What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople
On August 15, 1199, Pope Innocent III called for a renewed effort to deliver Jerusalem from the Infidel, but the Fourth Crusade had a very different outcome from the one he preached. Proceeding no further than Constantinople, the Crusaders sacked the capital of eastern Christendom and installed a Latin ruler on the throne of Byzantium. This revised and expanded edition of The Fourth Crusade gives fresh emphasis to events in Byzantium and the Byzantine response to the actions of the Crusaders. Included in this edition is a chapter on the sack of Constantinople and the election of its Latin emperor.
A History Book Club selection.
A History Book Club selection.
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
2 people are currently reading
150 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
June 11, 2013
For the longest time, I've wondered why no one has ever made a movie about the Fourth Crusade. It seems like such an obvious choice: there's drama, and big and interesting cast of characters, wacky plot turns, palace coups, family drama, and all the knights and medieval-y stuff that movies like. You could probably even shoehorn in a romance without bending historical validity all that much. But reading this book, I think one of the main reasons hit home: the Fourth Crusade is horrible. I mean, sure, there are loads of parts that are rather unintentionally funny in hindsight, and on one level the whole thing reads as a comedy of errors run wild. But at the same time - and on the reality of the thing - the whole escapade is just an absolute disaster, and nearly all of its participants come out really poorly. It would make for a really depressing movie.
If you don't know the story of the Fourth Crusade, you should definitely pick up this book: it's one of those stories that's almost too unbelievable to be true, and Queller & Madden recount it clearly and accessibly, based largely off Memoirs or Chronicle of the Fourth Crusade and the Conquest of Constantinople.If you've got a free weekend, you can probably finish it off in two days or so. It'll be worth your time.
But in brief: around 1200 or so, a group of crusaders took up the cross and made plans to head east: they were initially planning on taking the Egyptian seaport of Alexandria before heading off to try to capture Jerusalem, which had recently been retaken by Saladin. The crusaders entered into a massive contract with maritime powerhouse Venice, who would provide the transport ships and naval power of their own. All went well until the group gathered in Venice in 1202 and all realized the same thing: the crusaders had drastically overestimated the number of people who would show up (medieval people and their terrible number estimations, am I right??). Unable to pay, the French crusaders made it up to the Venetians by making a detour to the Adriatic port city of Zara, which had been drifting in and out of Venetian control, and sacking the city. This was detour number one, and while it was somewhat understandable given the circumstances, still brought down an excommunication on the army from the furious Pope Innocent III.
This was where things got really weird: still rather impoverished and worried about their numbers, the crusaders were met by a rather unexpected visitor: Alexius IV Angelus, a member of the Byzantine royal family whose father Isaac had recently been deposed by his brother (Alexius IV's uncle), helpfully named Alexius III (there are more Alexii later too, don't worry). He promised the crusaders a laundry list of benefits if they'd take him back to Constantinople where he could claim his throne: reunificiation of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, loads of money, troops, and supplies, and assistance in the Holy Land. It reads like something from a medieval fairy tale. Despite widespread distrust of the scheme, most crusaders seem to have genuinely believed that this was the best course: without reinforcements and money, the crusade was likely to fall apart imminently. Better a non-traditional crusade than none at all, especially if it meant the joint forces of Western Christendom and Byzantium heading into Jerusalem together.
Unsurprisingly, it ended poorly. After several sieges and internal coups the crusaders actually managed to install the young Alexius as emperor, but then became deeply enmeshed in Byzantine politics (which were not for the remotely faint of heart). Alexius, pressured by his subjects increasingly backed away from his promises until he was overthrown in a palace coup of his own. Desperate and feeling rather unable to do anything else, the crusaders simply stormed Constantinople, miraculously managed to breach the walls, and just ravaged everything inside. They elected Baldwin of Flanders emperor, and set up the 60-or-so-year Latin Empire. They never made it to Jerusalem.
That's a very bare bones version of story, and Queller and Madden's book does a lovely job of fleshing it out and giving the reader a good idea of how something so nuts could have occurred step by logical step, without resorting to nefarious conspiracy theories. If you're looking for a bad guy, you won't really find it here. No one has evil machinations - most major figures are well-meaning, if perhaps not gifted with a large degree of foresight. My one slight critique of the book is that it occasionally reads a bit like an apology, particularly for Venice, and I think it could be argued that more mistakes were made than is acknowledged. But at the same time I think it's point is largely right - the Fourth Crusade wasn't a conspiracy, it was the consequence of a long string of understandable, if not great, choices.
Two things really stand out: the Fourth Crusade was a story about the failure of oaths and treaties. Everything that goes wrong can be easily traced back to the first botched treaty in Venice; everything after that can be traced back to the vastly over-optimistic promises that resulted in the treaty with Alexius III. This in turn points to another problem: crusading armies were ramshackle affairs, despite attempts to control them from the top. A large part of the problems faced by the army was the simple fact that there was no way to command the entire army to do something - each lord and his following made their own calls, sometimes in reference to suggestions made by the more illustrious lords, sometimes not. Chunks of the group kept splitting off and going their own way, leaving the larger part of the host in often desperate straits.
