Talk:Massacre of the Latins

Just started

just started the page as i was looking for something about this after a chat. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Is this bit not bit a relevant view? "He argues that "Horrible and utterly indefensible as the sack was, it should in justice be remembered that it was not totally unprovoked; more than once (as in the massacre of 1182) the Greeks of Constantinople had treated the Latins there as they were now being treated ... Historians who wax eloquent and indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople ... rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in Constantinople in 1182"

It was in this context I came accross this! (Msrasnw (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, the essence of the argument is maintained, in that it increased hostility. At the same time, one should avoid to verbatim quote sources (plagiarism), and there are a few problems with his view of history too: the "more than once" is certainly not the case, for example. The events of 1182 were not repeated either before or after, in whatever scale. The Venetians were arrested in 1171, but that was in the wider context of a trade and naval war with the Republic. The Venetians and Pisans more for example than once raided the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, but not the Byzantines. True, the 1182 events are largely glossed over even by contemporary historians, whilst their scale - 60-80 thousand deaths - should warrant a more prominent treatment. But I am not convinced that it is a good idea to include comparisons between massacres, or claims of them being "justified" or not, especially not based on one historian's opinion. BTW, congrats on a very good new topic. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions

Before reverting to this version and thus probably initiating a revert war, let's discuss User:LoveMonkey's recent additions here. Now, I'm all in favour of expanding the article and providing more background story, but the recent additions have no relation at all to the actual event this article is about. The Venetians were not directly involved in the 1182 massacre, and, as it stands now, the article ought to be headed Byzantine-Venetian War of 1170-1177 or such like. Furthermore, little effort was made at integrating the new information within the existing thematic flow of the article. And when our sources are quite clear that almost all the Latins were killed, and that over 60,000 of them lived in the city, how did the figure of 3,000 casualties come about? I am in favour of removing the superfluous info, and adding it to a dedicated article on the Venetian-Byzantine conflicts of the 1170s, because it clearly unbalances the present article. Regards to everyone, Constantine ✍ 15:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although a summary section should be kept here. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We should certainly keep an extensive summary in a background section, with a link to the new article. Some of the info that LoveMonkey included will be useful here, but only the major topics need be mentioned. BTW, IIRC, the Byzantine-Venetian conflict lasted from 1171 to 1182 or 1183, not 1177. Constantine ✍ 16:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well for one there where two Venetian Byzantine wars. And it makes no sense to state that the wars where not an under laying cause of the riot and massacre of Latins in Constantinople in 1182. If you make an article on the event you should include the causes for clarity. Constantine please be weary of the fact that Johnbod has already edit warred with the Orthodox (meaning not just me but he edit warred with an Orthodox Priest also) on the Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai article stating that the Monastery is Roman Catholic and not Orthodox. Claiming this was justified by some European art Professor. So JohnBod is not a good editor nor one that will actually contribute. He will troll. As for me be clear here and we can make whatever modifications and deletions etc etc you like to improve the article. If that means creating a Venetian Byzantine war I and war II article I will most definitely help. As of now this time period is a gigantic complicated mess. Manuel was in an everyman for himself situation. So with various enemy/friends oh say about 6 different ones this article can get to be a confusion complicated nightmare very fast. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA LM please! Your own lengthy record speaks for itself (or would if you did not remove criticism from your talk page all the time). Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You argued with an Orthodox priest User:Jschroe on Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai and edit warred[1], not me, you Johnbod. Quit projecting, stating fact is not WP:NPA anyone reading your comments here about my more then 16,000 edits, let alone before I acknowledged you, on the East-West schism talkpage can clearly see you are here making personal attacks. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

LM, the personal attack is not so much the charge of editwarring which I know nothing about but the statement "So JohnBod is not a good editor nor one that will actually contribute. He will troll." This is clearly a personal attack and one for which you should apologize.

Every editor has their faults. One of LM's faults is a tendency to try to stuff every fact that is tangentially related into an article making it overly long and difficult to read. However, being an inclusionist, I tend to view such material as being excessive detail that is misplaced. So, rather than just deleting it, I advocate finding a suitable home for it. For example, I think that there probably should be an article for the Byzantine-Venetian Wars I and II. I don't know enough to know whether this material should be in one combined article or two separate ones. I would urge LM to create the article(s) and then enlist help in cleaning it up and expanding it. This article can then provide a few summary sentences and link to that article.

