Talk:Fourth Crusade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

After the third crusade, the vital crusading spirit was dead, and the succeeding crusades are to be explained rather as arising from the efforts of the papacy in its struggle against the secular power, to divert the military energies of the European nations toward Syria.

Can someone please reword this in a clearer form? I would do it, but I honestly can't be sure of what it means :). What is "the secular power"? Is this secular power in general? And if so, how is this struggle between church and state connected to Syria? -- pde 06:23, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's one of the original paragraphs, probably from the 1911 Encyclopedia or something. I'll see what I can do with it! Adam Bishop 16:18, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Actually, I see now that it came from the main crusade article, and prior to that it came from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion. I hope it sounds less stuffy now. Adam Bishop 20:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Recent edits

I've reverted some recent edits by 203.5.110.252 that were expressing a very strong intentionalist POV, not to mention chalking the Crusde's direction exclusively to Venetian greed and desire for revenge. IMO these are exceptionally strong claims to be making based on one rather revisionist source. If anyone thinks that this was a wrong move, please convince me. siafu 03:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. I support your edit. Havard 18:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Ironically enough, those edits were correct. The Greeks had vandalized the businesses of Venetian merchants in Constantinople, and developed a hostile attitude towards the West, so the sense of revenge by the Venetians is there. The notion of greed and barbarism was an attribute of the French armies. The fourth crusade is known by both contemporaries and modern historians as the "Crusade that went wrong", a real disgrace to the history of the Latin West. This article in a way justifies this crusade as something that "was meant to happen". This is ridiculously wrong by modern standards, if for no good reason, because it uses pretty much the same logical arguments that were used by those crusaders in order to justify their savage actions. Furthermore, the article contains many historical errors, for example it doesn't mention that the crusaders were approached by Isaac Angelos (Alexius IV) and agreed to help him restore his throne. It only says that the crusaders attacked the city out of the blue because those bad Greeks had allied themselves with the Arabs during the 3rd crusade. Anyway, for those and many other reasons, I think this article should be subject to a large rewrite. Miskin 14:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree on your first point. Those edits we not correct. They were strong POV expressions intended on portraying the Venetians as greedy, calculating schemers who more or less planned from the beginning to derail the Crusade. When comparing this to the events described in more recent works on the topic, removing these parts were entirely correct. Furthermore, I'm a bit baffled by your claim that the article didn't mention the contact with the future Alexios IV as it clearly states so in the section 'Diversion to Constantinople' ("In any case, Alexius offered to pay off the Crusaders' debt to Venice, if they would restore his family to the Byzantine throne, an offer Boniface found difficult to refuse.")... That the article could need some rewriting might be so, but on these two issues you are clearly off the mark, IMO. Havard 15:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing those edits, done way back in December, with the more general case. The "revenge" cited was not because of specific vandalism and the anti-western attitude that had developed in Constantinople since the actions of Barbarossa (all accurate claims), but a more general revenge because of Venice's status as a former colony of Byzantium. Absolutely the crusaders were approached by Alexius IV Angelos, who promised to use his position to supply and fund the crusade to the Levant, but this only reinforces the argument against those controversial edits which claimed an intentionalist POV that the Venetians wanted to raid Constantinople from day one rather than the more realistic view that the desire to raid Constantinople arose mostly from circumstance, i.e., Alexius was enthroned, broke his promises to the Crusaders, and was dethroned and his replacement, Alexius V, sealed the city against them with the Crusaders having not received any of the promised supplies or funds. All of this just points back to the original problem, the poorly thought out contract made by the leaders of the crusade with the Venetians that included several promises that the crusade leaders found themselves ultimately unable to fulfill. siafu 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:62.6.139.11

I reassure you I did not intend pushing POV, I just made minor changes to the terminology, especially wherever the now-called Byzantines are referred to as "Greeks". They might have been in vast majority Greeks and virtually all Greek-speaking but they considered themselves Romans and inheritants of the Roman Empire. It also disregards the significant numbers of other Orthodox populations that lived under the Eastern Roman Empire (or Byzantine as now is referred to). I recognise that is always some problem when we cannot choose between modern terminology and contemporal terminology. By the way I am Greek, so you cannot say I have POV in this matter. User:62.6.139.11

