The first three crusades(well mostly the first) were indeed quite helpful. They made the reconquest of Anatolia a lot easier both by destroying the Turks at Dorylaeum(modern day Eski Sehir) and by creating a number of useful buffer states which would act as lightning rods for muslim attacks leaving the Byzantines unmolested to deal with the Turks. But there's no denying that the fourth crusade was an immeasurably catastrophic blow to the Byzantines. It's not just the capital that was sucked as a one time event but the crusaders came up with a full plan of partitioning the empire. The Balkans fell into anarchy and endless warring giving the Turks enough space to regroup and recover. Moreover the Frankish colonisation of the Balkans and the Aegean region gave rise to feudal structures which also contributed to the general anarchy of the period and further weakened Christian states making it harder to consolidate their power. Moreover maintaining the newly established crusader states in Greece would suck an enormous amount of crusader manpower which could have been very useful in defending the remaining crusader possessions in the Levant. However I'm rather hesitant about considering the catholic church directly responsible. I mean the Pope did whatever he could to dissuade the crusaders, he even threatened excommunication(and he did excommunicate them I think, at least temporalily.) I also agree that the line of emperors following the death of Manuel and leading up to the crusade included some of the most incompetent men in all of Roman history, who did everything they could to make the empire vulnerable. Anyway whatever one thinks of the crusades they can hardly be regarded as the sole reason for the eventual downfall of Byzantium. The factors which led to that are far more complex and they include everything from the countless civil wars of the late Byzantine period to even random events such as the Black Death.

The thing about the Fourth Crusade is that it wasn't a sanctioned crusade by the time it arrived at the Byzantine Empire. They'd been condemned by the Papacy before that point.

Don't forget Manzikert! Of course, it's technically not part of the Crusades, but the First Crusade allowed the Byzantines to recover - at least to some extent.

SHEESH YOU ARE ON POINT.... MAKE GOOD SOLID POINTS AND SPEAK VERY WELL.... KEEP ON KEEPIN ON DUDE....

Good video. First time I heard anything in detail about John komnenos. Anywhere else I can find out more about him?

A vassal is basicly a client state of a bigger empire and were often forced to pay a specifik sum of money every year, then were also expected to lend troops to their masters If they (the masters) were to get into war.

Hi Real Crusades History, I enjoy your videos very much. Do you write a script for what you say in the video? If you have, I think it would be nice to post it somewhere (e.g. here or in your website). Reading will help us study your text in more detail and able to quote it to others. Just a small suggestion, thank you very much for your work

The Crusaders gave the Byzantines a little time and space to breath with the first crusade and then the Crusaders just brought Byzantium into catastrophe with the 4th Crusade of 1204. And that's pretty much the synopsis of the events.

I would say it is wrong to call John's reluctance to fight Zengi a mistake. Consider the unwillingness of Raymond and Joscelin to assist John. They could not be trusted to aid him; indeed, when he was in Antioch, they did their best to murder him. Moreover, they spent the whole of John's campaign dicing. Also consider Runciman's words that for Manuel and John, Zengi/Nurredin, and their kingdom at Aleppo were necessary for keeping the Crusaders afraid, because it was only when they experienced fear, that the Latins were willing to work with Byzantium. When not afraid, they incited the west, in the form of men like Roger II of Sicily and Frederick Barbarossa and various Popes against Byzantium. Also remember that Nurredin and the Zengids ended up as allies for Manuel against the Seljuks and the Anatolian Turks. In 1160, Nurredin attacked Kilij Arslan II and Kilij Arslan ended up becoming Manuel's vassal. It was this opportunity that Manuel wasted. The Byzantines needed friends in the Muslim world, like the Zengids and Fatimids, to keep themselves safe and also to ensure the Crusaders were afraid enough to fall into line.

like I said, crazy that they didn't work closer together... I would, if I ran the Byzantine Empire...

Skanderbeg is a pro in destroying Ottoman armies :)

The Alexiad is a great read if anyone was skeptical

I wonder...which side did the ARAB CHRISTIANS or the Christian minorities in the Middle East support? Like the Assyrians and other people?

Yes but Emperor Alexios was the main supporter of the Crusades from the beginning. The Crusades or the supposedly good Christians and also a well paid force by the Greek-Byzantines, have never kept their solemn promises to return the Cities like Antioch and many other back to the Emperor....

the thumbnail to this video is very striking

God bless you Real Crusader.

