Print Page | Close Window

’Vandals" - a character assassination

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4469
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 11:18
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: ’Vandals" - a character assassination
Posted By: Komnenos
Subject: ’Vandals" - a character assassination
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 03:07
I would like to bring to your attention one of the worst character assassinations in history.

In the English and German language ( any other?) the term “Vandal” is synonymous with a person that senselessly destroys, defaces or despoils works of cultural or any other   significance, like buildings, works of art etc.
“Vandals” is of course derived from the Germanic tribe with the same name, who after an odyssey of many years throughout the whole of Europe ended up in Northern Africa and, after the capture of Carthage in 439 established a kingdom there under their king Gaiseric.
In 455 the Eudoxa, the widow of the murdered West-Roman Emperor Valentian asked King Gaiseric for help and the Vandal fleet duly arrived in Italy and before the gates of Rome.
The city of Rome had no choice but to surrender, and after negotiations between Pope Leo I and King Gaiseric the terms were agreed. The Vandals would plunder the city, but there would be no killing, raping, torturing, or burning or destruction of building.
And so it happened, the Vandals plundered Rome for two weeks, but left people and buildings intact.
In fact, they proved to be a very disciplined and professional bunch of raiders, just doing their job.
They put the whole loot on their ships and sailed back to Africa, and would have lived happily ever after if the great Belisarius hadn't come and conquered the Vandal Kingdom in 533 and brought was left of the treasure of Rome back to Constantinople.
Little archaeological evidence of the Vandal Kingdom is left, and the Vandals would have become a footnote in history, if Byzantine propaganda hadn't portrayed them after the sack of Rome as a destructive gang of uncouth Germanic barbarians and thus entered the term "Vandals" into our dictionaries.
As you can see, the Vandals were in reality rather nice guys, a bit wild and exuberant at times, but compared to other conquerors, mild mannered and trust worthy. If you recall for example what happened during the sack of Constantinople by the Venetian led Crusaders, the sack of Rome in 455 must have been quite a pleasurable experience for the inhabitants.
Not to mention the behaviour of English football fans on away games.

So, I would like you to support me in my quest to clear the good name of the Vandals from all slander. You could start by striking the term “Vandals” from your active vocabulary, or write to your local education authority or the compilers of your national dictionaries , point out the real story of the Vandals and ask for a revision of the usage of the term” Vandal”.
Many thanks for your cooperation.


-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">



Replies:
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 03:30

It's a nice gesture Komnenos and your point is entirely valid. The fact that the sack of Rome in 455 did not somehow turn into a violent rampage because of this or that little incident between the Vandal soldiery and local Romans remains bewildering to me.

What could we possibly replace the word "Vandal" with? Actually it just occured to me what we could substitute it with: Venetian .



-------------


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 03:43
Originally posted by Constantine XI

What could we possibly replace the word "Vandal" with? Actually it just occured to me what we could substitute it with: Venetian .



That's a brilliant idea and entirely justified. I'll write to the Oxford dictionary asap.

"A group of teenage Venetians is thought to have venetianised the fassade of the building with graffiti!"
Sounds good to me!

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 03:51

"A group of teenage Venetians is thought to have venetianised the fassade of the building with graffiti!"

Yea, I had to buy a gun because of the damn Venetians in my neighborhood...



-------------


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 04:02
Originally posted by Iskender Bey ALBO

Yea, I had to buy a gun because of the damn Venetians in my neighborhood...





You see, it works really well! Spread the word!

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 05:05
Good, and when we're at it, we need a new name for this Goth business.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 05:47
I strongly oppose that attempt of bashing Venetians... they were just a honorable republic of trader-pirates... what's wrong with that? It was and still is the key of success in this unjust world. Venetians just did their job, that was surviving in the middle of those powerful empires and feudal warlords everywhere around... through their cunning and treacherous policy they managed to be relatively powerful and the main economic power in the Mediterranean for centuries (and even in Italy at some time).

Besides, I have Venetian heritage myself. True that my ancestors only moved to the Veneto when the Austrians captured it, being actually from Ferrara and Modena in origin... but anyhow, Marco Polo still deserves some respect, doesn't he?

I personally suggest the term Gringo (Latin American pejorative for USA people) to substitute the I would agree rather abusive term of vandal and vandalic. After all the destruction they caused in places as Vietnam and most Latin America has few comparisons in World history.

Other candidates, following History, would be Hungarian (their early history is truly vandalic), Viking (other famous sackers, while less strikingly violent and mercilless than Hungarians, still well worth a mention among famous plunderers), Castilian (their sacking and destruction of native American lands has few comparisons too), Almogavar (these were quite cool: Aragonese and Navarrese mounted infantery that plundered the Byzantine Empire with crusading pretexts and, possibly, Venetian support). Greek, Roman, Turk, German, Dutch, Portugese, English, Belgian... wouldn't be bad candidates either.

