Crusades · CHAPTER 8 ·
Fourth Crusade
Chapter 8 of The Crusades, 1095–1291: “The Fourth Crusade — The Wrong Ending”
The Fourth Crusade ordered a Venetian fleet for twice the army that gathered and, unable to pay, stormed the Catholic city of Zara for Venice in 1202. A deposed Byzantine prince then promised money for his restoration; when he could not deliver, the crusaders sacked Constantinople in April 1204.
Chapter 8 is included with every paid plan. WW2 is free in full, and chapter 1 of every atlas is free. A free account opens 3 more chapters a day. Starter, at $9 a month, opens all 21 with no daily limit — see the plans.
The map above is the world of The Crusades, 1204 — The Latin Empire over Byzantium.
Every state on the map that year: The world in 1200 · Europe in 1200.
Part of IB History: The Crusades →
SHORT EXPLANATION
The Fourth Crusade intended to attack Egypt, but first it needed ships. Its leaders ordered a fleet from Venice for roughly twice as many men as actually gathered and could not pay for it. In 1202 they attacked the Catholic city of Zara to reduce their debt to Venice, incurring excommunication. A Byzantine prince then offered money and support if they would restore him to power.
The crusaders installed the prince at Constantinople, but he could not fulfill his promises and lost his position. The indebted expedition now faced a hostile city. In 1204 it stormed and sacked Constantinople, establishing a Latin Empire. Financial pressure and successive political choices explain the route to that catastrophe without requiring a Venetian plan for the sack from the beginning.
The full story
The Fourth Crusade was supposed to strike Egypt. Saladin had drawn on its resources, and Richard had identified it as a key to securing Jerusalem. To reach it, the leaders made a contract at Venice in 1201 for a fleet large enough to carry far more men than eventually assembled. Venice built the ships and suspended much of its ordinary commerce for the undertaking. When the smaller army arrived, it could not pay the agreed price; without the fleet, it could not sail. Venice had both a substantial claim and power over the expedition’s next move.
The first solution took the crusaders away from Egypt. In 1202 they agreed to attack Zara for Venice in return for a reduction of the debt. Zara was a Catholic city, and the attack brought excommunication. The expedition had found a way to continue, but it had done so by using its weapons against fellow Christians and remained dependent on its creditor.
A Byzantine prince, Alexios, offered an attractive way out. Restore him to the throne at Constantinople, he promised, and he would provide money, troops for the campaign in Egypt and union of the Greek Church with Rome. The leaders could see how each promise served their purposes: the money could pay Venice, the troops could strengthen the Egyptian expedition, and church union gave the detour a religious end. They sailed east and installed him.
The bargain depended on Alexios obtaining the resources he had promised. His efforts to do so provoked hostility in the city, and his position collapsed. The crusaders were now outside a hostile capital, still in debt and with no easy way home. On 12–13 April 1204 they stormed Constantinople. For three days they killed, stole and destroyed, plundering churches and homes in one of the great Christian cities of the age.
The sequence matters because each decision changed the circumstances of the next. The debt made service at Zara attractive; Alexios’s offer appeared to make the original campaign possible again. His failure left the leaders confronting a different set of choices, and they chose to attack the capital. These pressures explain how the expedition arrived there without excusing the violence or requiring a Venetian plot from the outset. A Latin Empire replaced Byzantine rule until 1261, less than two generations, leaving a fragmented political landscape rather than a recovered Jerusalem.
FULL EXPLANATION
How Debt Changed the Route
Venice had committed ships and set aside much of its ordinary commerce to meet the crusaders’ contract. Too few men arrived to pay for the fleet, and the army could not sail by itself. At Zara, military service offered a way to reduce the debt. But the attack on a Catholic city also brought excommunication; the crusaders who stayed still needed Venice and still had to find a way to continue. Alexios’s proposal seemed to answer several difficulties at once. His payment could settle the debt, his troops could assist the campaign against Egypt, and church union offered a religious purpose for intervening. Historians call such a sequence path dependence: earlier decisions alter the choices available later. The idea does not mean the sack was inevitable. It helps explain how an outcome need not have been planned at the beginning while directing attention to the decisions for which leaders remained responsible.
