The Failure of Prince Alexius (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Failure of Prince Alexius
Unfulfilled promises
When the crusaders helped restore Alexius IV to the Byzantine throne, they expected him to honour his commitments. However, it quickly became clear that the young emperor had promised far more than he could deliver, creating serious problems for the crusade.
The failure of Alexius IV to fulfill his promises became the catalyst for one of the most controversial events in crusading history – the sack of Constantinople. Understanding why he failed is essential for understanding how the Fourth Crusade went so disastrously wrong.
Financial failures
Alexius IV's first major failure was financial. He had promised to pay the crusaders 200,000 marks to support their expedition to the Holy Land. However, he could only manage to raise 100,000 marks from Constantinople's treasury. This shortfall was not simply due to poor planning – Alexius IV faced a fundamental problem with his authority. Although he held the title of emperor, many rulers throughout the Byzantine Empire had not submitted to his control, which meant he could not tax them effectively.
The mark was a unit of account used in medieval Europe, representing about 8 ounces of silver. The promised 200,000 marks represented an enormous sum – roughly equivalent to several years of revenue from a major European kingdom. The 100,000 mark shortfall was therefore a catastrophic financial failure.
Desperate to raise more money to provision the crusaders camped at Galata, Alexius IV resorted to extreme measures. He ordered that Constantinople's world-renowned holy relics be melted down for their precious metals. This drastic action had devastating consequences. Not only did it fail to raise sufficient funds, but it also deeply angered the Byzantine population, who viewed these relics as sacred treasures. By November 1203, Alexius IV had no choice but to stop making payments to the crusaders altogether.
This decision alienated both groups that Alexius IV desperately needed. The crusaders felt betrayed because they were not receiving the promised financial support, while his own people were furious about the destruction of their holy relics.
The melting down of holy relics was not just a financial decision – it was a religious and cultural catastrophe. In medieval Christian society, holy relics were believed to possess miraculous powers and were treated as priceless treasures. By destroying them for money, Alexius IV committed what many Byzantines considered an unforgivable sacrilege.
Religious promises unfulfilled
Money was not the only broken promise. Alexius IV had also committed to ending the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, which had divided Christianity since 1054. He promised that the Byzantine Church would submit to the authority of the Pope in Rome.
Alexius IV did make some effort to fulfil this promise. He persuaded Patriarch John X Camaterus to formally submit to papal authority. However, this submission was essentially meaningless. The patriarch made no attempt to change the Eastern Church's doctrines to match those of the Western Church, nor did he travel to Rome to participate in a ceremony where he would receive the pallium (a woollen band worn around the neck, symbolising recognition of papal authority and serving as a badge of office).
The pallium was more than just ceremonial. Receiving it from the Pope in Rome was a formal acknowledgment of papal supremacy over the Church. By refusing to travel to Rome to receive the pallium, Patriarch John X Camaterus was effectively rejecting the very submission he claimed to have made.
To the crusaders, it became obvious that Camaterus's submission was merely lip service rather than genuine religious unity.
The core problem: a weak emperor
At the heart of both failures was a simple truth – Alexius IV was a weak and inexperienced ruler who lacked real power. The Byzantine Empire was deeply unstable, and his position as emperor was insecure. He faced serious threats from powerful nobles who controlled much of the imperial territory, and rebellion was a constant danger.
Recognising his vulnerable position, Alexius IV made a request on 29 September 1203 that would have profound consequences for the Fourth Crusade. He asked the principal crusade leaders and their armies to remain at Constantinople until March 1204 to help strengthen his position.
The crusaders' dilemma
The crusade leaders had little choice but to agree to Alexius IV's request. They wanted to continue their journey to Outremer (the crusader states in the Holy Land), but this was impractical without the money, provisions, and additional troops that Alexius IV had promised. They found themselves caught in a trap of their own making.
The Crusader's Trap
The crusaders were in an impossible situation:
- They needed Alexius IV's promised resources to continue to the Holy Land
- Alexius IV couldn't provide these resources without being a stronger emperor
- To make him stronger, they had to stay and help him
- But staying meant further delays and growing tension with the Byzantine population
This circular dependency would ultimately doom both Alexius IV and the crusade itself.
Their initial decision to support Alexius IV had made them completely dependent on his promises. For him to fulfil these promises, they would first need to strengthen his position as emperor.
The crusaders therefore joined Alexius IV on a tour of the Byzantine Empire, and once again the crusade was delayed. Those who had been assured that their stay in Constantinople would last only one month were furious as the ships of the autumn passage to the Holy Land departed without them.
