|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fourth Crusade article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Venetians and Moslems
The Venetians had a thriving trade with the Moslems, especially Egypt. It seems highly unlikely that they would transport a crusading army to attack their best customer.
With their wide spread trading connections, the Venetians must have been perfectly well aware that the Crusaders had grossly overestimated the number of soldiers expected to turn up for the crusade.
The Venetians must also have carefully engineered the crusaders getting into a vast debt over the shipping contract with the intention of diverting the crusade away from Egypt or the Middle East. The attack on Zara may have been preplanned as these were considerable trading rivals of the Venetians.
There wasn't much loot from Zara and the interest on the debt still mounting so the idea of some sort of extortion from the Emperor of Constantinople must have grown, after all he was a "Greek Christian" and not a "real Christian".
Whatever the original feelings of the Crusaders when they reached Constinople, the degree of Greek contempt for the Crusaders eroded any feelings of reverence and ended with the city being burned and sacked.
The Venetians probably couldn't beleive their luck as not only did they get their debt money repaid from the loot but also a great proportion of the artistic loot. Possibly best of all from their point of view was that Constantinople was almost eliminated their greatest trading rival.
The late Ernle Bradford in his book "The Great Betrayal" offers this very real interpretation of the 1204 political scene and the Fourth Crusade generally and is well worth reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have known about the "diversion" of the Crusaders for some time, but this is the first time that I learned why the Venetians diverted the Crusaders, who, themselves, had no axe to grind with Constantinople at the time. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Casualty count is odd?
It says "High..." would it be possible to at least change that to something else? I mean, high relative to what? Previous Crusades? Its also on other crusade articles... can we give an estimate or is it just too far back in history to find it?
- You are right, of course. This is WP:POV wording and is meaningless in an encyclopedia. I have removed
Commanders and leaders: Otto IV.
Please remove Otto IV. from this list due to following reasons:
Otto became emperor in 1209, years after this crusade.
From 1198 to 1208 there was a "civil war" in the Holy Roman Empire between Philipp of Swabia (brother of emperor Henry VI.) and Otto IV. of Brunswick, who both were elected Kings. For the biggest part of this ten years, Philipp was the more powerful and dominant contestor. Indeed Otto was only able to becom undisputed King after Philipp was assasinated in June 1208.
Otto IV. is mentioned nowhere in the text of this article, obviously he has not played a role in this crusade (which he hadn't indeed), so neither should he be mentioned as leader of this crusade. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I removed Otto IV as, like you said, he's not mentioned here, nor is Constantinople mentioned on his page. Just a note, you cold have removed this yourself. Thanks for the heads up - take care.. Dinkytown talk 17:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Bishop Martin of Pairis not Paris
The invisible text warning that it was not a typo was just removed and Paris was inserted; I've reverted it, but I also noted that Martin the same Martin of Pairis Abbey and no page exists for Bishop Martin.I'm putting it as 'Bishop Martin of Pairis, of Pairis Abbey' to clear it up the confusion and hopefully put another reason why it is not a typo for future editors. Even a minor mistake like this completely changes the context and identification of Bishop Martin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)