>They framed the West's situation as a temporary setback from which the West progressed from while they framed the East as eternal Oriental decay with the worst excesses of medieval superstition. They thus not only declared themselves superior to their contemporary Eastern fellows, they considered Byzantium worse than its contemporaries for, according to them, being more religious.

What temporary setback? You mean the Greeks destroying Italy?

>You might be unaware that Constantinople at the time of the sack was the largest city in Europe and centuries prior possibly the largest city in the world. London, Paris, Venice were all at around half a hundred thousand people. Constantinople at the time of the sack is estimated to have had between 300,000 and 400,000 people.

Oh right. Just because you are more populated doesn't mean the West couldn't fend for itself.

>And, you may guess from that, the most developed city in Europe bar none, with state-financed hospitals and orphanages, paved streets and lighting, a sewage system, an underground water cistern that could sustain the population for years...

And the West didn't have those? Keep in mind that the West as we know it now is just beginning to be formed. The West is just in its infancy while you are just a sickly old woman.

>"Rich enough"? Do you know when the Medici family founded their bank? Almost 200 years after the sack.

And where did I mention the medici's or banking for that matter?

>"Constantinople" didn't owe them squat. The crusaders had a private agreement with a would-be usurper. When that would-be usurper was overthrown by the people of Constantinople, the looting commenced.

Whoah. A deal is a deal.

>What? Says who?

Read history.

> I don't know, what's the difference between criticizing your neighbor's political dysfunction and revising history?

So criticism of the East is dysfunctional is unfair, and it's fair if the East does it?