Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "History Summarized: The Republic of Venice (Ft. Suibhne!)" video.

Maybe the Venetians wanted to remind to the Byzantines that not being massacrated was part of the deal ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins )
15
Seriously? The Ottomans started to be a issue for Venice 200 years after the sack of Constantinople (and initially they were a minor one, see the Battle of Gallipoli, that the Venetians won easily in 1416). Venice was holding parts of the gains of the 4th Crusade still 500 years after the sack. To have eliminated one of the intermediaries (so to have better prices and higher profits), annexed a good part of his wealth, and being still profiting of the operation after HALF A MILLENNIUM seems AN HELL of a deal. What financial plan predicts positive outcomings for five centuries?
9
The Arsenal of Venice was famously able to produce a galley a day, and their rowers were no slaves
3
@tylerellis9097 1) Oh, yeah, it was only a small massacre, How could the Byzantines think that the Venetians could care of it? 2) So Genoese were fair game? 3) Had they massacrated Byzantines? (and, with the benefit of hindsight, why not, if they had been able able to vanquish the Empire in the end?) 4) So, when you are not satisfied of some State's assistance, the normal thing to do is massacrating the citizens you can find? The massacre of the latins simply demonstrated to the Venetians that the Byzantine Empire was an unstable and unpredictable commercial partner, and that, if they wanted to carry on their business without being at the mercy of some mad emperor, they had to do it through THEIR ports and THEIR fortresses, not asking for permission. In the end, it had been the right move, so yes, the massacre, for the byzantines, backfired a little. The way Byzantines could die to Turks is by dying to Turks. They already lost Anatolia before (stable? Please...), and there were no more Crusaders Kingdoms to take the brunt of the muslims' expansion efforts.
3
@marvelfannumber1 That there would have been no Ottoman Empire without the 4th Crusade is a strong assumption since it had been founded almost ONE HUNDRED YEARS after the sack. What the 4th Crusade did in the long term for Venice was TWO CENTURIES of absolute rule over the eastern Mediterranean, and further three centuries of disputed rule, but Venice was still profiting of the Crusade after half a millennium. What other investment had been so successful in the long term?
2
12:22 "Oh my god, It's almost like the fourth crusade had long term consequences". Seriously? The Ottomans started to be a issue for Venice 200 YEARS after the sack of Constantinople (and initially they were a minor one, see the Battle of Gallipoli, that the Venetians won easily in 1416). Venice was still holding parts of the gains of the 4th Crusade 500 YEARS after the sack. Even admitting (and it's a strong assumption) that the Fourth Crusade really caused the raise of the Ottoman Empire, to have eliminated one of the intermediaries (so to have better prices and higher profits), annexed a good part of his wealth, and being still profiting of the operation after HALF A MILLENNIUM seems like AN HELL of a deal.
2
Pepin was both the name of Charlemagne's father and the nickname of one of his sons.
2
Venetians were badass.
2
Until the 13th century, the power to elect the Doge was of the Concio, the assembly of free citizens. The creation first of the Consilium Sapientium to aid the Doge, then its transformation in Maggior Consiglio, and finally the Serrata (limiting it to 52 families) and the voiding of the Concio of the real power were all seen as meant to promote stability.
2
@marvelfannumber1 It's quite hilarious to hear someone describing giving hard datas "throwing around numbers". It usually happens when someone doesn't have real arguments. That the Ottoman Empire would not have existed without the fourth crusade is not an "argument", is an unsupported statement, and the "numbers" you dislike so much are there to say that the correlation is not so sure as you like to believe. But even agreeing with the unsupported statement. The 4th crusade screwed up the Byzantine Empire? And so? Why Venetians should have cared? EVEN WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT they profited from the operation FOR AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF TIME.
1
@marvelfannumber1 Sorry, but numbers are relevant in history. And the temporal distance between the events is FUNDAMENTAL. It's not like history is independent from the time, and time is counted with numbers. As already said, I don't need a "counter point". That the Ottoman Empire would not have existed without the fourth crusade is not an "argument", is an unsupported statement, and the "numbers" you dislike so much are there to say that the correlation is not so sure as you like to believe. I have not to prove that you are wrong. You made a statement ("the fourth crusade caused the rise of the Ottoman Empire") your is the burden of the proof. You said "Venice really shot themselves in the foot with that whole 4th Crusade thing, a pretty shortsighted powergrab which both created and destroyed their naval empire." Reality is that Venice was still holding part of the gains of the 4Th Crusade when the Republic was ended not by the Ottomans, but by Napoleon. The naval empire too was not destroyed by the Ottomans. Venetian naval strenght continued after the one of the Ottomans reached its peak and declined. Infact, while they needed allies to win at Lepanto, the Venetians single handedly won almost all the naval engagements in the subsequent Cretan War. What ended the Venetian naval empire had not been the confront with the Ottomans, but the shift of the balance of trade towards the Atlantic, and so the marginalization of the eastern mediterranean. Venice didn't got weaker compared to the Ottomans (to whom they could still seize the Peloponnese at the end of 17th century), but compared to the other European powers.
