As to the facts, it is all part of the historical record and anyone can see for themselves what happened from independent scholarship, we don’t need to rely on Orthodox or Catholic sources for the purpose.
The basic fact is that it was planned; it was not the first Christian city to be attacked by those Crusaders. This wasn’t the first time Crusaders of any sort attacked a predominantly Christian town, or killed Christians, but it was the first time I know of for an expedition to have actually included that intent in the planning stage.
It lasted (I think) seventy years and the trade in physical properties from that city (not just relics, but building materials, furniture and jewelry) became part of the economy. Ships made regular runs from east to west and back again, laden with all manner of confiscated things from Greek territories for decades. This was not limited to the great city itself, but happened all across the surrounding region.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Byzantium1204.png
Ironically, this happened to them at the hands of fellow Christians flying the cross, so I think the Greek people of the time and place must have felt a terrible sense of bewilderment.
Whether or not the people are holding grudges or forgiving, the only thing I can say that the episode actually seems to have been part of a longstanding historical pattern. Call it prejudice if you like, but people typically draw on their experiences when attempting to make decisions for the future.
Some say that those who forget history are bound to repeat it. So we should not kid ourselves, the Orthodox could forgive and forget the episode but will remember it as they consider future relations between the churches. The posters here might interpret that as holding a grudge, but on the other hand it could be considered just plain common sense.
Michael
My information has always been from non-Catholic, non-Orthodox sources, as I think you know. It appears clear to me that during the planning stage, the Franks were diverted from the real purpose of the crusade. Pursuant to the diversion, they were first to attack a Croatian town for the Venetians, then Constantinople for the deposed former emperor of Constantinople. This was because they did not have the funds for transport to the Holy Land. It was a “devil’s bargain” for all concerned, in that the Venetians required the attack on the Croatian town, which brought excommunication down on the Franks, and absolutely no one should have trusted the Venetian Doge, Enrico Dandolo, who had a longstanding grudge against the Byzantines and whose greed was well known, and who had narrowly escaped the massacre of Italians by Greeks years before. The emperor’s son undoubtedly wanted his father’s throne back and, one would think,should have known his countrymen were not going to want to pay for the crusaders’ supplies and send Greek soldiers to the Holy Land with the Franks. Yet he promised those things to some pretty rough people who could be counted on to take it pretty harshly if he reneged. After the Franks reinstated the Greek Emperor, the Greeks should have known better than to renege and attack the Franks outside the walls of Constantinople. Maybe they were appalled at the promised price, but it was a terrible mistake and misjudgment on their part to leave the safety of their walls and attack on the evident assumption that the Franks were so weakened by hunger that they would be slaughtered. The Franks were, as I said, rough customers, and should not have treated the Greeks the way they did when they conquered the city. Even so, in the sack, fewer Greeks were killed, combatants included, than Italians were massacred by the Greeks a few years previously.
In those days all conquerers derived what wealth they could from the conquered territories. That was the nature of both feudalism and empires at the time.
None of the principal actors was without serious blame. But it is wrong to make it out to be a gratuitous Latin attack on Orthodoxy or a religious war, and it is even more wrong to blame the Catholic Church, whose Pope forbade any attack on Christians, but was ignored. It started up as a crusade but ended up being one more awful instance of “power politics” of the time.
Had the Greeks slaughtered the Franks outside the walls of Constantinople, as could have happened, would it seem reasonable for Catholics today to consider that an issue worthy of dividing the churches today? It seems neither reasonable nor likely to me.
Both the action and the reaction were/are unChristian. No argument from me about that.