All peoples have a dark side. Ahem...


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 08:51

Maju "they were just a honorable republic of trader-pirates"

 The Venetians were alot of things but not honorable, they were greedy, selfish, backstabbing, and had little to zero appreciation for other more sophisticated civilisations unless of course there was profit in it for them.

 To Star Trek fans they can be easily compared to the ever irritating Firengi (sp?) species.

 Ive absolutely no respect whatsoever for the Venetians and dont see why I should, overall their arrogance annoys me most, just glad Napoleon refused to tolerate it and put an end to it.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 14:05
Vandals peaceful? so what about the slaughter of the Alans in spain before they set over to north africa?

-------------


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 14:08
Originally posted by Temujin

Vandals peaceful? so what about the slaughter of the Alans in spain before they set over to north africa?


Okay, I said they were a bit wild and exuberant at times.
There was nothing terribly special about annihilating a rival tribe when they stood in the way. Everybody else did it.
That doesn't justify giving the poor Vandals such a bad name!

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 16:17

 The Vandals deserve their name, the sack of Rome wasnt overly violent they didnt massacre everyone what makes it stand out is how systematic it was, everything the Vandals could find was melted down, picked up and carted off.

 The visigoths sack wasnt so massive, the Vandals stripped Rome of practically everything, therefore by anybodys definition they vandalised the city of what made it great.

 Its a perfectly justifiable name to give them. There can be no real argument against that I think IMHO.

 "If you recall for example what happened during the sack of Constantinople by the Venetian led Crusaders, the sack of Rome in 455 must have been quite a pleasurable experience for the inhabitants."

 Yeah im sure the Romans had a great time losing all of their wordly possessions must have been a blast when those well-mannered charming men came in and took everything. What an insane thing to say "pleasurable experience"

 Did the Vandals belong in Italy? Did they belong in Spain? Africa? No they invaded the territory of another power, therefore they are warlike.

 The eastern roman empire had every right to expel the Vandals from Africa, the empire had strong claims to africa thre vandals had no claims they had seized this territory and the east wanted it back. The fact their name has been tarnished subsequently is tough luck.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 17:42
Originally posted by Heraclius

Maju "they were just a honorable republic of trader-pirates"

 The Venetians were alot of things but not honorable, they were greedy, selfish, backstabbing, and had little to zero appreciation for other more sophisticated civilisations unless of course there was profit in it for them.


I thought you British understood sarcasm.

Where is the logic in "honorable republic of pirates"?

Still they weren't vandalic but much more refined... they didn't even sack Nea Roma themselves but let others (the crusaders, none of them Venetian, naturally) do it. Maybe crusader could be the good aternative term for vandalic that we are looking for. Have you read The Crusaders? I think the author may be Naguib Mahfouz but I'm not sure right now, it's a famous Arab writer anyhow.



Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 18:59

 The Venetians spearheaded the crusade to Constantinople, knowing full well the crusaders would not be able to pay the debts they owned the Doge, the Venetians had perfect reason to suggest an attack on Zara and then Constantinople in payment.

 They practically destroy the greatest city in the medieval world for nothing more than greed  that says to me they deserve no more respect than the most savage of barbarians. Atleast many barbarians knew they were just in it for loot but Venice seems to have pretended it was a sophisticated civilisation when it was just a republic built on what they could get from others.

 It wouldnt be as bad if theyd done it themselves, but as true venetians do they get others to do their dirty work and then claim the spoils for the glory of the republic.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 20:19
Well, when i think about Vandals, first who come on my mind are Swedes. When in the half of 17th century they occupied Warsaw they didnt limit plundering only to gold, silver or arts. They were even stealing glass windows ( i guess in Sweden it was luxury if they were stealing even glass). They were breaking statues, altars, furniture, everything what had even only little piece of gold or silver. They even took 32 marble collumns which they still have in Sweden. Also robbed many libraries, churches, monasteries. If there was somthing they couldnt take, they were breaking it and taking more valuable parts of it. As good vandals as Swedes were also Germans and Russians. Altough Swedes were most systematic in plundering. They even searched tombs of polish kings looking for valuables. On the other hand Prussians forged crowns of polish kings and valuables from polish royal treasure (the oldest of them were from 10th century). Gold was used to make monay, the some of jewels were seen in the necklece of prussian queen. Cant find different word for it than pure vandalism.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 21:19
Originally posted by Heraclius

The Venetians spearheaded the crusade to Constantinople, knowing full well the crusaders would not be able to pay the debts they owned the Doge, the Venetians had perfect reason to suggest an attack on Zara and then Constantinople in payment.

