Evolution of Spiritual Rewards in Crusading as seen in the Fourth Crusade

Mark Scacewater History 606: The Crusades March 7, 2012 2

Beginning with Pope Innocent III’s issuance of a crusading bull on August 15,

1198, the Fourth Crusade began to take shape and resulted in a historic, shocking turn of events. On April 12, 1204, the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade and their Venetian allies attacked and sacked the most significant city held by Christians, Constantinople.1 The overthrow of the Byzantine Empire was the climax of an irreparable schism between the

Latin and Orthodox churches that had its roots in 1054.2 What had begun as a plan to recapture the holiest of cities, Jerusalem, ended in what one historian called the greatest crime against humanity.3 Jerusalem was such a sacred city that for Latin Christians, the capture and possession of that city in 1099 was undoubtedly the high point of the crusading movement.4 Historians have debated the cause and consequences of the Fourth

Crusade, which began with the goal of again reclaiming Jerusalem. An issue worth analyzing is what led the crusaders to not only change course, but also justify an attack on fellow Christians. The basic history explains that the crusaders made a deal with the

Venetians when they could not pay their bill, agreed to attack the city of Zara to appease the Venetians, then decided to attack Constantinople once realizing Egypt and Jerusalem were not an immediate, pragmatic option.5 But going back to the original call to crusade from Pope Urban II, how did the meaning of crusading become so skewed? There is sufficient evidence to suggest the Fourth Crusade was clearly a violation of genuine crusading. During the course of the Crusades, genuine Christian faith was negatively transformed by the desire for greed and personal self-gain. This downward spiral was

1 Michael Angold, The Fourth Crusade: Event and Context (Harlow, Longman, 2003), ix. 2 Angold, Fourth Crusade, 4. 3 Ibid. 4 Andrew Holt and James Muldoon, Fighting Words: Competing Voices from the Crusades (Oxford: Greenwood World Publishing, 2008), 42. 5 Jonathan Phillips, Holy Warriors (New York: Random House, 2009), 172-180.

2 3 exemplified in three main events: the Treaty of Venice, the attack on Zara, and the infamous sack of Constantinople.

Pope Urban II triggered the First Crusade on November 27, 1095, when he urged the knights of France to regain Jerusalem from infidel hands in return for the promise of spiritual rewards.6 This call was heeded and led to religious warfare being unleashed on a devastating scale. The conquerors would take Jerusalem in 1099, only to have it reclaimed by Saladin in 1187. The Crusades would take a cruel turn when fellow

Christians attacked the Byzantines in Constantinople in 1204. Using a definition proposed by historian Jonathan Phillips, crusading can be defined as fighting to liberate

Christian lands and Christian peoples for a spiritual reward.7 In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, crusading was an entirely mainstream activity, accepted and endorsed by an entire culture.8 In fact, violence and religion were the two most dominant factors in medieval life.9 While religion was the original motive for crusading, competing forces got in the way: the lure of land and money, a sense of honor, family tradition, a desire for adventure, and the obligation of service.10 Interestingly enough, while 1095 is seen as a convenient date for the origin of the Christian-Muslim conflict, the two faiths had been in conflicts for centuries prior to 1095.11 One idea that was original to the conflict was the papal initiation of warfare and the offer of spiritual rewards for participants.12 In Urban

II’s call to crusade, he promised the following: “All who die by the way, whether by land

6 Phillips, Holy Warriors, xvii. 7 Phillips, Holy Warriors, xviii. 8 Phillips, Holy Warriors, xix. 9 Jonathan Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (London: Penguin Books, 2004), xvii. 10 Ibid. 11 Phillips, Holy Warriors, xxii. 12 Phillips, Holy Warriors, xxv.

3 4 or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested”.13 This spiritual reward of unprecedented magnitude would later evolve into monetary rewards, thus changing the ideological and theological aspects of crusading. The First Crusade had begun with the noble intent to reclaim Jerusalem for Christianity by over 60,000 people from all areas and every level of society, but by the Fourth Crusade Christians were fighting Christians for financial purposes.14

The sack of Constantinople is viewed as a great travesty of the Crusades, a bitter alteration of crusading as the Latin Christians attacked the Byzantine Empire. The

Byzantine Empire was the successor to the Roman Empire, and Constantinople was a city of great importance to the Byzantines.15 In 1054, the relations between the Greek

