Innocent’s Determination to Lead the Crusade: Attempts and Failures (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Innocent's Determination to Lead the Crusade: Attempts and Failures
Introduction: the debate about Innocent III's responsibility
Historians debate the extent to which Pope Innocent III can be blamed for the failure of the Fourth Crusade. This central question requires examining both his responsibility for planning the crusade and his limited ability to control events once it began.
On one hand, he bears responsibility because he planned the crusade and proceeded without support from major rulers. On the other hand, once the crusade began, his ability to influence events was extremely limited. If he could not control the crusaders' actions, could he really be held completely responsible for the failure to reach Outremer (the crusader states in the Holy Land)?
The crusade experienced three critical turning points that led to its eventual collapse, none of which Innocent III could prevent:
- November 1202: The crusaders attacked Zara, a Christian city, on behalf of the Venetians instead of travelling to Outremer
- Summer 1203: The crusaders were diverted to Constantinople to restore Prince Alexius to the Byzantine throne rather than continuing to Outremer
- April-May 1204: The crusaders attacked and captured Constantinople, establishing a new empire called Romania; the papal legate Peter of Capuano officially released the crusaders from their vow in mid-1205
Failure to influence the Zara campaign
The Pope's methods of control
When the crusaders decided to attack Zara, a Christian city under Hungarian authority, Innocent III had two ways to try to prevent this:
- His papal legate, Peter of Capuano, who had authority to make decisions on the Pope's behalf in the field
- Direct communication through letters to the crusade leadership
Innocent III strongly opposed the attack on Zara. He sent a letter forbidding it and threatening excommunication (expulsion from the Church) for any Christian who participated.
Why the Pope's methods failed
Despite Innocent III's opposition, the attack on Zara went ahead, revealing how powerless the Pope was to control the crusaders' actions.
Peter of Capuano's betrayal: Rather than condemning the attack, the papal legate chose to endorse it. He feared that opposing it would cause the crusade army to disintegrate. Effectively, Peter of Capuano gave the crusaders approval for the attack, then travelled to Rome before the siege began to seek papal approval after the fact.
This meant the primary figure of papal authority was not even present on the crusade when it mattered most. The Pope had lost any hope of directing the campaign in the short term.
Suppression of the papal letter: The Pope's letter arrived at Zara in November 1202 via Abbot Peter of Lucedio and was read to the crusade leaders. After considering the Pope's opinion and the effect it might have on ordinary soldiers, the leadership chose to suppress (hide) it rather than share it with the wider army. This sent a clear message to Innocent III: although he had initiated the Fourth Crusade, he was not its commander-in-chief.
The suppression of papal letters became a recurring pattern throughout the Fourth Crusade. When crusade leaders deliberately hid the Pope's messages from their troops, they effectively neutralized his authority. Even the threat of excommunication was meaningless if soldiers never knew they had been excommunicated.
Failure to prevent the diversion to Constantinople
Innocent III's diplomatic efforts before 1203
After the capture of Zara, Pope Innocent III desperately wanted the crusade to continue to Outremer. He certainly did not want the crusaders attacking more Christian cities, especially Constantinople, the home of the patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church. Several factors demonstrate Innocent III's position:
- From the beginning of his papacy until 1202, Innocent III had been in ongoing diplomatic talks with Byzantine Emperor Alexius III about reunifying the eastern and western churches
- Innocent III used diplomacy to encourage Emperor Alexius III to leave the Fourth Crusade alone and allow it to proceed to Outremer without Byzantine interference
- In February 1202, when Prince Alexius presented Innocent III with a plan to overthrow Emperor Alexius III, the Pope opposed it (partly because Prince Alexius was an ally of Innocent's imperial rival, Philip of Swabia)
Innocent III's diplomatic relationship with the Byzantine Empire demonstrates his genuine opposition to any attack on Constantinople. He was actively trying to reunify the churches through peaceful means, making the crusade's eventual assault on the city a complete contradiction of his diplomatic goals.
Multiple failed attempts to stop the diversion
Despite the Pope's clear opposition to diverting the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople, all his attempts to prevent it failed.
Early 1203 - First wave of letters: Innocent III sent a letter banning any attack on Christian lands without just cause. Another letter clarified who was excommunicated and who would be absolved. He also sent bishops with a message that any attack on Constantinople was prohibited. All of these messages were suppressed by the crusade leadership. Even the Pope's ultimate weapon, excommunication, was useless if very few crusaders actually knew they were excommunicants.
April 1203 - Removal of papal authority: Innocent III's inability to influence the crusade was further limited by his own decision to order Peter of Capuano to head straight to Acre (in Outremer). Before leaving, Peter sent a bull of excommunication for all Venetians to Boniface of Montferrat, one of the crusade leaders, then set off for Outremer. Unsurprisingly, this bull was also suppressed. By removing even the symbol of papal authority from the crusade, the Pope made himself completely powerless.