You probably didn't indend to, but you did it anyway since your edits were based on your personal convictions instead of a credible source. I didn't revert you because I thought you had an ethnic bias, I just thought it would be wiser to retain the terminology as it can be seen directly in my sources. You're right about the Byzantines' self-descriptive name "Romans", but we can't ignore the fact that virtually the entire of Europe (both Latin and Slavic) used explicitely the term 'Greeks', ignoring the political connection of Byzantium to the Roman state. Modern Historians who base their terminology on contermporary sources, favour the usage of 'Greek' over 'Byzantine', which after all didn't mean anything. As you probably already now, Ancient Greeks never recognised themselves by that name, they rather called themselves "Hellenes", yet we use the exonym "Greeks" as it was initially applied to them by the Romans and survived to the present day. Furthermore I reverted you because according to your Talk page and recent edit history, you do have a record of pure vandalism [1]. Miskin 14:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey! THIS IS MY FIRST EVER ATTEMPT TO EDIT! This is a public portal and is used by thousands of people! Is not my record of vandalism. I will subscribe so I do not get the bad credit for others! SORRY BUT I AM STILL LEARNING.

By the way I find satisfactory your explanations, still I do not agree that we should perpetuate a wrong term just because there is plenty in sources! I suppose that is a POV but you on the other hand reproduce other's PVO, right?

Actually, the fact that they're referred to as "Greeks" in the literature on the subject does mean that we should probably do the same here. siafu 14:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh fair enough, as I said I am still learning. I suppose "greeks" here means greek-speaking rather than ethnic origin which is totally acceptable. Thanks guys.

'Greek' has historically meant 'Greek-speaking', not just in this context (at least according to the dictionary definition). Why don't you register a username? This way you won't have to be mistaken for vandals who have very recently used the same "public portal". As for the POV-reproduction, maybe you should read wikipedia policies and guidelines before making any further edits. You have no idea how enlightening it can be. Miskin 15:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to why someone keeps editing this page, denying or erasing about the fact that Venetians(Italians) took part in this crusade as primarily it was clearly a French/Venetian campaign. So why in the world does someone want to deny this fact that the Venetians not only sent a large force of soldiers along with the whole fleet including transports and war-galleys? The Venetians at the first seige, made the most progress and caused the most damage to the city of Constantinople. The Venetians had a foothold on Blachernae, the N.West part of Constantinople and burned several 100 acres, leaving thousands homeless. This fact along with the French Knights steadfastness led to the fleeing of Alexius III. Either way it showed the weakness of the Byzantine Empire and led to the eventual demise of the Greek ruling Byzantine(Roman)Orthodox Empire to the Muslim Turks.

By the way you speak, you seem to have a POV agenda on the course of the crusade already. This is not about French-Venetian antagonism, nor a bragging on who left more homeless people in Constantinople, nor a hypothesis on who was finally was conquered by whom. This is an article on a relatively complex historical event, which you seem to interpret as a football game, while we're trying to keep it NPOV. I reverted your edits because you changed the content of a section which was almost directly taken from Phillip's book (best source on the subject). Furthermore you claimed that various Italian city-states participated in the crusade. That was misleading and false. A number of Italians (such as Pisan merchants native to Constantinople) were fighting alongside the Byzantine Greeks, against the crusaders. Today you made better, more moderate edits, which proves that I was right to remove the ones of yesterday. You mentioned the name of Doge Dandolo which I was planning to add, and didn't exaggerate on the role of the Italians. For what it matters, both Venetians and French played significant roles in the conquest of the city, but the most important aspect was Byzantine Imperial corruption and incompetence. The Venetians commanded a state-of-the-art fleet, which was a serious threat on the Byzantine fortification. On the other hand, the French commanded a deadly force of foot-soldiers and knights, and came in much larger numbers than the Venetians. Venetian presence of foot soldiers was insignificant (if any). The Venetian fleet was the key to the conquest of the city, but Venetian forces alone would have never stood a chance of surviving once within the walls of Constantinople. It was the French knights who did most if not all of the land-fighting. However, had the Venetian fleet been absent, the French force would have never been able to penetrate the fortifications of the city. Had a capable warrior-emperor been on the Byzantine throne, the Crusader-Venetian forces would have never been a serious threat to begin with. The Byzantine and Crusader armies never really fought against each other, face-to-face at full strength during those 2 years. The Venetian fires were set up by accident, and are not really something to brag about. Most modern and contemporary intellectuals badmouth the crusader armies for the physical damage they caused. Miskin 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What edits are you talking about? Adam Bishop 03:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The ones edited out by Miskin yesterday, I guess. To the one askign the question (please register an account, as it's impossible to refer to you by any name now): It is already mentioned that the Venetians manned the fleet with their own sailors. Do you have any documentation of Venetian soldiers joining the crusade besides the sailors in question? That also goes for the Italian city-states you mentioned. (Montferrat wasn't a city-state, btw) / Havard 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pope John's apologies

