I think that you guys forget that not only Italians sacked Constantinople, but Arabs, Rusins, Bulgarians..etc.
No, Arabs laid seige to Constantinople. They never sacked it, one reason being that the Christian Arabs in defected from the caliph's army to Constantinople's side, one such Arab became Leo III Emperor of the Romans.
The Rus' seige predated the foundation of the Kievan Rus' state, let alone its baptism.
The Bulgarians fought for Constantinople against the Muslim siege of Constantinople in 717. The only siege they prosecuted against (rather for) the capital was with the Romanians and Romans against the Latin usurpers occupying the city in 1235, the Orthodox joining forces against the Ultramontanist heretics to restore the rightful patriarch on the throne that the Crusaders put a (literal) whore on.
Besides the Turks, only the Latins sacked Constantinople.
Do you forget the wars which the Bulgarians fought against the Greeks?
Why did the Greeks enslave the Bulgarians?
Pagan or Orthodox?
The idea, the ideologies of a divine Byzantine Empire are just a myth because it was nothing other than just another autocratic, imperialist empire. The idealisation of the Byzantine period, of the Eastern Roman Empire by the Russian philosophers of the 19th century were just an argument to support the injustice of the Tsarist Empire. This mode of thought has created a mythology which underlies Orthodox religious thought. There have been enough essays on the wrongs of Catholics believing in the ancien regime but very few want to underline that the Orthodox view of history is nothing but a piecemeal collage of moralising propaganda for Russian Imperialism. The theory of transmutation of Byzantium to Russia was invented to provide reasoning for the future conquests of China, Central Asia, India and Persia. Sadly the Orthodox are in reaction to the modern world, believing that the moralising imperialist spirituality of the 19th century is the authentic faith of Christ. This entrenchment not in theological Tradition but in historical propaganda prevents the Orthodox Church from claiming the allegiance of its faithful, who prefer faith healers and New Age to Christianity.
Imperialism is blind, is the moral of the story. The Byzantine Greek lust of power is not Christian in any way. The prospering civilisations which are destroyed by imperialist aggressors, are as we are told by the invaders, are either imaginery or temporary, for we must believe that the Empire shall last forever.(2)
You obviously quote someone here but do not cite them, so I'll hold off addressing this propaganda until you do so, or put it in your own words. In particular I'm interested in what "injustice of the Tsarist Empire" your source is alleging: that rather than the Polish supported and related Sviatopolk the Accused fraticide and False Dmitry ruling as Tsar of All the Rus', the Tsar of All the Rus' ruled as King of Poland?
A problem is that the "idealisation" it decries predates the foundation of the Rus' state and even the Rus' Khaganate.
In 681 AD the Bulgars defeated the Byzantine army and united themselves with the Slavonic tribes against the Byzantines, founding the first Bulgarian state. This new state was governed by a khan with the help of Slavic and Bulgar princes. There was a period of assimilation for 200 years which created a nationality which took the name of the Bulgar but culturally was strongly influenced by Slavonic civilisation. http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/index.htm
Khan Simeon defeated the Byzantine army at Aheloi in 917 which led to the annexation of Macedonia and Thrace. The reigns of Petar 1 (927-69) and Boris II (969-71) were marked by increasingly violent conflicts among the nobility. Byzantium also posed a constant threat. Religious unrest was also evident. Bulgarians began to question Christian teachings as they heard them in their own language. The Bogomils of Bulgaria were a religious sect who practised a radical dualistic doctrine, severe asceticism and imitation of the apostles' lives. The Kathari sect which spread to France and Italy developed out of this doctrine. A full-scale onslaught by Byzantium reduced the Bulgarian Kingdom to a rump known as the Western Kingdom which was ruled from Ohrid. Khan Samil was responsible for partly restoring the old kingdom until he died after the battle of Strumnitsa in 1014. Ohrid was captured in 1018 and the whole of Bulgaria became a Byzantine province.
In his Chronicle, the 12th-century Michael the Syrian, patriarch of the Syrian Jacobites, described the brutalities and atrocities of Nikephoros. "Nikephoros, emperor of the Romans, walked into the Bulgarians' land: he was victorious and killed great number of them. He reached their capital, seized it and devastated it. His savagery went to the point that he ordered to bring their small children, got them tied down on earth and made thresh grain stones to smash them."
And what did Krum do with Nikephoros? How does Nikephoros I go down in the annuals of the Greek Roman historians? How did the Romans describe him?