What explains the failure of the 4th Crusade? - Section C focus, analysis of modern historian's answers

Interpretations

1. Innocent III

2. Leaders of Crusade (French) - agreeing to go to Zara and diverting

3. Doge and Venetians - commerical interests, always wanted Constantinople, did they intend Egypt

4. Alexius and Byzantines - If had given what he promised them/had been better ruler, Crusaders could move on capture Egypt, successful recapture of Jerusalem..

Theory I - Influence of Innocent III

• Ill thought out plan logstically

• Lack of recruiting powerful secular leadership - lots of counts rather than kings - important due to wealth chivalry numbers feudal system, lack of numbers means can’t afford to pay Venetians leading it off course

• Lack of solid recruitment of numbers - broader popular appeal needed

• Lack of influence in the failure to stop crusade diversion - clear at Zara and beyond that especially Venetians not listening to him, allows Crusade to drift off course

Theory 2 - Non-Venetian leadership

Reliance on Venetians - cost disastrous, forced to go to Zara, then Constantinople, didn’t negotiate realistic deal

Size of forces and lack of ability to build a substantial army

Lack of co-ordination at certain points especially relating to Venice

Lack of a clear leader once Thibault III of Champagne had died, lack of leadership, Bonfiace not as strong

Theory 3 - Venetians

Not the whole crusade leadership to blame but it was Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo

Shaped priorities of crusade to his own priorities - Constantinople as commerical rival, Venetians killed in streets due to East-West tension, Venetians trying to expand into islands owned by Constantinople, great trade relationship with Egypt in selling Christian slaves, source of profit

Proposed attack on Zara, deviating from crusade - also caused many crusaders to leave exacerbating numbers problem

Created divisions in crusading leadership

Theory 4 - Prince Alexius

Crusade could have succeeded if

Hadn’t made outlandish promises to crusaders regarding capture of Constantinople and his assitance - knew he couldn’t uphold, crusade had spent so much time and money supporting him they had to get their money back

Divisions his proposals created in leadership

Pattern of events that eventually led to sack of Constantinople is what truly ended Fourth Crusade

Single Point of Failure?

Failed at Venice? - agreement with Venetians

Flop - no money, no kings, not many people, mercenaries, reliant on Venetians

Failed at Zara? - crusaders leaving but still in existence

If had gone from Zara to Egypt - no Alexius - could have had an impact

Failed at Constantinople?

If Alexius had given what he offered, one of best crusades with Constantinople as firm ally, Byzantine navy, wealth resources finance

Could have gone on after Constantinople - if hadn’t stopped to try and estabish Latin Empire could have gone to Egypt

1205 - Peter C dissolving Crusade

Goal to conquer Egypt - can swap for Jerusalem or use wealth to finance further crusades and expension, 20,000 high quality soldiers would be enough, Muslim world disunited - support from Outremer