�Vandals" - a character assassination

 I dont deny I have some bias invested in this, but the magnitude of the sack deserves special acknowledgment among other sacks and conquests IMO.

 As it wasnt just any city and it wasnt just in any random location, the implications of the sack were far reaching and utterly and ultimately destructive for the entire region.

 The fact it was all a particular issue about money with which the Byzantines had absolutely nothing to do with makes it particularly hard to swallow. Destroy a city to settle someone elses debt, doesnt sit well with me especially since the Latin conquerors were totally inept at keeping the city afloat as it rapidily deteriorated to the point that even when it was taken back much of what had been destroyed in 1204 was still unrepaired.

 The total disrespect of such an advanced and ancient civilisation be it Byzantine, Persian, Roman or anybody else carries with it in my book the title of Barbarian.

Though the Byzantines seem to have been rather peaceful compared to the others you mention (not always, think in that Bulgaroktonos emperor). High civilizations do not always deserve the romantic respect you give them. At least Romans and Persians were very violent militaristic cultures that caused much damage during their expansion. I know better the history of Rome, so I will mention a few examples:
- Destruction of Carthage to the ground (after plotting to cause a new war when Carthage wasn't any more a threat for Rome). Venetians nor their allies ever tried to fully destroy Byzantium or any other city that I know of.
- Cutting both hands of all war prisioners in the Iberian wars. Maybe it was a common practice at the time but Romans also used it. Venetians, nor their crusaders, didn't use such a barbaric mutilation system nor anything of the kind.
- The famous gladiators and other human sacrifices offered at the colosseum only for mere amusement. Venetians and the crusaders didn't get either Byzantines or Arabs to fight for their amusement.

Furthermore, you know that Venetian flag has the Lion of St. Mark with a book (the Bible), but that was only in time of peace. Unlike crusaders, they were honest enough with their own beliefs as to use the same flag in time of war with this difference: the book was closed and the Lion's claws laid on it.

Because Basil II committed that single atrocity he ensured for nearly 200 years Byzantine control of a region whose wars previously cost both nations hundreds of thousands of lives over the course of generations. The mass blinding was immediately bad, but averted hundreds of years of further warfare.

As for the Romans it is hardly fair to compare the ancient world, lacking the Abrahamic religious teachings and still immersed in a different world of social ethics, to the medieval. The very reason the games were cancelled, and Byzantium upheld this cancellation of gladiatorial combat, was that the Christian creed was in the ascendant and was apt to do away with the method so famously used by earlier Roman authorities to persecute its members. To compare Venice seven centuries later and living in a Christian world simply isn't valid.

 Basil II deserves to be remembered for so much more than an exaggerated account of mass blindings, its like remembering Constantine the great just because he had his wife and son killed, not because he founded Constantinople and adopted christianity or remembering Justinian just for the Nika riots and the thousands who died as a result, and not for his codifying of the law and his reconquests also for his reputation as the last true Roman Emperor.

 You can pick an event to slur almost all leaders in history today and centuries ago, Basil II's unbelievable achievements are ignored just because of one moment in history which is absurd, he was a total revelation as good an Emperor since Heraclius or Justinian.

 The fact of the matter remains without Venices greed the crusade would not have took the path it did and crippled an empire which had shielded eastern europe from the armies of Islam for 6 centuries. The crusader attacking christians not only shattered the last remnants of the crusading ideal but shattered the fragile balance that existed between christians and muslims in the east, a balance which was lost when Constantinople fell and the Byzantine empire collapsed.

  Lets also not forget the sack of Zara who were catholics, so not only are the Venetians guilty of hijacking the control of the crusade but they also attack fellow catholics for which they were excommunicated. Would the 4th crusade have sacked Zara and Constantinople had Venice not took over effective control?

"You are not neutral in this."

 I dont think you are neutral in this either, atleast ive admitted I have bias invested in this debate, but then anybody who studies Byzantium or Venice is bound to have some bias just like anybody.

 Venice made achievements at what point did I say otherwise? but it also destroyed the achievements of Byzantium which had been inherited from ancient Greece and Rome, works of art etc, much was lost in the sack. It isnt just Byzantiums achievements that were destroyed it was the collective achievements of the ancient world that were ruthlessly pillaged much was destroyed though some did survive, like the horses atop of ST marks etc.

 Any other city and I wouldnt be making this point so much but this city was a crucible of everything that makes history so interesting and what makes its achievements so great. The city had something from just about everywhere, the fact so much was lost is such a shame because it simply cant be replaced.

 Theres a difference between the Sack of Constantinople and destruction of Carthage.

 Rome had suffered horrendously during the punic wars REGARDLESS of the reasons why the wars began etc. Italy was ravaged from the top to bottom, well over 100,000 men will have died on the field of battle.

 Its unsuprising rome finished Carthage for good, but remember like ive actually said in an earlier post Scipio did not want further war against Carthage, it was a man Cato who was basically racist towards the carthaginians that stirred up tension and made war inevitable. His influence started the war, however did Carthage ever destroy anybody? I think so.

 Constantinople had nothing to do with the objectives of the 4th crusade had nothing to do with the money troubles of the crusaders and nothing to do with the problem this caused Venice. That is fact.  

 Nothing youve just said changes the fact not only did the crusaders and venetians break the crusading ideal utterly and were actually excommunicated for it, but they then attacked an empire that had absolutely nothing to do with them.

 If Venice believed that by hurting Byzantium as it did they would suddenly gain all the trade with no opposition they were even more short-sighted than Id thought originally. Had they not heard of the turks? did they think by removing the only thing that united an entire region that everything would turn out ok? that the Greeks would just die, the bulgarians and serbs just vanish and turks turn away?

 You remove a power base and you leave a vacuum of power that was not in this case filled, and I say again the consequences of this unprovoked attack were catastrophic for the Balkans.

 I think its been demonstrated by now with little room for doubt that the Venetians hijacking of the crusade was both short-sighted and greedy.

 By removing the only thing that had stopped the Muslim tide from sweeping through europe, the 4th crusade doomed people who had for centuries been protected by Byzantium (inadvertantly or otherwise) what resulted from the 4th crusade was to leave the Balkans a total mess. 

 A mish mash of shortlived crusader states and greek successor states to Byzantium, given the chance for the Bulgarians and Serbs to cause chaos, and opening the door for Turkish involvement across the Hellaspont. All it caused was a series of seemingly never ending wars between these relatively small states that emerged after 1204, by weakening and inevitably fighting each other they only sealed their own fate as the Turks continued to advance.

 A balance which had existed in some form or other for 6 centuries was destroyed utterly, even after Constantinople was recovered and some Emperors tried desperately to recover the situation it was futile as the state was bankrupted and internally shattered.

 These are the facts of some of the consequences of the 4th crusade.

 If youd like to make a final counter argument Maju then feel free.

  After that though both sides of the argument have been made well and even though I disagree with Maju I think he still made a good and consistant argument for his point, I think this particular issue has been practically exhausted now as all has been covered.