I see the role of Venetians here as very karmic: the crusaders wanted to crusade (so typical!) and the Venetians said: Your problem; N ships are X ducats. Venetians were pragmatic and did not care about crusades, just about who was going to pay for the ships. I see their attitude as neutral.

So the crusaders learnt (maybe) a lesson on finances and about the lack of interest for others of their fanatic ideals. Do you actually think a fanatic is better than a pragmatic? I don't.

When I play diplomacy games, there's nothing like meeting a fanatic with an ideology (they don't abound, sadly). Eventually he becomes your perfect victim or your perfect tool (or you worst enemy... but that's usually like saying your perfect victim again).  He will never be my perfect ally: my perfect ally is another pragmatic.

They practically destroy the greatest city in the medieval world for nothing more than greed

Guess that if Byzantines were so great they could have defended themselves. So they weren't that great anymore. Chaos theory: eternal order is simply impossible. Keeping order requires continuous investment of energies. Eventually all empires fall. Someone has to do the dirty (and somehow glorious too) job of demolition for further construction, don't you think?

(I'm playing Devil's advocate, I don't know what would I've thought would I'd be contemporary. I'm not such a social darwinist in real life - but still I have no special sympathy for Constantinople, much less for the crusaders that actually sacked it, while the role of the Venetians seems quite neutral, just dictated by pragmatism).

that says to me they deserve no more respect than the most savage of barbarians.

What kind of Barbarians? Some savages and barbarians are very nice and peaceful people.

At least many barbarians knew they were just in it for loot

Ok. That kind of Barbarians.

but Venice seems to have pretended it was a sophisticated civilisation when it was just a republic built on what they could get from others.

What's the difference?!

Ayhow most of the time they were just peaceful traders, you know. They didn't built their rich and might just by pillaging. Actually they didn't pillaged much, they basically traded.

Who pillaged were others: crusaders, Muslims, Byzantines. Venetians just got their comission.

It wouldnt be as bad if theyd done it themselves, but as true venetians do they get others to do their dirty work and then claim the spoils for the glory of the republic.

Not for the glory... just for the profit. They were pragmatics, not idealists.

Eventually crusaders were convinced by their priests that Byzantines were as evil as Muslims, that they had allied with Saladin and that they deserved a lesson. Maybe they actually deserved a lesson: never call others to defend you, they will just spoil you after all.

Oh, wise Machavelli...



Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 07:43

You can't compare the sack of Rome in 455 to that of Constantinople in 1204. Believe me, the Crusaders were just as thorough and systematic in looting Constantinople as the Vandals were, I would say even more so. Niketas Choniates gives the stomache-churning account of how the Venetians and Crusaders even searched the private cavities of women for hidden treasures! Another thing is that Constantinople suffered a MASSIVE fire,"that engulfed more houses than in the greatest cities of  France" - Villehardouin, saw mass rapes on a scale which spins the head, rampant murder and spiritual desecration on a level truly shocking by any standards. Read the account of the sack by Niketas Choniates and you will see just how truly dreadful 1204 was. Rome in 455 must have been positively terrible, but was far preferable to the wholesale rape, murder, torture and spiritual desecration seen in Constantinople.

As to the role of the Venetians I did my last history assignment for last semester on why the Crusade that set out for Jerusalem ended up in Constantinople. Quite simply, the Venetians simply forced the Crusaders into an impossible position and commandeered the Crusade for their own benefit. Look at the evidence and you will see they knew what they were doing, and used the Crusaders to engineer the greatest sack in medieval European history.



-------------


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 09:40

Maju "I see their attitude as neutral."

 How could their attitude be neutral when they spearheaded the crusade towards Constantinople?

Maju "What kind of Barbarians? Some savages and barbarians are very nice and peaceful people."

 Are you living on a different planet or something? so peaceful and nice that they raped pillaged and plundered, hmm yes very peaceful.

 "Ayhow most of the time they were just peaceful traders, you know. They didn't built their rich and might just by pillaging. Actually they didn't pillaged much, they basically traded."

 No there wernt usually peaceful traders Venice was involved in many wars, often with other trading powers, if it wasnt for Venice the worst sack in medieval history wouldnt have taken place, therefore they are not as peaceful as you seem to suggest. The sack also had grave consequences for the balkans, with Byzantium crippled the muslim tide could no longer be held back and the Turks began to overrun the Byzantine empire, this shattered the fragile balance that had existed in varying degrees for centuries and doomed the eastern christians.

