Leadership of the Crusades, 1095-1204 (AQA A-Level History): Model Answers
The Fourth Crusade and Byzantine-Latin Relations
'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.' [25 Marks]
Relations between Byzantium and Latin Christians had been severely strained ever since the Great Schism of 1054, but also took a downward spiral during and after the Second Crusade. The Latin West didn't want Byzantium to become stronger, and Byzantium simply wanted to survive, believing that this was best achieved through independence and isolation. However, the diversion to Constantinople on the Fourth Crusade was more of a short-term decision and was in fact the result of a Greek, Prince Alexios Asking for help. Innocent III never wanted the Fourth Crusade to got to Constantinople but the situation was forced by contemporary events, not greater design. Relations between East and West had deteriorated on the Second Crusade. Emperor Manuel wanted nothing to do with Louis and Conrad, forcing them on their way as quickly as possible without any help. In return, Louis wanted nothing to do with Manuel, resulting in him refusing to aid Raymond of Poitiers in taking Aleppo. This was because Raymond was Manuel's vassal, and Louis didn't want to indirectly strengthen Marvel. Clearly, relations were poor, and the participants of the Fourth Crusade were descendants of the Second Crusaders. Consequently, they would have borne a grudge, so may have encouraged the diversion to Constantinople in 1203. The Venetians too, bore a grudge against Byzantium. In 1171, Manvel had imprisoned or expelled the Venetians which was a grave insult and boiled over into the war. Similarly in 1182, Andronikos Komnenos had rode a wave of anti-Latin sentiment into power and encouraged the massacre of the Genoese and Venetian quarters. This too was a direct challenge to the West and the Venetians especially would have been motivated by a desire for revenge against Byzantium. They were further justified in taking action against Constantinople in 1204, as in Andronikos had created an alliance with Saladin, and this treaty had continued under the successive Byzantine emperors and al-Adil, Saladin's son. Clearly, Byzantium's policy of self-preservation had resulted in hostility to the West, justifying the diversion to Constantinople in 1204.
Furthermore, divisions between the West and Byzantium continued into the reigns of the Angel: Isaac II had initially attempted to reserve Byzantine isolation since the West had cut ties due to Byzantium's loss of prestige at Myriokephalon in 1176 and the massacres of Andronikos in 1182. This was achieved through marriage alliances, with Isaac himself marrying the daughter of King Béla III of Hungary, and his sister marrying Conrad of Montferrat. However, Isaac's desire to maintain the alliance with Saladin, as well as his suspicion of Barbarossa's force prompted him to reverse his authorisation of safe passage in 1190. This proved that the Byzantines couldn't be trusted, even when the west was on Crusade allowed for the attack on Constantinople in 1204 when Alexios IV betrayed them by refusing to pay what he owed. Relations also suffered under Alexios IV,, who like his brother, was entirely ineffectual and ran the empire into the ground. Seeing such an incompetent Emperor, the Fourth Crusaders decided to overthrow him in favour of Alexios IV who had promised to heal the Great Schism of 1054 and join them on their Crusade to Egypt. As a result, the Fourth Crusades were, at least partially, motivated by the desire to heal divisions between Byzantium and Latin Christendom.
However, Byzantium and Latin Christians had shared good relations under Manuel in 1150s and 1160s. Manuel was personally fond of Baldwin III as the pair shared a hatred of Reynold of Châtillon who had raided Cyprus in 1156. The House of Jerusalem was joined to the Komnenos through marriage, with Baldwin, and then Amalric, being married to Manuel's nieces. Manuel even supported Amalsic, being married to Manuel's nieces. Manuel even supported Amalsic's Egyptian campaigns in 1169 although they were defeated at Damietta. Clearly, relations were surprisingly strong, especially after Manuel received Amalric's submission in 1170. As a result, Outremer had no major desire to see the Fourth Crusade go to Constantinople, even after relations declined after Myriokephalon in 1176 and Manuel's death in 1180. This implies that the Sac of Constantinople was instead motivated by short-term events rather than divisions in Christendom since the Second Crusade.
One such motivation was necessity. At the Treaty of Venice in 1291, Venice was promised 85,000 silver marks in return for transporting and supplying 33,500 Crusaders. However, Innocent III's Post Miserabile allowed for people to contribute funds to the Crusade, rather than fighting. This along with a slow muster and unrecognised departure, meant that only 12,000 Crusaders arrived in Venice and were 35,000 marks short. Consequently, Egypt, the Crusade's target, was out of the question, so Dandolo had the Crusade diverted to Zara in 1202 to recover part of the debt. When this wasn't enough, the Crusaders were stuck. Consequently, they were incredibly receptive to Prince Alexio's offer of 200,000 marks, along with support for the Crusade, if he was elevated to the throne in Constantinople. Such a diversion hadn't been planned, but the Fourth Crusaders had no choice as they didn't have enough provisions or funding to carry on to Egypt or return home. As a result, the diversion to Constantinople was a spur of the moment decision rather than the culmination of decades of Byzantine-Latin division.
Furthermore, the Fourth Crusade's diversion to Constantinople was more likely driven by Byzantium's internal divisions rather than it dreadful relations with the West. The rise of the Angeli greatly weakened Byzantium as Isaac II lacked military power, so had to rely on mercenaries. This resulted in repeated losses to the Bulgarians in the 1190's, greatly weakening Byzantium. Alexios III's coup in 1195 was also detrimental as he was just as incompetent as Isaac. He ruined the already fragile economy by trying to buy the loyalty of his nobles, which failed, as well as wasting money on art whilst his empire rotted around him. Consequently, Constantinople was vulnerable and like easy pickings to the Crusaders. They were given the green light to attack by supporting Prince Alexios against his uncle and were further justified in their sack of the city in April 1204 after Alexios V's coup. Clearly, Byzantium brought such an attack upon itself due to its own internal strike, not because of its previous actions against the West. They just added an excuse.
Overall, whilst there were deep divisions between Byzantium and Latin Christianity since the Second Crusade, they did not result in the Fourth Crusade, they did not result in the Fourth Crusade's diversion to Constantinople. Whilst the Franks and Venetians probably did bare a grudge against Byzantium, they merely took advantage of Byzantium's internal strife. They, like Innocent III, had never intended to go anywhere other than Egypt, but found themselves victims of circumstance. Ultimately, they were lured to Constantinople by Prince Alexios, a Greek, in the hope of recovering from their recently acquired debts, not to avenge decades-old disputes.
Examiners Comment:
This is a Level 5 response This is a wide-ranging answer, which shows a clear understanding of the long and short-term causes of the diversion to Constantinople. When discussing the long-term causes, the student has made direct analytical links to the events of 1203/4, as opposed to just narrating events. There is good balance and a sustained line of argument: the answer is stated in the introduction and the essay is logically organised, arguing towards a conclusion which is convincingly supported and well-explained. The supporting detail is impressive in its scope and precision, and there is clear awareness of key concepts.