So how long will Ben last this time?

[Ben Kenobi]

The Catholics? Yes good point, it most certainly was the Catholics who stabbed their fellow Christians in the back and after an ogry of bloodletting and theft in Constantinople left the city so weakened that the Ottomans were able to finally conquer it. Glad to see you supporting some actual history for once.

You mean Emperor Alexios III Angelos? You might want to read up on him a bit before blaming the Catholics for the destruction of the Empire. The Latin Crusaders had only 20k men. Isaac II Angelos had just cause against his brother. None of the Angelos were porphyrogennetos.

Then you have the massacre of the Latins in 1182. 80k killed by Andronikos Komnenos.

Anyway you slice it the Venetians and the Latins had a casus belli.

[kentonio]

It's a lot more Christian the England.

I take that as a compliment.

[kentonio]

You mean Emperor Alexios III Angelos? You might want to read up on him a bit before blaming the Catholics for the destruction of the Empire. The Latin Crusaders had only 20k men. Isaac II Angelos had just cause against his brother. None of the Angelos were porphyrogennetos.

Then you have the massacre of the Latins in 1182. 80k killed by Andronikos Komnenos.

Anyway you slice it the Venetians and the Latins had a casus belli.

Casus belli? For one of the most opportunistic and vile acts of villany in Catholic history? You talk an amazing amount of pure unadulterated bull****.

The Library of Constantinople was destroyed.[9] Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared, not even the tombs of the emperors inside the St Apostles church. The civilian population of Constantinople were subject to the Crusaders' ruthless lust for spoils and glory; thousands of them were killed in cold blood. Women, even nuns, were raped by the Crusader army, which also sacked churches, monasteries and convents. The very altars of these churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by the warriors who had sworn to fight in service of the Pope without question.

Or we could listen to the words of an actual pope, despite your apparent belief that you know better.

"It is tragic that the assailants, who set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret."

"How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust?"

Pretty ****ed up even for you to be trying to defend an outrage which involved thousands of senseless murders and the mass rapes of countless women including nuns.

[Ben Kenobi]

Casus belli? For one of the most opportunistic and vile acts of villany in Catholic history? You talk an amazing amount of pure unadulterated bull****.

Yes, the slaughter of 80k Catholic civilians in Byzantium, including the sick.

Pretty ****ed up even for you to be trying to defend an outrage which involved thousands of senseless murders and the mass rapes of countless women including nuns.

Perhaps I should say the same for you, in outright dismissing what happened to the Catholics. 80k, Kentonio.

London itself had only 20k then.

IF the slaughter of 80k Catholics without provocation is not a Casus Belli, then I'm not sure what would consist of provocation.

In any case, Venetian response was justified.

If we want to get into Papal judgment, Innocent III refused to give his blessing to a Crusade against the Byzantine Empire in response to the slaughter of the Catholics. Not because such was not justified, but because he wanted to end the cycle of vengeance before it lead to greater damage.

Had Alexios IV, not offered the Crusaders payment to reach Constantinople, the Fourth Crusade would not have ended up in Constantinople in the first place. In short, the Byzantines destroyed themselves. The Fourth Crusade is a sad story, but there were many points where things would have worked out differently.

[kentonio]

You moron, it absolutely astounds me that you have the sheer arrogance to think you know more about the culpability of the Catholic church than John Paul II did.

As for casus belli, the crusade got themselves horribly in debt to the Venetians and then ran completely out of control against the wishes of the pope. They also had absolutely no authority from anyone to declare war on Byzantium or act on any such casus belli even if one had existed.

The pope excommunicated them for ****s sake, and only lifted it after they convinced him into thinking the Venetians had blackmailed them into it.

Now as you're completely at odds with at least two popes now, would you like to retract your stupid and callous previous statements?

[Ben Kenobi]

You moron, it absolutely astounds me that you have the sheer arrogance to think you know more about the culpability of the Catholic church than John Paul II did.

While leaving out the culpability of Alexios IV in keeping them there? You're aware that even after the coup, he kept the Crusader army there for months afterwards because he needed troops that would prop him up after he lost the support of the people of Constantinople?

It is easy with the gaze of the 21st century to condemn the actions of 12th century Catholics. Personally, I would rather quote Innocent III who was there. But that doesn't serve your narrative that the culpability was on the Catholics who had a rather restrained response.

Again, the Crusade would have either fizzled out or ended up in Egypt without the intervention of Alexios IV. That much is certain. Alexios IV promised to pay them, but he did not keep his promises.

As for casus belli, the crusade got themselves horribly in debt to the Venetians and then ran completely out of control against the wishes of the pope. They also had absolutely no authority from anyone to declare war on Byzantium or act on any such casus belli even if one had existed.

That does not change the fact that the Venetians in particular still possessed a Casus Belli against the Emperor, even if they did not exercise it. It wasn't even the Venetians that directed the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople, it was Alexios IV.

