Jump to content

Talk:Fourth Crusade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Venetians and Moslems

[edit]

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 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Casualty count is odd?

[edit]

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?

173.79.68.101 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC) This is an IP adress that still likes to edit as if it had an actual account :D[reply]

You are right, of course. This is WP:POV wording and is meaningless in an encyclopedia. I have removed

Commanders and leaders: Otto IV.

[edit]

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. 87.178.36.189 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bishop Martin of Pairis not Paris

[edit]

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)[reply]

@seylarin​ 103.214.150.75 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

byzantines

[edit]

you're guys wrote the christians victories on the byzantines but byzantines are not muslims ? what about the christian defeat against the muslims ? youre guys dont fuking wrote the muslim victories, why so much hate ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great grammar - thanks for your note.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fourth Crusade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Money taken after the sacking of Constantinople

[edit]

11/04/18 6:28am In the 'Sacking of Constantinople' section it says that 900,000 silver coins were taken and distributed to various people but in the breakdown it only adds up to 800,000 (if my maths is right). So potentially either the 900,000 number, the other numbers, or I am incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ailsa99 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original intent of the Fourth Crusade?

[edit]

The lead and text of the article disagree on what the original intent of the Fourth Crusade was (probably because there's disagreement among the sources.) The second sentence lead says, as if it's undisputed fact, that The original intent of the expedition was to recapture the Muslim-controlled city of Jerusalem, by first conquering the powerful Egyptian Ayyubid Sultanate, the strongest Muslim nation of the time. However, the Legacy section says that The controversy that has surrounded the Fourth Crusade has led to diverging opinions in academia on whether its objective was indeed the capture of Constantinople. The traditional position, which holds that this was the case, was challenged by Donald E. Queller and Thomas F. Madden in their book The Fourth Crusade (1977), implying that traditional scholarship holds that attacking Constantinople was always the actual aim. The historical section complicates this by listing the series of events that led to the sack of Constantinople and describing the motivations of everyone involved but carefully not saying, specifically, what the original aim was (and especially not delving into the motivations and goals of the Venetians, who traditional scholarship generally argues always intended to steer the Crusades against Byzantium); the closest we get Boniface and the other leaders sent envoys to Venice, Genoa, and other city-states in 1200 to negotiate a contract for transport to Egypt, the object of their crusade. Notably, the cite for that (a Brittanica article) was written by Thomas F. Madden, who describes his own position as revisionist. --Aquillion (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Legacy section should be reworded. What is called "The traditional position" seems in earnest to be "the traditional Byzantine historians" position. The debate about the reasons for the diversion of the crusade to Constantinople is ancient (since the 19th c., cf "A Century of Controversy on the Fourth Crusade" cited in the article), Queller and Madden didn't came out of the blue to challenge an established historical position. The historical source for Egypt as the primary target is Villehardouin's work, so it depends on the trust (or direct knowledge) modern authors have for him, Byzantine historians tend to rely more on Nicetas' analysis.--Phso2 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the page should probably go into a lot more detail on historical perspectives on the Fourth Crusade and how they developed over time. --Aquillion (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of Jerusalem to the truce of 1198 section

[edit]
In the last paragraph in the loss of Jerusalem section, what does "Sidon was placed under a revenue-sharing condominium" mean? Is that a typo error?

Walter III of Brienne's invasion of the Kingdom of Sicily.

[edit]

Walter III of Brienne joined the Fourth Crusade when it was initially declared, but he launched an invasion of the Kingdom of Sicily with the intention of sailing to Syria after he took control. This campaign is not mentioned once throughout the whole article and I think it should at least be mentioned. I think it might even be enough to include the Kingdom of Sicily in the info box as a belligerent against the Crusaders. What do you think? Lyricus the Lame (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on mention, no on infobox. It could get a whole section or even a whole subarticle, but putting Sicily as an opponent of the crusade in the box is not informative on its own. Srnec (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MaxLapides (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MaxLapides (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

[edit]

The Cumans article contains the following statement:

The Cumans also played a prominent role in the Fourth Crusade

As such, shouldn't the Cumans be mentioned in this article, if only briefly? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader victory?

[edit]

Can someone please elaborate that how it was a Crusader victory when they failed to achieve the objective. 39.49.72.183 (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military victory is not the same thing as achieving a given objective. Also, whose objective? There were many different objectives sought by many different factions in this story. The Venetians achieved their objective, for example. Remsense诉 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good demonstration of why trying to fit every conflict into a box doesn't work. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it from me to disagree with that. Remsense诉 20:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find source called “Topping 1975”

[edit]

Hi. My name is Ansoku-Kosan.

I need to find the source called “Topping 1975” ( References number 72,78). If you know where it is, please tell me.

I translated this article from English to Japanese but a veteran Wikipedian informed me of missing of the source called “Topping 1975” ( References number 72,78) and asked me to attach it. I think I have forgotten to write it when I translated this article and look for it but I cat find it. I need your help. Please tell me something about it if you may know.

Sorry for my bad English .—安息香酸 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@安息香酸: It came from careless copypaste by some ip last year [1], it is fixed now.--Phso2 (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Phso2!
It is completely fixed. Thank you for fixing Japanese version too!! 安息香酸 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t a crusader victory against Ayyubids by any metric

[edit]

It was a Muslim victory in holy land or they aren’t included in this crusade. Crusadevsjihad (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much fighting in the Holy Land so it doesn't make sense to classify it as a military victory for the Muslims. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it point to an aftermath section per WP:RESULT. Remsense ‥ 论 03:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fourth_Crusade&oldid=1264474626"