1
@marvelfannumber1 Your statement: "Well using data would be relevant if we were either having a math-focused conversation, or if we were having an economic conversation, maybe even a political conversation. But in a historical conversation? Using numbers and dates as your primary argument is just not very valid of a counter point." Sorry, but numbers are relevant in history. And the temporal distance between the events is FUNDAMENTAL. It's not like history is independent from the time, and time is counted with numbers. What I said to you FURTHER is that the Ottoman Empire would not have existed without the fourth crusade is not an "argument", is an unsupported statement, and the "numbers" you dislike so much are there to say that the correlation is not so sure as you like to believe. I have not to prove that you are wrong. You made a statement ("the fourth crusade caused the rise of the Ottoman Empire") your is the burden of the proof, so YOU can't ignore numbers. That said, The Byzantine empire lost Anatolia, and big or small parts of it, several times before the 4th crusade. The Ottoman Empire raised because of the 4th Crusade, or because of the Empire being unable to ward it's borders? There wouldn't have been a series of wars with it's neighbours without the Crusade? The Empire would have had 100 Years to "repel the Turks" or to decay? Or to exhaust itself in border wars anyway? You took too many things for granted. You built an ucronia, and now like to believe it would have been real. But it doesn't work like that. Then, after having talked of straw men, you built one. My statement: "Reality is that Venice was still holding part of the gains of the 4Th Crusade when the Republic was ended not by the Ottomans, but by Napoleon". Are you able to read? "PART". Was Venice still holding part of the gains of the 4th crusade when the Republic was ended by Napoleon? YES. As said: The Ottomans started to be a issue for Venice 200 years after the sack of Constantinople (and initially they were a minor one, see the Battle of Gallipoli, that the Venetians won easily in 1416). Venice was still holding parts of the gains of the 4th Crusade still 500 years after the sack. To have eliminated one of the intermediaries (so to have better prices and higher profits), annexed a good part of its wealth, and being still profiting of the operation after HALF A MILLENNIUM seems like AN HELL of a business. What financial plan predicts positive outcomings for five centuries? That the Ottomans stripped Venice of much of the gains of the 4TH Crusade, STARTING ONLY 200 YEARS AFTER THE SACK and and had not stripped all of them STILL AFTER FURTHER THREE CENTURIES means that the investment had been INCREDIBLY PROFITABLE FOR AN INCREDIBLY LONG TIME. The Ottomans never "dominated" Venice, sorry. They very slowly eroded the gains of the 4th Crusade, but ANY YEAR ANY OF THOSE GAINS LASTED, IS A YEAR OF PROFIT. If the profits are diminishing, that doesn't mean that the ones already gained disappear. It's like saying that the entire Byzantine Empire had been worth nothing, because it ceased to exist. BTW, from "having an influence" to be "part of the territory" there is a BIG difference. I'm sorry for the "Ottoman historians". That Venice needed the help of the Holy League to win at Lepanto in 1571, but single handedly won almost all the naval engagement in the Cretan War (1645-1669), being able to several times blockade the Dardanelli for months is a fact. The naval strenght of the Ottomans declined first than the Venetian one. What ended the Venetian naval empire had not been the confront with the Ottomans, but the shift of the balance of trade towards the Atlantic, and so the marginalization of the eastern mediterranean. Venice didn't got weaker compared to the Ottomans (to whom they could still seize the Peloponnese at the end of 17th century), but compared to the other European powers. Don't worry. your refusal to use "numbers" in your supposed "historical analysis" gave me the impression that your knowledge is at "romance" level.
1
@kyomademon453 Infact it's true that Venice fought seven wars vs. the Ottomans in three centuries, but that simply means that there were three or four years of war every 50 (and they were mostly sieges, relatively cheap for the defenders). For the rest it was business as usual, with the Ottoman Empire being Venice's main trading partner. Venice's goal in almost all the Ottoman–Venetian wars was to show to the Ottomans that a war vs. Venice was so expensive for gains so limited to not being worth the pain, reach a peace agreement, and start to trade with them again.
