The Fourth Crusade Flashcards
East West Relations by 1200: Great Schism
The Great Schism of 1054 had caused a deep split between the Latin (Roman Catholic) and the Greek (Greek Orthodox) churches due to differences in doctrine – the Filioque Controversy. This was the root of the distrust, but the crusading intensified this.
East West Relations by 1200: Crusading
The previous crusades had caused many problems, such as market shortages and riots, the legacy it left in the Byzantine empire was not a good one.
Byzantium had also been attacked by the crusader states in 1108. Bohemond laid siege to Dyrrhachium, but it failed and the Treaty of Devol was signed. This made Antioch a vassal state of the Byzantine Empire and it had to defend the empire whenever needed. However, Antioch and Bohemond’s successor, Tancred, resisted until 1158. The Treaty was both a result of and a cause for the distrust between the Byzantines and their Western European neighbours.
East West Relations by 1200: Clash of Civilisations
The clash of civilisations was the pinnacle of the distrust, the Byzantines saw the west as barbaric anyway, but the arrival of Venetian merchants and their subsequent trading, made many jealous and reinforced the view that the west were not wanted within the Empire. As a result of this, an anti-Latin movement, led by Emperor Andronicus, slaughtered the Venetians at the massacre of Venetians 1182.
Pope Innocent’s Calling
In August 1198, six years after the end of the Third Crusade, Pope Innocent III proclaimed a new crusade to take the holy city and place it under Christian control forever.
Henry VI had sent an advance party of German crusaders to the Holy Land in 1197, they had captured Beirut, Sidon and other coastal towns, but Henry’s death at Messina brought the Crusade to a halt. He was succeeded by his infant son Frederick II. In calling for the crusade, the Pope aimed to send a force to Palestine to build on the German’s gains.
Pope Innocent’s Calling: Religious Reasons (1)
The Treaty of Jaffa had arranged a truce that allowed pilgrims access to the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre. However, there was a temporary breakdown in this truce, this seems to be the trigger for the calling for the Fourth Crusade. As Innocent was determined to restore Christian control over the Holy Land, particularly Jerusalem.
Pope Innocent’s Calling: Timing Reasons (2)
Saladin’s death in 1193 had weakened the Muslims, they had no one to unite them anymore and they were left arguing over who should get what part of his legacy.
Perhaps more significantly, Henry of Champagne had died in 1197 and the crusader states were in a fragile position after the death of the King.
Pope Innocent’s Calling: Political Reasons (2)
Innocent had a desire to stabilise European politics and end conflict between the secular powers, especially England and France. Richard and Phillip were fighting over land that Phillip had stolen from Richard whilst he was away on the third crusade.
Innocent’s vision of his role as the head of Christendom made him want to assert his authority and gain prestige, calling a successful crusade would allow him to do this.
Pope Innocent’s Calling: The Response
In the autumn of 1198, Pope Innocent sent his officially approved preachers to call people to crusade. He sent letters to church leaders, outlining changes in the crusade recruitment. He called his plans “the business of the cross”.
He expected his changes to bring a flood of well-funded, suitable recruits but the response was slow. There was no rush to join the crusade and the clergy were reluctant to pay the new tax.
The Business of the Cross (4)
Half-hearted and inappropriate crusaders were discouraged by the Pope insisting that the crusaders must serve for two years in the east. This would also help to solve the problem of a lack of manpower.
Relying on individuals to pay their own costs stopped some from crusading, so Innocent introduced a tax of 1/40th of all Church income to help the poor crusaders or to hire mercenaries. Lords and knights still paid their own way.
He encouraged extra donations by offering indulgences to people who would finance someone else to go on the crusade on their behalf.
The papacy appointed officially approved preachers as in the past uncontrolled preaching had led to an over-enthusiastic mass response of poor unarmed pilgrims.
Innocent III was responsible for the failure of the Fourth Crusade because his timing was poor (3+/2-)
Innocent chose to call the Crusade in 1198 as there was a temporary breakdown in the Treaty of Jaffa, however, Genoa and Pisa were at war and so would not be able to transport the crusaders.
Richard I and Phillip II were at war over lands that Phillip had stolen from Richard whilst he was away on the third crusade, so they would not join the crusade.
The nobles in the Levant did not want another crusade and would have preferred not to provoke another war.
Saladin’s death in 1193 had weakened the Muslims, they had no one to unite them anymore and they were left arguing over who should get what part of his legacy.