May or June 1203 - Final attempt: The Pope sent yet another letter repeating the prohibition on the trip to Constantinople. However, by this time it was too late - the crusaders were already en route to Constantinople. The Pope could not stop them.
The neglect of the Holy Land
The final outcome
In May 1204, Constantinople was captured and a new western emperor, Baldwin of Flanders, was elected. The crusaders, rather than using their newfound position to finally attack the borders of Outremer as the Pope wanted, stayed in Romania. Any influence the Pope might have had was gone.
Absolution without papal consent
In mid-1205, the papal legate Peter of Capuano returned to the Fourth Crusaders in Constantinople. There he granted them absolution from their crusade vow without the consent of the Pope.
Definition: Absolution
Absolution is a sacrament of the Catholic Church meaning that a sin has been forgiven. It can also mean a formal release from a vow or commitment, as breaking a vow would be considered sinful.
In this context, Peter of Capuano released the crusaders from their obligation to continue to the Holy Land - a decision that should have required papal approval.
Innocent III had not even been given the opportunity to abandon his own crusade. His crusade was over, but when it ended, it was hardly 'his crusade' at all.
Historical interpretations: the role of Innocent III
Riley-Smith's interpretation (2014)
Riley-Smith's Key Argument:
Historian Jonathan Riley-Smith argues that including Innocent III among those responsible for the crusade's diversion is 'particularly unkind, but there is a kind of justice in it.'
He suggests:
- The flawed strategy that went wrong was likely Innocent's own idea
- He knew and approved of the plan to attack Alexandria and made agreements with the Byzantines for provisions
- If he was responsible for this over-ambitious plan, it must rank as another of his 'wildly over-ambitious' ideas
- From the start, the crusade proceeded in a way that was frustrating for him
- One act of disobedience by the crusaders led to another
- Most crusaders, however divided and personally distressed, ignored his advice and prohibitions
Key argument: Innocent III bears considerable responsibility for planning the crusade, but was repeatedly disobeyed by the crusaders.
Meschini's interpretation (2008)
Meschini's Key Argument:
Historian Marco Meschini offers a different perspective, arguing that Innocent III's attempts at flexibility and concession were interpreted as weakness, progressively undermining his authority over the crusade.
The problem of delegation: By building himself up as the 'theoretical craftsman' of the crusade, Innocent necessarily made himself dependent on the will of others. His attempts to control the crusade through envoys had very limited influence on events.
Flexibility seen as weakness: Innocent had a rigid conception of the crusade's aims but showed flexibility about the means to achieve them. Meschini identifies three important examples of Innocent lowering his standards:
-
Reducing the vow period: In 1199, Innocent changed the required time in the Holy Land from two years to one year to gain the indulgence (spiritual reward). This was a clear concession due to the scarcity of recruits
-
Dispensation to remain with excommunicated Venetians: Around mid-1203, the Pope sent a message allowing the crusaders to stay with the Venetians despite their excommunication
-
Permission to use force against Greeks: In the same letter, the Pope permitted the crusaders to equip themselves at the expense of the Greeks, using force if necessary
The consequences of concessions:
In all three cases, Innocent lowered his own standards to try to control unfolding events and direct the will of the crusade leaders. These political choices, generated by his flexibility, were perceived by the crusade commanders and Venetian leaders as signs of weakness. As a result, the crusade became ever less 'Innocent's' and 'remarkably less innocent' (a play on the Pope's name).
Exam focus: analysis and evaluation
Key arguments for Innocent III's responsibility:
- He planned an over-ambitious crusade without adequate royal support
- His strategy for attacking Egypt/Alexandria was flawed
- His concessions and flexibility were perceived as weakness
- He failed to maintain effective control through his representatives
Key arguments against Innocent III's responsibility:
- Once the crusade began, his influence was minimal
- The crusade leadership repeatedly disobeyed and suppressed his orders
- His papal legate Peter of Capuano undermined his authority
- He was powerless to enforce excommunication when letters were suppressed
- He was not even consulted about the final absolution of crusaders
Significance: The failure of Innocent III to control the Fourth Crusade demonstrates the limits of papal authority in practice. Despite his theoretical power as Pope, he could not enforce his will when crusade leaders chose to suppress his letters and ignore his commands. This raises important questions about the relationship between spiritual authority and practical power in medieval Europe.
Remember!
-
Pope Innocent III had two main methods to try to control the crusade: his papal legate (Peter of Capuano) and letters to the leadership - both methods failed
-
Three critical turning points diverted the crusade: Zara (1202), Constantinople diversion (1203), and attack on Constantinople (1204) - Innocent III failed to prevent any of them
-
The crusade leadership repeatedly suppressed papal letters and prohibitions, demonstrating the Pope's powerlessness to enforce his authority
-
Peter of Capuano, the papal legate, undermined papal authority by approving the Zara attack, leaving the crusade, and eventually granting absolution without the Pope's consent
-
Historians debate whether Innocent III's over-ambitious planning or his inability to control events once begun bears more responsibility for the crusade's failure