I would say that is false in the literal wording, but metaphorically true.

The issue surrounding the 1204 Crusade revolved around the Venetians exploiting the volatile internal politics of the medieval Roman Empire. Namely, a contestant for the throne invited the crusaders to take the city in his name in exchange for him becoming Emperor. Venice also was in competition with the Empire and wanted to get advantageous trading privileges as well. Ones they weren’t getting in the current administration under the current Emperor.

However, the sack of Constantinople happened much differently than intended. The claimant didn’t ascend to the throne and the Venetians decided to control it outright instead of having a potential puppet head turn against them for his own interests.

The internal politics left the wall’s door wide open for exploitation by foreign forces.

Similar circumstances plagued 1453, where the local Orthodox adherents opposed any alliance with Rome, probably due to the events that transpired earlier alongside simple pride. It’s not just a hollow maxim that pride happens before a fall.

I’ll have to update this with names, but this is all sound and backed by my sources , which are:

Byzantium and the Crusades

Byzantium: Interesting Life of a Medieval Empire - Judith Herrin.

1453: The War for Constantinople...- Roger Crowley.