 Byzantium did very little to impair the progress of the crusades, all the empire wanted was these bands of unruly lunatics from the west out of their land ASAP. The Byzantines often helped the crusaders with supplies, guides and military support. Any hostility the crusaders got they totally provoked. The crusaders pushed their luck far to often and fully deserved the wrath of the Byzantine Emperor when the empire was at war with the Principality of Antioch etc.

 The Venetians were as bad as the Vandals or whoever, the Vandals sacked Europes greatest city in 455, Venice which led the crusaders sacked the medieval worlds greatest city in 1204, the severity was very different but a sack remains a sack no matter what.

 Example of the brutality of the sack, is the sacking of the emperors tombs, Justinians tomb was pillaged and destroyed, Basil II's to and countless more.

 I consider a people who destroyed some of the greatest works of art, literature, sculpture and building as barbaric.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 14:18
Sorry Komnenos, but I believe that it the term 'vandal' is correctly used as it is. You mention the orderly looting of Rome in 455, but you fail to mention the destruction they caused everywhere else. Even in Roman times, the Vandals were known for their disrespect of property. The Vandals were well-known for their mediocre fighting skills, as opposed to other Germanic tribes like the Franks and the Goths. They were well-known for the destruction they caused when they eventually won. Hence, the term was born.

-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 16:39
Originally posted by Heraclius

Maju "I see their attitude as neutral."

 How could their attitude be neutral when they spearheaded the crusade towards Constantinople?


They didn't spearhead anything. They had a big problem: a large army of Germanic crusaders had gathered at Venice hoping to be brought to Palestine but they couldn't pay for the trip. The Venetians would have sent them away but feared that they would sack Venice then.

So the Venetians decided to get something from that uncomfortable situation and bargained with the Crusaders. I do this for you but you do that for me: I bring you to Asia but you help us with our problem: Byzantium.

You get your trip and your pillage and your bloody war and we get some posessions and gold. After all Byzantium was inmensely richer than Palestinian lands, already sacked once and again by earlier crusades, it was closer and was a rival of Venetian naval ambitions.

Politics and bussiness. That's it. Why have you such a problem accepting that? If you were Greek, I could understand it, on patriotic grounds... but you're British: of another mariner republic, just like Venice...

Maju "What kind of Barbarians? Some savages and barbarians are very nice and peaceful people."

 Are you living on a different planet or something? so peaceful and nice that they raped pillaged and plundered, hmm yes very peaceful.


I don't know what do you understand by "barbarians" but for me it's opposite to "civilized". Still many uncivilized cultures, like the San, the Zoe... are nice and peaceloving. Instead all civilizations are warrying, even the Chinese!

"Ayhow most of the time they were just peaceful traders, you know. They didn't built their rich and might just by pillaging. Actually they didn't pillaged much, they basically traded."

 No there wernt usually peaceful traders Venice was involved in many wars, often with other trading powers, if it wasnt for Venice the worst sack in medieval history wouldnt have taken place, therefore they are not as peaceful as you seem to suggest. The sack also had grave consequences for the balkans, with Byzantium crippled the muslim tide could no longer be held back and the Turks began to overrun the Byzantine empire, this shattered the fragile balance that had existed in varying degrees for centuries and doomed the eastern christians.


They were a regional power and acted as such. The plundering can't be blamed only in the Venetians... the ones who did it were memebers of other nationalities.

Anyhow, are you sure it was the worst sack? Medieval times were abundant in barbaric pillagings. For instance the Hungarians pillaged German and Italian villages this way: they killed all males of all ages and also women too young or old. The rest of women they brought to their country. In one case it's attested that they herded their bounty of women naked and tied by their hairs. Naturally they also pillaged anything else they could find.

Vikings terrorized Western Europe, Muslims the Mediterranean, Crusaders SW Asia... it was just part of the nature of the Iron Age (we call it Medieval but actually it's just a prolongation of the Iron Age in almost all senses).

Luckily, we live now in the Nuclear Age... we are safe now, I guess. Now pillaging is done through respectable corporations and international institutions, like the IMF...  it's so aseptic... so "Venetian"

Example of the brutality of the sack, is the sacking of the emperors tombs, Justinians tomb was pillaged and destroyed, Basil II's to and countless more.

I consider a people who destroyed some of the greatest works of art, literature, sculpture and building as barbaric.


It was another era. Not much later Popes used the marbles of the Colosseum to decorate the Vatican... they knew nothing about art and culture, not to mention archaelogy...

You can't judge the lion because it kills the cubs, you can't judge the shark for eating seals, you can't judge other times based on our modern illustrated values: they hadn't been invented at the the time.

In those tombs there was gold, so they took it... it's the destiny of all gold hoarders: somebody will come and steal it - even after your death.

Still I'm sure the Venetians did not direct the specifical stages of the plundering, that was up to those pious crusaders and their moral masters, the priests that travelled with them an advised them on moral matters.

