Dandolo’s Proposals Weakened the Crusade (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Dandolo's Proposals Weakened the Crusade
Introduction: The debt crisis of September 1202
By September 1202, the Fourth Crusade faced a serious financial crisis. The crusading leadership had paid 51,000 marks to the Venetians but could not afford the remaining 34,000 marks owed under the Treaty of Venice. This left the expedition in a difficult position—the crusaders could not continue their journey to Egypt, but they were also unwilling to abandon the crusade after making such a substantial payment. The crusading army appeared to be stuck.
The financial crisis of 1202 was severe: the crusaders had already paid a massive sum but still owed two-thirds of what they had already paid. This debt represented an enormous amount of money that would be impossible to raise without abandoning the crusade entirely.
It was at this critical moment that Enrico Dandolo, the doge (leader) of Venice, proposed a solution that would both rescue and redirect the crusade.
Dandolo's proposal: The attack on Zara
Dandolo offered the crusaders a moratorium (temporary suspension) on the remaining debt of 34,000 marks. However, this came with a condition: the crusading army would first help Venice recapture the port of Zara, which was under Hungarian control. According to the plan:
- The crusaders would sail to Zara and help re-establish Venetian authority over the city
- The army would spend winter in Zara, where the prosperous port could supply them
- In early 1203, the fleet would continue to Egypt as originally planned
At first glance, this proposal appeared to offer a way forward for the stalled crusade. The crusaders could clear their debt and continue their mission to recapture Jerusalem via Egypt.
Why did Dandolo propose an attack on Zara?
Whilst Dandolo's proposal gave the Fourth Crusade a means to continue, it also served the interests of Venice and the doge himself. Dandolo's priorities were influenced by several interconnected factors:
The value of Zara
The Venetians had lost control of Zara in 1186, and the port held significant economic and strategic value. Zara was a key stop-off point on the journey to Outremer (the crusader states in the Holy Land), making it important for controlling Mediterranean trade routes. Additionally, the port supplied Dalmatian oak, a crucial material used in constructing Venetian ships. Regaining control of Zara would therefore strengthen Venice's naval and commercial power.
Personal investment and responsibility
Dandolo had been the primary supporter of the Treaty of Venice from the start. He had personally convinced Venice's governing bodies to accept the treaty and commit enormous resources to the crusading enterprise. This meant he bore personal responsibility for the huge financial and material commitment Venice had made. The Zara proposal offered a way to begin recovering the outstanding debt in a manner that would be acceptable to Venice's government, whilst maintaining the city's reputation for supporting crusades.
The risk of violence
A practical concern also motivated Dandolo's proposal. Around 12,000 crusaders were camped on Venice's doorstep, and they had just paid 51,000 marks to the city. If the crusade were suddenly cancelled, there was a serious risk that the frustrated crusaders might demand their money back or, in the worst case, attack Venice itself. The Zara plan redirected this potentially dangerous military force away from Venice and towards a target that served Venetian interests.
The presence of such a large armed force outside Venice represented both an opportunity and a threat. Dandolo needed to direct their military capability toward something productive before they became a danger to Venice itself.
The desire for salvation
Dandolo was an elderly man (over eighty years old and blind) who took the crusade vow himself before the fleet departed in October 1202. By becoming a fully fledged crusader, he could take advantage of the plenary indulgence that Pope Innocent III had offered to Fourth Crusade participants. A plenary indulgence granted complete forgiveness of sins, offering Dandolo spiritual salvation. This religious motivation combined with political and economic interests in his decision-making.
Dandolo's proposal therefore reflected a complex mixture of religious, political, and economic priorities. It allowed him to pursue salvation through the plenary indulgence, whilst simultaneously achieving Venice's strategic goal of recapturing Zara and, ultimately, accessing the lucrative trade opportunities in Alexandria.
How did Dandolo's proposals weaken the crusade?
Despite offering a way forward, Dandolo's proposal to attack Zara introduced serious problems that would progressively weaken the Fourth Crusade.
The fundamental problem: Attacking fellow Christians
Some leading crusaders strongly opposed the plan to attack Zara because it was a Christian city. This was not simply an attack on any Christian settlement, but one under the control of King Emeric of Hungary, who had himself taken the crusade oath.
Although Emeric repeatedly tried to excuse himself from participating in the crusade (suggesting he did not take the vow very seriously), the crusade vow meant that, in theory at least, all of his lands were under the legal protection of the pope.
The Fourth Crusaders had therefore accepted a highly contentious proposal: attacking fellow Christians who were themselves under papal protection. This contradicted the fundamental purpose of a crusade, which was to fight against enemies of Christianity, not against other Christians.