Perhaps more significantly, Henry of Champagne had died in 1197 and the crusader states were in a fragile position after the death of the King.
Innocent III was responsible for the failure of the Fourth Crusade because of his eagerness to assert his authority (5+)
Innocent had underestimated the new and emerging idea of chivalry, service to your feudal lord, not the Church. Whilst the early crusaders were motivated by spiritual rewards, by this time it was the notions of duty, courage and honour that inspired people.
Innocent had insisted that the crusaders must serve for two years in the Levant, this decreased recruitment because people only wanted to fulfil their crusader vows, and then leave.
The clergy were reluctant to pay Innocent’s church income tax of 1/40th resulting in a lack of funds for the crusade.
Innocent encouraged extra donations by offering indulgences to people who would finance someone else to go on the crusade on their behalf. This decreased recruitment as people could stay at home and receive absolution of sins.
The Pope appointed official preachers to spread the word, e.g. Fulk of Neuilly, to preach the message, this resulted in less people to spread the word.
Innocent III was not responsible for the failure of the Fourth Crusade because
Pope Innocent was not present on the Crusade and therefore could not control the actions of the crusade, there was no strong papal legate either to enforce the Pope’s view. Pope Innocent tried to steer the Fourth Crusade by excommunicating it, but this did not work, his letters also proved ineffective. You could argue that it was not his fault and if orders had been followed then the crusade may have stayed on course and not end at Constantinople.
Ecry and the code of Chivalry
At a great tournament at Ecry, in November 1199, there was a breakthrough in recruitment. The lords who took the cross at Ecry included Thibaut of Champagne and Louis of Blois who had been loyal to Richard but disliked and mistrusted his successor, King John. Going on crusade gave them an honourable way of avoiding fighting for John against King Phillip of France.
Louis, Thibaut and Baldwin of Flanders, who also took the cross came from families and regions with strong crusading traditions. There is no evidence that any of the lords felt any service to the Pope, they knew he offered spiritual rewards but did not see him as the controller of the crusade.
Planning the Fourth Crusade
In the Spring of 1200, Counts Thibaut, Louis and Baldwin started planning the crusade but made no attempt to coordinate their efforts with the Pope. They decided to travel by sea, which would be expensive but quick. It would also avoid having to cross the Byzantine Empire. Most westerners thought the Byzantines were devious, having failed to support the Franks at Antioch during the First Crusade. Trade continued between the two halves of Christendom but there was an underlying mistrust.
The nobles secretly agreed that they would not sail to the Levant, but would attack Egypt instead. Egypt had enormous wealth but it was also the centre of Muslim power and would have to be defeated to take Jerusalem. It was a sensible strategy but chose to let the crusaders believe they were going directly to the crusader states, because this would encourage recruitment. Even the Pope was unaware of this plan.
The Deal with Venice
By March 1201, Geoffrey of Villehardouin and the other envoys of the lords were engaged in conversations with Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice. Everyone would need to be at Venice in a short space of time, the ships would need to be ready and the funds in place to pay Venice before the Crusade began. However, the lords had no authority to bind anyone except their own followers to the agreement to sail from Venice.
The envoys told the Venetians to prepare for 33,500 men with horses, equipment and food supplies at a cost of 85,000 silver marks and half of all property captured on the crusade. The Venetians also gave 50 war galleys but this was more than three times the amount Richard and Phillip requested at six times the price.
This was because the plan required Venice to limit its trading for a full year as it prepared, therefore the cost had to be met by the crusaders.
Only after the deal was approved by the Venetian people, was Pope Innocent sent the treaty, estimated numbers and cost. He agreed to the deal alarmed at his lack of control over events.
The Death of Thibaut
Another reason for a lack of numbers may have been the death of Count Thibaut of Champagne in May 1201. This deprived the crusade of its most effective leader and of thousands of knights and hired soldiers he would have brought with him. His death freed up the title “Commander in Chief” and this was used to attract Count Boniface of Montferrat. He was wealthy, respected and came from a strong crusading family but he did not bring as many men as Thibaut might have done.
In Debt to the Doge
From June 1202 onwards the crusaders gathered at Venice, it became obvious that less had taken the cross than had been expected and not all of these were travelling via Venice. Groups of crusaders had made their own way to Acre, knowing nothing of the plan to divert to Egypt.
