‘The diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople in 1204 was the result of divisions between the Byzantine Empire and Latin Christians since the Second Crusade. ’ Assess the validity of this view.
Level
A Level
Year Examined
2022
Topic
The Age of the Crusades
👑Complete Model Essay
‘The diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople in 1204 was the result of divisions between the Byzantine Empire and Latin Christians since the Second Crusade.’ Assess the validity of this view.
The Diversion of the Fourth Crusade
The diversion of the Fourth Crusade from its intended target of Egypt to the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 was a pivotal moment in medieval history. This essay will assess the validity of the view that this diversion was primarily the result of long-standing divisions between the Byzantine Empire and Latin Christians, rooted in events as far back as the Second Crusade.
Arguments Supporting the View of Long-Standing Divisions
Several arguments support the view that the roots of the Fourth Crusade's diversion lie in the strained relationship between Byzantium and the Latin West. The Second Crusade (1147-1149) serves as a starting point. Emperor Manuel Comnenus, though initially apprehensive, offered some support to the Crusaders, but his efforts fell short of their expectations. This perceived lack of commitment, coupled with accusations of Byzantine treachery, sowed seeds of distrust. The Crusaders, operating with a different understanding of Holy War, felt betrayed, marking the beginning of a growing chasm between the two Christian powers.
This distrust festered over the following decades. Almost every subsequent Crusade passing through Byzantine territory carried an implicit threat to Constantinople. The French Crusaders of the Second Crusade openly considered an attack, and Richard the Lionheart, during the Third Crusade, captured Cyprus from the Byzantines in 1191. These events demonstrated a growing disregard for Byzantine sovereignty and territorial integrity within the Latin West.
Adding fuel to the fire were the deep-seated religious and cultural differences. The Byzantines, with their concept of "oikoumene" (a universal Christian commonwealth headed by the Byzantine Emperor), struggled to reconcile their worldview with the Latin concept of Holy War directed by the Papacy. This clash of ideologies manifested in growing tensions within Constantinople, particularly during the reign of Andronicus I (1183-1185), whose anti-Latin policies exacerbated the existing animosity.
The Venetians, instrumental in diverting the Fourth Crusade, also played a crucial role. Expelled from their lucrative trading posts in Constantinople in 1171, they harbored resentment towards the Byzantines. The fact that many treasures looted in 1204 ended up in Venice suggests a calculated act of revenge, fueled by decades of simmering anger.
Arguments Challenging the View of Long-Standing Divisions
However, the narrative of constant conflict is not entirely accurate. The mid-to-late 12th century witnessed periods of rapprochement between the Byzantines and the Latins. Manuel Comnenus actively fostered better relations, marrying a Latin princess and employing Latin advisors. This era saw increased cooperation between the Crusader states and Byzantium, even hinting at Amalric of Jerusalem swearing fealty to Manuel in 1171. These events suggest that the sack of Constantinople was not an inevitable outcome of pre-existing tensions.
The internal turmoil within Byzantium itself played a significant role in the events of 1204. The Fourth Crusade initially agreed to help the young Alexius Angelos regain the throne from his uncle. However, following their success, Alexius IV's inability to fulfill his promises of financial reward and military aid to the Crusaders, coupled with further internal strife in Constantinople, created a volatile situation that spiraled into violence and ultimately the city's sacking.
Furthermore, the actions of Pope Innocent III deserve scrutiny. His rigid control over the Fourth Crusade, imposing regulations that hampered recruitment and finances, contributed to the Crusaders' desperation. This desperation made them more susceptible to Alexius IV's offer of assistance in return for their help in capturing Constantinople, highlighting the role of immediate circumstances.
Finally, the Treaty of Venice, which committed the Crusaders to an exorbitant number of ships at a high cost, saddled them with crippling debt. This financial burden, arguably caused by either Venetian manipulation or poor planning by the Crusader leaders, pushed them towards the initially lucrative diversions to Zara and then Constantinople.
Conclusion
While divisions between the Byzantine Empire and Latin Christians undoubtedly existed since the Second Crusade, it would be simplistic to attribute the diversion of the Fourth Crusade solely to these long-standing tensions. While the events of the Second Crusade, cultural and religious differences, and Venetian ambitions all contributed to an environment of distrust, it was ultimately a confluence of immediate factors, such as Byzantine internal strife, Papal policies, and Crusader financial woes, that tipped the scales and resulted in the tragic sack of Constantinople in 1204.