Orthodox Christians of the Byzantine Empire and the Catholics of western Europe took a surprising turn. There was a clash between the papacy and the patriarchs of

Constantinople that led to what historians today call the Great Schism, a doctrinal and liturgical split between the two churches.16 Another issue that contributed to the split was of who possessed the supreme authority: the successor of St. Peter (the pope) or the pentarchy of the five patriarchs of the Christian Church (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria,

Jerusalem, and Constantinople).17 This schism led the Catholics to view the Greeks as schismatics and heretics and as enemies of the faithful, something that would do much to enable the crusaders to justify the final attack on Constantinople in 1204.18

13 S. J. Allen and Emilie Amt, The Crusades: a Reader (Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press, 2003), 40. 14 Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, xviii. 15 Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, xx. 16 Ibid. 17 Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, xx-xxi. 18 Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, xxi.

4 5

The results of the Fourth Crusade are especially peculiar because Pope Urban II viewed the First Crusade as a chance to heal pre-existing divisions between the Western and Eastern churches.19 Unfortunately, this did not work out in the long run as the Fourth

Crusade saw many of the greatest abuses of power committed by local Latin Churches against their former Orthodox neighbors.20 Before the infamous sack of Constantinople, there were several attempts to end the schism. In 1095 Emperor Alexius I made an appeal for help against the Turks of Asia Minor, one of several reasons why Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade.21 The idea of these two Christian forces uniting against Islam seemed like a good one, but in the course of the major crusading expeditions of the twelfth century there was serious ill-feeling between the western armies and their

Byzantine hosts.22 The Byzantines viewed the Europeans as poorly disciplined barbarians who posed a threat to their sacred city, while the crusaders mistrusted Greek promises to provide food and supplies and blamed them for failing to keep agreements. In the case of the Second Crusade, the crusaders felt it was possible the Byzantines had betrayed them to the Turks in Asia Minor.23 Thus the doctrinal and liturgical schism, combined with mistrust on both sides during previous crusading, all contributed to high levels of tension in relations between Constantinople and the West.24

The original goal of the Fourth Crusade was to fight against the Muslims, not against fellow Christians. However, the Fourth Crusade was in danger of failure as late as

19 For an overview of this issue, see John Hugh Hill, ‘Raymond of Saint Gilles in Urban’s Plan of Greek and Latin Friendship’, Speculum, 26:2 (April 1951): 265-276. 20 Donald E. Queller and Thomas F. Madden, The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997), 145-147, 152-153. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid.

5 6

May 1201, when Thibaut of Champagne fell ill and died.25 The death of Thibaut hurt recruiting efforts in northern France, a problem that was evidenced in the arrival of only

13,000 troops to Venice by midsummer 1202.26 With far fewer Franks than had been predicted, even scraping together every ounce of money, the crusade leaders were left with a massive financial shortfall. The crusader envoys had negotiated a treaty with the

Venetians for the construction of a vast fleet to transport 33,500 crusaders and 4,500 horses across the Mediterranean in return for the payment of 85,000 silver marks.27 The money required to pay the Venetians was so great it amounted to twice the annual income of the English or French crowns.28 With the amount owed at 34,000 marks, the expedition was saved from immediate collapse by the intervention of Venice’s doge, Enrico

Dandalo.29 The doge was determined to further Venetian interests, so he offered to commute the debt and to commit his own troops to join the Levantine war, so long as the crusaders first helped Venice to defeat its enemies. In agreeing to this, the purpose of the

Fourth Crusade drifted from the path to the Holy Land.30 A further dimension to this now revised crusade was a secret agreement in place between the leadership of the crusaders and the doge to begin the crusade by attacking Egypt, not Jerusalem, then using Egypt as a staging post en route to Jerusalem.31By dealing with the Venetians, the crusaders were working with a group whom Phillips claims had the reputation of money-grabbing mercenaries, devoid of the spirituality of many of the other crusaders.32 Phillips proposes

25 Thomas Asbridge, The Crusades: The Authoritarian History of the War for the Hold Land (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010), 528. 26 Ibid. 27 Asbridge, The Crusades, 527. 28 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 173. 29 Asbridge, The Crusades, 529. 30 Ibid. 31 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 174. 32 Ibid.

