The Sack of Constantinople and Later Crusading

Week 10: Courtly Culture and Literature in the Middle Ages/ Later Crusading
Tutorial Discussion Post
By: Stacey-Lea, Asira and James

James' thoughts

Question 1: Steven Runciman locates reasons for the failure of the subsequent crusades in the events of the First Crusade. Summarise his argument in relation to the First Crusade in particular.

Runciman's argument is based on the fact that while the crusaders were initially successful in their quest, this success eventually brought about the end of the  Byzantine Empire. The Emperor at the time, Alexius of Byzantium, was actively searching for mercenary soldiers to enrol in his army. This was, simply put, designed to ensure that Alexius maintained control. Urban II responded with a passionate plea for help (we studied this in chapter 8, he basically outlined why the average person owed it to their country to help the crusades and basically promised forgiveness of their sins in order to commit) and instead of mercenaries, Urban II inspired about a thousand Frankish knights to join the fight. Compared to the Byzantines the Franks were brutish and barbarian, and a cultural clash became more and more likely until they began to fight amongst themselves. This fighting eventually paved the way for the Muslims to recapture the Holy Land. It is important to note that these cultural issues had never really been a problem due to the geographical location of both Empires and a distinct lack of contact. The most crucial factor is the lack of control/opportunity Alexius had finding troops, usually Alexius relied on the support Byzantine troops for numbers, but with the Byzantines waging war themselves, this was not an option and help from the Turks was also not possible as even those not involved in the war would not fight against other Turks.  

Question 2: What does he mean by a 'melancholy of misunderstandings' throughout the first crusade? 

The first crucial misunderstanding as mentioned in question 1 was Urban's speech and the consequences of the speech. Instead of acquiring mercenaries as planned, Urban II paved the way for Frankish knights to join the fight who were initially useful before cultural misunderstanding ensued which left the two factions at war amongst themselves, eventually paving the way for the Muslims to recapture the Holy Land and essentially spelled the doom of the Byzantine Empire.

The crusading army approaching Constantinople

Stacey-Lea's thoughts,


I personally find that the Crusades are a highly controversial aspect of Christendom. While I have barely any knowledge of Christendom in any way, I feel the reasoning behind the Crusades is somewhat flawed. Under the pretence of ‘love’ Christians went into battle and while reading I thought of what we now know as Patriotism, and whether these acts are of a similar principle. Only over the ‘love’ of other Christians rather than of their country, it still seems to me that the wars of today, now that we haven’t got conscription for battles, are calling upon perhaps a similar ideal (obviously talking to someone currently battling would reveal more information on this matter).

In the third reading I found it particularly interesting that the Fourth Crusade ended up on a completely different path to what it had originally set out for. This was due to poor dealings which I feel if it were a true act the love of God, perhaps dealing wouldn’t be so prominent? It seems a little out of character for those who are claiming to be humble. I also found the siege of Constantinople and the subjection to three days of pillaging as well as looting, rape and murder of the Greeks to be completely unnatural. These are members of a Christian faith and I feel that these actions disbar the ideals of Christendom.

However, the aspect of propaganda all through the crusading time is intriguing. In this time there wasn’t much chance of education and those who had it were generally the ones propelling the propaganda anyway. The lack of education to those who were being preached to seemed to have caused a confusion toward the understanding of what it meant to go on a Crusade (personal opinion, of course). In perpetuating the idea of if you were to go on the Crusade it was for the love of God, and that they would be ‘soldiers of Christ’, was the strongest message in the sermons from the leaders. Along with this the love of thy neighbour and thy enemy became entangled until the actions of what the Crusaders were truly doing became to some extent lost, as seen in the call from Byzantium in the second reading.

Q3. Jonathan Riley-Smith asks whether or not we consider ‘Crusading as an Act of Love’, what does he mean by this?

Jonathan Riley-Smith looks at all aspects of Crusading and through this finds the propaganda around the act that so often called into question one's love of Christ, and it was the love of Christ that called Christian ‘warriors’ to give up their possessions, take the cross and follow. Riley-Smith calls into question the love of enemies, hardly regarded by the crusade preachers, which is where the change in the Church’s aversion toward violence became prominent. Through the exploration of the preachings from this time, Riley-Smith defines which aspects of love were highlighted to the Christians to get them to fight, and calls into question whether it was wholly an act of love, including these other aspects.

Q4. What evidence does Riley-Smith use to argue that a theological notion of love underpinned Crusading?

Much of Riley-Smith’s evidence comes from the crusade preachers as well as letters between authorities as well as direct passages and an anonymous twelfth-century poet. Each set of direct evidence that Riley-Smith calls on denotes in some fashion the love of God which then transforms into taking the cross. Riley-Smith highlights the blind devotion of the crusaders as well through passages saying that the crusaders would renounce earthly desires and possessions so as to follow the path of Christ. Concentrating on passages from Christ, Riley-Smith backs up his arguments of devotion and love that the crusaders had as well as their actions when taking the cross.


