How and Why did the Fourth Crusade go Wrong?

If you order your cheap custom essays from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on How and Why did the Fourth Crusade go Wrong?. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality How and Why did the Fourth Crusade go Wrong? paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in How and Why did the Fourth Crusade go Wrong?, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your How and Why did the Fourth Crusade go Wrong? paper at affordable prices !

The Fourth Crusade often called the "Crusade against Christians", did not go according to plan. Due to a number of accidents, coupled with their honouring of secular contracts, before that of their vow to God. An overestimation of the number of crusaders when arranging a transportation contract with Venice left the crusaders at its mercy. This led the crusaders under pressure, to contract further to attack Zara, a Christian city against their vows as crusaders. The arrival of Alexius the son of the former Emperor of Byzantium with an offer they could not refuse saw them on their way to Constantinople. So again the crusade was directed away from its original course in order to yet again attack a Christian city. The purpose of this essay is to discuss these events in order to explain how and why the fourth crusade went wrong.

The crusaders left themselves in a vulnerable contractual position, when their six envoys bargained for the transport of three times the number of crusaders that actually turned up. The deal being that Venice would transport 4500 knights with their horses, 000 squires and 0000 foot-soldiers, with food for nine months, the cost being 84000 silver marks. Furthermore, that Venice would receive half of the territories conquered by providing fifty fully-equipped galleys at her own expense. Whether or not the original figure was extremely overestimated or just a matter of the majority just finding other means of transportation is debatable. Jones and Ereira state

"The envoys estimated that the total number of crusaders would be 500 men. This was an absurd number, seven times larger than the army King Phillip had taken in 110AD. It is clear that great lords and chroniclers had only the vaguest idea of the size of armies."

Other possibilities are that many sailed to other ports looking for a better deal. Perhaps the fact that the landing was to be dangerous Egypt rather than quiet Christian Acre where they could recover from their voyage may have deterred them. As Queller states

Cheap Custom Essays on How and Why did the Fourth Crusade go Wrong?

"there was a secret codicil to the treaty of Venice fixing Egypt rather than Christian Acre as the point of debarkation. Information concerning this may have been leaked, causing some of those who took their vows very literally to avoid Venice."

Another point put across by Queller states

"It is our opinion, however, that the shortage of crusaders was in itself the chief reason for vacillation and defection in the summer of 10. The emissaries of the crusaders or their principals had erred tragically in contracting with the Venetians for the transportation of 500 crusaders. Knowledgeable leaders very likely had qualms about their ability to muster so large an army, and feared what occurred in fact the inability of the crusaders to meet their obligations to the Venetians. Their fears, valid in themselves, were also self-fulfilling. Some changed plans to avoid the disarray of a reduced and indebted host. Others held back to see how many first appeared, and, as the result was not encouraging, they headed for Apulian ports or for home."

Regardless of the reason, the estimated 500 ended up being about 11000. This meant every crusader would have to pay three times that expected, with many unable to afford it. Despite the barons adding even their god and silver table-services, they still owed 4000 marks. Their inability to pay the Venetians the full amount left the crusaders poorly positioned when the Venetians proposed an attack on Zara.

Having perceived that the crusaders were 'broke', the Venetians offered to postpone payment of the 4000 marks until gained in conquest, in return for their help in recapturing the former Venetian city of Zara from the king of Hungary. This proposition however, posed some problems for the crusaders. For Zara was a Christian city, and their vows as crusaders stated that they were not to attack fellow Christians. Moreover, the king of Hungary had recently taken up the cross in a recent crusade. The average crusader was not the only one against the attack; the pope also was very much against it. Jones and Ereira state

"But as the attack on Zara was about to begin, the Abbot of Vaux stepped forward with a letter from the pope ('My lords, in the name of the Pope of Rome, I forbid you to attack this city; for the people in it are Christians, and you wear the sign of the cross.')"

Despite this, the crusaders had 'backed themselves into a corner' and were unable to get out of the arrangement. For they not only found themselves honour bound to find any means to pay their debt, they also had been threatened with their supplies being cut off. Robert de Clari states that the Venetian Doge said

"Therefore my men and I want you to pay us the money which you owe us. If you do not pay us, you shall not leave this island before we get our money; and no one shall bring you anything to eat or drink."

Being encamped upon the island of San Niccolo di Lido made these threats seem quite believable, despite the fact that the Doge didn't go through with his threat. For these reasons, the crusaders found themselves unable to get out of an attack on Zara.

After the conquest of Zara had been completed the leader of the crusaders Boniface, returned from Rome followed closely by envoys of Prince Alexius. For Prince Alexius had a proposal in which he would finance their crusade in return for them restoring him to his rightful throne in Constantinople. The offer being

"He will place his whole empire under the authority of Rome, from which it has been long estranged. Secondly, since he is aware you have spent all your money and now have nothing, he will give you 00000 silver marks and provisions for every man in your army, officers and men alike. Moreover he himself will go in your company to Egypt with 10000 men, or, if you prefer it, simply send 10000 men with you; and ….he will maintain, at his own expense, 500 knights to keep guard in the land oversea."

There was much debate among the crusaders about whether or not to take up Alexius' generous offer. On the one hand it appeared a just cause with a large reward, on the other they would be attacking another Christian city and many wished to simple go on to the Holy Land to complete their vows. Runciman states

"The truth seems to be that while Phillip of Swabia, Boniface and the Venetians all had separate reasons for desiring an attack on Constantinople, it was the accident of Alexius' arrival which made the diversion practicable. The Pope had no such intention, and the average Crusader, who was French, genuinely intended to go to the Holy Land but allowed himself to be swayed by circumstances."

