An Interpretation: Prince Alexius to Blame (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
An Interpretation: Prince Alexius to Blame
Introduction to this interpretation
One major historical interpretation of the Fourth Crusade's failure focuses on the role of Prince Alexius (later Alexius IV). This interpretation argues that the young Byzantine prince was primarily responsible for the crusade's diversion from its original goal of recapturing Jerusalem. Instead of reaching Outremer (the crusader states in the Holy Land), the crusaders became entangled in Byzantine politics and ultimately sacked Constantinople in April 1204.
This interpretation represents one of several competing views about why the Fourth Crusade failed. Understanding this perspective is essential for evaluating the different historical debates about responsibility for the crusade's diversion.
The historian Thomas Asbridge presents this interpretation, arguing that Prince Alexius's promises were the critical turning point. These promises were simultaneously attractive to the cash-strapped crusaders and impossibly difficult to fulfil. According to this view, when Alexius failed to deliver what he had promised, it set in motion a chain of events that led to the crusade's complete failure.
Thomas Asbridge's interpretation
The diversion to Constantinople
Asbridge argues that once the crusaders arrived at Constantinople, the expedition quickly lost focus on its sacred objective to recapture Jerusalem. The crusaders had been persuaded to divert to Constantinople by Prince Alexius's proposals in December 1202. He had promised them substantial financial rewards and military support if they helped restore his father, Isaac II Angelos, to the Byzantine throne.
Alexius's brief reign (July 1203)
After a short military campaign in July 1203, the crusaders successfully toppled the existing imperial regime at relatively limited cost in Greek blood. Prince Alexius was proclaimed emperor alongside his father. However, this initial success proved short-lived and ultimately disastrous for the crusade's original mission.
The problem of lavish promises
The core of Asbridge's interpretation centres on what he calls Alexius's lavish promises. This concept is absolutely central to understanding why Asbridge assigns blame to Prince Alexius.
These promises had two crucial qualities:
- They were highly attractive to the crusaders, who desperately needed financial resources and military support
- They were extraordinarily difficult to fulfil, given the Byzantine Empire's actual resources and political situation
When Alexius IV proved unable to redeem these lavish promises of financial reward to the Latins (western Europeans), relations between the emperor and the crusaders quickly deteriorated. The crusaders had stayed in Constantinople beyond their original plans specifically because of these promises. When they went unfulfilled, tension mounted.
The January 1204 coup
In January 1204, Alexius IV's grip on power collapsed. He was overthrown and then strangled by a member of the rival Doukas family, a man nicknamed Murtzurphlus (meaning 'heavy-brow' because of his prominent eyebrows). Murtzurphlus seized power as Alexius V.
The crusaders interpreted this deposition as a coup and characterised Murtzurphlus as a tyrannical usurper who had to be removed from office. Despite their recent estrangement from Alexius IV, the crusaders used his overthrow as justification for war.
This gave them a cause to launch a full-scale assault on Constantinople.
The sack of Constantinople (April 1204)
On 12 April 1204, thousands of western knights broke into the city. Despite their crusading vows to fight for Christianity, they subjected Constantinople's Christian population to a horrific three-day riot of violence, rape and plunder. During this gruesome sack, the glory of Constantinople was destroyed. The city was stripped of its greatest treasures, including holy relics such as the Crown of Thorns and the head of John the Baptist.
Why Asbridge blames Prince Alexius
Asbridge's interpretation places primary responsibility on Prince Alexius because:
-
His proposals initiated the diversion: Without Prince Alexius's offers in December 1202, the crusaders would likely have proceeded to Egypt or the Holy Land as originally planned.
-
His promises were unrealistic: Alexius made commitments he could not possibly keep, given Byzantine resources and political realities. He promised financial rewards and military support that the Byzantine treasury and military could not provide.
-
His failure triggered the catastrophe: When Alexius could not fulfil his promises, it created a crisis. The crusaders had stayed in Constantinople because of these promises. Their disappointment and financial desperation made them receptive to attacking the city when Alexius was overthrown.
-
The chain reaction: Alexius's failed proposal led directly to the sack of Constantinople, which in turn led to the establishment of the crusader state of Romania, which permanently ended any possibility of the Fourth Crusade reaching Jerusalem.
Asbridge's Core Argument:
According to this interpretation, Prince Alexius bears the blame because his own failed proposal set in motion events that kept the crusaders in Constantinople and ultimately destroyed the crusade's original purpose. The lavish promises were the decisive factor that changed the crusade's trajectory.
The effects of the sack of Constantinople
Material gains for the crusaders
The sack of Constantinople had substantial immediate benefits for the crusaders, which helped explain why the crusade continued in a different form. The invaders gathered significant resources:
-
300,000 marks from the Byzantine treasury, split between the Venetians and crusaders. The Venetians took the lion's share to settle the crusaders' debt, but substantial amounts remained to replenish the crusading contingents' coffers.
-
10,000 horses, which were desperately needed by crusaders who had lost most of their mounts after years of waiting, foraging and occasional sieges.
These resources meant the crusaders were now well-supplied and could continue their military activities – just not in the direction of Jerusalem. The material gains provided both the means and the incentive to remain in the Byzantine territories rather than continuing to the Holy Land.
Long-term negative consequences
However, the theft of Constantinople's relics and treasures had severe negative consequences for the crusade's prospects:
-
Poisoned relationships: The furtum sacrum (sacred theft) destroyed relations between the native Byzantine inhabitants and the westerners. If the crusaders and Venetians wanted to maintain control of Constantinople, they would need to work extremely hard to win over the local population.