The reduced number had nowhere near enough money to pay the Venetians. The Pope’s tax on clergy had raised nowhere near the sum hoped for and it was never meant to pay for a private deal. The crusaders faced having to pay three times as much. Only 35,000 silver marks was paid initially, but the Doge threatened their water and food supplies so another 14,000 was collected, by reducing the crusaders to extreme poverty. The crusade was in deadlock.
The Lords were responsible for the failure of the Fourth Crusade because of their lack of Communication with the Pope (3)
The Lords did not attempt to coordinate their efforts with the Pope.
The Lords secretly decided they would not travel directly to the Holy Land but instead attack Egypt – the Pope was unaware of this plan.
The Pope was only informed of the deal in Venice after the Doge had put it to the people of Venice and got their approval, by then it was too late to do anything.
The Lords were responsible for the failure of the Fourth Crusade because of their overestimation of crusader numbers (3)
Madden blames Villehardouin and the envoys for the massive overestimation of the crusader numbers. Villehardouin blames the crusaders who left from different ports but Madden insists that even if all the crusaders left from Venice, the numbers would still fall far short of 33,500.
The death of Thibaut of Champagne meant that the crusade lost out on his vast number of followers, including knights and hired soldiers.
Hundreds of people left after the treaty at Zara was signed, committing them to helping Alexios. They believed the crusade had truly lost its way.
The Lords were not responsible for the failure of the Fourth Crusade because
The papal legate, Cardinal Peter of Capua, endorsed the attack on Zara as necessary to prevent the complete failure of the crusade. Thibaut’s death, although it had a major impact, was not a fault of the lords. They had to divert to Constantinople due to the lack of funds, although did not have to sack the city.
The Diversion to Zara
In September 1202, the Doge proposed a way forward, he offered to postpone the payment and sail them to Egypt as promised, if they first fought on behalf of Venice against Zara, a city that had rebelled from Venetian rule and subsequent attempts to regain it had failed.
If the crusaders accepted his deal, the Doge would save face by capturing a valuable asset, what’s more, if Venice helped to capture Egypt, it would gain Alexandria, the richest trading port in the Mediterranean.
He also wanted to follow his father and grandfather would had also crusaded in 1122. He was eager to save his soul, and gain economic reward and took the cross himself. This meant that thousands of Venetians followed his lead.
Problems at Zara
However, Zara was a Christian city and the King of Hungary had taken a crusader vow himself. When the crusader accepted, seeing no other option and Pope Innocent learnt of this plan, he instructed the papal legate to forbid the attack. Peter of Capua decided to wait until just before the attack but the Doge guessed he would do this and banned him from sailing with the fleet.
The Venetian fleet left in October 1202, the Zarans realised they could not withstand a force of such a size and began to discuss the terms of surrender with the Doge, but Simon of Montfort promised them the friendship of the French and the Zarans retreated and prepared for a siege.
Historiography: Doge Hijacks the Crusade
Simon believed the Doge had hijacked the crusade and was using it for his own aims. Some historians believe that overcharging the crusaders so they would fall into debt was the Doge’s plan from the beginning, but Madden disagrees.
Result of Zara
The Doge’s plan split the crusader army but Zara quickly fell to the crusaders in late 1202. Pope Innocent was furious and excommunicated the whole crusade.
The French soon repented and Innocent made them swear an oath not to attack Christian lands without just of necessary cause.
The Venetians felt they had done nothing wrong and refused to take the oath.
Enrico Dandolo was responsible for the failure of the Fourth Crusade because (4)
He demanded massive payment from the crusaders and put them in debt (may have been his plan from the beginning). He charged them 3x the amount at 6x the price.
As a result, Enrico forced them to divert to Zara, a city that had rebelled against Venetian rule. This caused a split in the crusade. Simon of Montfort accused him of abusing the crusade and refused to take part.
The crusaders could not leave Constantinople, as the Doge would not forgive the debt; he wanted Constantinople’s riches and trading privileges.
There was a split between the excommunicate half and the absolved half of the crusade, although the Pope permitted them to travel with the Venetians.
Enrico Dandolo was not responsible for the failure of the Fourth Crusade because (3)
He simply supplied the ships that the crusaders requested and needed the payment otherwise Venice would be financially crippled.
By joining the crusade and taking the cross himself he encouraged thousands of Venetians to join him too. Therefore, thousands of Venetians and fifty war ships were provided free.
He was extremely motivated by the economics of the crusade, but this had always been the case with some of the crusaders.
