An Interpretation: The Key Role of Venice and Dandolo (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
An Interpretation: The Key Role of Venice and Dandolo
Understanding different historical interpretations
Historians have debated the extent to which Venice and its leader, Doge Dandolo, were responsible for the failure of the Fourth Crusade. This debate centres on whether Dandolo deliberately sabotaged the crusade or whether he genuinely supported its original goals whilst pursuing Venice's economic interests. Understanding these different interpretations is crucial for evaluating the causes of the Fourth Crusade's failure.
Central Question:
What motivated Dandolo and Venice to divert the crusade from its intended target?
John Fine's interpretation: Venice's material interests
Historian John Fine presents an interpretation that emphasises Venice's economic motivations. According to this view, Venice's primary concern throughout the Fourth Crusade was material gain rather than religious objectives.
Dandolo as the 'prime mover'
Fine argues that Doge Dandolo became one of the prime movers of the Fourth Crusade. Despite being over eighty years old and blind, Dandolo never lost sight of Venice's material interests. This interpretation suggests that Dandolo was a key driving force who shaped the direction of the crusade according to Venetian economic priorities.
Why Venice wanted to attack Constantinople
Fine identifies several reasons why Venice had both the motivation and opportunity to divert the crusade towards Constantinople:
Economic threats from Byzantium:
- Dandolo hated the Byzantines and believed Venetian trade was endangered by the Byzantine Empire's continued existence
- He feared that Byzantine emperors might repeat the 1171 arrests and property seizures that had targeted Venetian merchants
- The Byzantine Empire was granting trading privileges to Venice's rivals, Genoa and Pisa, threatening Venice's economic dominance
Potential benefits of conquering Constantinople:
- A Venetian-led conquest of Constantinople could give Venice a monopoly over Eastern trade
- This would eliminate competition from rival Italian cities
- Venice would control the most lucrative trade routes in the Mediterranean
Venice's control through transportation
Fine explains that Venice acquired a leading role in the crusade through its control of transport. After previous crusades had failed when taking the overland route through Anatolia, it made practical sense to travel to the Holy Land by sea. However, Venice controlled the ships and expected the crusaders to pay for their passage.
When the crusaders could not afford Venice's high prices, Venice sought services in lieu of debt - unknown to the Pope. This gave Venice leverage to redirect the crusade towards targets that served Venetian interests, such as Zara and later Constantinople.
The controversy over Dandolo's true motivation
Whilst historians agree that Dandolo played a pivotal role in the Fourth Crusade, they disagree about his precise motivations. This disagreement has significant implications for assessing whether Dandolo deliberately caused the crusade to fail or whether he genuinely supported its goals.
Two opposing views
Contrasting Interpretations:
Extract 5 (Louis de Mas Latrie): Suggests there was a secret treaty between Dandolo and the Egyptian Sultan to sabotage the crusade. This would mean Dandolo intentionally caused the Fourth Crusade to fail.
Extract 6 (Christopher Tyerman): Argues that Dandolo genuinely supported the original plan to attack Alexandria because it served Venice's material interests. This challenges the sabotage allegation whilst maintaining that economic motivations were central to Dandolo's actions.
Louis de Mas Latrie's interpretation: the secret treaty theory
Writing between 1852 and 1861, Louis de Mas Latrie presents a controversial interpretation suggesting that Venice deliberately betrayed the crusade through a secret agreement with the Muslim enemy.
The alleged secret treaty
According to sources cited by Mas Latrie, Sultan Malik al-Adil of Egypt learned about Christian preparations for a new crusade following the failure of Emperor Henry VI's crusade. Fearing an attack on Egypt, the Sultan allegedly sent an embassy to Venice with a proposition.
Terms of the alleged agreement
The chronicler sources claim that the Sultan:
- Sent envoys to Venice with fine presents
- Requested that the Venetians divert the crusade away from Egypt
- Promised in return to give Venice rich goods and great franchises in the port of Alexandria
Evidence for the secret treaty
Mas Latrie argues that Venice's official archives provide indirect confirmation of this arrangement. He points to a series of privileges granted by Sultan Malik al-Adil to the Venetians between 1205 and 1217, which allowed Venice to:
- Conduct commerce in the Sultan's territories in security
- Enjoy exceptionally advantageous tariffs at Alexandria
- Freely control their own trade regulations
Implications of this interpretation
The Sabotage Theory:
If Mas Latrie's interpretation is correct, Dandolo and Venice actively sabotaged the Fourth Crusade from the beginning. They accepted bribes from the Muslim Sultan to ensure the crusade never reached Egypt, betraying the Christian cause for commercial advantage. This would make Venice directly responsible for the crusade's failure to achieve its original objectives.
Christopher Tyerman's interpretation: genuine support for the Alexandria plan
Historian Christopher Tyerman, writing in 2006, challenges the secret treaty theory and presents an alternative explanation for Venice's interest in the crusade.
Alexandria as a commercial opportunity
Tyerman argues that Egypt and Alexandria represented a genuinely attractive target for Venice, offering significant commercial benefits that required no secret treaty to explain Venetian interest.