1
@tylerellis9097 1) Why not the Ottomans? The Byzantine Empire lost Anatolia, and big or small parts of it, several times before the 4th crusade. In 1203 they didn't held Bithynia (birthplace of the Ottoman Empire) more that they did in 1299. 2) A different name for the Turkish Empire would have made a real difference? The expansion against the Byzantines had slowed down because the muslims were focused on attacking the Crusader States for two centuries, but Acre fell in 1291. History turned page.
1
@tylerellis9097 Again. That without the 4th Crusade the Byzantine Empire would have been able to repel the Turks is only an ucronia one can choose to believe, but it's narrative, not reality.There is no proof or hint that, without the Crusade, the Empire would have not decayed, or exhausted itself in border disputes, or internal struggles.
1
@tylerellis9097 Are you jocking? Your is the statement ("no 4th crusade = No Ottoman Empire"), your is the burden of the proof.
1
@tylerellis9097 It's quite simple. Your is the stratement ("no 4th crusade = no Ottoman Empire"), your is the burden of the proof. What's hard to understand?
1
@tylerellis9097 No, what i'm saying is that you have not supported your statement that, without the 4th crusade, Byzantium would have not been conquered by the Ottomans. A thing happened two and half centuries later. Your is the statement, your is the burden of the proof. Unfortunately you have not proved that. Is only a thing that you like to believe.
1
Lagoons are not stable environments, they tend to became or firmland, or open sea, in few centuries, or even decades. The first occurrence was happening to the Venetian Lagoon in 15th century, since the Brenta river, that created the lagoon, was filling it with sediments, so the Venetians had to decide if they wanted a city like all the others, surrounded by cultivated fields, or work to mantain their devensive moat. The discussion lasted for 30 years, then it was decided to deviate first the Brenta river and then a branch of the Po river, to mantain the lagoon. As a result of those works, the lagoon was saved, and the delta of the Po begun protunding into the Adriatic sea, like it's still doing.
1
@tylerellis9097 That it wouldn't had been an islamic expansion in Europe without the fourth crusade is only an unsopported statement. Maybe without Venice keeping them at bay, the expansion would have been faster. Surely, for the honorable and loyal Byzantines, to massacre some tenth of thousands unarmed merchants in 1182 had not been such a great idea.
1
@tylerellis9097 I'm sure that thinking "but we slaughtered just a few Venetians!" had been a great consolation for the citizens of Constantinopole during the sack, but the Venetians felt to be touched enough, and that's all that counts. Sorry, but law and moral have nothing to do with this matter. There was nothing lawful or moral in the massacre, there was nothing lawful or moral in the various coup d'etat that made the Byzantine policies toward latin merchants wavy and unreliable.The massacre of the latins simply demonstrated to the Venetians that the Byzantine Empire was an unstable and unpredictable commercial partner, and that, if they wanted to carry on their business without being at the mercy of some mad emperor, they had to do it through THEIR ports and THEIR fortresses, not asking for permission. In the end, it had been the right move, so yes, the massacre, for the byzantines, backfired a little. So ehe Empire of Nicaea, well after the Crusade, was able to defeat some Turks badly, but it's direct descendant was beaten by the Ottomans. That doesn't seem to indicate a responsability of the Crusade in the fall of the Empire. That without the 4th Crusade the Byzantine Empire would have been able to repel the Turks is only an ucronia one can choose to believe, but it's narrative, not reality.There is no proof or hint that, without the Crusade, the Empire would have not decayed, or exhausted itself in border disputes, or internal struggles. Again, "legal"? In 1204? All the legality that was needed in international affairs, was that the stronger one took what he wanted. The Byzantines had never fought an expansionist war? The Byzantine Empire had been unable to hold its possessions in front of the Crusaders, and so had rightly been divided between them.
1
@tylerellis9097 "legal right to reconquest?" LMFAO! Then the Venetians had the legal right to conquer any fortress they considered useful to carry on their business without been at the mercy of the Byzantine shenanigans. Sorry, but the evidence is that the Byzantine Empire had been destroyed. "It wouldn't had been destroyed without a fact happened 250 years before" is your statement, that you have to prove.
1
@tylerellis9097 Sorry , but the statement that, without the 4th crusade, Byzantium would have not been conquered by the Ottomans, a thing happened two and half centuries later is your, not mine, and you have not proved that. Is only a think you like to believe. Sorry, but that's an idiocy. Have you dreamed about it last night? Who decides what "powers" have the right to put their mouth in the question? You? Who recognised the right of the Byzantines to conquer Gotic kingdom, or the Vandal one? And besides, The "powers" were perfectly fine in dividing among themself the Byzantine Empire, so it was fair game, right?
1
@tylerellis9097 Your was only a possibility. "It existed for much time", "The Empire of Nicaea overstretched itself to reconquer Byzantium", "The Byzantine Empire would have had one hundred years to fortify" are opinions, not proofs. Venice is responsible for the Sack of 1204. That this "opened the ways to the Turks" is your opinion. Maybe it slowed them down.
1
@tylerellis9097 You simply are unable to understand the meaning of the word "proof", don't you? Facts. The Byzantine Empire was destroyed in 1204 by the 4th Crusade. Then a lot of things happened, until Byzantium was conquered again by the Ottomans two and half centuries later. Your statement "without the 4th crusade, the Ottomans would have not conquered Byzantium two and half centuries later". Proofs of your statement: none. "They had been sacked in 1204" is not proof of a direct consequentiality with what happened in 1453. "But they had been sacked so bad!" is not better proof. Maybe without the 4th Crusade, the Ottomans would have conquered Byzantium in 1353 instead of 1453. You simply don't know.
1
@tylerellis9097 Sorry, but appealing to a supposed "common sense" in science is not relevant. As already said, the statement that, without the 4th crusade, Byzantium would have not been conquered by the Ottomans, a thing happened two and half centuries later is your, not mine. Your the statement, your the burden of the proof, and you have not proved that. Is only a think you like to believe. If you think what you said is "proof" then you simply don't know what a "proof" is. The Byzantine Empire already lost Anatolia, and big and small parts of it, first than the 4th Crusade. There is no proof that the Byzantine trade had been damaged by the Venetians after the 4th Crusade more that it would have been without it. The Venetian fleet had been stronger than the Byzantine one since well before the 4th crusade.
1
@tylerellis9097 So what are you stating? That the Venetians were unable to wage war in the eastern Mediterranean without the 4th Crusade? They already did before (IE in the battle of Jaffa) or that they surely would have not acquired a base at all without the Crusade? Why not? They were a rising power. Your arguments are, sorry, just shit, because you are unable to think that, without the 4th crusade, things would have gone differently from what you like to believe in your ideal world. You just like to keep Sucking Byzantine's dick. Again, You fail to undertand that a series of thing happening doesn't mean that, without one of those, the rest of history would have happened the way you believe. Because history is determined by many things.
1
Like for Tessalonic, sold to the Venetians when it was already under siege by the Ottomans in 1423, it was an attempt to avoid, or at least delay, it's loss at the hands of the Turks, since Venetians were good at siege warfare, and could supply their fortresses by sea.
1
"The Venetians are currently pushing for independence"? LOL! Please...
1
When your fhater tries to beat you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins ), it's time to demonstrate him that you have grown much stronger than he is.
1
Same thing for St. Nicholas in Bari. It had been stolen by Italian sailors, from Bari, from his burial church in Myra, modern Turkey, when the city had been already invaded by the Seljuk Turks in 1087.
1
The Byzantines MASSACRED tens of thousands of Roman Catholics living in Byzantium, and the survivors were sold into SLAVERY to the Turks. Afther that, "your ass, my way".
1
Bjorn Ironside did something in the Mediterranean. Ironically, 2/3 of a fleet that was used to the Atlantic, was sunk by a storm in the Med, just off the Ligurian coast.
1
Venice was still holding possessions gained in the fourth Crusade when the Republic was ended by Napoleon. The investment had been profitable for five centuries.
1
@DaDunge They gained much more by trading with them actually.
1
@DaDunge The massacre of the latins shown to the Venetians that the Byzantines were not a reliable partner and it was better to be able to trade from THEIR ports instead to have ask the Byzantines for permission. The operation had been completely successful. Venice would have not had those fortresses without the crusade. The wars with the Ottomans always followed the same scheme. At the cost of few ships and men, Venice made the conquest of any of its fortresses INCREDIBLY costly for the Ottomans, so, for several decades after, they preferred to face the Europeans powers by land instead of trying to quarrel with Venice again, so it was business as usual.
1
Alvi Syahri As said, Venice was still holding possessions gained in the fourth Crusade when the Republic was ended by Napoleon. The investment had been profitable for five centuries.
1
Actually the Venetian bureocracy was an example in Europe, much less corruptible than almost any other, and the police state, even if today it's intended in a negative fashion, was an improvement over autocracy. To oppose the autorities was not a crime in Venice when it was in any other European State.
1
Actually, when he reached the continent, in his third voyage, Columbus correctly stated it was a new continent.
1