Alexius’ Problem
At the end of December 1202, the crusaders were still camped at Zara. Prince Alexius requested their help to restore his father, Isaac II to the throne. In 1195, Isaac II had been deposed by his brother Alexius III after ten years on the throne.
Alexius’ Promises
He would place the whole of the Byzantine Empire under the spiritual authority of the Pope, ending the Great Schism.
He would pay 200,000 silver marks and provide 10,000 highly trained men to join the crusaders with 500 knights to permanently garrison the Holy Land.
Alexius also assured the crusaders that no serious fighting would be needed, and that the Byzantine people would quickly take his side.
The Doge was particularly keen to accept, as he knew Venice would gain long-term trading privileges.
Problems with Constantinople
The crusaders would be breaking their oath, but Alexius reminded them that Alexius III had taken the throne by force and insisted it was their Christian duty to restore Isaac. Conveniently ignoring that Isaac had murdered his way to the throne in 1185.
Reactions to the Prospect of helping Alexius
A good number of crusaders left the expedition in Spring 1203. The Pope sent a letter in June telling the crusaders not to interfere with Byzantine affairs but the main crusader fleet was just reaching Constantinople.
As the ships came closer, the inhabitants ignored Alexius, it was clear a serious battle lay ahead.
The Rise of Prince Alexius
On 3rd July, after much prayer, they landed on the shores of Constantinople and gained a foothold thanks to the half-hearted defence by the Byzantine forces.
On the night of 17th July, Alexius III fled from the city, court officials released Isaac II from prison and asked him to rule as co-emperor with Alexius IV.
Prince Alexius’ Broken Promises and how were things made worse?
Within weeks, it was obvious that Alexius could not honour the promises he had made.
His father and the Church leaders disapproved of his plans to allow the Eastern Church to be ruled from Rome
In order to pay the crusaders Alexius had to melt down the ancient gold and silver treasures in the church, which upset his people.
Matters were made worse when an outbreak of violence between the crusaders and the locals caused a fire that inflicted immense damage on the city. Western Europe and Byzantine relations were always tentative even at the time of the first and second crusades.
The Fall of Prince Alexius
In November 1203, Alexius stopped paying the money he had promised. It was clear to the court that Isaac II and Alexius IV had lost control of the city. A Byzantine nobleman seized power by murdering both of them and took the throne as Alexius V in January 1203.
The Sack of Constantinople
The crusaders were in crisis, they had to spend the winter camped outside Constantinople before the voyage to Egypt but the new Emperor had refused to feed them. The leaders decided the only hope of surviving and continuing the Crusade lay in taking Constantinople for themselves.
In April 1204, the crusaders sailed specially adapted Venetian ships up to the defences of the city. Once they broke through Alexius V fled and the city surrendered.
This signalled a three day wave of destruction and looting by the crusaders. They had agreed that all wealth should be pooled to pay off the Venetian debts and this encouraged people to take more. Religious treasures were especially prized and one western abbot was seen with his robes bulging with precious books and holy relics.
Alexius IV was responsible for the failure of the Fourth Crusade because (3 Promises/2 In Power)
Alexius’ promises caused the leaders of the crusade to support him in his effort to restored Isaac II to power. He promised them 200,000 silver marks and 10,000 men, along with 500 knights to permanently garrison the Holy Land. The permanent garrison was significant as Richard had decided in the Third Crusade that it was not worth taking Jerusalem because they would not be able to hold it.
Alexius also promised to end the Great Schism of 1054, by uniting the eastern and western churches and placing Byzantium under the spiritual control of Pope Innocent III. This would have seemed very appealing to the Pope, as this would have increased his power and prestige.
Alexius’ final promise was that it would be easy to take Constantinople as the people would quickly take his side - this proved to be incorrect and if Alexius V had chosen to fight it would have been long and bloody.
When Alexius got into power, he could not pay the debt he had promised to the crusaders, so churches and tombs were raided for gold and silver. This resulted in Alexius and Isaac being killed and Alexius V came to the throne. This left the crusaders without food or their money and the leaders decided the only way forward was the take Constantinople for themselves.
Alexius V had murdered his way to the throne and this gave the crusaders an excuse to attack. The Sack of Constantinople was the end of the fourth crusade.
Alexius IV was not responsible for the failure of the Fourth Crusade because
Alexius may have genuinely believed that he would have been accepted by the people of Constantinople and therefore cannot be blamed entirely. One could argue that by the time Alexius was in contact with the crusaders, the debt to the Venetians had already caused the crusade to crumble.
