Talk:Sack of Constantinople

Name of article

To standardize the article titles this should probably be Siege of Constantinople (1204), but that seems to be a redirect. Perhaps someone who knows how to undo a redirect can fix this. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Improvements needed

This article needs coverage improvement in order to achieve a higher classification - see note in B class checklist. That there is nothing on the siege itself, only the storm and aftermath, is a major problem.Monstrelet (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete it and redirect

This article has less content than the section on the siege of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade article. I don't see a reason for a "detail" article on this episode in the 4th crusade, when it has less information than the overview article. Let's just make this a redirect to Fourth Crusade#Diversion to Constantinople.

If not that, then we should just copy the text and figures from that article here. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

if you look at the siege of constantinople in italian it says that the bronze horses in venice are copies of the others stolen during this siege. sorry for my english. bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.32.178.67 (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Legacy section needs work

While the quaint apology and acceptance are noteworthy I suppose, the REAL legacy was the weakening of the empire and more specifically the city to Turkish aggression. Many RS's are available on this point and should be noted.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Sack as retribution for the Massacre of the Latins

This article insists the theory that the Crusaders and Venetians sacked Constantinople in 1204 as retribution for the 1182 Massacre of the Latins is entirely factual, but I'm almost certain the massacre was used as a pretense for the Normans sacking Thessalonica in 1185, and not as a justification for a crusade directed at conquering the Byzantine Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themyth27 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, this source "http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/history/2romanity/reflections_on_the_sack_of_constantinople_(1204).htm", is at best, dubious, Catholic-biased and historically inaccurate (include bizarre distinguishing Catholicism and Orthodoxy five hundred years before Great Schizm to blame "Orthodox" for what in fact done Chalcedon Christians against Chalcedon Christians). Sack was primarily done for money, as it happend within Zara. 2,000 killed civilians sounds very low for such deep impact and even Orthodox sources are not able to provide clear answer, contrary to biased link above. Not mention that Constantinople in 1200 had about 150,000 civilians. 2,000 killed would be hardly mentioned or noticed as anything more than larger brawl between few factions.--89.176.195.5 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The book Byzantium And Venice A Study In Diplomatic And Cultural Relations also estimates that "perhaps no more than 2,000 of the inhabitants" were killed. When multiple sources are all saying about the same number, that's good enough for it to be used. DayTime99 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

References