2 ms·

I think the sack of Constantinople by the Latins in their 4th crusade did more to secure Byzantium's decline than any single action by the Arabs. The Turks mere

• Amezarak 8y ago
  The Fourth Crusade was devastating, but Rome had already lost nearly all its territory to the Arabs by that time - which is in part what set off the crusades in the first place. The Muslim conquests had taken all Roman territory outside Anatolia by 730, many centuries before the Fourth Crusade. The period surrounding the Muslim conquests is almost as disruptive in the historical record as the Bronze Age collapse. A lot of writing either gets lost or destroyed during that period. Sources dry up after ominous allusions to doom and gloom. The Latin sack was bad for Constantinople, but isn't nearly that bad. The emperors were also very aware that the loss of nearly all their holdings was the beginning of the end, and that they were essentially caretakers, only able to delay the end. It's very sobering reading what they wrote.