Divisions in the crusading force
The decision to travel to Zara did not immediately destroy the Fourth Crusade, but it began a process of division that would gradually reduce its numbers and weaken its unity.
Loss of leadership
Prior to the departure from Venice to Zara, two key figures travelled to Rome to inform Pope Innocent III about the crusade's plans:
- Boniface of Montferrat (the commander-in-chief) did not return until after Zara had fallen
- Peter of Capuano (the papal legate, representing the pope's authority) was absent until the capture of Constantinople
The forces preparing to attack Zara had therefore lost both their military commander and papal authority for their actions. This leadership vacuum made it easier for divisions to emerge within the crusading army.
The papal letter and its consequences
When Innocent III heard about the planned attack on Zara, he dispatched a letter making it clear that he would not sanction the use of force against the city. However, this papal letter was never publicly shared with the entire crusading army. Instead, it was shown only to some members of the leadership, which caused further disruption.
Two prominent leaders used the letter to oppose the siege:
- Abbot Guy of Vaux-de-Cernay, supported by Simon of Montfort, attempted to reduce enthusiasm for the attack
When they failed to halt the siege, both men chose to abandon the crusade entirely. Their departure highlighted an early tension within the crusading force: some participants wanted the crusade to proceed at any cost, whilst others were unwilling to ignore the pope's guidance. However, the majority of the barons and the Venetian force still supported the attack, so the crusade continued.
Timeline of events at Zara
- October 1202: A fleet of 200 French, Flemish, and Venetian ships set off for Zara
- 13 November 1202: The siege of Zara began, after the suppression of the papal letter forbidding the attack
- 12 November 1202: The people of Zara attempted to negotiate with the crusaders, but these talks were undermined by Robert of Boves and Simon of Montfort
- 24 November 1202: The city of Zara fell to the crusaders
How the siege of Zara further weakened the crusade
In one sense, Dandolo had indeed rescued the Fourth Crusade by providing a way forward. However, the siege of Zara contributed significantly to the crusade's eventual failure in several ways:
Delays to the journey
It was now too late in the year to embark on the long voyage to Alexandria. The crusaders would have to spend the winter encamped outside Zara. This delay meant losing valuable campaign time and pushed back the planned attack on Egypt.
Desertions and reluctant participants
Several leading nobles abandoned the crusade following the attack on Zara. Simon of Montfort and others associated with him distanced themselves from the expedition. Meanwhile, leaders from other contingents began to question their actions now that they had acted against papal command. For example, Abbot Martin of Pairis asked the pope to release him from his vow, though this request was denied. There were now unwilling participants on the Fourth Crusade, and morale began to deteriorate.
Papal excommunication
The situation worsened when Innocent III decided to excommunicate (expel from the Church) all the crusaders at Zara. This was a serious spiritual punishment. In order to appeal the sentence, an embassy of prominent French leaders travelled to Rome.
Excommunication was one of the Church's most severe punishments. An excommunicated person was cut off from the sacraments and Christian community, and their soul was considered to be in mortal danger. For crusaders who had taken vows to serve God, this was an especially devastating penalty.
In February 1203, Innocent III responded with conditions for lifting the excommunication. He demanded that the crusaders take an oath to avoid any further attacks on Christians without just cause. The French crusaders and their allies took this oath willingly and were released from excommunication. However, the Venetians refused to take the oath and remained excommunicants.
Growing division between French and Venetians
The Venetian refusal to accept the papal oath was one clear sign of the growing gap between the original crusading force and their Venetian allies. The two groups had increasingly different objectives:
- The French crusaders wanted to reach Alexandria and ultimately recapture Jerusalem to fulfil their crusading vows
- The Venetians wanted to secure the interests of their city and expand its commercial power
This division was not merely political—it turned violent. On 27 November 1202, just before the embassy to Rome departed, serious riots broke out between the French and Venetians, resulting in around 100 deaths.
These riots, combined with the differing reactions to the papal oath, demonstrated that one large and essential part of the army (the Venetians) had fundamentally different priorities from the original crusaders.
Historical interpretations: Was Dandolo responsible for the crusade's failure?
Historians have debated Dandolo's role in the Fourth Crusade's failure, with different scholars reaching contrasting conclusions about his motivations and impact.
John Fine's interpretation: Venice's material interests
Historian John Fine argues that Dandolo became one of the "prime movers" of the Fourth Crusade, but he never lost sight of Venice's material interests.