I think battle of Myriokephalon is too much overtated as a failure. Byzantine Army in Anatolia was still capable - they deafeted Turks at Hyelion and recaptured some forts. Turks didn't became very major threat until the Ottomans in 14th century. Barbarossa and this army devastated them and captured their capital Iconium, even Niceans managed to defeat them in 1211. Byzantines would have still much chances after Manuel I Komnenos to recapture all of Anatolia if not for conflict with the West, incapable rulers, civil wars and hiring foregin mercenaries.

Our of curiosity is possible for you to put the sources I. The link. I am not trying to diminish the validity of what you say even though I agree only partially with what you say and I simply wish to understand the full picture of what you are saying. What I believe is that the Byzantine empire did flourish in and needed he crusades to drive back the Seljuks and what was striking was that the byzantines had employed crusaders at the most in their armies against the Seljuks and at the very least employed them as mercenaries. The Komenian age florushied with the arrival of the crusades and I understand that the crusaders of the 4th crusade were actually contacted by a Byzantine prince wanting to reclaim his throne via Byzantine politics. Yet there are a few things I have to disagree with based on your findings, I say that the byzantines at first did suffer many raidngs and Bohemond was of Norman(Sicilian) stock who hd gone to war with the Byzantines and the normans were responsible for the loss of Sicily and the invasion of Greece. I do not know much about the history of the crusades, though I have read several documents and primary histories but I have a vast knowledge of the Byzantine empire, Love the channel and am a fervent subscriber DEUS VULT!!

This is well argued.

The first crusades were indeed quite helpful.

good video

Your videos always makes me to play Crusader Kings II. You would really like this game. BTW, don't you think you should use the word Roman instead of Byzantine? It's kind of insulting and it doesn't seem like you hate them.

The 4th crusade was obviously bad for the Byzantines, but crusades prior to that were a boon to the Empire. From 634 onwards, the Byzantines were engaged in a losing war against the Muslims. Almost all Byzantine territories in Asia and Africa were lost, the Empire had no strategic initiative to speak of, and even Constantinople itself was besieged twice. The crusades changed all that. Not only did the crusaders take the Islamic military pressure off of the weakening empire, the resulting crusader kingdoms became a military buffer zone between the empire and the Muslim forces.

I know it's taboo to comment without watching the vid, but I'm pretty sure the Byzantines would've continued to successfully resist the Turks sans Fourth Crusade, or at least would've held out considerably longer

Crusaders: Expendable manpower for the Byzantines, creating a chaos in middle East and Anatolia, neturalizing east Mediterranean. Therefore leaving Byzantines time to recover and capture vital space and even Egypt.

The crusades never benefited the byzantine empire. Byzantines were the real losers of the crusades. The Byzantines gave hegemony of the Eastern Mediterranean to the Republic of Venice with its powerful merchant and naval fleet. Byzantines signed treaties with the Venetian Republic that gave the venetians trade rights and political immunity in Constantinople. Venetians did not even have to pay tax to the byzantine state, all the tax money gained in Constantinople prior to the crusades and during went back to Venice enriching the city. Venetians were supposed to provide naval assistance to the Byzantines but this rarely ever happened. The crusader Kingdom also had a similar treaty with Venice which also hurted them as well leading to their demise at the end of the 12th century. The Venetians became the most powerful Christian Kingdom in Europe and dominated the Mediterranean until the advent of Ottoman and Spanish empires.

10:10 So sad, something great could have come out of there.

The 4th crusade destroyed byzadium

Both. The early crusades bought the Byzantines time to raise their empire to its last golden age. Then they got greedy and in the third and fourth Crusades, picked fights with the Crusaders. They managed to survive the third via diplomacy. They didn't survive the fourth. Even when they attacked the fourth Crusade with burning galleys and larger contingent of troops, the Venetian and Crusader forces chewed them up for breakfast then shat them out before they even figured what was happening.

They learned nothimg and hence collapsed. Blaming Crusades for collapse of Byzentine empire is like blaming the nowadays fall of America on the Indian wars. There is a 250 year gap.

I think the argument is whether Byzantine would have failed in the 11th Century if not for the 1st Crusade, which bought them an extra 300 years of "life" until the 4th Crusade. I think not. Even without the 1st Crusade, Constantinople would still be safe. Lost a large percentage of territories on the east and most of Palestine/Egypt yes, but Constantinople was unbreathable at that time. The Muslim world was not that well organised at that time and the subsequent Mongolia invasion would have given Byzantine some breather anyway. In fact, constant threat from the Muslim world might have forced better governance for an isolated Byzantine (assuming no connection with Papal Cousins), who know.

i don't watch the video but it was for Byzantine for the followings reasons 1- The first crusaders start pillage Byzantine cities. 2-The fourth crusade destroyed the Byzantines military making easy to otonams conquer 3- The crusades let easy for the Muslim conquer these lands