty impressive by comparison even if you're not in favor of its elements in the presence). Though this depends to some extent on what laws and periods, Western law isn't significantly better in 900 than 600. ERE?
As I recall, the Empire compelled the Bulgarians to convert to Orthodox Christianity rather than Catholicism by sending in troops. Sounds very 'Latin' in a way.
I'd have to check this, but I think the circumstances are considerably different - and different or not, the issue is how this relates to the reception Louis will receive, not to some comparison of the West's inferiority to the East's superiority.
But its the kind of thing that got the idea that the Sultan was better than the Cardinal (which speaks wonders for just strongly people felt about 1204 and following Latin rule - given how the ERE has accepted men as unimperial as Basil the Macedonian, that the Latins come off as barbarians is saying something that we should remember).
Very true, even John Hunyadi believed in converting the Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs. Possibly by force. ANd this was the man who waged a war in hopes of freeing Constantinople.
Should have been clearer - Louis has his head on straight when it comes to fighting campaigns (so does John Hunyadi).
The religious issue...Louis doesn't seem better.
I've heard this too, but I'm not sure how true it was given that Orthodoxy survived his reign fairly intact.
It certainly would, even if unsuccessful, reflect someone who has an attitude towards "schismatics" that is not the one you want here - you need someone who respects or at least tolerates the ERE and its bizarre religious ideas (I like the ERE but I'm always up for mocking things that take themselves too seriously).
On the issue of foreign rulers: All of these sound like they'd have problems, and I'm assuming that "Western Catholic" isn't enough to inspire a rebellion just to make a point.