However, it seemed the leadership had already made up their mind and they were soon on their way to Constantinople.

Restoring Alexius to the throne in Constantinople occurred with little bloodshed, however when it came to upholding his side of the bargain that was another story. After being crowned, Alexius paid the crusaders 100000 marks, half what he had promised them, but enough to pay off their debts to the Venetians and others. This however was all he was going to pay, so he stalled the crusaders for as long as he could. Eventually however, the crusaders realised his true intentions, and began to take what was owed to them via looting the city, and the nearby towns. This made the Latins even more unpopular to the Greeks than they already were. When it appeared that Alexius wasn't too bothered to do much about the crusaders' looting, unrest eventually resulted in his imprisonment and subsequent murder. His murderer Mourtzouphlus replaced him. This turn of events meant that the crusaders no longer had any just cause to continue their looting, as Alexius owed the debt and now that he was dead their contract with him was void. However, the leaders with the help of the clergy devised another excuse to give validity to continue the looting and to capture Constantinople for themselves. By condoning Alexius' murder, the Byzantines were as bad as his murderer. Furthermore, despite the pope saying the exact opposite, the clergy convinced the average crusader that by attacking Constantinople they would be fulfilling their vow as crusaders. Rather than acting as the good Christians they should have, the crusaders commenced a barbaric bloodbath. As Nicetas states

"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. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. 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 men, how great the distress!"

And

"You took the Cross upon your shoulders; and on that Cross and on the Holy Gospels you wore that you would pass over Christian lands without violence, turning neither to the right or, to left. You assured us that you only enemy was the Saracen, and that his blood only would be shed…

Far from carrying the Cross, you profane it and trample it underfoot. You claim to be in quest

of the pearl beyond price, but in truth, you fling that most precious of all pearls, which is the

body of our Saviour, into the mud. The Saracens themselves show less impiety."

In this way, the crusaders conquered Constantinople.

It is clear that the fourth crusade went wrong from the start and continued that way until its finale. Had the envoys estimated a more realistic figure of those crusaders to journey perhaps the whole fiasco could have been averted. However, it was not, so against their vows they were forced by threats and a duty to fulfil their obligations to the Venetians to attack the Christian city of Zara. Following this, the accident of Alexius' arrival and his proposition caused them to go further off-course to Constantinople. Alexius' inability to pay the full amount to the crusaders led them to loot the city in order to get the remainder owed to them. When Mourtzouphlus removed Alexius as emperor and replaced him, the crusaders no longer had good cause to continue their looting. Rather than leaving to fulfill their vows as crusaders, instead they attacked Constantinople in substitution of their crusade to the Holy Land. In conclusion the crusaders despite their unfortunate overestimation of numbers when contracting with the Venetians, the crusaders, in particular their leaders disregarded their vows to the cross instead to pursue the upholding of secular contracts.

PRIMARY SOURCES -

Geoffrey De Villehardouin. 'The Conquest of Constantinople' in Joinville & Villehardouin Chronicles of the Crusades. trans. Margaret Shaw. (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 16), pp-160.

Nicetas Choniates. 'Nicetas Choniates The Sack of Constantinople (104)' Medieval Sourcebook,

http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/choniates1.html

Pope Innocent III.'Pope Innocent III Reprimand of Papal Legate' Medieval Sourcebook,

http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/104innocent.html

Robert of Clari. The Conquest of Constantinople. trans. Edgar Holmes McNeal. nd. Edn. New York Norton, 16.

SECONDARY SOURCES -

Brand, Charles M. 'The Fourth Crusade Some Recent Interpretations.' Medievalia et Humanistica, 1 (184), pp-45

Jones, Terry and Ereira, Alan. Crusades. nd.edn. (LondonPenguin, 16), Ch.1, 'The Fourth

Crusade', pp155-68

Colin Morris. 'Geoffroy De Villehardouin and the Conquest of Constantinople.' History, 5 (168),

pp4-4

Madden, Thomas F. 'Outside and Inside the Fourth Crusade.' International History Review, 17 (15),

pp76-4and

'Vows and Contracts in the Fourth Crusade The Treaty of Zara and the Attack on

Constantinople in 104.' Internationsl History Review, 15 (1), pp 441-68

Norwich, John Julius. Byzantium The decline and Fall. nd.edn. (LondonPenguin, 16), Ch.11, 'The

Fourth Crusade [118-105]', pp165-8

Queller, Donald E. and Madden, Thomas F. The Fourth Crusade The Conquest of Constantinople.

nd.edn. Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press, 000.

Queller, Donald E., Compton, Thomas K. and Campbell, Donald A. 'The Fourth Crusade The

Neglected Majority', Speculum, 4 (174), pp441-65

Runciman, Steven. A History of the Crusades. Vol. The Kingdom of Acre. rd.edn. (Harmondsworth

Penguin, 171), Ch.1, 'The Crusade Against Christians', pp107-1

Please note that this sample paper on How and Why did the Fourth Crusade go Wrong? is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on How and Why did the Fourth Crusade go Wrong?, we are here to assist you. Your cheap research papers on How and Why did the Fourth Crusade go Wrong? will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!