-
Church reunification impossible: One of the crusaders' stated goals from 1203 was the reunification of the Eastern and Western churches. The scale of the violence and theft made this goal much more difficult to achieve. A new patriarch of Constantinople, no matter how strong-willed, would struggle to persuade his clergy to submit genuinely to the pope in Rome after such betrayal.
The establishment of Romania
Creating a new crusader state
The sack of Constantinople was quickly followed by the foundation of a new crusader state called Romania, which would replace the Byzantine Empire. May 1204 marked the start of a process that consumed the crusaders' attention and energy. They faced multiple tasks:
-
Electing an emperor: Baldwin of Flanders and Boniface of Montferrat were the chief contenders for this position. Baldwin won and was elected emperor on 16 May 1204.
-
Dividing Byzantine land: This process led to military conflict between Baldwin and Boniface, as both wanted control of the most valuable territories.
-
Tackling external threats: Former Byzantine rulers like Alexius III and Alexius V posed ongoing threats to the new crusader state.
The end of the Fourth Crusade
The establishment of Romania became an all-consuming task that permanently ended the Fourth Crusade's original mission. This represents the final stage in the chain of events that Asbridge traces back to Prince Alexius's lavish promises.
By mid-1205, the majority of crusaders had abandoned any plans to travel onward to Outremer:
-
Some crusaders became disheartened. According to the chronicler Villehardouin, approximately 7,000 westerners returned to Europe in April 1205.
-
The remaining crusaders were simply too busy with the challenges of establishing and defending Romania to continue the crusade.
-
Fortunately for them, in summer 1205, Peter of Capuano (the papal legate) travelled to Constantinople. Without permission from Pope Innocent III, he declared the crusade over and absolved the crusaders of their vows.
Peter of Capuano's action was a practical decision. He recognised that he could not realistically restart the Fourth Crusade, despite the pope's wishes. Pope Innocent III had to reconcile himself with the truth: the crusade he had initiated six years earlier would not recapture Jerusalem. It had, in fact, completely failed.
Alternative perspectives on blame
Edwin Pears' questions
Not all historians agree that Prince Alexius alone deserves blame for the Fourth Crusade's failure. The historian Edwin Pears, writing in 1885, raised important questions about multiple actors who might share responsibility. His questions highlight the complexity of determining who was truly to blame.
The conduct of Venice
Pears questioned whether Venice and its leader, Doge Enrico Dandolo, had planned to divert the crusade from the start:
- Was there a secret treaty between Venice and the Muslim sultan Malek Adel, in which Venice agreed not to transport crusaders to Egypt in return for commercial benefits?
- Did Dandolo intentionally create difficulties while the crusaders waited on the Island of Lido, to enable him to carry out such a treaty?
- Was the expedition to Zara (1202) part of Dandolo's planned diversion, or did it happen due to accidental circumstances?
Venice's Possible Motivations:
These questions suggest that Venice may have had strong economic reasons to prevent the crusaders from reaching Egypt, where Venetian trade interests were significant. If true, this would shift considerable blame away from Prince Alexius and toward Venetian commercial interests.
The conduct of the crusaders
Pears also questioned the crusaders' own responsibility:
- Did the crusaders genuinely want to go to Egypt as their destination, or were they divided about their goals from the start?
- Were the crusaders tricked into violating their vows by accepting the diversion to Zara, or did they willingly accept this proposal as the best option under the circumstances?
The conduct of other leaders
Pears identified several other potential culprits:
- Boniface of Montferrat: Did he have a secret understanding with others to divert the crusade to Constantinople before leaving Venice?
- Philip of Swabia: When did he first conceive the idea of attacking Constantinople for the benefit of his brother-in-law, Prince Alexius? Was there an agreement between Philip, Boniface and Dandolo before the expedition departed?
- Pope Innocent III: How much did the pope know about the designs of Philip and the crusade leaders? To what extent was he responsible for failing to prevent the diversion?
The complexity of blame
Multiple Perspectives on Responsibility:
Pears' questions demonstrate that determining responsibility for the Fourth Crusade's failure is not straightforward. Historical interpretation involves weighing different factors and considering multiple actors' motivations and actions.
While Asbridge's interpretation focuses on Prince Alexius's lavish promises as the critical factor, other historians argue that multiple parties share blame:
- Venice may have had economic motivations for diverting the crusade
- Crusade leaders like Boniface may have been involved in planning the diversion
- Political figures like Philip of Swabia may have manipulated events for dynastic purposes
- The pope may have failed to exercise sufficient control over the crusade
This complexity suggests that while Prince Alexius's promises were undoubtedly important, they were part of a larger pattern of decisions and failures by multiple actors.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Thomas Asbridge's interpretation argues that Prince Alexius bears primary responsibility for the Fourth Crusade's failure because his lavish promises diverted the crusade to Constantinople and then proved impossible to fulfil.
-
The key problem was that Alexius IV's promises were simultaneously attractive to the crusaders (offering much-needed financial support) and extraordinarily difficult to redeem (beyond Byzantine capabilities).
-
The chain of events: When Alexius IV failed to deliver his promises, relations soured with the crusaders. His overthrow and murder in January 1204 by Murtzurphlus gave the crusaders justification to attack Constantinople in April 1204.
-
The sack of Constantinople (April 1204) provided the crusaders with immediate material gains (300,000 marks and 10,000 horses) but destroyed their relationship with the Byzantine population and made church reunification impossible.
-
The establishment of Romania (May 1204 onwards) consumed the crusaders' attention and energy, preventing them from continuing to the Holy Land. By summer 1205, Peter of Capuano officially ended the crusade.
-
Alternative interpretations exist: historians like Edwin Pears suggest that multiple actors share responsibility, including Venice, crusade leaders like Boniface of Montferrat, Philip of Swabia, and even Pope Innocent III. The question of blame remains contested among historians.