The Doge’s Plan (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Doge's Plan
Context: The financial crisis of September 1202
By September 1202, the Fourth Crusade faced a critical problem. The crusade leadership had managed to pay 51,000 marks to Venice for the transportation fleet, but they still owed a remaining debt of 34,000 marks. The crusading army found itself stuck in a difficult position - they could not afford to continue the crusade to Egypt as planned, but they were unwilling to disband after having already paid such a substantial sum to the Venetians. The crusade appeared to be at a standstill.
At this crucial moment, Doge Enrico Dandolo, the elected leader of Venice, stepped forward with a controversial solution that would significantly alter the course of the Fourth Crusade.
The financial crisis of September 1202 represented a turning point for the Fourth Crusade. With approximately 12,000 crusaders stranded in Venice, unable to pay their debt or continue their journey, the entire expedition faced collapse before it had even properly begun.
Dandolo's proposal
Dandolo suggested a deal that appeared to rescue the crusade from its deadlock. He proposed offering a moratorium (a temporary postponement) on the remaining debt of 34,000 marks. However, this financial relief came with conditions attached.
In exchange for postponing the debt, Dandolo asked the crusading army to help Venice achieve one of its military objectives. His plan involved several stages:
- The crusaders would sail to the port of Zara, which was currently under Hungarian control
- They would help Venice re-establish its authority over the city
- The army would spend the winter months in Zara, supplied by the prosperous port's resources
- In early 1203, the crusade would continue its journey to Egypt as originally intended
On the surface, this proposal appeared to offer a practical solution. The crusaders could postpone their debt, the crusade could continue, and they would have a comfortable place to spend the winter before sailing to the Holy Land. However, Dandolo's plan also served Venetian interests in significant ways.
Why did Dandolo propose an attack on Zara?
Dandolo's proposal was not simply an act of generosity toward the crusade. His plan reflected a complex mixture of political, economic, personal and religious motivations. Understanding these factors helps explain why the doge made this controversial suggestion.
The value of Zara
Venice had lost control of Zara in 1186, and the city represented significant economic and strategic value to the Venetian Republic. Zara was important for two main reasons:
- Strategic location: The port served as a crucial stop-off point for ships travelling to Outremer (the crusader states in the Holy Land). Control of Zara gave Venice influence over this important maritime route.
- Economic resources: The region around Zara supplied Dalmatian oak, a high-quality timber that was essential for constructing Venetian ships. Venice's maritime power and trade dominance depended on its shipbuilding industry, making access to this resource economically vital.
Recapturing Zara would restore Venice's control over a valuable asset and strengthen its position in Adriatic trade.
Personal investment
Dandolo had a strong personal stake in the success of the Treaty of Venice. He had been the primary supporter of the agreement when it was negotiated, and he had personally convinced Venice's governing bodies to accept the treaty and commit enormous resources to the crusading enterprise.
The city had built a massive fleet and suspended normal trade activities to fulfil its obligations. As the person responsible for this huge commitment, Dandolo needed to find a way to recover at least some of Venice's investment. The Zara plan offered a means to begin recovering the debt in a way that would be acceptable to Venice's government and population. Failure to recoup the costs would damage both Dandolo's political position and Venice's finances.
The risk of violence
A practical and immediate concern influenced Dandolo's thinking. Venice now had approximately 12,000 armed crusaders camped on its doorstep. These men had just paid 51,000 marks to the city but could not continue their crusade or recover their investment.
If the crusade collapsed at this point, Dandolo faced serious risks:
- At best, the crusaders might demand the return of the 51,000 marks they had already paid
- At worst, a frustrated and angry crusading army might turn violent and attack Venice itself
The crusaders were trained warriors who had come prepared for military action. Keeping them occupied with a military objective that served Venetian interests was safer than allowing them to remain idle and potentially hostile in or near the city.
The desire for salvation
Religious motivation also played a role in Dandolo's decision. The doge was an elderly man (sources suggest he was in his eighties or nineties), and like many people of his time, he was concerned about the fate of his soul after death.
Before the fleet departed Venice in October 1202, Dandolo took the crusade vow himself. This act was significant because it meant he could benefit from the plenary indulgence that Pope Innocent III had offered to all full participants in the Fourth Crusade. A plenary indulgence granted complete forgiveness of the temporal punishment for sins - essentially offering a spiritual clean slate and the promise of salvation.
For an old man approaching the end of his life, the opportunity to secure divine forgiveness while also achieving political and economic goals for his city must have been compelling.
Dandolo's mixed motives
Dandolo's proposal therefore reflected multiple overlapping priorities. It was simultaneously:
- A religious journey seeking salvation through the plenary indulgence
- A political strategy to recover a lost Venetian possession
- An economic plan to recoup Venice's investment and secure valuable resources
- A practical solution to avoid potential violence from a stranded crusading army
The attack on Zara would address all these concerns while keeping the crusade alive and moving forward. However, this mixture of secular and religious motivations would ultimately compromise the crusade's sacred purpose and moral authority.