Note: History Study Pack Required
Score Big with Perfectly Structured History Essays!
Prepare effortlessly for your A/AS/O-Level exams with our comprehensive...
History Study Pack.
✅ 1200+ Model Essays: Master your essay writing with expertly crafted answers to past paper questions.
✅ Exam Boards Covered: Tailored materials for AQA, Cambridge, and OCR exams.
🍃 Free Essay Plan
The Diversion of the Fourth Crusade
The diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople in 1204, leading to its sack, is a pivotal event in medieval history. A central question surrounding this event is whether it was the inevitable culmination of long-standing tensions between the Byzantine Empire and Latin Christians, dating back to the Second Crusade, as some argue. This essay will assess the validity of this view by examining arguments both supporting and challenging the notion that pre-existing divisions between the Byzantines and Latins were the primary driver of the Crusade's fateful turn.
Arguments in Favor of Long-Standing Tensions:
Firstly, the Venetians, key players in the diversion, had a contentious history with Byzantium. Their expulsion from Constantinople in 1171, and the subsequent plundering of the city in 1204, suggest a possible long-term grievance. This argument points towards the potential for accumulated resentment fueling the Venetian support for the Crusade's redirection.
Secondly, Emperor Manuel Comnenus's perceived lack of support for the Second Crusade, coupled with accusations of duplicity by Byzantine guides, fueled Crusader resentment. This episode highlights a fundamental misunderstanding between the Crusaders and Byzantines regarding the concept of "Holy War." The Byzantines, unlike the Crusaders, did not necessarily see it as a universal obligation. This lack of understanding, exemplified by the Fourth Crusade's expectation of Byzantine aid, hints at a growing rift in their relationship.
Thirdly, earlier crusades that traversed Byzantine territory often carried an implicit threat towards Constantinople. The French on the Second Crusade, and Richard the Lionheart in 1191, demonstrated this trend, further exacerbating Byzantine anxieties. This constant sense of vulnerability may have contributed to the Byzantines' reluctance to cooperate with the Crusaders.
Fourthly, deeper religious and cultural differences between Latin and Greek Orthodox Christianity played a significant role. The Byzantine concept of oikoumene, a universal empire, clashed with the Latin notion of Holy War. The anti-Latin activities of Andronicus I in the 1180s further inflamed these tensions. These fundamental differences suggest a long-standing basis for suspicion and animosity between the two Christian traditions.
Finally, the attempted crusade against the Byzantines by French bishops after the Second Crusade, although unsuccessful, demonstrates the degree of ill feeling that existed. This failed crusade highlights the potential for open hostility between the two sides, even if it did not ultimately materialize.
Arguments Challenging the Pre-Existing Tensions Argument:
Conversely, the argument that the Fourth Crusade's diversion was solely a consequence of long-standing tensions is challenged by evidence of improved relations between Byzantium and the Latins during the 1160s and 1170s. The marriage alliances between Outremer and Constantinople, and Amalric's sworn fealty to Manuel in 1171, suggest that an attack was not an inevitable outcome. The Fourth Crusade's initial willingness to help Young Alexius further strengthens this point, indicating that at least some level of cooperation was possible.
Furthermore, Manuel Comnenus's efforts to bridge the gap between Greek Orthodox Christians and Latins, through his marriage and Latin advisors, casts doubt on the argument of deep-seated divisions. Perhaps his death in 1180, rather than the Second Crusade, marked a more significant turning point in Byzantine-Latin relations.
Additionally, Byzantine internal strife significantly contributed to the sack of Constantinople. The factional infighting between Isaac II, Young Alexius, and Alexius III created a climate of instability, which the Crusaders exploited. The initial Crusader assault aimed to install Alexius IV on the throne, but his failure to fulfill his promises ultimately led to violence and the city's fall. This argument suggests that internal factors were directly responsible for the Crusade's redirection and the disastrous outcome.
Moreover, Pope Innocent III's rigid control over the Crusade, imposing rules and regulations, hindered its effectiveness. This led to financial and recruitment problems, making the Crusaders more susceptible to Young Alexius's offer of support. Had they not been in such a desperate position, their response to his offer might have been different. This argument highlights the role of external factors, rather than solely long-standing tensions, in the Crusade's diversion.
