The Real History of the Crusades (2002)

bttt

Follow the money.

bump

The 4th crusade went to Constantinople at the request of the legal heir to the throne: Alexius Angelus, who was a refugee prince of Byzantium at the time, having been deposed by his uncle, who was now Emperor Alexius III.

Alexius Angelus begged the Latins to take up his cause and right the wrong pepetrated by his evil uncle. He assured them that the people of Constantinople would welcome them, and that he would then support the Crusade financially, maintain 500 knights in the holy land and personally join the crusade with 10,000 men. And he promised that he would also bring the Greek church under the Pope - basically the crusaders were given a terrific offer.

The 4th crusade was financially bankrupt at the time, due to a miscalculation of transportation requirements with the Venetians. Angelus's offer was stunningly attractive: the crusaders saw a chance to redeem their finances by returning Angelus to his throne.

Of course the Latins and Franks didn't think an attack on Constantinople would be required. They had been assured that there would be a popular uprising against the usurper in favour of the true emperor.

But no such peaceful coup took place. From the walls the Byzantines jeered at the Crusaders who found themselves in a tight spot, deep in hostile territory, on a fool's errand. They needed the money that Angelus had offered them, if only to pay the Venetians to take them off. And they were also duty-bound to help Angelus, the victim of treachery who they had sworn to protect and to restore to his throne. So they began the attack.

The defenders were three times the numbers of the attackers, but the Crusaders and Venetians managed to gain control of Galata and some of the sea walls. However the attackers were making little impression on the heavily defended city.

However Alexius III (the usurping uncle, who had no particular title to the throne) smelt political trouble: suspecting an imminent palace coup he fled. The people of the city restored the old blind King Issac II to the throne: shortly after Angelus was crowned Alexius IV. The crusaders had won a relatively peaceful victory.

The trouble started when Alexius IV found that he did not have enough money to meet his contract with the crusaders. He opened the tombs of the emperors to take the jewellry, and siezed ecclesiastical items such as chalices and icons, to partially repay his debt.

In short order Alexius IV became very unpopular - he feared that if he paid anything further to the crusaders he would lose his throne. And if the crusaders left, he feared that he would also ... lose his throne. So he temporised - he got the crusaders to camp outside the city and held them off with promises and a few token payments.

In 1203 the crusaders began to suspect that they would never see the money Alexius IV owed them. They reminded him of the great service they had rendered him, and asked him to confirm his promises. If not, they would no longer call him friend and would do all in their power to seize the debt from his domains.

At their words Alexius remained frozen in indecision, saying nothing. Meanwhile his court erupted in anger at the crusader envoys. The envoys returned to the crusader camp with the news that Alexius had failed to fulfill his promises.

According to feudal morality the Crusaders began to raid the lands around to regain their debt, and to feed themselves.

Matters were coming to a head in Constantinople. The mob were getting tired of Alexius IV: they demanded a new emperor who would use the Imperial Army to destroy the crusaders.

However none of the Senators of Constantinople wanted the job: it would be very difficult to remove Alexius IV from the palace if he were to call upon his former friends, the Crusaders. But Alexius IV heard of the imminent uprising, and panicked, asking his trusted lieutenant Mourtzouphlus to bring the Crusader leader Boniface of Montferrat to him.

Talking to Boniface, Alexius offered to let the Crusaders occupy an imperial palace as an earnest that they would be repaid in time. But Mourtzouphlus (a veteran of several palace coups) acted first. He bribed the Varangian guard to neglect their duties for a night and whisked Alexius IV into a dungeon. The old King Issac II died rather conveniently at about the same time.

Mourtzouphlus was subsequently crowned Alexius V, and energetically did all he could to stop crusader raids on the countryside. But the troops at his disposal were of amazingly poor quality when it came to actual fighting: it seemed that no numerical superiority was enough to defeat the Franks. He negotiated with the Crusaders, who demanded that he release Alexius IV.

Realising that the Crusaders deal with Alexius IV was the moral underpinning for their attacks on Byzantium, Alexius V ordered Alexius IV to be strangled.

It was at this point that the prelates of the Crusader camp redefined an attack on Constantinople as a legitimate function of the Crusade: Mourtzouphlus was a murderer and had no right to rule Constantinople, and the people who accepted his rule were abettors to murder - so the logic ran. Of course the rank-and-file crusaders had no idea that the verdict of their bishops contradicted the commands of the Pope. The bishops' sermons contained much dehumanising rhetoric aimed at the Greeks inside the walls: this in time would yield bitter fruit.

The decisive attack, on April 12 1204, was stalemated for a long time. The defenders vastly outnumbered the attackers, and the physical defences were extremely heavy. But a small group of about 70 soldiers led by Peter of Amiens landed on a strip of groundby the harbour wall. They broke a hole through a walled-up postern gate, and saw a huge crowd of soldiers inside waiting for them.

It would clearly be suicide to enter. But one man, an armed priest named Alleumes of Clari, inisted on the honour of being the first to enter the city. No amount of pleading could dissuade him. His brother, Robert of Clari, was particularly upset and tried to prevent him from crawling through the hole by grabbing his legs. It was no use. Alleumes scrambled through the other side where he was faced by a large multitude.

With enormous confidence Alleumes drew his sword and ran towards the assembled greek troops - who scattered. The poorly trained Byzantine troops proved themselves unwilling to fight unless the danger to themselves was miniscule.

Alleumes called to his companions, who also came through the hole and stood with their backs to the wall. When Greek troops at other locations saw the flight of those stationed by the walled gate they also fled, causing a snowball effect. The crusader army entered and occupied a burnt part of the city (which had been burnt down many months earlier)

The collapse of the city's defences can be explained as follows. Basically - no-one was willing to risk themselves for Mourtzouphlus's throne. They would have been quite happy for Boniface to become the next emperor - once he had the throne he would surely restrain his army, as it was not in his interests to have his own city destroyed. At least that's the way in which all the other armed coups in the city's long history had operated.

But that's not what happened this time. Boniface had agreed with other crusaders to elect an Emperor after the city's loot had been distributed, and so looting was very much on the cards.

The sack of Constantinople ranks as one of the most profitable and shameful in history. Although the sack of a city that had resisted capture was more or less routine under the medieval moral code, the Crusaders did more than just plunder: they ruthlessly and systematically violated the holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on, and committing notorious acts of rape. When the pope Innocent III heard of the conduct of his pilgrims he was filled with shame. He wrote to his legate:

For those who are supposed to serve Christ rather than themselves, who should have used their swords against the infidel, have bathed their swords in the blood of Christians. They have not spared religion, nor age, nor sex, and have committed adultery and fornication in public, exposing matrons and even nuns to the filthiness of their troops.

The Byzantines' deep sense of bitterness and betrayal after the sack became one of the primary legacies of 1204: another legacy IMO was the concomitant rise in Venetian power. Meanwhile back in the west the crusaders were given hero's welcomes: the outcome of the fourth crusade was popularly seen as God's vengeance upon the Greeks for their horse-trading and temporizing with the First Crusade, and the original loss of the Holy Land itself.

Not a happy moment in history. But we must be careful not to revise: the Crusaders went to Constantinople at the request of, as they saw it, the rightful King. They were keen to stick to the letter of their agreements but were messed around by indefatigable Byzantine politics. At the core of the tragedy is Alexis Angelus, who made a deal that his city didn't know about, and weren't prepared to honour, setting events in motion that left both sides feeling betrayed. If the crusaders had taken control of the city without a violent sack there would have been very little to offend our modern sensibilities. But, of course, they did sack the city. And so the east and west lungs of Christianity carry on not talking to one another.

There is nothing wrong with reading the newer authors but only after reading Runciman. At the very least, when you read Runciman, you don't have to read Comnina(sp?), the arab historians, or many, many other older sources because he faithfully represents those works.

As for the above author's dis-agreement with Runciman on the financial status of many of the crusaders, you don't have to depend on Runciman to know that at this time in history, land was the only basis of wealth and primogenitor was in effect.

Fascinating and informative mini-essay. This makes sense now. As much as people want "loot," it just didn't stand to reason that the walked or rode across half of Europe to sack a well-defended city, when many others were on their doorstep.

You are correct, the crusades and the venetians laid waste to the Byzantines, and laid the groundwork for the Muslims expansion.

except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places

I'd been there for three straight years in a row at one point in my younger days. A great place to meet very nice and very intelligent young women as I remember it.

