![PriseDeConstantinople1204PalmaLeJeune[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bhfcczQ.jpg "PriseDeConstantinople1204PalmaLeJeune[1].jpg")
>be Greece(not Rome)
>can't handle your economy
>get indebted to generous and hard-working Latins
>Latins rightfully ask you to pay debts
>chimp out and massacre them
>later crusader sack your city in retaliation
>thousands of years later neckbeards whining about muh evil catholics crusaders sacked a Christian city
Are byzaboos literally the most retarded people on this website ?
you won't even get a (You), fag
>>1220680
"Real"CrusadesHistory, please go.
>>1220691
disprove one thing that I said
>>1220691
That's not how RealCrusadeshistory justifies the 4th crusade though.
>>1220695
1. First of all, the Byzantines were never indebted to the Latins and the Latins fucked over the native Greeks and their fellow Latins all the time. The Byzzies tried hard to appease them and support them when given the chance but since the Latins wouldn't stop chimping out it was only a matter of time before extreme measures were taken.
2. The Fourth Crusade has never been a response to the Massacre of the Latins, in fact the Fourth Crusade was targetted on Constantinople because a Byzantine usurper asked them to help him get on the Byzantine throne and promised them loads of wealth in response. He wasn't favourable amongst the rest of the Byzantines though and when he did become Emperor, he was quickly disposed and then the crusaders ravaged the City.
>>1220691
If you disagree with him you're just a left nu male cuck.
>>1220710
>. First of all, the Byzantines were never indebted to the Latins and the Latins fucked over the native Greeks and their fellow Latins all the time.
proofs?
>>1220817
Are you seriously asking him to prove a negative?
>>1220704
>RealCrusadeshistory justifies the 4th crusade
Figures
>>1221294
>Massacre Latins
>doesn't expect to get fucking slaughtered
>>1221298
Yeah, that's about the level of equivocation you'd expect from a high school alt rightard pretending to know how to into history.
They didn't have to torch the place to the fucking ground.
>>1221304
So you're saying it wasn't justified? Even though the greeks spilled blood?
>>1221312
It was not justified, and any one who says it could ever be justified has no business having an opinion on morals and philosophy. But that was obvious from the moment they subscribed to a Youtube nobody signalling to deus vult LARPers that everyone else is wrong.
>>1221327
>It was not justified
Explain to my why it isn't justified.
>>1221337
No, you have to justify it first. A crime doesn't have the privilege of being justified by default.
>>1221348
Okay, it was justified because the Crusaders were getting fed up of defending the Holy Land, getting no help from Byzantium, hell even fucking siding with the Turks, after the massacre of the Latins, it all just boiled the whole thing down to "fuck'em, we gotta kill the heretics."
What faith are you?
>>1221361
>it was justified because the Crusaders were getting fed up of defending the Holy Land
No they weren't. That's why there was a Fourth, Fifth, all the way through the Ninth, Crusade.
>getting no help from Byzantium
You know, besides transportation, supplies, guides, diplomatic contacts, ransoms, and literally not raiding Crusader territories every other decade to steal relics, towns, and taxes, which is more than can be said for the Crusader States.
>hell even fucking siding with the Turks
It's okay when the Latins do it to settle petty squabbles over their rights, but apparently the worst thing ever for an enlightened bureaucratic empire.
>after the massacre of the Latins
You mean the series of riots where Latins massacred Latins, spilling out into the streets to massacre Imperial citizens, that they then lost badly when the local mobs took matters into their own hands?
>it all just boiled the whole thing down to "fuck'em, we gotta kill the heretics."
So an admission of guilt trying to disguise itself as justification because you immoral fags don't know the difference anymore.
>What faith are you?
And there it is. "What do you mean you disagree? I bet you're [antithetical identity politics enemy]! Reveal yourself so I can 'justify' ignoring anything you say before returning to my precious echo chamber."
>>1221392
>No they weren't. That's why there was a Fourth, Fifth, all the way through the Ninth, Crusade.
Defending the Holy Land without having anyone help.
>You know, besides transportation, supplies, guides, diplomatic contacts, ransoms, and literally not raiding Crusader territories every other decade to steal relics, towns, and taxes, which is more than can be said for the Crusader States.
Where's the Military? Where's the fucking soldiers that can help?
>It's okay when the Latins do it to settle petty squabbles over their rights
Dealing with pagans who will convert or will just get slaughtered is better than having an "enlightened" bureaucracy who won't slaughter the fucking non-believer.
>that they then lost badly when the local mobs took matters into their own hands?
Are you justifying a fucking massacre you sick fuck?
>So an admission of guilt trying to disguise itself as justification because you immoral fags don't know the difference anymore.
No?
>he didn't answer my question
Do you have autism? What the hell is your faith?
>>1221406
>Defending the Holy Land without having anyone help.
You know, besides nearly every single noble family in Europe, and the Byzantines, and the Armenians, and local Levantine Christians.
>Where's the Military? Where's the fucking soldiers that can help?
Gee, I don't know, maybe fighting the Turks in Anatolia who the Crusaders rarely helped fight because they were too busy fighting Egypt and Syria who hadn't threatened the empire in centuries? Or maybe off fighting Slavic and Bulgarian tribes supported by Venice and the Pope against the empire? Or hell, maybe off in Greece and Southern Italy defending the empire against the Normans.
>Dealing with pagans who will convert or will just get slaughtered is better than having an "enlightened" bureaucracy who won't slaughter the fucking non-believer.
And this is the person trying to use the word "justify" unironically.
>Are you justifying a fucking massacre you sick fuck?
No. You are.
>No?
Eloquent and completely unconvincing as always.
>Do you have autism? What the hell is your faith?
Oh yeah, keep it coming. What's next on your list of names to call when you can't control the argument? Cuck, right?
I'm out. Good luck with your excuse for a reply that's sure to come and I won't bother reading. Maybe in another 600 years someone will do a better job justifying the Fourth Crusade for once.
>>1221434
>You know, besides nearly every single noble family in Europe, and the Byzantines, and the Armenians, and local Levantine Christians.
>no military support
>Gee, I don't know, maybe fighting the Turks in Anatolia who the Crusaders rarely helped fight because they were too busy fighting Egypt and Syria who hadn't threatened the empire in centuries?
So that's why the supported snakes?
>And this is the person trying to use the word "justify" unironically.
You want unbelievers?
>Oh yeah, keep it coming. What's next on your list of names to call when you can't control the argument? Cuck, right?
Is it you have no faith? Are you stupid? Are you an atheist?
>>1220683
Kek. That's the spirit.