I mantain that your judge on Venetians is too harsh and unjustified.



Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 17:11
Originally posted by Belisarius


Sorry Komnenos, but I believe that it the term 'vandal' is correctly used as it
is. You mention the orderly looting of Rome in 455, but you fail to
mention the destruction they caused everywhere else. Even in Roman
times, the Vandals were known for their disrespect of property. The
Vandals were well-known for their mediocre fighting skills, as opposed
to other Germanic tribes like the Franks and the Goths. They were
well-known for the destruction they caused when they eventually won.
Hence, the term was born.


I looked around a bit, and it seems that the term "Vandal" for a destructive person first came in use in the French in the 17th century. I presume the tribe was by then mainly remembered for its sack of Rome, not for the other slight transgressions on the way to Carthage. That's what they are still today mostly remembered for, and their noble conduct throughout the sack doesn't really justify the slander.
However, one further reason of their damnation in the 6th century could have been the fact that they were Arians, heretics in the eyes of the official partriarchats in Rome and Constantinople.

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 19:14
Originally posted by Maju


They didn't spearhead anything. They had a big problem: a large army of Germanic crusaders had gathered at Venice hoping to be brought to Palestine but they couldn't pay for the trip. The Venetians would have sent them away but feared that they would sack Venice then.
So the Venetians decided to get something from that uncomfortable situation and bargained with the Crusaders. I do this for you but you do that for me: I bring you to Asia but you help us with our problem: Byzantium.
You get your trip and your pillage and your bloody war and we get some posessions and gold. After all Byzantium was inmensely richer than Palestinian lands, already sacked once and again by earlier crusades, it was closer and was a rival of Venetian naval ambitions.

Politics and bussiness. That's it. Why have you such a problem accepting that? If you were Greek, I could understand it, on patriotic grounds... but you're British: of another mariner republic, just like Venice...


I'm slowly coming round to Maju's argument.
What's wrong with pursuing one's business interests without the slightest of moral scruples.
If you view the course of history after 1204, then the Corporation of Venice's business plan was a truly innovative and progressive proposition.
If you then view the fact that the Venetians managed to convince the fourth crusade, that was assembled to win back the Holy Land from the heathen Muslim, to redirect their efforts against fellow Christians, you must admit that that was no mean marketing and PR undertaking.
It must have been a bit difficult to win around the people of Zara, that town on the Dalmatian coast that the crusaders besieged first for training purposes on their way, and of Constantinople to the benefits of their modern business strategies, but that's understandable with such backward and uncivilised nations.
Maju is right, one shouldn't look at the horrors during the sack of Constantinople of 1204 with such sentimentality, sacrifices need to be made if one wants to progress the nature of international trade relations or modernise the principles with which multinational corporations function.


-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 19:26

 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.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2005 at 18:23
Originally posted by Komnenos


I'm slowly coming round to Maju's argument.
What's wrong with pursuing one's business interests without the slightest of moral scruples.
If you view the course of history after 1204, then the Corporation of Venice's business plan was a truly innovative and progressive proposition.
If you then view the fact that the Venetians managed to convince the fourth crusade, that was assembled to win back the Holy Land from the heathen Muslim, to redirect their efforts against fellow Christians, you must admit that that was no mean marketing and PR undertaking.
It must have been a bit difficult to win around the people of Zara, that town on the Dalmatian coast that the crusaders besieged first for training purposes on their way, and of Constantinople to the benefits of their modern business strategies, but that's understandable with such backward and uncivilised nations.
Maju is right, one shouldn't look at the horrors during the sack of Constantinople of 1204 with such sentimentality, sacrifices need to be made if one wants to progress the nature of international trade relations or modernise the principles with which multinational corporations function.


You got my sarcasm, I got yours.

Still, Venetians were very modern for their time, true Machiavellians before Machiavelli, they weren't just a bunch of Medieval fanatic knights... they were pragmatic and sophisticated and that's the reason they prospered despite being small.

Of course, it's ethically all the questionable you want but it's not vandalic in the sense of gratuitously violent we use it for.



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2005 at 18:46
Originally posted by Heraclius

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.


Here you have a point. And it eventualy backfired to Venetians who later had to fence off the Turks for that reason.

Destroy a city to settle someone elses debt... [QUOTE]

No! Someone else (the Crusaders) destroyed the city to pay their own  willing debt to Venice. Part of my point is that they were the Crusaders and not the Venetians who accepted the devious deal and seacked Constatinople. Besides, considering the curriculum of Crusaders in general, they actually seem to be just a bunch of plunderers under a varnish of spirituality. The Venetians knew who were they dealing with and prefered others' demise to themselves'. Survival instinct.

[QUOTE]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.



Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2005 at 21:36

"Though the Byzantines seem to have been rather peaceful compared to the others you mention (not always, think in that Bulgaroktonos emperor)."

 Basil the Bulgar slayer may have been brutal in his wars but no more brutal than his enemies would have been, the account of thousands of bulgars being blinded is almost certainly a gross exaggeration, he simply conquered land the empire had lost centuries earlier just another war on a warring continent.

 Rome and Persia and even Byzantium caused much damage but they gave back so much more, they countered war and death with life and peace, knowledge and art, literature and architecture (sp?).

  You have to remember Rome suffered terribly in the previous punic wars, Rome may have ultimately been responsible for the wars, but they had paid an enormous price in life, its really little wonder Rome destroyed Carthage. Lets remember though Scipio the victor over Hannibal was against further hostility towards Carthage. This shows Rome was more than capable of peace, but at that exact time their were powerful voices calling for Carthages destruction any other time there may have been more moderate voices in the senate who knows.

 "Venetians nor their allies ever tried to fully destroy Byzantium or any other city that I know of."

 Venice didnt have the power to destroy Byzantium if it did then I dont doubt for a second theyd of attempted to overthrow the Byzantine regime in order to profit from the immense wealth the empire had. Venice did as much damage to Byzantium internaly as the turks did for a long time.

 "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."

 Did the crusaders not sack and loot cities?  if mutilation is worse than rape then death in your eyes then thats your opinion but the Crusaders and Venetians in the crusade will have raped and killed when they sacked Zara and Constantinople.

  "Venetians and the crusaders didn't get either Byzantines or Arabs to fight for their amusement."

 The crusaders slaughtered thousands of innocent people when it was wholly unnecessary, the crusaders and venetians may not have had arenas showing men fighting to the death, but they certainly slaughtered people with their own hands so they are just as bad.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 01:11

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.



-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 12:17
Originally posted by Constantine XI

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.



Not being Christian, for me there's no difference. I'm not so sure about the benevolent influence of Christianity (just think of Inquisition, religious "racism", the Crusades and witch hunts) and I suspect that the abolition of the Roman fights had more to do with Chrsitian themselves being thrown there at some times.

On mutiliation practices, Colombus and the Belgian administrators of the Congo, being Christians, used almost the same barbaric practices but not to inutilize their rivals but as punishment against low production. Bulgaroktonos mutilations aren't better than those of Pagan romans either.

Venetians never did that. And all the practices that you are trying to throw on them were used by the Crusaders, who were basically French, if I'm not wrong.

I think the Fourth Crusade is a logical developement of what were Crusades overall: an early colonial adventure of piracy and conquest. The enemy? Who cares? Whomever weak enough to be beaten by those pious hordes of Western knights.

I don't thik that pillage, rape and destruction against Muslims or "pagans" is better than against Christians and I think that, after all, at least the 4th Crusade takes the mask off the true meaning of the Crusades overall.

When I thik of Crusades  don't think of Charlton Heston and Sofia Loren... I think of fanatic violence without any kind of respect. I usually think, by the way, in the Crusade against the Albigensians, where "the violence inflicted was extreme even by medieval standards" and the Venetians played no role. It was exclussively a French, Papal and (partly) German campaign to subdue the heretic Occitanians and the first known use of the Inquisition to repress a Christian population.

Also, more sarcastically, I think in what Napoleon commented on St. Louis: "If he would have preached less and walked more he would have conquered all Egypt".



Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 13:48

 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?

 

 



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 15:02
Heraclius: you are also ignoring the many achievements of Venice in so many fields and focusing only in a single episode. You are not neutral in this. If it may be true that Basil had to mutilate so many Bulgarians to achieve renewed glory for the Byzantine Empire, it's also true that Venetian glory fed of the spoils of this Empire and they have also offered many cultural achievements to the world from exchange letter to the paintings of Tiziano, from the Far East accounts of Marco Polo to the operas of Vivaldi, not to mention the city itself, which is well worth more than a single visit.

The same that the Romans laid their glory on the destruction of Carthage and the Etruscan civilization, not to mention others, the Venetians laid them on the sacking of Byzantium and its transformation in a Venetian protectorate. Of all medieval states of the Mediterranean surely Venice is not only the most long lasting but also one of the the most glorious one and deserves better judgement than just a Crusading episode.

 


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 15:13

"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.

 



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 15:27
What about Carthage? Rome (that is Byzantium, after all that was the heir of the Roman Empire and called themselves Romans) destroyed Carthage to the ground. We know almost nothing about that glorious civilazaton thanks to the Roman jealousy in leaving not a single remain of their enemies. They may have made a good job in passing on the Greek cultural heritage but all the other civilizations they touched they destroyed them without any scruple.
We are owers to the Greco-Roman heritage but that's basically because they, Romans,  destroyed all other heritages, particularly Carthage and Etruria.