Alexandria's economic importance:
- Centre of the hugely lucrative spice trade, handling spices shipped from South East Asia via the Red Sea
- Source of valuable commodities including wheat, sugar, and alum (used in dyeing and leather making)
- Market for timber and metals
- Had accommodated Western traders since the eleventh century
Venice's limited presence in Alexandria
Importantly, Tyerman notes that compared to Genoa and Pisa, Venice maintained only a modest presence in Alexandria. Trade with Egypt constituted perhaps only 10 per cent of Venice's eastern business. This meant there was considerable room for expansion.
Dandolo's personal knowledge:
- Dandolo had visited Egypt in 1174 and seen the opportunities firsthand
- In 1198, the Pope granted Venice a licence to continue trading with Egypt in non-military materials (excluding metal and timber)
- This was despite a general ban decreed by the Third Lateran Council, which was largely ignored anyway
The 1201 treaty and Venice's investment
Tyerman emphasises that the 1201 treaty stipulated equal shares in any conquests, which recognised:
- Venice's enormous risk in supporting the crusade
- Venice's huge material and human contribution, with war galleys and crew numbers nearly matching the estimated crusader army
- Historical precedent from the Pactum Warmundi of 1124, when Venetians had helped capture Tyre in return for a third of the city
Why Alexandria made sense for Venice
According to Tyerman, a successful crusade presented Venice with:
- A chance to expand its share of the richest market in the Levant
- The opportunity to control most of the trade in a new Frankish Alexandria
- A unique commercial opportunity combined with civic patriotism
- The undying glory of winning back Jerusalem - something Venice's Genoese and Pisan rivals had failed to achieve during the Third Crusade
Implications of this interpretation
Tyerman's interpretation suggests that Dandolo did not need a secret treaty with the Sultan to be interested in the crusade. The legitimate commercial benefits of capturing Alexandria were sufficient motivation. This challenges Mas Latrie's sabotage theory whilst still acknowledging that material interests were central to Venetian decision-making.
However, this interpretation does not fully explain why the crusade ended up attacking Constantinople instead of Alexandria, unless other factors (such as the crusaders' debt to Venice and Prince Alexius's intervention) diverted it from its original course.
Key term
Lateran Council: A council of Church officials held by the Pope in the Lateran Palace. It dealt with matters of Church law and contemporary political issues. The Third Lateran Council had decreed a ban on trading military materials with Muslim states, though this was largely ignored.
Comparing the interpretations
Areas of agreement
Common Ground Among Historians:
All three historians agree that:
- Venice played a crucial role in the Fourth Crusade
- Doge Dandolo was a key figure in directing events
- Material interests and economic motivations were central to Venetian actions
- Venice's control of naval transport gave it significant power over the crusade
Areas of disagreement
The key difference concerns Dandolo's intentions:
Diverging Interpretations of Dandolo's Motivations:
Fine: Portrays Dandolo as prioritising Venetian material interests over crusading goals, willing to divert the crusade to serve Venice's economic needs.
Mas Latrie: Goes further, alleging Dandolo made a secret agreement with the enemy to deliberately sabotage the crusade in exchange for trading privileges.
Tyerman: Argues Dandolo genuinely supported the original plan to attack Alexandria because it aligned with both crusading goals and Venetian commercial interests.
Implications for understanding the crusade's failure
These different interpretations lead to different conclusions about responsibility for the Fourth Crusade's failure:
- If Mas Latrie is correct, Venice deliberately betrayed the crusade
- If Tyerman is correct, Venice initially supported the crusade's goals, and other factors must explain the diversion to Constantinople
- If Fine is correct, Venice was opportunistic, ready to exploit any situation that served its economic interests
Exam focus: evaluating historical interpretations
Key Skills for Analyzing Historical Interpretations:
When comparing these interpretations in an exam answer:
Consider the evidence:
- What sources does each historian use?
- How reliable is their evidence?
- Are there gaps in the evidence that weaken their arguments?
Analyse the reasoning:
- How does each historian connect evidence to conclusions?
- Are there alternative explanations for the same evidence?
- Which interpretation is best supported by the available evidence?
Context matters:
- Consider what was known at the time each historian was writing
- Mas Latrie wrote in the 1850s-60s; Tyerman wrote in 2006 with access to more recent scholarship
- How might this affect their interpretations?
Balance between factors:
- Economic motivations clearly mattered, but did they override all other considerations?
- Could multiple factors have influenced Dandolo's decisions?
- Avoid oversimplified explanations that rely on a single cause
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
John Fine argues that Doge Dandolo was a prime mover of the Fourth Crusade who prioritised Venice's material interests, using control of transport to direct the crusade towards targets beneficial to Venice (Zara and Constantinople).
-
Louis de Mas Latrie presents the controversial theory that Dandolo made a secret treaty with Sultan Malik al-Adil to divert the crusade away from Egypt in exchange for trading privileges in Alexandria, suggesting deliberate sabotage.
-
Christopher Tyerman challenges the secret treaty theory, arguing that Dandolo genuinely supported attacking Alexandria because it offered legitimate commercial opportunities for Venice to expand its modest share of the lucrative Egyptian trade.
-
All three historians agree that material interests and economic motivations were central to Venetian involvement in the crusade, but they disagree on whether this meant deliberate sabotage or opportunistic support.
-
Understanding these different interpretations is essential for evaluating the complex causes of the Fourth Crusade's failure and the role of economic factors in crusading history.