Regarding this from the lead section (removed):

Almost 800 years later, in the summer of 2001, Pope John Paul II issued an extraordinary statement - an apology to the Greek Orthodox Church for the terrible slaughter perpetrated by the warriors of the Fourth Crusade.

Pope John's apologies about the crusades have become an interesting social meme that is somewhat complex. I've seen dates for his apologies as 2001, 2001, 2004 and perhaps others. I've also seen considerable controversy that he never actually "apologized", rather expressed "mutual sorrow". I think we need to pin down exactly what he said and when. According to this [2] he never actually apologized. Personally I think the topic of Vatican "apologies" (real or perceived) of historical events (crusades, inquisition, etc..) would make an interesting wikipedia article but I dont have the desire to pursue it in detail right now (probably could write a book about it). -- Stbalbach 17:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My source is objectively more credible than yours. Your distinction between "apology" and "mutual sorrow" is blatantly a POV. Furthermore I think it's important to bring up the apology in order to reflect the modern relation between the churches. Miskin 16:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to mention it in the opening paragraph? It's hardly the most pertinent piece of information. Adam Bishop 17:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not, but to remove it under such argument is ridiculous. Miskin 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above, I said we need to pin down exactly what he said and when because the current content is factually in question for a number of reasons as outlined above. -- Stbalbach 18:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

An isolated quotation can often be misleading. My edit is directly taken from a scholarly source, I don't know why you insist on making a POV interpretation of the Pope's word. Miskin 18:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The main source on my edits is Jonathan Phillips' "The Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople". You can look it up, the comment on the apology is in the introduction. Miskin 18:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you know, the exact quotation is visible on the internet [3]. Miskin 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Quoted and edited for multiple POV. -- Stbalbach 18:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that even if John Paul II rose from his grave and told you that he actually apologised, you'd still try to edit the section. Miskin 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I could really care less. But you seem to disregard and discount other people's POV that he did not apologize. -- Stbalbach 18:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It really is an insignificant matter, and this is why I find your persistence suspicious. Have a look at this link [4]. Do I need to keep looking? I'm sure I can find many people who share Phillips' illusion. Miskin 18:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "suspicious"? You think I'm a Catholic apologist? I'm a pure blooded heathen. I happened to come across the issue on the Crusade article when someone else pointed out that nowhere does the Catholic Church apologize for the Crusades -- that it was an apology has been entirely an interpretation by other people. It's one thing to try and heal the rift between east and west, the holy grail of any pontif, it's another to come out and apologize. And I can find links that support the no-apology position also. There are multiple POV's - that's why I find your position "suspicious" that you would edit out other people's POV. -- Stbalbach 19:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What the pope said is hardly an apology - the Church is not in the habit of apologizing for anything. It's clever rhetoric that people can interpret as an apology if they so desire. I think Stbalbach's compromise is the best solution. Adam Bishop 19:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The current compromise is not at all encyclopedia-like, it has a POV polemic overtone. Please Stbalbach do find more links. According to my reasoning, since there are some people who need to point out that the Catholic church did not apologise, then it means that the majority believes they did. Which makes the former party's view a POV. I wonder how come all those "The Pope never apologised" theories are spread only after his death. Miskin 08:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is this:

  • "Pope John Paul II made an unprecedented apology for the sins of Christians through the ages, the culmination of the church’s “examination of conscience” for the jubilee year. The pope’s long-awaited “mea culpa” on March 12 was echoed by local churches in the United States and elsewhere and generally welcomed by non-Catholics around the world."[5]
  • '“We forgive and we ask forgiveness!” the pope said during a historic Lenten liturgy in St. Peter’s Basilica. He and seven top Vatican officials pronounced a “request for pardon” for sins against Christian unity, the use of violence in serving the truth, hostility toward Jews and other religions, the marginalization of women and wrongs—like abortion—against society’s weakest members.' [6]