Asira's thoughts,

I found this weeks readings were not what I was expecting them to be as I had my mind set on crusading as an act of love meaning ‘love’ in a romantic sense. But I was pleasantly surprised to discover it was about faith and devotion to God which reinforced, in my mind, just how important religion was in the Middle Ages. My favourite part of the readings was reading about the Forth Crusade in ‘The Crusades A Reader’ by Allen and Amt. What I liked most about it were how the accounts were written and made me feel as if I was there during the voyage of the crusaders.

5. Discuss the events of the Fourth Crusade, as outlined in the primary sources. Reconstruct the chronology of events for the class.

1198: Pope Innocent III succeeded to the papacy and the aim of his pontificate was the calling of a crusade. Many of the European monarchs ignored his call due to their own struggles.

1199: A crusading army was organised by Count Thibaut of Champagne at a tournament and envoys were sent to Venice and Genoa to arrange transport to Egypt which was the object of the crusade. The doge of Venice opened negotiations and organised transport for 38,000 crusaders and food for nine months all in exchange for a payment of 85,000 silver marks.

1202: Pope Innocent III announced the prohibition of attacks on any Christian state. When the pilgrims arrived in Venice, they were no more than 1,000 knights and 50,000 or 60,000 foot-soldiers. The doge of Venice demanded his payment be made nonetheless for the promised amount and the pilgrims were reduced to extreme poverty while still owing 36,000 marks. That winter the doge proposed the army travel to the city of Zara. He wanted to punish the people because of the evils he accused them of and claimed the pilgrims would find supplies there in plenty for the city was rich. In Zara, on November 11, messengers of the city approached the doge and offered to surrender the city and their property in exchange for their lives. The doge was advised to accept the proposal by the barons and counts but found the messengers gone from his tent when he returned. The plan of surrender was given up by them. Though the people of Zara waved flags in their windows to prove their Christianity, the crusaders attacked the city for five days until the surrender was reoffered. The doge remained in Zara until Easter. When Zara was taken, Pope Innocent III excommunicated the crusaders for defying his prohibition.

1203: The crusaders were too poor to travel further and so Boniface of Montferrat proposed they travel to Constantinople and take provisions there. To do this they helped reinstate the claimant of the Byzantine throne, Alexios IV Angelos, and his father. When the crusaders later went to him to ask for their payment in return for their services, Alexios denied them anything and commanded them to leave his lands. The doge then spoke with the emperor who refused still.

1204 (Sack of Constantinople): The crusaders attacked Constantinople in 1203 but were unsuccessful in their initial attack until 1204 when weather conditions aided the Venetian ships to get closer to the city so they could enter. Alexios and his father both died during the siege. The pilgrims maintained that it was because of their sins they had failed to capture the city or achieve anything, but the bishops and clergy announced their war was a righteous one and they should attack the Greeks. The attack on Constantinople, it is said, was motivated by an age-old cultural and religious antagonism between the Latins and the Greeks based on the ‘Massacre of the Latins’ in 1182. The city was looted and Byzantium’s holy relics were taken. When the crusaders returned to Rome, Pope Innocent III welcomed them home and accepted them back into the Church.

6. Explain why the Fourth Crusade was so controversial, discuss with reference to the various accounts in the primary sources.

The diversion to Constantinople caused much controversy during the time of the Fourth Crusade. When Pope Innocent III heard of the attacks and the conduct of the pilgrims he reprimanded them for their siege on Constantinople and was ashamed. He claimed the crusaders were seeking their own ends and not that of Jesus Christ for whom the crusade was supposed to be dedicated. He admonished them for their sacrilege to the Church by plundering and sullying the holy places. This was the worst of their crimes, wrote Niketas Choniates in his account of the Sack. Many sacred relics and materials, including the altar, were destroyed by the crusaders. They looted, raped and murdered the Greeks and the estimated amount looted was around 900,000 silver marks. However, Pope Innocent’s welcoming of the crusaders on their return to Rome caused much deliberation over whether he was truly outraged, or the journey to Constantinople had been planned all along.

...


Hi everyone,

I just wanted to take a moment with this week's blog post and highlight a couple of links you all may find interesting. 

Firstly, you may wish to check out the online access to an exhibit currently being held at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. It is entitled 'The Romance of the Middle Ages' and I think may be interesting to check out especially as this week in lecture we will be learning all about courtly love and culture during the Middle Ages. Part of my own work involves the study of courtly love so I couldn't resist telling you all about this!

http://medievalromance.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/romance-home 

Exhibition Poster

Secondly, here is a link to the medieval and renaissance courses Monash offers in November-December of every year in Prato, Italy. Clare mentioned them in our last lecture and I've posted the link here for anyone who wishes to find out more information. Who doesn't love Italy right?

http://www.asatours.com.au/cc21212-monash-renaissance-florence/1405-cc21212-monash-florence-overview

http://www.ita.monash.edu/study/non-monash.html

All the best,

Diana