What If no Siege of Constantinople in 1204?

It all might have played out very differently if the Crusaders had paid the Venetians, after assembling in Venice. The other thing that could contribute to channeling the Crusade to its original goals is to butterfly an event that took place over 20 years earlier ---the Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182. Revenge was a factor as well as greed in the sack of Constantinople.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

I'm not entirely convinced revenge was a big deal in having it be drawn to Constantinople (in terms of its influence on the crusaders), but it certainly didn't help.

Not really fair (observing this based on the quote by Carroll) to compare the actions of a mob to the actions of an army, though.
 
I'm not entirely convinced revenge was a big deal in having it be drawn to Constantinople (in terms of its influence on the crusaders), but it certainly didn't help.

It was more the wealth of Constantinople, while it was weakened.
 
I'm not entirely convinced revenge was a big deal in having it be drawn to Constantinople (in terms of its influence on the crusaders), but it certainly didn't help.

Not really fair (observing this based on the quote by Carroll) to compare the actions of a mob to the actions of an army, though.

It really effected perceptions of Constantinople in the West, helped lay a groundwork for events that later transpired. It wasn't THE big deal, but it was a big deal. Taken together, how better to slap a bullseye on your self then, "I killed several thousand Latins, I'm rich, and I'm vulnerable"? Just mix with one conniving, blind 90 year old who wants his City to recover its investments and add to the greater glory of it, and you have the perfect shitstorm.
 
It really effected perceptions of Constantinople in the West, helped lay a groundwork for events that later transpired. It wasn't THE big deal, but it was a big deal. Taken together, how better to slap a bullseye on your self then, "I killed several thousand Latins, I'm rich, and I'm vulnerable"? Just mix with one conniving, blind 90 year old who wants his City to recover its investments and add to the greater glory of it, and you have the perfect shitstorm.

Did it, though?

I mean, this is a West which has already convinced itself the Byzantines sabotaged the Second Crusade and tried to sabotage the First (and probably Third).
 
Did it, though?

I mean, this is a West which has already convinced itself the Byzantines sabotaged the Second Crusade and tried to sabotage the First (and probably Third).

Byzantine/Latin relations are a sad history rife with bad faith, backstabbing, and general mistrust between both parties but the Latin Massacre and its aftermath mark the beginning of a concerted 20 year downhill spiral in general relations ending with 1204 and the 4th Crusade.
Historians still are hashing out the relative effects but there is a view that the Latin Massacre has been much under-considered.
 
Last edited:
Byzantine/Latin relations are a sad history rife with bad faith, backstabbing, and general mistrust between both parties but the Latin Massacre and its aftermath is particularly important because it was potent propaganda in the West spread by the Westerners who had the most intimate contact with Constantinople as well as being the victims, the Italian traders. The last 20 years before the 1204 sacking were in general, a downhill spiral in terms of general relations.
Historians still are hashing out the relative effects but there is a view that the Latin Massacre has been under-considered.

It certainly didn't help matters with the Italian city-states, whether or not the French and such were that concerned.

The main problem I have with it, and this is looking at the general Western attitude towards the Byzantines, is that the West seems to have done much of the actual nastiness while the Byzantines were blamed for things they didn't do.

I'm not saying the Byzantines were innocents (Isaac II and his . . . mixed . . . treatment of Barbarosa's expedition comes to mind)- but the Western take on the Byzantine policy in regards to crusaders is, at best, refusing to see any point of view other than that the Crusaders were Godly and therefore anyone who wasn't in favor was Ungodly.
 
It certainly didn't help matters with the Italian city-states, whether or not the French and such were that concerned.

The main problem I have with it, and this is looking at the general Western attitude towards the Byzantines, is that the West seems to have done much of the actual nastiness while the Byzantines were blamed for things they didn't do.

I'm not saying the Byzantines were innocents (Isaac II and his . . . mixed . . . treatment of Barbarosa's expedition comes to mind)- but the Western take on the Byzantine policy in regards to crusaders is, at best, refusing to see any point of view other than that the Crusaders were Godly and therefore anyone who wasn't in favor was Ungodly.

Oh, I quite agree that the West was often at fault. But, perceptions often trump facts.
The Latins saw things as they saw them. We have the luxury to both understand and to judge in hindsight.
 
Oh, I quite agree that the West was often at fault. But, perceptions often trump facts.
The Latins saw things as they saw them. We have the luxury to both understand and to judge.

Yeah.

One thing that's particularly damnable, and this is something neither side really addressed . ..

Neither side really tried to work with the other.

Manuel was a Latinophile culturally, but that just managed to inspire ill will amongst the Byzantines towards the overly . . . prejudiced isn't quite the word, but it'll do - Emperor's attitudes. Meanwhile his ambitions in the West aroused a response.

Bad combination.

Byzantium at best (speaking from a Western POV) has not proven to be one of the powers on the side of the West's interests, is rich, and is vulnerable. It's hard to see that not being taken advantage of, as you noted.

Even if there's no sense of "revenge" driving it to occur on the part of the crusaders, that no one really had any good will for the Byzantines made it entirely too easy for Dandalo - who does have an interest in such - to push things towards what happened.
 
Yeah.

One thing that's particularly damnable, and this is something neither side really addressed . ..

Neither side really tried to work with the other.

Manuel was a Latinophile culturally, but that just managed to inspire ill will amongst the Byzantines towards the overly . . . prejudiced isn't quite the word, but it'll do - Emperor's attitudes. Meanwhile his ambitions in the West aroused a response.

Bad combination.

Yes. In another context, unlucky Manuel could have been that bridge to working together. In the West, perhaps only Venice or Hungary had the best motivations and wherewithal to cooperate with Constantinople. Missed opportunities that could have greatly changed the world.
 
Yes. In another context, unlucky Manuel could have been that bridge to working together. In the West, perhaps only Venice or Hungary had the best motivations and wherewithal to cooperate with Constantinople. Missed opportunities that could have greatly changed the world.

Yeah. Unfortunately, to quote Norwich: "(Manuel) left a heavy heritage: one that would have defeated better man by far than those who were, alas, to succeed him."

That's going to be something tricky to deal with for any such what if as this - how do you manage to deal with the fact Byzantium is short on money and friends at the same time?

I don't think it's unmanageable with an energetic and driven successor (who isn't as insane as Andronicus), but the Byzantines desperately need a breather - and between the Italians and the Hungarians and the Crusaders and the Serbs and the dynatoi - the Empire is going to have to compromise somewhere just to get one. Even a success in 1176 isn't going to change the overall situation, it just means a slightly better eastern frontier in the 1180s.
 
Top