-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Why not? They'd already massacred plenty of Eastern Christians in earlier crusades.
In the it didn't really change the war's outcome, but the British seizure of Ottoman ships was a dumb move, adding a new (and powerful, even if that wasn't expected) enemy for little gain.
This usually happens every time one party invites a third actor into the struggle. Another example of this is the fall of Visigothic Spain to the Moors in 711. The kingdom was engulfed by a civil war over the throne and the pretender asked for military help to those new guys coming from Arabia. The results were his death and Al-Andalus.
This is what taking amphetamines does to your judgement, everyone. Drugs are bad, don't do them.
Individual soldiers massacring individual Christians is widely different from a concerted attack on first a Christian city (Zara), then a Christian realm for money.
The crusaders were supposed to be compensated for their involvement in Byzantine internal politics (that pay and the Zara siege were both supposed to pay for transport). The Byz didn't pay and tried to bribe the crusader leaders to go away.
The sack of Zara was paid for by Venice, who wanted to get rid off a commercial rival.
The case of Byzantium was far more complicated. The crusaders reinstalled the deposed empetor who then failed to pay the agreed sum. He simply found the avaiable resources too short to meet both Venice's and crusaders' demands.
The case of Byzantium was far more complicated. The crusaders reinstalled the deposed empetor who then failed to pay the agreed sum. He simply found the avaiable resources too short to meet both Venice's and crusaders' demands.
Both were supposed to fund for Venetian transport to the Holy land. IDK if Venice paid for Zara or simply reduced the transport fees, I'd imagine that keeping the crusaders in the field was also expensive. IIRC the Venetians did offer a discount, but there was still a substantial sum that the crusaders needed to earn as essentially Venetian mercs.
From what we know about Isaac Angelos, he doesn't really strike me as the paying type, his unwillingness to pay for his wedding essentially started the Bulgarian revolt. While there was most probably indeed difficulties in raising the funds, he most probably never intended to pay what he promised and used the standard Byzantine tactic of offering various pronia to the crusader leaders to make them go away. In any case, the Fourth crusade was hardly some kind of elaborate scheme by the crusaders and the Venetians, but rather yet another case of Isaac Angelos promising more than he could actually deliver.
Bloody Sunday, purging the Duma, the Russo-Japanese War, the Coronation Party (a bunch of people were trampled to death in order to get free food- not traditionally regarded as a good way to begins one reign)- I'm sure other can come up with others, but the first three stand out as ludicrously bad.
I don't think the tsar can seriously be held responsible for the coronation party and Bloody Sunday. Sure, a democractic leader would probably have to resign under such circumstances, but it cannot be seen as his personal blunder.
Something that comes up to mind as a political blunder was the increasing orientalization of Alexander.
It might have served well to mingle with his new subjects, but it alienated most of the political capital with the army that was winning the subjects for him.
It might have served well to mingle with his new subjects, but it alienated most of the political capital with the army that was winning the subjects for him.
Everything the Duke of Alba did in the Netherlands. For example, two allies of William the Silent (Egmont and Horn) refused to rebel outright and stayed in the low countries when Alba arrived. For their loyalty they were imprisoned and eventually executed. Without such heavy handed tactics the Low Countries stay nominally Spanish for another century.
Charles I (of England) selling out Wentworth. Wentworth was the most (only) competent minister, and had just completely humiliated parliament by refuting trumped-up treason charges in a public trial. Radicals in Parliament passed a bill of attainder saying they wanted him dead anyway. Charles thought he was postponed a confrontation, but in truth he abdicated all royal authority and anyone competent to govern the nation for him then and there.
Charles I (of England) selling out Wentworth. Wentworth was the most (only) competent minister, and had just completely humiliated parliament by refuting trumped-up treason charges in a public trial. Radicals in Parliament passed a bill of attainder saying they wanted him dead anyway. Charles thought he was postponed a confrontation, but in truth he abdicated all royal authority and anyone competent to govern the nation for him then and there.
This dont makes sense to me. Alexanders orientalization like you call it did work to his advantage. At which point did it backfire in your opinion?
The point in which his army began to mutiny against him. Repeatedly. On one time precisely over the increasing importance he was giving to them.
Hmm fair enough but it gave him the respect and loyalty of his conquered subjects. A tradeoff so to speak. wouldnt call it a blunder. Imo a blunder would be if he alienated both, the soldiers and the people with his behaviour.
