Paucity of Byzantine sources - a Latin conspiracy?

Well, in that thread I was trying to steer the discussion towards Byzantium's survival into the modern era.  As you can see I started by posting some ideas as to what the Byzantine army might have looked like and what it might have been composed of in the 16th and 17th centuries.  Also, I think for Byzantium's survival, it would have to have expanded from its 15th century form in order to survive; in other words, reconquering Anatolia and the Balkans.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3678& ;KW=expands

Sorry about the shameless plug!

 Ny-see-a.

 Im not particularly knowledgable on the greek language, but Id of thought theyd pronounce it something like nike-ear for some reason, just sounds more greek to me. Probably totally wrong.

 Why did they suddenly change though? ive never understood why when the Nicaeans retook Constantinople they suddenly neglected the empires defences, money suddenly became a real problem, during the Nicaean days the empire wasnt the richest place on the planet but it wasnt poor they found ways of suporting themselves, a succession of poor Emperors also after a run of good Nicaean Emperors.

 Theyd of been better off leaving Constantinople IMO it did nothing for them, its symbolism was great but it had little practical use.

 It seems to make sense in a way, the empire was already falling to pieces pre 1204, parts of the empire breaking away some creating independant greek states. Its very possible had the 4th crusade not happened, this collapse of the empire would have continued anyway to the point were it was conquered leaving nothing for the Byzantines to build a recovery on later.

 Its an interesting point, 1204 was obviously a catastrophe of the highest proportions but the alternative spelled out rapid decline resulting in destruction anyway it would seem.

This is a very interesting theory, Constantine XI.  I think the most damage to priceless Byzantine books, manuscripts, and libraries was done during the siege itself, particularly at the end of it.  Once the Latin Crusader army scaled the Theodosian walls using the masts of the Venetian ships, they ran willy-nilly through the city and put much of it to the torch and killed thousands of inhabitants.  It took everything that the Crusader commanders had to calm the soldiery down and to concentrate on putting the fires out, lest they have no Constantinople to live in afterwards.

That the Latins took it upon themselves to obliterate pro-Byzantine works over the period of the Latin Empire (1204-1261), I think is a bit of a stretch considering the military, religious, and political situation in the "Empire."  On a military level, the Latins were trying to defend themselves against the Byzantine successor states in Epirus, Thrace, and Trebizond, the Seljuk Turks, and unruly Frankish counts in Greece and the Morea.  On a religious, the Latin ecclesiastics were fighting with the Pope for control of the Patriarchate, and with the Byzantine clerics over theology.  In politics, the Frankish barons were endlessly quarreling with the Venetians on how the Empire would be divided up and to whom the trading privileges would go.  In the end, they probably had neither the time nor the resources (especially Latin clerics who could read Byzantine Greek) to devote towards the meticulous task of destroying pro-Byzantine books and manuscripts.  Also, we have to figure in the damage done to what was left of Constantinopolitan treasures by the Ottoman Turks in 1453!

For an idea of the amount of destruction done to Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, look at:

Donald E. Queller. The Fourth Crusade : the conquest of Constantinople, 1201-1204. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977.

Thomas Madden. A Concise History of the Crusades. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

Jonathan Philips. The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople. London, UK: Jonathan Cape, 2004.

Thomas Madden. "The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, 1203-1204: A Damage Assessment." Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84-85 (1991-1992): 72-93.

Thomas Madden. "Venice and Constantinople in 1171 and 1172; Enrico Dandolo's Attitude Towards Byzantium." Mediterranean Historical Review 8 (1993): 166-185.

C. G. Ferrard. "The Amount of Constantinopolitan Booty in 1204." Studi Veneziani 13 (1971): 95-104.