What more proof can I possibly provide to justify the term "apology"? A signed document in which the pope says "by the way - this is an apology for my part". I'm reverting until Stbalbach provides more counter-arguments (other than some random article on the internet). Or would you prefer me to say that the Catholic Church "asked for forgiveness"? Miskin 09:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that would be great. Adam Bishop 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good cos I have it right next to me. Miskin 16:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You probably want to pick this discussion up with the anon user(s) at Talk:Crusade#APOLOGY? - this is new to me and I have no interest in it. Just saw that there are two POV's and they both seemed valid - the links are out there on Google, it's not hard to see or find the various arguments about this, search on "pope vatican apology crusades". If you believe that one POV should be removed from Wikipedia, and only a single POV represented, than that's your call, but breaks the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. Also your current prose in the article is emotionally laden and sensationalist, you would be better off sticking to the facts of what PJP actually said, with direct quotes, like the ones you quoted above. -- Stbalbach 16:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "emotional apology"?

In fact, this is what the Pope said:

"In particular, we cannot forget what happened in the month of April 1204," the Pope said, in reference to the sacking of Constantinople by crusaders. "How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust."

Some news media reported it as an "emotional apology", this is true. Was it an emotional apology? That remains a matter of controversy and should not be presented as factual. Instead we present factually what the Pope said. A news reporters opinions are not exactly a good source. The news media is known to play up emotions to sell good stories. -- Stbalbach 18:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Adam's compromise. Miskin 21:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering what you've reverted in the past, I'm (pleasantly) surprised. It's exactly what needs to be said, it shows multiple POV's with direct quotes and sources. -- Stbalbach 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bias

Honestly, I cannot say from what I've read that this is at all unbiased. It is waaaaayyyy to easy on the crusaders and simply accepts at face value the suggestion that the fires set in Constantinople were "fire walls" set up to aid escape and not to cause destruction (the crusaders were well known for causing purposeful devestation) that the melting of idols had noting to do with relgigious reasons (Namely the destruction of the power of the Eastern Orthodox Church to help convert Constantinople to Catholicism) and this article does not go into enough depth about the reaction of the Pope to the Fourth Crusade, it neither mentions some of the ways he spoke out against it in enough detail (it undervalues them) nor that the Pope was also simultaneously priasing the crusaders for winning new land for Catholicism, which is improtant to know because many people lost a good degree of faith in the pope for a while after this as a result of his own contradictions. Aditionally just to point it out, while some popes have apologized for the Fourth Crusade others have praised it. Finally, the article does not emphasize enough how the Fourth Crusade reduced the highly Greece and Constantinople centered Byzantine Empire to a battleground essentially causing the eventual downfall of the Byzantine Empire (the Turks took advantage of this weakness to conquer provinces in Asia Minor, which was the breadbasket and manpower basis for The Byzantine Empire's armies.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.120.108 (talk • contribs).

Well you are welcome to help fix the article, although I wouldn't go so far as to simply switch the POV from (supposedly) pro-crusader to anti-crusader. The crusaders are well known for causing purposeful destruction? Where, for example? Destroying the Orthodox relics and icons may have helped destroy the power of the Orthodox Church, but does anyone say that specifically? Which popes praised the crusade? Etc. Adam Bishop 02:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The importance of factual information

I would like to see a more explicit accounting of the numbers of combatants and defenders, and more specifics on what the events were that occured during and after the breach of Byzantium. It would also be helpful to have a bit of economic and historical data regarding the strength of Byzantium and it's rulers at the time. The military situation should be analyzed most appropriately according to the historical records and whatever data is available should be presented factually to allow the reader to make their own determinations as to the moral implications of the events. While some suggest that the Crusaders got off easy in this article and were "well known" to be intentionally destructive (related to the Wall Fires), a reading of the source materials for the 4th Crusade hardly support that contention. I suspect a anti-crusader bias in those comments, which may or may not be reasonable, but should be proven and backed up with sources, not merely stated as though "well known" suffices for actual sited evidence. Evidence should be provided in the form of sources in all cases.

