Download PDF | The Fourth Crusade 1202–04_ The betrayal of Byzantium-Osprey Publishing (2011)
98 Pages
If the crusades have become controversial, the Fourth Crusade always was so. Until modern times the idea of Christians and Muslims slaughtering each other in the name of religion seemed almost acceptable, but the idea of Latin Catholic Crusaders turning against fellow Christians of the Orthodox Church shocked many people, even at the time, and came to be described as ‘The Great Betrayal’. It was even blamed for so undermining the Greek-speaking Byzantine state that this relic of the ancient Roman Empire succumbed to the Ottoman Turks. In reality the Fourth Crusade was not that straightforward; nor was its aftermath inevitable.
The Fourth Crusade was a consequence of the deeply disappointing though gratifyingly heroic Third Crusade, which had failed to regain the Holy City of Jerusalem from Saladin. On 8 January 1198 a new pope, the hugely ambitious Innocent III, took the reins of power in Rome. In August he proclaimed a new crusade, the declared purpose of which was to liberate Jerusalem from the ‘infidel’ by invading Egypt, the chief centre of Muslim power in the eastern Mediterranean. It was also the most important sultanate in the Ayyubid Empire founded by Saladin.
Those who dreamed of destroying the Islamic Middle East had now recognized that Egypt was the key, but if their strategy was correct then their planning was not. The realities of power, money, climate and the availability of food to sustain a crusading army would cause the greater part of the Fourth Crusade to be diverted against fellow Christians. Its first victim would be the largely Latin city of Zadar (then called Zara); the second would be Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire and the biggest, wealthiest and most cultured city in Christendom.
BYZANTIUM AND ITS NEIGHBOURS
Relations between the Orthodox Byzantine Empire and its Latin neighbours had been close but complex for centuries. However, the differences that seem obvious today were not necessarily seen that way at the time. Nor was the Byzantine Empire necessarily a declining power in need of Western help. Under the 12th-century Comnenid dynasty Byzantium appeared a powerful state bent on regaining territory from its Muslim eastern neighbours and from its Christian neighbours in the Balkans, Italy and even central Europe. Meanwhile, in Western Europe a remarkable economic revolution had already started more than a century earlier, yet it was still somewhat backward, warlike and aggressive.
One area where Western superiority was already established was at sea, most of the Mediterranean now being dominated by Italian sailors and merchants. Amalfi had been first on the scene and its people had their own distinct quarter in Constantinople, where the Greeks regarded these Amalfitans as being almost as civilized as themselves. Following close behind, and already more powerful than Amalfi, were the merchant republics of Pisa, Genoa and Venice. The former two had a reputation for ferocity, often directed against each other, while the Venetians were theoretically still subjects of the Byzantine Empire, and would remain so until 1204. Most crusades to the Middle East already relied upon naval power. However, the Fourth Crusade was an entirely maritime expedition, which cannot be understood without some appreciation of early 13th-century Mediterranean nautical knowledge.
This was more advanced than is generally realized, the sailors possessing geographical knowledge that would not be written down for centuries. For example, there is strong evidence that simple forms of portolano coastal maps were used at a time when the famous medieval mappe mundi made by monks offered fanciful and entirely useless images of the known world. It is thus highly unlikely that popes and other rulers failed to use such information when planning major military expeditions overseas. On the other hand the merchants, sailors and governments involved in supposedly illegal trade with Islamic powers preferred to remain discreet. In contrast there was an extraordinary amount of misinformation in Western Europe that exaggerated, though did not entirely invent, the friendly relations between later 12th-century Byzantine emperors and Saladin or his successors. To this were added lurid stories about the supposed weakness, effeminacy and corruption of the ‘Greeks’, which reflected the undoubtedly sophisticated and often unwarlike character of the Byzantine ruling elite. Alongside these negative images of Byzantium there was a dream of Latin– Byzantine cooperation against the ‘infidel’, which had existed for centuries.