The fall of Alexius IV
The coup of January 1204
On the night of 27 January 1204, both Isaac II (Alexius IV's father) and Alexius IV were imprisoned by a senior nobleman named Alexius Dukas, known to his contemporaries as Murtzuphlus. This coup meant that Alexius IV was no longer in any position to fulfil his promises to the crusaders.
The name "Murtzuphlus" may have derived from a Greek word meaning "bushy-browed" or "sullen-faced," possibly referring to Alexius Dukas's appearance. This nickname was how he was commonly known to both Byzantines and crusaders.
Reasons for Alexius IV's downfall
Several factors contributed to Alexius IV's fall from power:
Close association with the crusaders: Alexius IV had become far too closely identified with the Western crusaders in the eyes of his own people. He had relied on their military support both to regain power initially and during his tour of the Byzantine Empire. This made him appear to be a foreign puppet rather than a legitimate Byzantine ruler.
Growing hostility in Constantinople: Tensions between the crusaders and the citizens of Constantinople had reached a breaking point. A particularly damaging incident occurred on 19 August 1203, when a fire started by crusaders destroyed 440 acres of the city. In response, approximately 15,000 Westerners who had been living in Constantinople fled to the crusader camp at Galata for safety. This mass exodus demonstrated the dangerous atmosphere in the city.
The fire of August 1203 was a turning point. Destroying 440 acres in a densely populated medieval city meant that thousands of Byzantines lost their homes and livelihoods. This single incident transformed the crusaders from potential allies into hated invaders in the eyes of Constantinople's population.
Diplomatic breakdown: Relations between the crusaders and the Byzantine government had completely collapsed. In December 1203, a French and Venetian embassy was expelled from the imperial court after demanding that the emperor honour his earlier promises. This public humiliation demonstrated Alexius IV's weakness and inability to manage the situation.
The rise of Murtzuphlus: Alexius IV had promoted Alexius Dukas (Murtzuphlus) to the important position of chamberlain (also known as protovestiarius, a key official in Byzantine administration). Murtzuphlus's popularity grew significantly after he launched a brave, though unsuccessful, attack against the crusaders on 7 January 1204. This military action, even in failure, made him an anti-Western figurehead beloved by Constantinople's population. With their support, he was able to overthrow Isaac II and Alexius IV and have himself crowned as Emperor Alexius V.
The effects of Alexius IV's fall
The removal of Alexius IV created a crisis for the Fourth Crusade. On 8 February 1204, Alexius IV was murdered, and on 28 February, Isaac II died. The crusade had reached an impasse for several critical reasons:
Another broken deadline: Following Alexius IV's September request, the main crusading force had agreed to remain at Constantinople until March 1204. This deadline was now only one month away. If it passed without action, it would cause serious anger among an increasingly impatient army.
Loss of provisions: While Alexius IV had been in power, he had continued to supply provisions to the crusaders, even when he stopped paying them money. Alexius V, however, made it clear that he would not continue this support. The crusaders would now have to risk dangerous raids into hostile territory, such as the lands controlled by the King of Bulgaria, to feed their soldiers.
Alexius V's aggression: The new emperor was openly hostile to the crusaders. One of his first actions was to ambush the troops of Henry of Flanders outside Constantinople. He clearly wanted the crusaders gone and was prepared to use military force to drive them from Galata.
Failed negotiations: On 7 February 1204, Alexius V and the Venetian leader Dandolo met to try to negotiate a solution. Alexius V wanted the crusaders to leave, while Dandolo wanted the money and provisions that had been promised. These negotiations achieved nothing except to increase tensions between the two sides.
The Point of No Return
By March 1204, all diplomatic options had been exhausted:
- Alexius IV (their sponsor) was dead
- Alexius V (the new emperor) was actively hostile
- The crusade deadline was approaching
- Food supplies were running critically low
- The army was growing mutinous with impatience
The crusade leadership concluded there was only one way forward: attack Constantinople itself and take by force what they could not obtain through diplomacy.
By March 1204, the crusade leadership faced a desperate situation. They had almost exhausted all their options. The main body of crusaders wanted to join the spring shipping passage to Outremer, but the leaders lacked the money and provisions required to do so. Faced with an impatient army and a hostile emperor, they concluded there was only one way to obtain the necessary resources to continue their crusade: they would attack and capture Constantinople itself, taking by force what they could not obtain through diplomacy.