Excellent post. Bookmarking...

The goal of this crusade was the total destruction of the Orthodox Christian faith and subjugation of the Orthodox city and people unto them, period. We know this because the Popes of the time confirmed this atrocity with generations of imposed puppet leaders loyal to them, and were not bothered to return stolen religious relics and riches.

Your response is over the top and not terribly Christian. BTW, if not for the Fourth Crusade, those relics and works of art from Constantinople which we still have would likely have shared the fate of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople or the Monastery of St. Simeon in Syria.

It's ridiculous to get worked up over ancient history (literally) at this point in our history anyway. I'll never understand why some Orthodox still, 800 years later, manage to harbor such a deep hatred for their Latin brethern while giving the muslims and communists who truly persecuted them for centuries a comparative pass.

Excellent post.

Not a happy moment in history. But we must be careful not to revise:

That's exactly what you have posted, a shameful historical revision.

Did you notice the contradition between the two bogus histories, yours and the original one of this thread? The first one explicitly boasted that the 4th crusade was "well funded" from the outset, while this one said it was utterly bankrupt. Each false history is inventive in its own way, but yours is especially creative.

Of course the Latins and Franks didn't think an attack on Constantinople would be required. They had been assured that there would be a popular uprising against the usurper in favour of the true emperor. And he promised that he would also bring the Greek church under the Pope

Of course? Not of course, ridiculous! Why did the crusaders feel the need to go at all, if the king would be installed so very peacefully by the people? From the outset their plan was to forcably install their puppet ruler, newly loyal to Rome, changing the religion established there a thousand years prior. They absolutely knew the people would not willingly go along with any of this and their violent action would be necessary, it is grossly dishonest to suggest they ever believed otherwise. The Crusaders had such peaceful intent, that they butchered the populace, desecrated the christian churches, and hauled away shiploads of stolen booty. So very peaceful, the intent of the 4th Crusaders.

From the walls the Byzantines jeered at the Crusaders who found themselves in a tight spot, deep in hostile territory, on a fool's errand.

We know historically, for a fact, that this is a total lie, from accounts on both sides. If it was such a tight spot and hostile territory, then why was this army freely let *inside* the gates of the city? The Crusaders did not attack from outside the walls. They were welcomed *inside* the outer gates as fellow Christians, who falsely proclaimed they were there peaceably as defenders of Christians. Had they not used trickery and betrayal for a surprise backstab, they would have certainly lost trying to fight from outside the walls. They did not have equipment and supplies needed for a long siege. Constantinople was a near impregnable fortress at the time, withstanding numerous attacks from one muslim army after another. Only with the development of cannon and massive opposing armies (plus the weakening by this attack from fellow Christians) were muslims able to win two and a half centuries later. Isn't it amazing to see only the attitude of the Byzantine hecklers criticised here? What attitude and haughtiness do you think the crusaders had, which enabled them to readily slaughter the populace and desecrate the churches? What is the mentality -- I don't like this jeering, lets kill the Christians we are sworn to protect and descrate their churches? Does this history add up to you?

They needed the money that Angelus had offered them, if only to pay the Venetians to take them off.

This historian neglected to mention that the Venetian Prince was the one who tempted them into the looting plan in the first place. Looting was the plan from the outset, that's why the Venetians provided lots of empty ships, which came back utterly full of rich booty. This was perhaps the most profitable looting event in history. They had arrived at Constantinople with long lists of treasures they had intended to seize! A shopping list! Doors from the Hagia Sofia for the Cathedral of Notre Dame -- check.

And they were also duty-bound to help Angelus, the victim of treachery [...] So they began the attack.

You got that? The Usurper who plots to be let within the gates under false pretenses and surprise attack from within, who offers to subjugate his people to foreigners and change their religion, is the one who is the victim of treachery. The author doesn't describe the kings deposed by the surprise-attacking crusader armies as victims of treachery, but this guy gets the honor.

And the crusaders who are sworn to defend Christians, are according to this writer, "duty bound" to slaughter these christians and desecrate their churches. What Christian duty compells them to install puppet rulers and steal massive amounts of loot? There was no Christian duty that compelled this atrocity -- booty and subjugation was the goal. This historian has truth turned upside down.

However Alexius III smelt political trouble: suspecting an imminent palace coup he fled.