6 7 this perceived lack of spirituality can be blamed on three reasons: the outcome of the

Fourth Crusade, the Venetians behavior during the First Crusade, and the 1124 crusade that captured Tyre. On the latter two occasions, the Venetians eagerly sought relics, but others crusaders did likewise.33 The Venetians saw financial gain in this deal and possibly the recovery of Jerusalem, but the emphasis was on the phenomenal wealth the Venetians could obtain.34 When the northern French crusaders did not get their expected turnout in terms of men and it was apparent they could not pay what was owed, the Venetians responded by threatening that if the crusaders did not pay what was owed, they would not leave the island or find anyone to bring them food or drink.35 This left the crusaders few options, with the best option being the Treaty of Venice. It is at this point that both the

Venetians and the French crusaders begin their moral downfall, as a deal is struck to attack the nearby Christian city of Zara, whose overlord was a Hungarian crusader.36

Within months the expedition had sacked Zara, Pope Innocent III was dismayed and excommunicated the entire crusade, and some Franks had left for the Holy Land under their own steam.37

The siege of Zara begins the complete downfall of personal virtue in crusading.

Despite a warning from Pope Innocent that this crusader was forbidden and excommunication would await the participants, the crusade went on.38 It is worth noting that there was not unanimity in the decision to attack Zara, with Simon de Montfort

33 Ibid. 34 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 174. 35 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 177. 36 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 178. 37 Asbridge, The Crusades, 529. 38 Ibid.

7 8 boldly stating, “I have not come here to destroy Christians.”39 After the negotiated victory over Zara, Pope Innocent made the following proclamation: “Behold, your gold has turned into base metal and your silver has almost completely rusted since, departing from the purity of your plan and turning aside from the path onto the impassable road . . . you should have hastened to the land flowing with milk and honey, you turned away, going astray in the direction of the desert.”40 This episode not only marked a split among crusaders, but also showed what limited authority the papacy now had over the actions of crusaders. Ignoring the demands of the pope would be somewhat shocking during the buildup to the First Crusade, but now it seems to not even bother some of the crusaders.

Moreover, the plunder gathered from Zara’s conquest did not prove sufficient and the crusade turned towards Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire.41

Analyzing the decision to attack the city of Zara, pragmatism seemed to be the best reason for ignoring a clear directive from the pope. The factors that led to the attack are clear: the French crusaders’ contractual failure, and the Venetians’ threat to withdraw their shipping if not paid in full.42 From a historical standpoint, in order to maintain the purity of the ideal of crusading, the French crusaders should have planned better. That sounds quite simple, but once they began dealing with a group who had less than pure crusading motives, the spiritual component of crusading was disregarded for the assurance of a victory. While that victory was intended to be spiritual in nature

(reclaiming holy lands from infidels), the crusaders forsook their core principles. In an intriguing biblical parallel, the crusaders somewhat resemble the Israelites wandering in

39 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, trs. W.A. and M.D. Sibly (Wiidbridge, 1998), p. 58. 40 Innocent III, Sources, pp. 41-45. (as cited in Phillips, 2009). 41 Asbridge, The Crusades, 529. 42 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 180.

8 9 the desert after not fully trusting God. While Jonathan Phillips made the excellent point that the crusaders would have lost face by simply going home when it was apparent they could not pay the Venetians, perhaps that would have been a better option than attacking other Christians. Yet even Innocent III realized this uneasy alliance might be necessary to achieve the ultimate goal. Innocent gradually found himself trapped between conflicting impulses: the desire to bring the crusade to a stop by withdrawing his support, and the lingering hope that the campaign would somehow find its way into the will of God by reclaiming Jerusalem.43

The downfall in personal virtue continued in 1202 when envoys representing

Prince Alexius pitched a proposal that would benefit all involved parties. In his brilliantly diplomatic appeal, he promised the following: 200,000 marks of silver and provisions for the entire army, bring the Eastern Church back into obedience to Rome, and an additional

10,000 men for the expedition.44 Despite all the benefits involved, the catch was Prince

Alexius would have to be restored to the throne of Constantinople.45 There was considerable belief that to accomplish this, the crusaders would have to sack

Constantinople and install Alexius by force. As Phillips points, the motivations for some of the involved parties were less than pure. Dandolo’s enthusiasm for this plan possibly stemmed from the ill treatment of Venetians in Constantinople in 1171.46 Despite Simon de Montfort leaving the expedition, the agreement was made and thus another step was taken in the shocking fall from the original intent of crusading. It seemed that the remission of sins and spiritual rewards were no longer the goal, but the focus had shifted

43 Asbridge, The Crusades, 528. 44 Geoffrey of Villehardouin, “The Conquest of Constantinople,” in Joinville and Villehardouin: Chronicles of the Crusades, tr. C. Smith (London, 2008). 45 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 181. 46 Ibid.