The sack of Constantinople and its significance
Preparations for the attack: the March Pact of 1204
Before launching their assault on Constantinople, the crusade leadership needed to ensure that their forces would not turn on each other once the city fell. The leaders – Dandolo, Boniface, Baldwin, and the French commanders – met to create a pre-attack agreement known as the March Pact of 1204. This pact contained several key terms:
Distribution of wealth: The Venetians would receive most of the plunder until their debt of 200,000 marks (accumulated since the Treaty of Venice expired) was settled. After this debt was paid, the remaining booty would be split equally between the Venetians and the crusaders.
New leadership structure: A new emperor would be chosen by 12 electors to replace Alexius V. However, this emperor would have limited power, controlling only one-quarter of the former Byzantine Empire.
Division of the empire: The remaining three-quarters of the Byzantine Empire would be divided into various titles and territories. A commission would distribute these lands between the Venetians and crusaders.
The March Pact essentially planned to carve up the Byzantine Empire before the attack had even succeeded. This agreement transformed the Fourth Crusade from a rescue mission for Alexius IV into a calculated war of conquest. The crusaders were no longer helping a legitimate emperor – they were planning to create their own empire from the ruins of Byzantium.
In many ways, the March Pact was a sensible agreement for those committed to continuing the Fourth Crusade. It would keep the crusaders and Venetians united, help them replenish their funds fairly, and give the crusaders access to horses and other resources needed to carry on. The pact helped unite a force that now numbered around 20,000, including the 3,000 original crusaders, Venetian troops, and some Western evacuees from Constantinople.
However, the pact contained one crusade-crippling feature: all signatories agreed to stay in Constantinople for one more year to secure the empire. The crusade would be delayed yet again.
The capture and sack of Constantinople
The attack on Constantinople began on 9 April 1204. By the night of 12 April, a terrified Alexius V fled the city under cover of darkness. His escape marked the beginning of a three-day raid known in history as the sack of Constantinople – one of the most infamous episodes in crusading history.
The invading forces engaged in widespread looting of money and precious metals. However, they also participated in what was known as furtum sacrum – the sacred theft of relics. This practice involved stealing holy relics from one place to take them to another, justified by the belief that the saints associated with the relics actually wanted them to be moved.
The Paradox of Furtum Sacrum
The concept of "sacred theft" reveals the crusaders' twisted justification for their actions. They convinced themselves that:
- Stealing holy relics wasn't really theft if done for religious purposes
- The saints associated with the relics wanted to be moved to the West
- The Byzantine "schismatics" didn't deserve to keep these treasures
This rationalization allowed the crusaders to reconcile looting a Christian city with their religious mission – but it fooled no one, especially not the Byzantines whose sacred objects were being stolen.
Many of Constantinople's most precious relics and treasures were stolen during this period. Some of the most famous items, such as the statues of four bronze horses, were transported to Venice, where they still reside above St Mark's Cathedral today.
The four bronze horses taken from Constantinople's Hippodrome are one of the few surviving examples of large-scale ancient Greek bronze sculpture. Today, the original horses are kept inside St Mark's Basilica in Venice for preservation, while replicas stand outside. These stolen treasures serve as a lasting reminder of the Fourth Crusade's betrayal of its original mission.
The sack of Constantinople represented a catastrophic turning point for the Fourth Crusade. What had begun as an expedition to liberate Jerusalem had ended with the looting of Christianity's greatest Eastern city. The crusaders had achieved military victory, but at the cost of the crusade's original purpose and the unity of the Christian world.
Summary
Key Points to Remember:
-
Alexius IV could only pay 100,000 marks of the promised 200,000 marks, leading him to melt down Constantinople's holy relics and stop payments by November 1203, alienating both crusaders and his own people.
-
Alexius IV fell from power on 27 January 1204 when Murtzuphlus (Alexius V) imprisoned him, due to his close association with crusaders, growing hostility in Constantinople, diplomatic breakdown, and Murtzuphlus's rising popularity.
-
The March Pact of 1204 prepared for Constantinople's attack by agreeing on the division of wealth and territory, but it also committed crusaders to stay for another year, further delaying the crusade.
-
Constantinople fell on 12 April 1204, followed by a three-day sack involving widespread looting and furtum sacrum (sacred theft of relics), marking a catastrophic failure of the crusade's original purpose.
-
The failure of Prince Alexius was central to the Fourth Crusade's failure – his broken promises, weak authority, and eventual overthrow left crusaders with no option but to attack Constantinople, transforming a holy war into the conquest of a Christian city.