The ideal appeared in a later 12th-century version in chansons de geste epic poems such as Girart de Roussillon, although here Constantinople is a distant and strange place. Another manifestation is found in the 13th-century Chanson du Pèlerinage de Charlemagne, which was probably based upon a lost 12th-century or late 11th-century original. Constantinople is again portrayed as an almost magical city, perhaps reflecting fear of Byzantine technology and science. A period of relative peace and stability had followed Saladin’s death in 1193, with both the rump Kingdom of Jerusalem and Saladin’s Ayyubid successors seemingly convinced that little was to be gained from further warfare. Early in 1200, however, the political and military situation changed dramatically when Saladin’s younger brother al-‘Adil Sayf al-Din (‘Saphadin’ to the Crusaders), who already ruled Damascus, Jerusalem and parts of the Jazira (Mesopotamia), also took control of Egypt. As a result he was generally, if not universally, recognized as head of the ‘Ayyubid Empire’. Al-‘Adil’s position was confirmed when, two years later, he was also recognized as overlord in Aleppo. For the first time in nine years Saladin’s realm was reunited and again virtually surrounded what remained of the Crusader states.
Another significant player in this region was the Saljuq Turkish Sultanate of Rum (Rome), which was how Arabs, Turks and Persians knew the ‘Late Roman’ or Byzantine Empire. Unfortunately there is still a great deal of uncertainty about quite where the frontier zone lay between the Byzantine Empire and the Saljuq Sultanate of Rum around the time of the Fourth Crusade. For example, Lycia in south-western Anatolia had been a sort of no man’s land since the late 11th century. Meanwhile, the Saljuq Sultanate itself was going through a period of profound cultural, economic and military change, with many Saljuq Turkish cities being characterized by a thriving multicultural civilization incorporating Turkish, Greek and Armenian, Muslim and Christian elements. The overall impression of cultural coexistence also undermines the clarity of a supposed cultural frontier between Byzantium and the Turks. Political tensions within the Saljuq Sultanate of Rum resulted from Sultan Qilij Arslan II dividing his realm into iqtas (fiefs) for his eight sons in accordance with Saljuq tradition. After his death in 1192, the Sultanate suffered from a long civil war caused by Rukn al-Din Sulayman II Ibn Qilij Arslan stripping his brothers of their domains. One of the latter was Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw, who took refuge in Constantinople where he married a woman from a powerful Byzantine family.
The situation was similarly complex in Europe where, for example, rivalry between the Italian maritime republics had been fierce for centuries. Yet any successful crusade to the Middle East would depend upon support from at least one of them. Furthermore, their rivalry concerned their relationships with the Byzantine Empire. Genoa and Pisa were often at war during this period, but Byzantium gave trading privileges to both in an attempt to avoid a Venetian preponderance in Byzantine trade. The Fourth Crusade would, in fact, see Pisan and Genoese residents of Constantinople fighting alongside their Byzantine neighbours in defence of the city against Venetians and Crusaders. Another significant power within Italy was, of course, the papacy itself. Pope Innocent III has been described as one of the great figures in papal history. He was certainly one of the most ambitious popes, though in the end his wide-ranging plans often came to nothing or even proved counterproductive. Innocent III’s dream of a great new crusade certainly backfired.