Finally, the Treaty of Venice, which overestimated the number of ships required and resulted in a massive debt, played a crucial role in the events that unfolded. The argument of financial desperation, which stemmed from this treaty, provides an alternative explanation for the Crusade's redirection. The blame for this financial burden can be debated, but its impact on the Crusaders' decision-making process is undeniable. This argument emphasizes the role of immediate circumstances, rather than historical divisions, in the Crusade's fateful turn.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the long-standing tensions between the Byzantine Empire and Latin Christians undoubtedly contributed to a climate of mistrust, attributing the diversion of the Fourth Crusade solely to these divisions is an oversimplification. While previous crusades had indeed triggered Byzantine anxieties, and religious and cultural differences between the two groups existed, the events of 1204 were driven by a complex interplay of factors, including Byzantine internal strife, the Venetians' own ambitions, and the Crusaders' desperate financial situation. While the seeds of animosity may have been planted earlier, it was a combination of immediate circumstances and strategic opportunism, rather than solely historical tensions, that ultimately led to the tragic sack of Constantinople in 1204.
Extracts from Mark Schemes
Arguments Supporting the Diversion of the Fourth Crusade
Arguments supporting the view that the diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople in 1204 was the result of divisions between the Byzantine Empire and Latin Christians since the Second Crusade might include:
⭐The Venetians played a key role in the diversion of the Fourth Crusade and they themselves had a rather chequered history with Byzantium. In 1171 they had been expelled from their trading bases in Constantinople. Many of the precious and valuable objects plundered in 1204 ended up in Venice, suggesting a possible long-term grievance which had built over a long time.
⭐Emperor Manuel Comnenus had offered little in the way of help to the Second Crusade, and the Crusaders accused their Byzantine guides of duplicity. The Crusaders had expected Byzantine help, failing to recognise that their commitment to Crusading was not necessarily one shared by the Byzantines. This lack of understanding of the Byzantine view of Holy War would manifest throughout the subsequent years – the Fourth Crusade expected help for example – see Innocent III’s letters at the time of the Fourth Crusade. Thus, some sort of complete breakdown in relations could be seen as germinating for a long time.
⭐Almost every crusade which had gone through Byzantine territory had come with the implied threat that Constantinople itself would be attacked, eg the French on the Second Crusade. Richard had also attacked Byzantine lands in 1191 when he took Cyprus.
⭐Differences in religious and cultural focus between Latin and Greek Orthodox Christians had also led to tensions building over a long period of time. The Byzantine concept of oikoumene didn’t sit very well with the Latin concept of Holy War. In the 1180s these tensions had become very noticeable in Constantinople itself thanks to the anti-Latin activities of Andronicus I.
⭐In the aftermath of the Second Crusade there were efforts made by French bishops to initiate a crusade against the Byzantines. Whilst unsuccessful, there was clearly a great deal of bad feeling.
Arguments Challenging the Diversion of the Fourth Crusade
Arguments challenging the view that the diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople in 1204 was the result of divisions between the Byzantine Empire and Latin Christians since the Second Crusade might include:
⭐Relations between the Byzantines and the Latins actually improved significantly in the 1160s and 1170s – there were marriage alliances between Outremer and Constantinople and Amalric seems to have sworn fealty to Manuel in 1171. This suggests that an attack was not inevitable – especially as the Fourth Crusade had initially agreed to help Young Alexius.
⭐Manuel Comnenus helped to smooth relations between Greek Orthodox Christians and Latins – he married a Latin and had a number of Latin advisors. Perhaps his death in 1180 was a more significant turning point.
⭐One of the reasons for the sack of Constantinople in 1204 was due to Byzantium’s own internal problems – the factional infighting between Isaac II and Young Alexius and Alexius III. The initial Crusader attack on Constantinople was meant to place Alexius IV and his father on the throne, but it was Alexius’ failure to pay his debts and supply the troops he’d promised that led to violence breaking out.
⭐Pope Innocent III’s own role could be criticised as he had sought to impose various rules and regulations upon his crusade from the outset. This led to problems of recruitment and finance – it was manpower and money that Young Alexius had offered to the Crusaders – if they had not been so desperate, then they might not have responded to his offer.
⭐The Treaty of Venice commissioned far too many ships, at far too high a cost. It can be debated whether the Crusade leaders or the Venetians were to blame for this, but the resulting debt of 34 000 marks was a principal reason for the initial diversion to Zara and the later agreement to help Young Alexius.