How did Dandolo's proposals weaken the crusade?
Despite appearing to rescue the Fourth Crusade from collapse, Dandolo's plan contained serious problems that would ultimately weaken the crusading movement. The proposal created moral, legal and practical difficulties that divided the crusade and set it on a path away from its original sacred purpose.
The problem of attacking fellow Christians
The most obvious issue with the Zara plan was that it involved attacking a Christian city. This created a fundamental contradiction with the crusade's stated purpose of fighting against Muslim forces in the Holy Land.
The situation was made even more problematic by the status of Zara's ruler. The city was under the control of King Emeric of Hungary, who had himself taken the crusade oath. Although Emeric repeatedly tried to excuse himself from actually participating in the crusade, his vow meant that, in theory at least, all his lands were under the legal protection of the pope.
By accepting Dandolo's proposal, the Fourth Crusaders had agreed to attack fellow Christians whose territory was technically under papal protection. This was a highly controversial decision that violated the fundamental principles of crusading and challenged papal authority.
Divisions in the crusading force
The decision to travel to Zara did not immediately destroy the Fourth Crusade, but it initiated a process of division and desertion that gradually drained strength from the army. These divisions appeared at the highest levels of crusade leadership.
Loss of leadership
Before the departure from Venice to Zara, two crucial figures left the crusading army:
- Boniface of Montferrat, the commander-in-chief of the entire crusade, travelled to Rome to report on events to Pope Innocent III. He did not return until after Zara had already fallen to the crusaders.
- Peter of Capuano, the papal legate who represented the pope's authority with the crusade, also travelled to Rome. He remained absent until the eventual capture of Constantinople.
This meant that the forces preparing to attack Zara had lost both their supreme military commander and the direct representative of papal authority. The crusade was about to undertake a controversial action without proper leadership or legitimate religious sanction for their deeds.
Papal opposition
When Pope Innocent III learned of the planned attack on Zara, he was deeply opposed to the idea. He dispatched a letter to the crusaders making it absolutely clear that he would not sanction the use of force against the Christian city. This papal letter represented official condemnation of the Zara campaign.
However, the letter was never publicly shared with the entire crusading host. This lack of transparency meant that while some leaders knew of the pope's opposition, many ordinary crusaders remained unaware that their actions had been condemned by the highest authority in the Church.
Leaders abandoning the crusade
The papal letter did cause significant disruption among those leaders who were aware of its contents. Two important figures used the letter to try to prevent the attack:
- Abbot Guy of Vaux-de-Cernay attempted to dampen enthusiasm for the siege
- Simon of Montfort supported Guy's efforts to halt the attack
When their attempts to stop the siege of Zara failed, both men made a momentous decision - they chose to abandon the Fourth Crusade entirely rather than participate in what they saw as an unjust attack on fellow Christians.
The loss of these respected leaders further weakened the crusade's moral authority and military strength. Each departure reduced the size of the army and suggested to others that the crusade had strayed from its righteous path.
The beginning of the crusade's diversion
Dandolo's plan to attack Zara marked a crucial turning point for the Fourth Crusade. What began as a seemingly practical solution to a financial crisis actually started the crusade on a path of diversion from its original purpose. The decision created:
- A dangerous precedent for attacking Christian cities
- Deep divisions within the crusading leadership
- Loss of papal approval and moral authority
- Departure of key leaders who opposed the plan
- A pattern of pursuing Venetian interests rather than crusading goals
While Dandolo's proposal prevented the immediate collapse of the crusade in September 1202, it fundamentally altered the nature of the expedition. The Fourth Crusade would never reach Egypt or the Holy Land. Instead, events set in motion by the Zara decision would eventually lead to the shocking attack on Constantinople itself - the greatest Christian city in the eastern Mediterranean.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Dandolo's moratorium: In September 1202, Doge Enrico Dandolo offered to postpone the 34,000 mark debt in exchange for crusader help capturing Zara from Hungarian control.
-
Four motivations: Dandolo was driven by the economic value of Zara, personal responsibility for the Treaty of Venice, fear of crusader violence against Venice, and desire for salvation through the plenary indulgence.
-
Christian vs Christian: The Zara plan was controversial because it meant attacking a Christian city under King Emeric of Hungary, who had taken the crusade oath and whose lands were under papal protection.
-
Loss of leadership: Both Boniface of Montferrat (commander-in-chief) and Peter of Capuano (papal legate) left for Rome before the Zara attack, leaving the crusade without proper military and religious authority.
-
Beginning of division: Pope Innocent III opposed the attack, and respected leaders like Abbot Guy of Vaux-de-Cernay and Simon of Montfort abandoned the crusade rather than participate - starting a process of division that weakened the Fourth Crusade and diverted it from its original sacred purpose.