Things you've learned from this hobby!

[Ten-Speed]

Another thing I learned is that the hobby has inexhaustible riches and I will be lucky just to learn about a few of these, relatively speaking. I also find that reading books, journals, and postings creates a base of knowledge that, while parts of it may immediately seem unconnected, may create "aha!" moments soon thereafter or even after longer periods of time percolating in the synapses--maybe even years. It's good for my aging mind, too. And I've learned it's wonderful to have a readily available "edit" function.

[Hrefn]

On 6/18/2024 at 8:26 AM, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

One can detect the animosity of Western Europeans towards Byzantium from accounts like Liutprand of Cremona's experience visiting Constantinople in the time of Nicephorus or De Profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem by Odo of Deuil, which lampoons the emperor Manuel Comnenus. Eventually the attitude spilled over with the conduct of the Fourth Crusade, one of the saddest events in Medieval history.

Although the Fourth Crusade was truly a disaster, it should be remembered that it did not come out of the blue.  Bad feeling between the Greeks and the Latins had been building for some time.  Interaction between the Byzantines and the Crusader States in the Holy Land was as often hostile as cooperative.  Venice and Byzantium had quite recently been at war.  The Normans in southern Italy and the Byzantines were actively hostile.  And this horrific event is seldom recalled today, but it was very recent history in 1203-1204.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

The truly despicable Alexios III had treacherously overthrown and blinded his own brother, the emperor Isaac II.  Isaac’s son, Alexios IV, was smuggled out of Constantinople just ahead of his uncle’s executioners by some sympathetic Latins who hid him in a barrel of apples.   Alexios IV joined the crusader army in the Adriatic, and promised them the assistance of the Empire in the cause of recovering the city of Jerusalem, if they could put his father the blinded Isaac II back on the throne.  

The Westerners actually took the city twice.  The first time was to overthrow Alexios III and restore Isaac II and his son.   In this they were successful.  They did not get their promised reward.  Arguably, the newly restored emperor and his son lacked the resources to do so.  But the result was a hungry and very resentful foreign host camped just outside the city walls.  

Sometime later, Isaac II died (or was murdered) and in a palace coup Alexios IV was definitely murdered.  Control of Constantinople was seized by yet another Alexios (Alexios Doukas) who told the Crusaders to get lost and they were not getting any payment, provisions, or support from him.  Hostilities were formally declared (if you want to experience a stressful moment in history, read the first person account of William of Villehardouin who was one of the delegation who rode into the city to present the Crusaders’ grievances and defy the Emperor). War began in earnest.

The new Byzantine pretender was unable to hold against the combined assault of the crusaders and the Venetians attacking the sea walls.  The city suffered several disastrous fires during all these events.  When the city was taken a second time, it was sacked.  The Empire was divided between the Venetians, who mostly claimed the islands, and the westerners who set up a Western style feudal monarchy with a new Latin emperor.   

Here is an electrum trachy of Isaac II for those with the patience to have read this far.  

 

 

 

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

37 minutes ago, Hrefn said:

 

Now that you mention it I recall this scenario from reading Runciman years ago. Things are never as simple as they sometimes seem. The Crusaders in the Levant also had to deal with Alexius Comnenus in the 1st Crusade and later Manuel. Swearing an oath of fealty to the "Greek king" was distasteful to them but otherwise they would have had no provisions....