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 17:18

 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.  

 



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 17:34
Originally posted by Heraclius

 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.  

 


Like it or not Nea Roma wasn't alien to the Crusades and was the power that first called the Crusaders. Only to find they had comitted a huge error.

What was the objective of the Crusades except pillaging and plundering and conquering?

Which were the objectives of Venice except to gain control of the Aegean trade and get the gold the Crusaders had promised them?



Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 18:13

 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.

 



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 22:08
I don't think Venetians were able to see (as so often happens) thev long term consequences of their acts. Turks were still weak and surely they believed that with naval supremacy and creating a dependant conlonial state under their protection they gained something: free trade, bases in the area (that unlike the crusader states were rather long-lasting). So many wars have been fought for the same objective...  divide et vince.




Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2005 at 06:39
It's a comforting thought, that the Venetian inspired sack of Constantinople in 1204 was in the long run a spectacular own goal.
As we have discussed before, the conquest of Constantinople through the Crusaders and the consequent formation of the Latin Empire, was a blow from which the Byzantine Empire never fully recovered, and thus an event that contributed immensely to the end of the Empire in 1453.
The Ottoman ascent to the most powerful state in the Levant, not only diminshed the Venetian trade and military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, but also inspired the quest for an alternative route to the resources and markets of Eastern Asia.
With the traditional land routes via Constantinople no longer secure, Central Europe had to find a different trade route, and the nations on the Atlantic coast went off to find it.
And that was the end of Venice as the predominant trading nation in Europe, although they could hang on for a couple of centuries, Venice's significance never was the same after 1453 and 1492.
Serves them right!

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2005 at 06:58

Originally posted by Komnenos

It's a comforting thought, that the Venetian inspired sack of Constantinople in 1204 was in the long run a spectacular own goal.
As we have discussed before, the conquest of Constantinople through the Crusaders and the consequent formation of the Latin Empire, was a blow from which the Byzantine Empire never fully recovered, and thus an event that contributed immensely to the end of the Empire in 1453.
The Ottoman ascent to the most powerful state in the Levant, not only diminshed the Venetian trade and military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, but also inspired the quest for an alternative route to the resources and markets of Eastern Asia.
With the traditional land routes via Constantinople no longer secure, Central Europe had to find a different trade route, and the nations on the Atlantic coast went off to find it.
And that was the end of Venice as the predominant trading nation in Europe, although they could hang on for a couple of centuries, Venice's significance never was the same after 1453 and 1492.
Serves them right!

Very well said. Once the Venetians stole what they did from Byzantium they spent the rest of their existence toiling, and ultimately failing, to keep it. The Venetians hijacked the Crusade for short term selfish gains which left them worse off in the longer term. Once a very prosperous and generally peaceful nation which did well for itself in a world where the was a balance of power, they destroyed that balance and threw themselves into the vacuum. The result for Venice was much more war. They therefore ensured they lost huge amounts of men in combat, trade, diplomatic neutrality and even the most horrific punishment possible to the medieval man: the interdict of the Church over their citizenry.

Just because an opportunity can be taken doesn't mean it SHOULD be taken. Had they only realized that they were but a trading port unable to fill the shoes of a defender like Byzantium, they may well have spared Europe, Byzantium and themselves much unnecessary suffering.



-------------


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2005 at 09:45

 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.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2005 at 21:56
We get the word 'criminal' from the Crimeans (Cimmerians) of the Ukraine. 'Brigand' comes from the Brigantes tribe of Britain. 'Viking' means 'pirate'. Sacae (the root word for 'Scythian') means 'robber'. I read somewhere that 'barbarian' comes from Berbers and the Barbary Coast (most say it comes from the Greek 'bar-bar'.). I read that 'Tatar' comes from 'Tartarus'. 'Germ' might come from Germans. 'Hunger' might come from Huns. I think much of this could have come from the Romans who often described the 'barbarians' of Europe and other places in an unfavorable way.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2005 at 22:57
And Byzantine has a connotation of being lost in trivial elaborated discussions about nothing. 

-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2005 at 01:48
Originally posted by pakeray

We get the word 'criminal' from the Crimeans (Cimmerians) of the Ukraine. 'Brigand' comes from the Brigantes tribe of Britain. 'Viking' means 'pirate'. Sacae (the root word for 'Scythian') means 'robber'. I read somewhere that 'barbarian' comes from Berbers and the Barbary Coast (most say it comes from the Greek 'bar-bar'.). I read that 'Tatar' comes from 'Tartarus'. 'Germ' might come from Germans. 'Hunger' might come from Huns. I think much of this could have come from the Romans who often described the 'barbarians' of Europe and other places in an unfavorable way.



