01-10-2022, 05:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2022, 05:44 PM by FaceInTheCrowd.)
There's probably no way the sack of Constantinople could be rationalized. Even if the restored emperor hadn't been killed and had handed the crusaders the support they were promised to get to Jerusalem, putting him back in power was overthrowing one Christian ruler for another, which was not supposed to be on the Church's program.
The Wikipedia entry for Zara says the Pope sent an order forbidding the attack and threatening excommunication before the attack, Zara fell in 1202, and the excommunications happened in 1203. It does say that the Pope granted forgiveness to the non-Venetians later that year and instructed them to resume there original mission to Jerusalem. So if you were a crusader from Venice, you were apparently still SOL. But it doesn't say anything about the Church punishing anyone for Constantinople, which suggests that either the Pope wasn't really all that bothered by it or by then he had realized that excommunication didn't really have teeth.
The Wikipedia entry for Zara says the Pope sent an order forbidding the attack and threatening excommunication before the attack, Zara fell in 1202, and the excommunications happened in 1203. It does say that the Pope granted forgiveness to the non-Venetians later that year and instructed them to resume there original mission to Jerusalem. So if you were a crusader from Venice, you were apparently still SOL. But it doesn't say anything about the Church punishing anyone for Constantinople, which suggests that either the Pope wasn't really all that bothered by it or by then he had realized that excommunication didn't really have teeth.