[Antoninus]

Well, then Greeks were no more greedy and grasping than the Venetians, who, were perhaps the prime heavies inn this tragedy.

Of course, the Venetians were grasping and greedy, too. But they wouldn't have had their way if the Greeks weren't divided and fighting among themselves. They had a history of using the crusaders to do the heavy lifting of conquest while they marched into the liberated city afterwards.

I'm not defending the sack in any way. Only saying that it needn't have happened if the Byzantines had been stronger and acted more honorably.

Incidently, I learned on my first trip to Athens that the Parthenon was in good repair until about 1696 when a shell from a naval vessel ignited a store of ammunition in the building. The present ruin is the result of restacking all the pieces they could find afterwards.

Did they mention that it was the Turks who were storing ammunition there? Apparently, there's a pretty long history of Islam using "untouchable" places to store weapons.

[RobbyS]

I think the Greeks were surprised by the First Crusader victories, and of course suspicious that the Normans—their rivals—were among the leaders of the Expeditionary force. By rights the Crusaders ought to have been cut to pieces,as they went straight for Jerusalem instead of just taking cities the Greeks had just lost to the Turks. But by sheer grit and luck they were successful. Alliance are hard to manage, especially since no single leader directed the Crusading Army, and they were not about to put their forces under the Emperor.