9 10 to saving face and achieving financial advantages via fighting. After the agreement, Pope

Innocent required an oath from the French crusaders who promised to “neither invade nor violate the lands of Christians in any manner, unless, perchance, they wickedly impede your journey or another just or necessary cause should, perhaps, arise, on account of which you would be empowered to act otherwise.”47 The wording of this oath left open the door to attacking fellow Christians if the Byzantines did not peacefully allow Alexius to reclaim the throne. The fact that the pope left a loophole in this oath is proof that crusading had evolved into a more political concept than spiritual. While of course there were still spiritual goals and aims, the reality of diplomacy had set in for many. By merely dealing with the Venetians, the French crusaders had metaphorically sold their souls to the Devil. Everything that occurred after the initial agreement with the Venetians was compounded and made worse by a prior issue. Thus it seems fair to argue that the historical concept of “the Crusades” took a turn for the worse when the French crusaders dealt with the Venetians.

The arrival in Constantinople and subsequent reception of Alexius was a critical juncture for Christians as a whole. Had he been received favorably, the crusaders could have united and avoided that which plagued the Muslims, endemic political fragmentation that produced instability and infighting. Instead, he was not received favorably due to his youth and the fact that he had never governed Constantinople.48 The crusaders then began an attack and gained a relatively surprising, quick victory.

However, the westerners still did not have the full approval of the pope. At this point, it seemed the crusade had been partially stabilized as the terms of the Venetian agreement

47 Innocent III, Sources, p. 48 (as cited in Phillips, Holy Warriors, 182). 48 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 183.

10 11 were now fulfilled with Alexius becoming co-emperor with his father.49 But once again, the crusaders displayed the personal lack of not only spiritual, but also moral virtue.

Subsequently, Fourth Crusade continued its complete deviance from the original crusade with the promise of spiritual rewards.

Immediate problems sprang up between the eastern and western Christians, with many in Constantinople resenting the invaders. With respect to the original goal of attacking Egypt, by late summer 1203 it was too late. This down time would lead the crusaders to attempt to consolidate Alexius IV’s authority and raise money.50 The Greeks, though, hated Alexius and he even acknowledged as much.51 While Alexius was away, one event that further damaged relations between the two groups of Christians was an attack on a small mosque, probably built for Muslim traders during Isaac’s alliance with

Saladin. The mosque was located near the shoreline of the Golden Horn.52 A group of crusaders attacked the mosque, the occupants begged the locals for help, and the citizens happily rushed to join the fray. In response, the crusaders set fire to the mosque but the blaze lasted three days, turned more than four hundred acres of the city into a charred wasteland, angering the Greeks at this vandalism of their precious city.53 After the fire, any westerner in the city had to flee to take shelter in the crusaders’ camp at Galata.54

This episode was yet another case of tension between the westerners and the Greeks.

Money, or lack thereof, also became an issue as the crusaders were infuriated that there was not enough cash in the city.55 As events continued to spiral out of control to the point

49 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 185. 50 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 187. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid.

11 12 that four people held imperial title in Constantinople, a full scale attack on the city was imminent. Relations were damaged beyond repair, seemingly with money at the root of the problems. Niketas Choniates, in his Annals, put it best when he said, “Their inordinate hatred for us and our excessive disagreement with them allowed for no humane feeling between us.”56 After the Byzantine nobleman Alexius Doukas

Murtzuphlus killed Alexius IV, there was some weak justification for an attack on

Constantinople. The historical problem with using his death as an excuse is the flimsy cooperation that existed previously between the French, Venetians, and Alexius. The whole ordeal was based on a secret agreement that was yet another ill-fated plan that had as its contingency an attack on a Christian city. With that in mind, the actual decision by the crusaders to attack Constantinople was fairly straightforward. They were hundreds of miles from home, denied food, and could not possibly continue to the Holy Land.57

Keeping in line with the declining personal virtues of the crusaders, rather than humbly leave Constantinople and regroup at home, they chose to assault the city and remove

Murtzuphlus, a move that was justified in some ways.58

The March Pact is continued evidence not only of previous bad decision making, but also of the turn from pure crusading goals and ideals. This agreement stipulated that all booty gained would be pooled together and used to pay off remaining debts to the