The endless joys of etymology, many a long winter evening will just fly, when you play guessing games.

Germ does not come from "German", but from the Latin "germen", to sprout, to bud.
Crime does not come from "Crimeans" ( ) but from the Latin "crimen", meaning offense.
Hunger from the old Germanic word "*khungrus",meaning the same, long before the Huns were around.
Viking from the Old Norwegian "vikingr", meaning someone who comes from the fjords.
Anymore?

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2005 at 21:13

 

 Funny how some would accuse the Vandals of savagery, but nothing is said about romans tyranny except as a civilising force. The Gauls of Brennus and the vandals were altar boys compared to the savagery of the romans. The romans were more systematic and radical in their way of making warfare. I've always hated the roman, the best that had ever happed to France is the invasion of the Franks, otherwise France would have always been in the shadow of oppressive romans.

 

 Did France need rome? Definitely not, the Gauls and Franks had mastery of metal than romans didn't possess. They just needed better organisation for warfare.



-------------


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2005 at 21:27
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 

 Funny how some would accuse the Vandals of savagery, but nothing is said about romans tyranny except as a civilising force. The Gauls of Brennus and the vandals were altar boys compared to the savagery of the romans. The romans were more systematic and radical in their way of making warfare. I've always hated the roman, the best that had ever happed to France is the invasion of the Franks, otherwise France would have always been in the shadow of oppressive romans.

I agree

 Did France need rome? Definitely not, the Gauls and Franks had mastery of metal than romans didn't possess. They just needed better organisation for warfare.

Well Rome did have a number of technologies not possessed by the Gauls thanks to their Mediterannean position. The level of public works and legal development was another thing the Gauls simply couldn't compete with compared to Rome.



-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 16:15
I agree with the above. In recent discussions on the influence of Rome, it's been clear that Gaul and Britain were virtually the only beneficiaries of the "civilizating" influx of Rome, no matter how limited and opressive it may have been. The conclussion was more or less that the world hardly needed Rome but that Gaul and Britain did benefit in many aspects from its influx and that otherwise they would have remained marginal for longer probably. 

-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2005 at 06:44
I think we are finally coming to an agreement over the Rome thing. I think everyone benefitted from such an intellectual discussion, personally my perspective has certainly evolved. I would say it is more refined now.

-------------


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 00:41
I have another etymology question which I am sure a certain member who happens to be fairly German may be able to answer. Do we get Bavaria from Barbaria? Are Bavarians named because they were considered barbarian? If not, where do they get such a name? Being partly of Bavarian stock myself, I wonder if perhaps these relentless scourges of Pax Romana might have resembled me just a little bit

-------------


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 05:54
Originally posted by Constantine XI

I have another etymology question which I am sure a certain member who happens to be fairly German may be able to answer. Do we get Bavaria from Barbaria? Are Bavarians named because they were considered barbarian? If not, where do they get such a name? Being partly of Bavarian stock myself, I wonder if perhaps these relentless scourges of Pax Romana might have resembled me just a little bit


The original name of this southern Germanic tribe was "Bajuwaren,Boiaren", and various others similar sounding terms. The Romans made "Bavarii" out of that and the name stuck.
In Germany itself, they called the "Bayern".

It's got nothing to do with "Barbarians" whatsoever, however if you have ever watched Bavarian folk music (Oompah with Lederhosen) on German TV, you might be excused of making that presumption.

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 07:49
Does then the name Bavaria/Bayern come from the Celtic tribe of the Boii, like neighbouring Bohemia?

-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 13:35
Originally posted by Maju

Does then the name Bavaria/Bayern come from the Celtic tribe of the Boii, like neighbouring Bohemia?



There seems to be a theory circulating, that there is indeed a connection. However, it is a geographical, as the Bajuwares have alledgedly settled Southern Germany coming from Bohemia, and not a ethnical, as there seems no doubt that the core of the tribe was Germanic, possibly with some Slavic elements acquired on their way through South-East Central-Europe.

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 17:24
this is difficult. the area inhabited by Bavarians today was first inhabited by Rugians, then they either renamed or were replaced by Bajuwars (never heard Boyars before, Boyars are Russian nobles...). and Rugians/Bajuwars never really major clashes with Rome, if any at all... I think i also once heard a theory that Bajuwar comes from Awars (Baj-awars) but i think this is just another wordplay...

-------------


Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 11:59
I know about this malicious etymology. Hungarians were hungry after a German chronicler, Slavs were slaves, Avars were avaricious (avarus) after a Frankish chronicler, Hungarians called Germans 'német', it meant dumb.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com