Why 1204 Lasted in Memory
The quarrel between Latin and Greek Christians was older than the Fourth Crusade. Doctrine, authority and ritual divided them, and their communities had already experienced violence. In 1204 that history acquired a devastating new episode: churches were looted, relics taken, inhabitants killed or assaulted, and Byzantine territory divided among the victors. Even Western eyewitnesses who defended the expedition described greed and sacrilege. The Byzantines retook Constantinople in 1261, but the recovery of the capital did not restore their empire’s former territory and resources. Nearly two and a half centuries separated the sack from the Ottoman conquest of 1453, and many forces contributed to that later outcome. Still, the sack fragmented and gravely weakened Byzantium. Its memory also made reconciliation between Catholic and Orthodox churches harder, as material losses and remembered betrayal reinforced mistrust for generations.
Key places on the map
On this day
Why it happened
The Venetian debt. The leaders contracted for a fleet larger than the crusade that assembled could afford. They needed Venice’s ships but could not pay the agreed price. Service against Zara reduced the debt and allowed the expedition to proceed; the same financial mistake shaped later choices without making those choices inevitable.
A Byzantine succession crisis. A feud within the Angelos dynasty offered the indebted crusaders a role in Byzantine politics. Alexios promised money and military help if they put him on the throne. For leaders trying to satisfy Venice and reach Egypt, the bargain appeared to solve several problems together.
A century of Latin contempt for the Greeks. Relations between Latin and Greek Christians had deteriorated during the First and Second Crusades, including disputes over Antioch. By 1204, contempt for Greeks called “schismatic” made an attack on fellow Christians easier to contemplate and defend. Those earlier disputes did not by themselves cause the sack, but they supplied a language in which it could be rationalized.
THE TURNING POINT
The pretender’s bargain, 1203. The leaders accepted Alexios’s offer in 1203 and sent the fleet toward Constantinople. His promised money, troops and church union made the diversion seem useful to the crusade. When his position collapsed without those promises being fulfilled, the expedition faced a confrontation it had not resolved by installing him. The later assault still required a further decision.
What it changed
Byzantium fatally weakened. The map shows the Byzantines recovering Constantinople in 1261. They returned to a fragmented and weakened empire, however. The losses of 1204 became part of a longer decline; many forces contributed to the eventual Ottoman conquest in 1453.
A fragile Latin Empire. The Latin Empire was fragile and lasted less than two generations. Its conquest left a divided landscape of Latin, Greek and Bulgarian powers. The brief blue over Byzantium on the map marks a new regime around Constantinople, not the completion of the campaign against Egypt.
The schism made permanent. The bargain with Alexios had promised church union. The sack instead added a lasting memory of violence to the older doctrinal disputes between Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Eight centuries later that memory remains part of relations between the churches and has made reconciliation harder.
DISCUSSION QUESTION — Was the sack of Constantinople a Venetian conspiracy or a chain of accidents?
A chain of choices under changing pressures explains the sack better than a Venetian plan for it from the outset. The proposed “Venetian plot” holds that the doge meant to direct the expedition against a commercial rival. But the oversized fleet, the debt, the attack on Zara and the arrival of Alexios each changed the leaders’ circumstances; their sequence does not itself show that the doge planned it in advance. Debt gave the crusaders a reason to attack Zara. Alexios then appeared to offer payment and a route back to the campaign in Egypt. After his failure, they faced a hostile city. At each stage they still made choices, including the decisions to attack Zara and Constantinople. Long-standing Latin contempt for Greeks helped make the latter violence easier to justify. Improvisation and self-interest explain the route without removing responsibility for the sack.
An interesting fact
Doge Enrico Dandolo, the Venetian leader, was blind and very old; the original account describes him as in his nineties. Geoffrey of Villehardouin, a crusade leader and partisan eyewitness, describes him armed at the prow of his galley beneath the banner of St Mark, demanding to be put ashore first beneath Constantinople’s sea walls. Dandolo died in 1205 and was buried in Hagia Sophia, the great church his crusade had plundered. A marker in its gallery floor still bears his name, long after the Latin Empire disappeared.
Related
THE FREE PRINTABLE STUDY GUIDE
Get the printable study guide for The Crusades free. I’ll send you a few short letters, then one when a new atlas opens. That’s all. — Paul
NO TRACKING · YOUR ADDRESS IS USED FOR THE DISPATCH AND NOTHING ELSE · UNSUBSCRIBE ANYTIME