--Richard (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article now makes much less sense, after the recent additions. Aside from the grammatical/syntactic mistakes (which I can't complain about because they were easily fixed, and perhaps LoveMonkey does not speak English natively), the "Venetian losses" section in particular looks like a bunch of random information stuck together. We need dates, and the info needs to be organized chronologically; the presence of crusaders in Constantinople, for example, was 75 years earlier, not the 1170s as it seems to say at the moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems a good start, the things you pointed out. I really did not write a good bit of the material I copied it from other wiki articles i.e. Vitale II Michele. So lets rewrite it to include clearly the underlying causes. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there is an apparent consensus that the article ought to be refocused on its main subject, I did go ahead and rewrote most of it, largely by trimming down the needlessly detailed account of the Byzantine-Venetian conflict. I think it's pretty OK now. Any suggestions? Constantine ✍ 10:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks better now. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright I know when I am beaten, BTW now that is a vast improvement. THANK YOU -Mr Constantine. Wonderful. Sorry for the sloppiness I just thought that the events I added needed to be addressed. Mr C has done an excellent job rewriting the article and addressing those issues. What can I say but thanks. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing though this sentence -- A subsequent Venetian expedition in the Aegean failed-- seems unclear that the Venetians are actually sailing to attack Constantinople. The passage does not seem to convey that there was a Venetian fleet that set sail to attack Constaninople and actually instigate a full scale war. Nothing major just a small detail.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Big issue

Constantine what Greek/Eastern sources (other then Nikitas) do you have for this whole episode? I do not know of any sources clarifying the destruction of the Irish sector of Constantinople and giving a clear "who dunnit". Since this is the linchpin to what triggered the second Venetian War. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Impact of massacre

Added a new section header and a concluding setance - to link back to the massacre itself. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Byzantine Empire

We should be using the term "Roman Empire" rather than "Byzantine Empire" which is only a fairly recent idea. Montalban (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are probably dozens of archived discussions about this on the Byzantine Empire article alone. Suffice it to say we should definitely not call it the "Roman Empire" here. That would be ridiculous. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

use of "decimated"

Is the use of "decimated" in the first section really appropriate in reference to remnants of Roman or Latin culture, since it has a very specific meaning in the context of Rome? Granted, the events in the article took place well after the fall of Rome and presumably after punitive decimation was no longer practiced, but the intended meaning is unclear. Were the Genoese and Pisan communities reduced by 1/10, or were they simply devastated?

Perhaps someone more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and the historical context could fix this, if warranted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.110.155 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

The introduction states:

"...sold as slaves to the Turks."

Turks leads to Ottoman Empire. That's an anachronism. Probably it should be the Great Seljuq Empire, although it might also refer to one or several Turkic groups. The source is mentioned, but I can't access it. 92.230.57.187 (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I'll change it.--English Bobby (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to also change the text of the link to "Turkish Sultanate of Rum." Thebrainkid (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda

I'm Cretan, i never learned those things at school, i learned that the fourth crusade was a unprovoked attack of the evil catholics against the orthodox people of constantinople. no one told me that 20 years before the crusade, they slaughtered every one who wasn't get the orthodox dogma, it must be propaganda of the catholics, actually it shoud be.Idaeananvil (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Did they tell you that Alexios Angelos was the one who asked the Christians to conquere Constantinople for him, because he wanted to be Emperor? --2A02:2028:850:F601:4C9F:B852:58A0:4EAE (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes we were told about the massacre of the latins and about Alexios Angelos and especially we were not told that evil Catholics attacked unprovoked. You should be paying more attention at school sympatriot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.20.29 (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Substantial content removed without explanation

Substantial content has been removed from this article over the past year, mostly by an anonymous user, without explanation. As currently written, this article says next to nothing about the actual topic of the article - the massacre of the inhabitants of the Latin quarter in Constantinople in April 1182. I am reverting to the 24 February 2018 version of the article until someone can provide a justification for all of the content that has been removed since then.PluniaZ (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)