The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople
I guess since this was "Christian vs Christian" and not "Islam vs Christian" it wasn't pertinent to the theme - "The Jihad That Led to the Crusades."
Regardless, the Sack of Constantinople wasn't very Christian was it?
"To the crusaders, God had approved their actions by granting them victory and many returned home proudly bearing precious relics. At first, Pope Innocent III was delighted but, as news of the atrocities became clear, he changed his view and began to express anger and disgust at the westerners’ actions. He accused one senior noble of ‘turning away from the purity of your vow when you took up arms not against Saracens but Christians … preferring earthly wealth to celestial treasures’. "
Precisely. That's why he cut it off in 1095.
There's nothing wrong with a list of dates but it doesn't tell you much about history.
But if you look at it again, he does include the dates in the rise of the Seljuk Turks, which is why Crusades happened.
And he does mention 1092 and the Seljuks fighting among themselves, which allowed the Crusaders some degree of success. But he doesn't mention that Crusaders didn't turn the land that they did capture back over to Byzantium. But he doesn't give the dates of Saladin uniting all the Turks and the Fatimids to drive the Crusaders out.
Nor does he give the dates of al Ghazali who set forth the idea that Aristotle, Plato, and other western philosophers were enemies of Islam.
Nothing in his list about the Mongols and Ottoman Dynasty or the fall of Constantinople.
Had the attackers not been Crusaders, supposedly fighting for Christ, nobody would have had any real right to object.
BTW, the story of the 4th Crusade is a good deal more complex than is usually presented. Plenty of blame to go around.