12-28-2021, 10:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-29-2021, 12:39 AM by FaceInTheCrowd.)
I expect that the royals of the 13th century were at least as arrogant and willing to ignore the ethical norms of the time when it served their needs as their contemporary descendants in Grimm were.
From what I could glean from a quick pass through Wikipedia, the sack of Constantinople was apparently the culmination of a long commercial rivalry between Venice and the Byzantine Empire. Pope Innocent III wanted to use Venetian shipbuilders and ports to carry out Rome's quest to capture Muslim-ruled Jerusalem. The Venetians built the ships and they set sail, but took a detour to sack Eastern Orthodox ruled Constantinople instead. I'd be willing to bet that there was some kind of royal skullduggery involved in that.
Afterward, Innocent III expressed his disapproval of the actions of the Fourth Crusade. Or maybe it was just because they stopped there and didn't continue on to take Jerusalem?
From what I could glean from a quick pass through Wikipedia, the sack of Constantinople was apparently the culmination of a long commercial rivalry between Venice and the Byzantine Empire. Pope Innocent III wanted to use Venetian shipbuilders and ports to carry out Rome's quest to capture Muslim-ruled Jerusalem. The Venetians built the ships and they set sail, but took a detour to sack Eastern Orthodox ruled Constantinople instead. I'd be willing to bet that there was some kind of royal skullduggery involved in that.
Afterward, Innocent III expressed his disapproval of the actions of the Fourth Crusade. Or maybe it was just because they stopped there and didn't continue on to take Jerusalem?