Is it really smelling "political trouble", when the ruling king suddenly realizes that the allied army he peaceably led into the gates is really there to overthrow him by force? Wouldn't you rather call that smelling "military trouble"? Is a sizable hostile army within the city gates imposing a puppet ruler a "palace coup"? This writer is very, very creative. It is really amazing anyone would buy this.

The people of the city restored the old blind King Issac II to the throne: shortly after Angelus was crowned Alexius IV. The crusaders had won a relatively peaceful victory.

The Crusaders chose an old blind King to be forced upon the people, precisely because being old weak and blind made him an excellent candidate to be their puppet. This author disingenuously suggests the people would have willingly chosen this candidate had the crusaders not threatened to keep slaughtering their people until they submitted.

It is a bold rewriting of history to describe this atrocity as "relatively peaceful". The crusaders systematically desecrating Christian churches did get the populace to submit earlier than they would have otherwise, however. Something a non-Christian invader would have had considerably more difficulty doing, since they wouldn't have been let peaceably into the gates.

The trouble started when Alexius IV found that he did not have enough money to meet his contract with the crusaders.

Isn't it amazing that the populace of this richest city weren't eager to hand over their treasure to a traitor usurper king and the invading army which installed him?

In short order Alexius IV became very unpopular

What a surprise, why would a puppet usurper king who betrayed his own people with slaughter and subjugation be unpopular? Why unpopular, when the armies he came with desecrated their churches, and stole the most revered relics in Christendom? Could it be the author was wrong to suggest that even the crusaders really believed this fellow was the rightful ruler?

The mob were getting tired of Alexius IV: they demanded a new emperor who would use the Imperial Army to destroy the crusaders.

That's interesting, the author earlier claimed this same king was willingly installed "by the people". Perhaps the invading crusader army had something to do with the forced choice which the people did not respect from the outset?

Realising that the Crusaders deal with Alexius IV was the moral underpinning for their attacks on Byzantium

Hint: There was no moral underpinning for their attacks on Byzantium, hauling away the largest booty in history.

It was at this point that the prelates of the Crusader camp redefined an attack on Constantinople as a legitimate function of the Crusade

Actually that was defined that from the outset, that's why they showed up with lists of items to seize and empty ships for hauling massive amounts of booty.

Of course the rank-and-file crusaders had no idea that the verdict of their bishops contradicted the commands of the Pope.

This author uses "of course" to preceed his most bold lies. Of course the crusaders had no idea that there was anything unchristian about slaughtering christians, desecrating christian churches, using a "holy crusade" to install puppet rulers, or stealing huge amounts of Christian relics. Of course! The pope was so upset by all of this that he kept the looted treasure, and confirmed the usurper rulers loyal to him.

The bishops' sermons contained much dehumanising rhetoric aimed at the Greeks inside the walls: this in time would yield bitter fruit.

Dehumanizing rhetoric from bishops which backed this atrocity took place before they even set sail.

With enormous confidence Alleumes drew his sword and ran towards the assembled greek troops - who scattered. The poorly trained Byzantine troops proved themselves unwilling to fight unless the danger to themselves was miniscule.

Isn't it heartwarming to see the author describing the leaders of this atrocity in such heroic terms? The Byzantine soldiers were so poorly trained that they resisted muslim invasions for centuries longer than their neighbors. They were trained to defend against a siege! Could the surprise attack and gaining entry to the outer walls by treachery have something to the do with the victory? How heroic is this trickery and betrayal? Constantinople would have resisted Islam for much longer had the Roman Catholic armies not severely weakened them with this crusade in 1204. For centuries it stood as a bullwark protecting Europe from invading muslim armies. Islam would have never reached the gates of Vienna without this backstabbing of the Orthodox christians by the 4th Crusade. Had Constantinople not been so weakened, many peoples in the region would have been spared from forcable conversion to islam -- some of whose decendents today are terrorists threatening civilization.

Thank you for taking the time to really flesh this out. The vatican still holds ill gotten trophies from sacking the Royal Palaces and the Hagia Sophia. The Western European Powers despised the "effeminate Greeks", because they read, bathed, and revered knowledge. They coveted the wealth and civilization that resided as a bulwark against the Muslim, and the steppe barbarians.