The pope excommunicated them for ****s sake, and only lifted it after they convinced him into thinking the Venetians had blackmailed them into it.

Indeed, which is a rather measured response. Did the Patriarch excommunicate those who slaughtered the Latins 20 years before, or did they crown them?

Now as you're completely at odds with at least two popes now, would you like to retract your stupid and callous previous statements?

Curious. I'm still waiting for your acknowledgement that the slaughter of 80k Catholics in Constantinople, where the perpetrators received no punishment is an atrocity. I guess to you they are just a statistic.

[ZEE]

trying to read all these words makes AAHZ's brain hurt.

[Kidlicious]

Casus belli? For one of the most opportunistic and vile acts of villany in Catholic history? You talk an amazing amount of pure unadulterated bull****.

The Crusaders were trapped there, out of finances. There wasn't any order to slaughter, but it unfortunately happened anyway.

[C0ckney]

Well, I'm not surprised you didn't list them.

apparently the turks didn't cross the bosporus nor take constantinople until 1500. no muslim conquest of sicily, byzantine attempts to the retake it and the subsequent conquest by the normans (a fascinating conflict all round), together with that of malta. cyprus and crete are never taken. nothing about the conquests of georgia and its subsequent emergence as an independent christian kingdom. according to the video, the crusaders didn't set up any states in the middle east, the whole of which stays green on the map throughout it; and while we're on the subject, where is lesser armenia? spain and portugal are just completely wrong, as is india, and don't get me started on africa. there are a lot crusader battles missing, among the most important being constantinople and nicopolis.

there are plenty of other problems besides, which you'd know about if you weren't the worst history teacher on planet earth.

[kentonio]

It is easy with the gaze of the 21st century to condemn the actions of 12th century Catholics. Personally, I would rather quote Innocent III who was there. But that doesn't serve your narrative that the culpability was on the Catholics who had a rather restrained response.

You fascist fuck, they slaughtered thousands of innocent people, raped nuns on the altars of churches and tore apart religious and cultural sites that had stood for centuries, until the streets ran deep in blood. Even the heads of your own religion say it was a terrible act, but you have to try and play the role of apologist for rapists and murderers. You're a disgusting little prick and we're done here.

[SlowwHand]

[Kidlicious]

Isn't it amazing how kentonio is so outraged when Catholics kill Orthodox Christians, but doesn't care at all when Muslims do the same thing?

[Aeson]

It is easy with the gaze of the 21st century to condemn the actions of 12th century Catholics. Personally, I would rather quote Innocent III who was there.

You mean this?

One would be hard-pressed to find a Catholic historian (or any Catholic who learns the details) who would defend what took place in this abominable, reprehensible catastrophe. Warren Carroll, one of the best orthodox Catholic historians of our time, candidly admits in his major series of volumes, A History of Christendom:

The sack that followed was one of the worst in all of history. . . No man, woman or child was safe from the ravagers. Robbery and rape were almost universal, mindless destruction widespread. Westerners . . . killed indiscriminately, without mercy or restraint . . . For this to have been done by crusaders - men actually wearing the Cross of Christ - was an ineffaceable disgrace . . . The Greeks never forgot the sack of Constantinople in 1204; its memory, more than anything else, has prevented the healing of the Greek schism from that day to this, despite several major efforts at reunion.
{The Glory of Christendom, Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1993, p. 157-158}

So the first thing to be noted is that this horrific event is morally indefensible, and that Catholics know and accept this. Secondly, and most importantly, the pope at the time, Pope Innocent III, neither knew about nor sanctioned in the least this massacre and sacrilegious pillage. In fact, he had forbidden the Crusaders, on pain of excommunication, to attack Byzantium, instructing the leader, Boniface of Montferrat, that: «The crusade must not attack Christians, but should proceed as quickly as possible to the Holy Land.» He only found out the full horror of what had happened more than eight months later, and wrote to Cardinal Peter Capuano, denouncing the sack in no uncertain terms:

These «soldiers of Christ» who should have turned their swords against the infidel have steeped them in Christian blood, sparing neither religion, nor age, nor sex... They stripped the altars of silver, violated the sanctuaries, robbed icons and crosses and relics... The Latins have given example only of perversity and works of darkness. No wonder the Greeks call them dogs!»
{cited in Carroll, ibid., p. 158; from Mann, Popes of the Middle Ages, vol. 12, pp. 266-267}

Bold: "BK is a moron" - Innocent III
Sized: author has been lucky to never meet BK.

[Ben Kenobi]

Isn't it amazing how kentonio is so outraged when Catholics kill Orthodox Christians, but doesn't care at all when Muslims do the same thing?

We call it selective outrage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sized: author has been lucky to never meet BK.

And? Point is made that there were nearly a hundred thousand Catholics slaughtered just for the crime of 'being Catholic'. Nobody here seems to give a damn.