Foulques de Neuilly was given a leading role in preaching this new expedition in 1198 and 1199. Unfortunately, Foulques was so obsessed with ‘moral rectitude’ that he offended several of the rulers and powerful aristocrats who were needed as potential leaders, including King Richard I of England. Furthermore, Foulques’ lack of tact undermined his attempt to reconcile the bickering (but militarily important) kingdoms of England and France. The impossibility of papal control over its own preachers of crusade certainly led to confusion. Whether this contributed to a lack of focus in the eventual expedition is impossible to say
VENICE AND THE CRUSADERS
One state eventually dominated the story of the Fourth Crusade: the Republic of Venice. Until 1204 Venice remained theoretically part of the Byzantine Empire, though in practical terms its elected duke, or ‘doge’, was by now an independent ruler. On the other hand, a close and ancient association with Constantinople gave Venice huge commercial advantages over its rivals – to some extent even over the indigenous merchants of the Byzantine Empire. Lying along the vital Venetian trade route down the Adriatic Sea lay the rugged coast and multiple islands of Dalmatia, where a largely Italianized population had dominated towns and some stretches of coast since Roman times. For most of the early medieval period Dalmatia was dominated by the Byzantine Empire, often through its proxy, the Doge of Venice, as ‘Dux Dalmatie’. In practical terms this could result in Dalmatian towns promising fidelity to Venice in return for Venetian protection, while at the same time remaining effectively autonomous. During the 12th century however, the joint Kingdom of Hungary and Croatia dominated much of Dalmatia. This the Venetians saw as a threat to their trade routes, and as a result two port-cities, Zadar (Zara) and Split(Spalato), became the focal points in a bitter rivalry; Venice generally dominated the former while Hungary dominated the latter. A short-lived Byzantine revival under the Comnenid emperors pushed back the Hungarians in the 1160s and 1170s, but Byzantine authority then collapsed again, leaving Venice to face a dangerous situation.
Elsewhere in Europe, internal problems or hostility between major states meant that no king or emperor was available to take command of the new crusade. There had, for example, been a notable deterioration in relations between the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires during the second half of the 12th century. The former was the direct heir of the eastern half of the ancient Roman Empire, while the latter claimed to be heir to the western half, as revived by Charlemagne in the 8th century. Nevertheless, the ruling dynasties of the Holy Roman and Byzantine Empires did forge dynastic links, which, though they achieved little, had an influence upon the course of the Fourth Crusade. The situation in France and England was even less encouraging for Pope Innocent III’s new crusade. King Richard of England died in 1199 and his brother, King John, inherited his quarrel with King Philip Augustus of France. As a result of this, official French and English participation in the expedition was impossible, though large numbers of French, Anglo-French and AngloNorman knights did take the cross.
In fact the year 1204, when the Byzantine capital fell under Crusader control, was also a very significant year in French and English history – Philip Augustus expelling his Anglo-Angevin rivals from all of France except for Gascony in the far south-west and the Channel Islands in the far north-west. Another area that would play a major role in the forthcoming crusade, and its leadership, was Flanders. Though a feudal fiefdom of the Kingdom of France rather than an independent state, Flanders had become an important, wealthy and strongly urbanized part of Western Europe. During the decade before the Fourth Crusade the Count of Flanders’ power had declined and, despite being economically very developed, the area remained politically somewhat anarchic. The situation was further complicated by the neighbouring counties of Flanders and Hainault having being ruled by one person since 1191, despite Flanders being within the Kingdom of France and Hainault being part of the German Empire.
Dalmatia was part of Croatia, which had been a joint kingdom with Hungary since 1102, and became the first victim of the Fourth Crusade despite the fact that King Imre of Hungary and Croatia had himself taken the cross. Much of Dalmatia was nevertheless outside any government’s control. Here the Latin aristocracy of the coastal cities despised the surrounding Slav peasantry and tribesmen. Each of the old Roman cities also retained their autonomy and frequently competed with each other, while loyalties were very localized, much as they were in Italy. Meanwhile, the relationship between Catholic Hungary and Orthodox Byzantium had long been close, though not always friendly.
During the first half of the 12th century these two huge realms had been allies, after which Hungary found itself resisting Byzantine expansion until a sudden collapse of Byzantine power in the later 12th century. It was during these years that Hungary seized extensive territory in ex-Byzantine Serbia and regained much of Dalmatia, where it found itself in competition with Venice. The glorious reign of King Béla III ended in 1196, being followed by that of Béla’s son Imre (1196–1204), which saw civil war between the king and his younger brother Andrew. Meanwhile the pope urged Imre to lead a crusade against Bogomil heretics who had established themselves in Bosnia and various other parts of the Balkans.