According to Fine's interpretation:
- Dandolo hated the Byzantines and feared that Venetian trade was in danger as long as the Byzantine Empire survived
- He worried that Byzantine emperors might repeat the arrests and property seizures that had occurred in 1171
- The Byzantine Empire had been granting trading privileges to Venice's rivals, Genoa and Pisa
- A conquest of Constantinople by a Venetian-led crusade could give Venice a monopoly over eastern Mediterranean trade
- Venice acquired a leading role through controlling transportation, and when crusaders could not pay, Venice sought services instead of money
Fine's interpretation emphasises that economic motivations drove Venetian involvement, with Dandolo consistently prioritising Venice's commercial interests over the crusade's religious goals.
Louis de Mas Latrie's interpretation: The secret treaty theory
Writing in the mid-19th century, Louis de Mas Latrie proposed a more controversial interpretation. He argued that there was a secret treaty between Dandolo and Sultan Malik al-Adil (the Sultan of Egypt) to deliberately sabotage the Fourth Crusade.
According to this theory:
- The Sultan learned about Christian preparations following the failure of Emperor Henry VI's crusade
- He sent an embassy to Venice with valuable presents
- The Sultan offered the Venetians "rich goods and great franchises in the port of Alexandria" if they would divert the crusade away from Egypt
- Venetian archives contain evidence of privileges granted by Sultan Malik al-Adil between 1205 and 1217, giving Venetians advantageous trading conditions at Alexandria
If this interpretation is correct, it would suggest that Dandolo actively and deliberately caused the Fourth Crusade to fail by making a secret deal with the Muslim enemy. However, this theory has been challenged by other historians.
Christopher Tyerman's interpretation: Genuine commercial opportunity
Modern historian Christopher Tyerman offers a different perspective, arguing that Dandolo genuinely supported the original plan to capture Alexandria because it would satisfy Venice's material interests without requiring any secret conspiracy.
According to Tyerman:
- Alexandria was the centre of the hugely lucrative spice trade, handling spices shipped from south-east Asia
- The city was a source of wheat, sugar, and alum (used in dyeing and leather-making), and a market for timber and metals
- Compared to Genoa and Pisa, Venice had only a modest presence in Alexandria (around 10% of its eastern trade)
- Dandolo had seen the commercial opportunities first-hand during a visit to Egypt in 1174
- The 1201 treaty's stipulation for equal shares in any conquests reflected Venice's enormous investment and risk
- A successful crusade presented Venice with a unique commercial opportunity to control trade in Alexandria and assert civic patriotism
Tyerman's interpretation challenges the allegation that Dandolo deliberately sabotaged the crusade. Instead, it suggests that Dandolo's actions were motivated by genuine belief that the original plan would benefit Venice, but events spiralled out of his control. This interpretation maintains that money and commercial interests shaped Dandolo's decisions, but without requiring any conspiracy with Muslim leaders.
Evaluating the interpretations
These three interpretations present different views of Dandolo's role:
- Fine sees Dandolo as consistently prioritising Venetian material interests, which ultimately diverted the crusade from its religious goals
- De Mas Latrie accuses Dandolo of actively betraying the crusade through a secret treaty with Egypt
- Tyerman argues that Dandolo genuinely supported the original plan because it served Venice's interests, without requiring any conspiracy
The historical evidence supports the view that Venetian commercial interests heavily influenced the crusade's direction. Whether Dandolo actively conspired to sabotage the crusade (as de Mas Latrie suggests) or simply allowed economic priorities to override religious goals remains debated by historians.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Dandolo's proposal saved the immediate crisis by offering a moratorium on the 34,000 marks debt in exchange for attacking Zara, but this created long-term problems for the crusade.
-
Multiple motivations drove Dandolo's decisions: the economic value of Zara, personal responsibility for the Treaty of Venice, fear of violence from 12,000 crusaders, and the desire for salvation through the plenary indulgence.
-
Attacking Zara weakened the crusade in several ways: it delayed the journey to Egypt, caused key leaders like Simon of Montfort to abandon the expedition, led to papal excommunication, and created violent divisions between French and Venetian forces.
-
Leadership vacuum at Zara: Boniface of Montferrat and Peter of Capuano were absent during the siege, leaving the crusading force without its commander-in-chief or papal authority.
-
Historians disagree about Dandolo's intentions: some argue he deliberately sabotaged the crusade through a secret treaty with Egypt (de Mas Latrie), whilst others believe he genuinely supported the original plan because it served Venetian commercial interests (Tyerman), though all agree that material interests heavily influenced his decisions.