Venetians.59 The ugly consequences of the Treaty of Venice again were on display and played a major role in the attack on Constantinople. While this was a tragic victory for the crusaders, given the circumstances, it is understandable. Despite being

56 as cited in Phillips, Holy Warriors, 189. 57 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 189. 58 Ibid. 59 Phillips, Holy Warriors, 190

12 13 understandable, it is hardy justified under the original call to crusade. Without going into an in-depth analysis of the sack and subsequent atrocities committed, it is worth mentioning that Pope Innocent was not pleased when he learned that women had been violated in the sack and churches had been destroyed.60 To say the crusaders turned away from the purity of the crusading vow would be a massive understatement. Crusading had evolved into a destructive adventure, due to poor decision making along the way. Even if one were able to justify attacking and sacking Constantinople, the level of violence and destruction was not justifiable. Even the Muslim sultan Saladin was more considerate when he took Jerusalem than the crusaders were when they sacked Constantinople. The

Crusades are historically known as a spiritual fight for the Holy Land between Christians and Muslims, but sadly along the way mistakes were made and the consequences for those mistakes resulted in the terrible attack on Constantinople.

Having established that the crusaders were left with very few options other than attacking Constantinople, the primary sources speak volumes about the appalling behavior of these “Christian” men attacking other Christians. The crusaders initial address to the doge of Venice was admirable: “Sire, we have come to you on behalf of the noble barons of France who have taken the cross in order to avenge the shame of

Jesus Christ and to reconquer Jerusalem, if God will permit.”61 The eagerness was admirable, but their foundation was shaky. So eager and zealous were these crusaders, they told the doge that they would work out an agreement with the Venetians “under any conditions that you may propose or advise.”62 This flexible attitude from the outset put the entire expedition at risk due to relying so much on an external ally. The agreement to

60 Innocent III, Sources, p. 166 (as cited in Phillips, Holy Warriors, 195). 61 Villehardouin: The Conquest of Constantinople (as cited in Allen & Amt, 225). 62 Ibid (as cited in Allen & Amt, 226).

13 14 attack Babylon (that is, Cairo) was sound military policy due to being able to inflict damage to the Turks, but the agreement with the Venetians was not.63 Another example of the crusaders dependence on the Venetians comes from Robert of Clari after it was evident the crusaders could not pay the Venetians what was owed: “When the crusaders heard what the doge proposed they were very glad and fell at his feet in joy. They bound themselves very willingly to do faithfully what the doge had proposed.”64 This “alliance” of sorts made the attack on Zara inevitable after the doge proposed attacking a city “very rich and well supplied”.65 If the crusaders had been intent on fulfilling solely the spiritual aspect of their mission, then attacking a fellow Christian city even for money and supplies would have been out of the question. Once it became evident the crusaders could not do this on their own, a fair argument can be made they should have gone home and regrouped. Instead, they forsook their true goals and morals in order to simply survive and continue on their quest to Egypt and Jerusalem.

The actual attack on Zara is further evidence that the crusaders and their allies the

Venetians were not interested in being true crusaders, per the terms of Pope Urban II’s initial call to crusade. In Villehardouin’s account, it is evident the people of Zara were more than willing to surrender the town almost immediately if a promise was made to spare the lives of the inhabitants: “They [some people from Zara] said to him that they would surrender the city and all their property to his mercy, if their lives were spared.”66

Had the crusaders truly felt they needed supplies and money, they would have immediately accepted this offer and moved into the city without attack. Instead,

63 Ibid. 64 Ibid, 228. 65 Ibid. 66 Villehardouin, as cited in Allen & Amt, 228.

14 15 infighting broke out between different people from both the crusaders and the Venetians.

The abbot of Vaux told the counts and barons, “Sirs, I forbid you, in the name of the pope at Rome, to attack this city; for the inhabitants are Christians and you are pilgrims.”67 The doge was irritated at this comment, proving yet again the Venetians were not the best spiritual allies for the French crusaders. The doge had earlier mentioned he wanted revenge on the people of Zara, but as true crusaders was revenge the best option? As a

Christian, should not the doge have applied the scriptures as found in the Gospel of

Matthew 5:39: “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”68 Instead, the doge’s thirst for hunger was evident in his reply: “Sirs, this city was practically in my power, and your people have taken it from me; you had promised that you would aid me in conquering it; now I require you to do so.”69 Given the promises the crusaders had made to the doge, they were now left with little choice but to attack Zara. This same situation was replicated in the later sack of

Constantinople albeit under different circumstances.

Following the regrettable March Pact, the final event that showed that the original purpose of the Fourth Crusade was distorted was the actual pillaging that occurred in

Constantinople. The siege of Constantinople began on April 9, 1204, and the crusaders broke through the walls on the 12th. The new emperor abandoned his throne and the city was subjected to three horrific days of unchecked pillaging. In addition to the looting, rape, and murder of the Greek inhabitants, the crusaders also took a great interest in

Byzantium’s holy sanctuaries.70 From a historical standpoint, this attack stands as one of

67 As cited in Allen & Amt, 229. 68 The Bible, New International Version. 69 Villehardouin, as cited in Allen & Amt, 229. 70 Allen and Amt, “Documents on the Sack of Constantinople”, 234.

15 16 the low points in Christian history. An early thirteenth-century Greek historian, Niketas

Choniates, begins his account of the attack by writing about the “deeds wrought by these nefarious men!”71 This account is a bit subjective, yet he would sympathize with the

Byzantines, being a Greek himself. Nonetheless, the primary sources tell a sordid story of attack on the Greeks. Of the magnitude of the suffering, Choniates said the following:

No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, the groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, the separation of those most closely united . . . Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, how great the distress.72

If this account is accurate, then it is clear the crusaders had completely fallen off the deep end, metaphorically speaking. With a goal being to regroup and garner supplies and money to eventually continue the journey to Egypt, why was the raping and looting necessary? Gunther of Paris, an important primary source because he, like the crusaders, was from France, offered his account of an abbot, Martin, who threated an aged man with death over relics inside the city: “Come, perfidious old man, show me the most powerful relics you have, or you shall die immediately.”73 As a figurehead for a monastery, this

“crusader” Martin was more obsessed with relics than he was the mission of recapturing the Holy City from the infidels. Clearly, the goals of the Fourth Crusade had gone by the wayside and the results of the sack on Constantinople should be not viewed surprisingly considering the previous mistakes made. While Gunther did offer some slight justification for the attack on the city by saying it [Constantinople] was theirs by right of conquest, he made sure to point out Martin was obsessed with riches, making sure he

71 As cited in Allen & Amt, 234. 72 As cited in Allen and Amt, 235-236. 73 As cited in Allen & Amt, 237.

16 17 alone would not remain empty-handed.74 If the argument can be made the riches were needed to pay off the Venetians, why not pay them and make stronger attempts at peace with the inhabitants? This was not in the minds of the majority of the attackers and the results were thus inevitable.

The final collections of primary sources, from Innocent III, are the most definitive proof that the crusaders’ goals had been severely distorted. He initially wrote in a letter that Christianity would not be weeping over the desolation of the land of Jerusalem if the empire of Constantinople had been transferred from the Greeks to the Latins earlier.75

This was certainly an inquisitive viewpoint for Innocent, but one that would change once more details of the attacks became evident to him. Innocent wrote the following to Peter, cardinal priest of the title of St. Marcellus: “We have just heard and discovered from your letters that you have absolved from their pilgrimage vows and their crusading obligations all the crusaders who have remained to defend Constantinople from last March to the present. It is impossible not to be moved against you, for you nether should nor could give any such absolution.”76 While Innocent is expressing his dismay, he continued by proclaiming disgust for the crimes committed by the Christian “crusaders”:

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.77

Several things Innocent wrote about are interesting, first being his mention of the real enemy, the “pagans.” Innocent correctly realized this serious attack on Constantinople

74 As cited in Allen & Amt, 236. 75 As cited in Allen & Amt, 238. 76 As cited in Allen & Amt, 239. 77 As cited in Allen & Amt, 240.

17 18 would hinder and possibly permanently prevent a unification of the Latin and Greek churches. The original mission had been to fight the Muslims and reclaim Jerusalem from the infidels, but this mission had gone so far off track that Innocent chastised the crusaders by telling them their swords were now dripping with Christian blood. These are strong words from the papacy, an institution that had seen its influence in the Crusades decline over the years. Not content to stop there, Innocent also wrote that the crusaders

“violated the holy places and have carries off crosses and relics.”78 At this point, it seemed the goals of Egypt and Jerusalem were no longer practical due to the schism that had occurred and the destructive ends of the crusaders. While it appeared Innocent had accepted the fiasco of the Fourth Crusade to an extent, he was clearly not happy with the results. The sources paint a story of Innocent, like the French crusaders, making concessions during the years to retain hope of achieving the original goal.

In The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, Jonathan Phillips wrote that the outcome of the Fourth Crusade clearly represents a dramatic distortion of the basic idea of the Catholic Church fighting the infidel.79 Later, writing a bit more harshly, he said that set against its original aim of the reconquest of Jerusalem, the Fourth Crusade was an utter failure.80 Phillips’ afterword confirms many of the arguments that the goals of the crusaders were distorted along the road to Constantinople. The papacy, the

Venetians, and many other crusaders all came into short-term wealth and authority at the expense of the long-term goal of recapturing Jerusalem.81 With respect to the sack, there

78 Ibid. 79 Phillips, Holy Warriors, xv. 80 Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, 310. 81 Ibid.

18 19 had been bad blood between the East and West in the past so many were satisfied with the results of 1204. Niketas Choniates wrote of the bad blood:

Between us and them [the Latins] is set the widest gulf. We are poles apart. We have not a single thought in common. They are stiff-necked, with a proud affection of an upright carriage and love to sneer at the modesty and smoothness of our manners. But we look upon their arrogance and boasting and pride as a flux of the snivel which keeps their noses in the air and we tread them down by the might of Christ, who giveth unto us the power to trample upon the adder and scorpion.

Despite these harsh feelings, Phillips importantly pointed out that none of these issues were “live” in 1204.82 That being the case, the attacks become even more significant in the progression of the Crusades. Despite what could be considered a troublesome relationship between East and West, the underlying difficulties and various points of friction help to explain what led the crusaders to justify and/or accept an attack on a

Christian city like Constantinople. Had the crusaders not communicated with Prince

Alexius, there is no convincing evidence to suggest that the expedition would have turned towards Constantinople.83 The acceptance of the prince’s offer demonstrates the principal shortcomings of the entire effort: men and money.84 These two problems, combined with the contract between the French and the Venetians and the need to fulfill the contract, were all powerful forces in driving and shaping the expedition that ended in the sack of

Constantinople.85 The detailed accounts of the crimes committed during the sack of

Constantinople sadly show that the crusaders were not solely interested in reclaiming the

Holy Land, but also were very much fascinated with temporal wealth and power, as evidenced by the raping and pillaging that occurred in Constantinople.

82 Ibid. 83 Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, 311. 84 Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, 312. 85 Ibid.

19 20

The Crusades are a fascinating case study in world history and show just how much religion influences people’s actions. What began with the purest ideal of reclaiming a holy land for Christianity evolved into a horrific scene at Constantinople. The actions during the Fourth Crusade leave a scar on religious history, particularly that of

Christianity. While many immediately think of the war between Christianity and Islam when they hear the Crusades, in fact this series of battles goes much deeper. The

Christians displayed brutality not only in attacking Muslims, but in attacking one another as well. While the Fourth Crusade was not the end of the Crusades, it does mark a turning point where the battles became more than just a religious fight, but one predicated on greed and obligations.

Bibliography

S.J. Allen & Emilie Amt. “The Crusades: A Reader.” University of Toronto Press, 2010.

Angold, Michael. “The Fourth Crusade.” Pearson Longman, Harlow, England, 2003.

Asbridge, Thomas. “The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land.” New York, Ecco Press, 2010.

20 21

Choniates, Nicetas. “History.”

Holt, Andred and Muldoon, James. “Fighting Words: Competing Voices from the Crusades.” Greenwood World Publisheg, Oxford 2008.

Maalouf, Amin. “The Crusades through Arab Eyes.” Shocken Books, New York, 1984.

Nicol, Donald. “The last centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453.” Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Phillips, Jonathan. “Holy Warriors: A Modern History of the Crusades.” Random House, New York, 2009.

Phillips, Jonathan. “The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople.” Penguin Books, New York, 2004.

Queller, Donald and Madden, Thomas. “The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.” University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1997.

Riley-Smith, Jonathan. “The Crusades: A History.” Yale University Press, London, 2005.

Sourcebook: Niketas Choniates: The Sack of Constantinople." Last modified 1996. Accessed May 1, 2012. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/choniates1.asp.

Talbot, Alice-Mary, “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 47, (1993) (pp. 243-261).

21