The sudden decline of Byzantine imperial power in the later 12th century permitted the re-emergence of independent or autonomous entities across much of the Balkans. The first Albanian state emerged around 1190 under its own ‘archons’, or local leaders; this independence then being lost to the Byzantine Despotate of Epirus in 1216. In most of the Balkan Peninsula Orthodox Christianity provided a regional identity but no real unity, while this separateness from their western and northern neighbours was also reinforced by the Balkan peoples’ essentially Byzantine cultural heritage. Like Albania, Bosnia and Serbia emerged as separate entities. However, much of what would later be the southern part of medieval Serbia initially exchanged Byzantine for Bulgarian domination. Furthermore, as Byzantine authority declined, so Hungarian pressure continued and a Hungarian army actually reached Sofia in the late 1180s. Indeed, competition between Byzantium and Hungary for domination over the lower-Danube region remained a feature of this period.
The outbreak of a revolt in what is now Bulgaria in the mid-1180s then forced the Byzantines back to the Danube Delta on the Black Sea coast. Credit for initiating and leading this revolt, which resulted in the establishment of the ‘Second Bulgarian Empire’, remains a source of heated nationalistic debate between Bulgarians and Romanians, three peoples actually being involved: Romanian-speaking Vlachs, Turkish-speaking Kipchaqs (Cumans) and Slav-speaking Bulgarians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade a Byzantine counter-attack had faltered and the new state had emerged in the northern part of what is now Bulgaria, while Byzantine authority was restricted to the lowlands of eastern Thrace. In 1201 or 1202, as the Crusaders were mustering in the west, the Vlachs and Kipchaqs again raided Byzantine territory, getting dangerously close to Constantinople. This was followed by a peace agreement between the Byzantine Emperor Alexios III and Bulgarian King Ivan II, otherwise known as Ioannitsa or as ‘Kaloyan the Romanslayer’. This remained the situation when the Fourth Crusade suddenly appeared on the scene in 1203.
The Byzantine Empire has naturally been the subject of intense historical research to discover quite how and why a once-mighty (and still extensive) state with its massively fortified and hugely wealthy capital fell so suddenly to a handful of crusading adventurers and their Venetian allies. No simple answer has been agreed, because there is no simple answer. The weaknesses of Byzantium at the time of the Fourth Crusade were manifold, though none of them fully accounts for this collapse. On the other hand there are a number of basic facts.
During the 12th century the Byzantine Empire made significant territorial gains in the Balkans and this is believed to have resulted in a shift of emphasis from the Anatolian or Asian provinces to the European provinces. Nevertheless, it is far from clear how important the regions north of the Rhodope Mountains were, either economically, politically or militarily. Similarly, Emperor Manuel’s massive defeat at the hands of the Saljuq Turks at the battle of Myriokephalon in 1176 may not have been as important as once thought. Certainly the Saljuqs chose not to follow up their success by conquering additional Byzantine territory. Similarly, the Byzantine army continued to defend the empire’s frontiers with reasonable success until its collapse in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. Tensions between the indigenous, largely Greek, population of the empire and the Latin, largely Italian, merchant communities in the major cities also seem exaggerated. In fact the Byzantine populace turned against these economically dominant foreigners only when the latter got drawn into Byzantine political rivalries.
Then, of course, there were appalling massacres such as that of 1182. Michael Angold, the renowned historian of this period, summarized the situation immediately prior to 1204 as follows: ‘Ever since the death of Manuel I Komnenos in 1180 the weaknesses of the Byzantine Empire had become increasingly apparent. By the end of the century there was an atmosphere of complete demoralization. There was vicious intrigue and corruption in the capital, anarchy in the provinces, and growing external pressure on the boundaries of the empire’. 1 However, the Fourth Crusade was more than merely another element in this disintegration, instead it converted a threatening situation into a complete catastrophe.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق