Customer Reviews

The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople (Middle Ages)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

To the contemporary mind, the Crusades represent a bizzare, even horrific, historical event. It is difficult, if not impossible, for those living in the 20th Century to comprehend the religious fervor that prompted thousands from Western Europe, both the great and the humble, to commit themselves and their fortunes to the expirgation of the infidel from the Holy Land. Of the sordid history that is the Crusades, however, the most baffling is perhaps the notorious Fourth Crusade in the early 13th Century, when Christians from Western Europe, and their Venetian allies, attacked and laid waste to Constantinople, arguably the greatest city on earth and, more to the point, inhabited by fellow Christians. The mystery is made even more remarkable by the knowledge that the Pope himself forbade the Crusaders' attack of Constantinople. What prompted the Crusaders to rebuke the Holy See? What went wrong? The present work provides an insightful and lucid analysis of the unhappy events that culminated in the destruction of the greatest city in Christiandom. "The Fourth Crusade" is essential reading for anyone who has tried to make sense of a momentous historical event that seems to defy rational explanation, or for those who simply conclude that Constantinople fell victim to the Crusaders' greed. The reality is much more complex, though "The Fourth Crusade" manages to present its analysis in an entertaining and engaging manner that brings to life a period of history like no other.

The Fourth Crusade is one of the most important events in world history, in that it solidified the schism between the Eastern and Western Christian Churches that still exists today, but most know little or nothing about it. Most who claim to know something about it actually know little about the facts of the matter. This book does a great job of making the facts more available to the modern lay reader.

Queller and Madden do an excellent job with helping the reader to understand the mind of the people of that time, instead of having a self-righteous modern attitude towards all things middle ages, as is too common today.

In any book about the 4th Crusade, three questions must be answered:

(1) Why did the Crusade end up in Constantinople instead of the Holy Land?
(2) How was this small army able to successfully conquer Constantinople - one of the best defended cities of the time?
(3) Why was the sack of Constantinople particularly brutal, even by medieval standards?

This book successfully answers questions (1) and (2). The authors show the tragic set of circumstances and morally questionable decisions that led the crusaders to Constantinople - against the explicit command of Pope Innocent III, who called the Crusade in the first place. They also show how the lack of understanding of the Latins led Constantinople to fall so easily.

However, this book doesn't really answer the most important question of the actual sack. Had the crusaders simply sacked the city like most sacks of the time, it is doubtful it would have engendered such animosity in the East for all things Western. But instead they ravaged the city in an orgy of violence, sex, sacrilege and greed. Why? Queller and Madden's only explanation is that there was no strong leader of the army to control them. But this seems to fall short - the crusaders had made a vow right before the sack to not touch any women or churches - yet they ignored that vow almost immediately. What caused such a shift in their behavior? Unfortunately, we'll have to look elsewhere for an answer.

After reading a lot of history in the obsolete style of Runciman and others, and many historical novels who, although documented, remain just what they are - novels - this book truly opened my eyes to the work of the real, honest historian. Queller and Madden not only try to tell the story of this unique and intriguing event that was the fourth crusade, they also try to answer questions which have always fascinated people like me, interested in the mechanics of the events, not only in the big picture:

- How many people gathered and how were they distributed along social class lines?
- Where were all those people lodged in Venice?
- How much money was collected and from whom?
- How many ships were provided and who built and delivered them?
- When did the bulk of the crusaders leave for their destination?
- How was communication working between Rome, Venice and the crusaders?
- What is plausible truth and what is hearsay, invention or whishful thinking in contemporary eyewitness accounts, like that of Geoffroy de Villehardouin?

The product of their work is highly readable prose and the attitude is one of honesty. Age-old prejudices (like the widespread opinion that everything that happened was a diabolical plot of Enrico Dandolo, the doge of Venice) are analyzed critically in their historical context. Most important, Queller and Madden admit that there are limits to what a historian can hold for true beyond the shadow of a doubt. The documents of the time are scarce, and those that exist must be interpreted accurately and should not always be taken literally but merely as attempts at journalism in an age where the ethics of the press had not yet developed.

The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople written by Donald Queller and Thomas Madden provides the reader with a detailed account of the events of the Fourth Crusade. The twists and turns that were taken in order for Pope Innocent III's call for a crusade to have dissolved into the conquests of two Christian cities, Zara and Constantinople, are examined and discussed. The uncertainty and tensions present among the crusaders are evident. A sentence which summed up the overall themes of the book was "The Fourth Crusade lived and died by its contracts, oaths, and vows." For Queller and Madden all of the troubles and difficulties that the crusaders faced came down to the Treaty of Venice, and the crusaders inability to uphold their side of the bargain and pay off their debts to the Venetians for the fleet. The estimated numbers agreed upon for the treaty were far more generous than those who actually assembled. The crusader's were stuck outside Venice, their honor would not allow them to turn back, but a solution was needed if the Venetians were to agree to help them. The economic effects of the crusaders lack of hard money had long lasting consequences, and altered the whole course of the crusade.

Pope Innocent III found out firsthand the difficulties of controlling a crusade army once it was set loose. He wrote letters, threatened excommunication, and withdrew his official legate in attempts to stop the crusaders from disobeying. His words fell on deaf ears; the crusade leaders agreed on a plan, created justifications, and then followed through. With their financial problems threatening to dissolve the army the crusaders accepted the Venetian plan in order to finally move and encourage the troops to remain and not return home. They agreed to attack Zara, and justified it as attacking a rebel state which needed to be restored to its rightful ruler.

Against the will of the pope the crusaders time and time again had their local clergy vocally support their actions and offer reasons for attacking fellow Christians. They ignored and suppressed his letters to keep the common men in the dark. When they set out for Constantinople to seek the promised assistance of Alexius IV if they would help him gain the throne, no one expected to attack the city, much less break through its defenses and put a Latin on the throne. The crusaders only meant to intimidate the usuper, see Alexius crowned and then they expected him to fulfill his promises and aid them in reaching the Holy Land.

The original emperor Alexius III escaped into exile. Then Alexius IV's father Isaac II was re-declared emperor and Alexius was co-emperor. But since the Latin army camped outside the walls were friends of Alexius he gained more power. Isaac died shortly after his reunion with Alexius. Alexius realized that he could not make good on his promises to the crusaders and Venetians, without completely alienating the Greeks. Eventually he was overthrown by a native high ranking official and the new emperor Alexius V began to rule. He later had the young Alexius killed to stop any rescue attempts by the crusaders. With Alexius IV dead the crusaders felt no remorse for attacking the city and the countryside to "pay themselves" off of the bounty of the Byzantine Empire.

In the end economic factors were major influences on the trials and difficulties faced by the crusaders. The majority of the crusaders never went further east than Constantinople. During the campaign the crusaders twice attacked Constantinople, broke through the defenses, and three times parts of the city burned. Four emperors were crowned; the final Greek emperor escaped the city right after his coronation as the crusaders swept through the city. He established the Nicean Empire which lasted 60 years. The Fourth Crusade forced Latin Christians to attack and kill fellow Christians, ignore the pope, plunder the greatest city in Europe, and set up a Latin Empire in Byzantium. During the sack of Constantinople all the churches and monasteries were cleaned of relics and anything of value, the Hagia Sophia was stripped bare. Once the crusaders had control they elected delegates to choose a new emperor. Baldwin of Flanders gained the most support and a Latin knight was crowned emperor.

Through plundering Zara and Constantinople the crusaders were finally able to pay off their debts, and some of the leaders reaped great material benefits. However for the common soldier who survived the hardships and years of being deterred from Jerusalem the crusade was seen in a very critical light. The common man must have felt disillusioned and guilty from attacking two Chrisitan cities and never once fighting Muslims.

The Fourth Crusade which was initially summoned to aid the defense of the Levant against Muslim forces had a very different outcome from those expected by the pope or even the secular leaders. The initial planning went well and for the first months the crusade seemed to be blessed by good luck. A treaty was signed with Venice, men began mustering and men were confident of success. Economic hardship combined with chivalric honor was the undoing of the crusade and led to its derailment and failure.

This book is very good, but at times it can read like a textbook, with a lot of information on every single page. It is a good one though and the middle sucks you in and you just can't put it down. With the exception of a short nap to rest your brain.

This is an excellant account of one of the strangest events of the 13th Centruy - how a crusade to regain Jerusalem instead destroyed the Byzantine Empire. This is a great read about an important subject. By beginning with the preaching of the crusade by Innocent 111, and following the events from 1199 - 1204, the authors let the reader follow every bizarre twist and turn from Venice to Zara to Constantinople that lead to a Flemish Knight becoming the ruler of the Byzantine capital.