The reason this is important is that we have a current world situation where the topic continues to come up and is being used to back a particular group's contentions that their current political aims are justified, based in part on what happenned in 1204. Therefore it is necessary to be extremely diligent in the research of this topic and make it as acurate and factual as possible, and to whatever degree possible based on numerical and historical data. That would be my recommendation.

In one article on the fall of Byzantium in Wikipedia it says that the 4th Crusade was responsible for the depopulation of the city to the point where 200 years later Byzantium could not defend itself from the Turkish forces. Is that right? I'd like to know a little more about the facts of the case and how this was ascertained.

[edit] Destruction of library

Petr Beckman: A History of Pi says that during the Fourth Crusade, a large library at Constantinople was destroyed, which many scholars regard as the greatest single loss of classical European literature.

1. Is he right?

2. Would this article be a good place to mention that?

--209.179.168.36 01:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of the event, but I really doubt that the loss could have been greater than the one caused by the fire of the library of Alexandria some centuries earlier. Regardless, if you have a good source then you should make the edit. Miskin 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innocent III's comments on the capture of Constantinople

There is an unsourced quote from Innocent III that is featuring very prominently (mostly due to the enormous quotation marks). It runs:

“ You rashly violated the purity of your vows; and turning your arms not against Saracens but against Christians, you applied yourselves not to the recovery of Jerusalem, but to seize Constantinople, preferring earthly to heavenly riches . . .

These 'soldiers of Christ' who should have turned their swords against the infidel have steeped them in Christian blood, sparing neither religion, nor age, nor sex . . .. They stripped the altars of silver, violated the sanctuaries, robbed icons and crosses and relics . . .. The Latins have given example only of perversity and works of darkness. No wonder the Greeks call them dogs!

 ”

It was apparently taken from one of Innocent's letters (no. 126, to his legate, in July 1205). However, this is not a faithful translation. The original Latin text along with a more adequate English translation can be found here (passage starting with How, indeed). I propose to adjust the quote or delete it altogether, say something along the lines of "Pope Innocent III, the man who had launched the expedition, thundered against the crusaders for abandoning their promise to liberate the Holy Land and massacring their fellow-Christians instead", and leave a reference in a footnote. Iblardi 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like a potentially interesting comment on the Crusade by a contemporary who had every right to express an opinion. My comment, therefore, is that it would be better to correct the translation, if we can, than to delete it.
If you don't like the formatting, take the quotation out of the "cquote" template and paste it as ordinary text (with ordinary quotes around it, I guess). Andrew Dalby 22:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I find there are a few problems with that translation too. Would anyone object if I make some changes? (under 3)
(1) The Latin original:
"Quomodo enim Graecorum Ecclesia, quantumcunque afflictionibus et persecutionibus affligatur, ad unitatem ecclesiasticam et devotionem sedis apostolicae revertetur, quae in Latinis non nisi perditionis exemplum et opera tenebrarum aspexit, ut jam merito illos abhorreat plus quam canes? Illi etenim, qui non quae sua sunt, sed quae Jesu Christi quaerere credebantur, gladios, quos exercere debuerant in paganos, Christianorum sanguine cruentantes, nec religioni nec aetati nec sexui pepercerunt, incestus, adulteria et fornicationes in oculis hominum exercentes, et tam matronas quam virgines etiam Deo dicatas, exponentes spurcitiis garsionum. Nec suffecit eisdem imperiales divitias exhaurire ac dirumpere spolia principum ac minorum, nisi ad thesauros Ecclesiarum, et, quod gravius est, ad ipsarum possessiones extenderent manus suas, tabulas argenteas etiam de altaribus rapientes, et inter se confringentes in frusta, violantes sacraria, cruces et reliquias asportantes."
(2) Translation offered:
"How, indeed, is the Greek church to be brought back into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See when she has been beset with so many afflictions and persecutions that she sees in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, whose swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, are now dripping with Christian blood,­ they have spared neither age nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics."
(3) Adjusted translation:
"How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks, no matter how severely she is beset with afflictions and persecutions, return into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, who made their swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood,­ they have spared neither religion [as in 'devotion to religion', for instance: clergy], nor age, nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics."
Iblardi 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense, especially your change regarding the "quantumcunque..." phrase, which really gives it a somewhat different meaning. Good job. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've made the edit. Iblardi 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/u/Talk%7EFourth_Crusade_62e3.html"