And sadly, a large part of the problem stemmed from the fact that the crusaders and the Byzantines were divided by a persistent layer of distrust, compounded by pretty substantial cultural and political differences. The crusaders seemed rather terribly naive about Byzantine political custom, the Byzantines seemed rather arrogant and dismissive towards the crusading host.
It's the most interesting crusade story! Go read it!
If you don't know the story of the Fourth Crusade, you should definitely pick up this book: it's one of those stories that's almost too unbelievable to be true, and Queller & Madden recount it clearly and accessibly, based largely off Memoirs or Chronicle of the Fourth Crusade and the Conquest of Constantinople.If you've got a free weekend, you can probably finish it off in two days or so. It'll be worth your time.
But in brief: around 1200 or so, a group of crusaders took up the cross and made plans to head east: they were initially planning on taking the Egyptian seaport of Alexandria before heading off to try to capture Jerusalem, which had recently been retaken by Saladin. The crusaders entered into a massive contract with maritime powerhouse Venice, who would provide the transport ships and naval power of their own. All went well until the group gathered in Venice in 1202 and all realized the same thing: the crusaders had drastically overestimated the number of people who would show up (medieval people and their terrible number estimations, am I right??). Unable to pay, the French crusaders made it up to the Venetians by making a detour to the Adriatic port city of Zara, which had been drifting in and out of Venetian control, and sacking the city. This was detour number one, and while it was somewhat understandable given the circumstances, still brought down an excommunication on the army from the furious Pope Innocent III.
This was where things got really weird: still rather impoverished and worried about their numbers, the crusaders were met by a rather unexpected visitor: Alexius IV Angelus, a member of the Byzantine royal family whose father Isaac had recently been deposed by his brother (Alexius IV's uncle), helpfully named Alexius III (there are more Alexii later too, don't worry). He promised the crusaders a laundry list of benefits if they'd take him back to Constantinople where he could claim his throne: reunificiation of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, loads of money, troops, and supplies, and assistance in the Holy Land. It reads like something from a medieval fairy tale. Despite widespread distrust of the scheme, most crusaders seem to have genuinely believed that this was the best course: without reinforcements and money, the crusade was likely to fall apart imminently. Better a non-traditional crusade than none at all, especially if it meant the joint forces of Western Christendom and Byzantium heading into Jerusalem together.
Unsurprisingly, it ended poorly. After several sieges and internal coups the crusaders actually managed to install the young Alexius as emperor, but then became deeply enmeshed in Byzantine politics (which were not for the remotely faint of heart). Alexius, pressured by his subjects increasingly backed away from his promises until he was overthrown in a palace coup of his own. Desperate and feeling rather unable to do anything else, the crusaders simply stormed Constantinople, miraculously managed to breach the walls, and just ravaged everything inside. They elected Baldwin of Flanders emperor, and set up the 60-or-so-year Latin Empire. They never made it to Jerusalem.
That's a very bare bones version of story, and Queller and Madden's book does a lovely job of fleshing it out and giving the reader a good idea of how something so nuts could have occurred step by logical step, without resorting to nefarious conspiracy theories. If you're looking for a bad guy, you won't really find it here. No one has evil machinations - most major figures are well-meaning, if perhaps not gifted with a large degree of foresight. My one slight critique of the book is that it occasionally reads a bit like an apology, particularly for Venice, and I think it could be argued that more mistakes were made than is acknowledged. But at the same time I think it's point is largely right - the Fourth Crusade wasn't a conspiracy, it was the consequence of a long string of understandable, if not great, choices.
Two things really stand out: the Fourth Crusade was a story about the failure of oaths and treaties. Everything that goes wrong can be easily traced back to the first botched treaty in Venice; everything after that can be traced back to the vastly over-optimistic promises that resulted in the treaty with Alexius III. This in turn points to another problem: crusading armies were ramshackle affairs, despite attempts to control them from the top. A large part of the problems faced by the army was the simple fact that there was no way to command the entire army to do something - each lord and his following made their own calls, sometimes in reference to suggestions made by the more illustrious lords, sometimes not. Chunks of the group kept splitting off and going their own way, leaving the larger part of the host in often desperate straits.
And sadly, a large part of the problem stemmed from the fact that the crusaders and the Byzantines were divided by a persistent layer of distrust, compounded by pretty substantial cultural and political differences. The crusaders seemed rather terribly naive about Byzantine political custom, the Byzantines seemed rather arrogant and dismissive towards the crusading host.
It's the most interesting crusade story! Go read it!
June 10, 2022
An evenhanded, enjoyable and thorough look at the crusade.
The authors look at a lot of different aspects of the crusade, such as social divisions, lodging, finances, and communication. He examines the crusaders’ intense concern over their ability to keep their oaths, and the papacy’s inability to control the crusade. Their points aren't particularly original, but he does expand the context a bit. The authors examine the many decisions and turning points in context as they happen.
The narrative is a little dry, and some of the authors’ judgments may strike some readers as oversimplified, but the book is readable for the most part. A straightforward, thoughtful and balanced work.
The authors look at a lot of different aspects of the crusade, such as social divisions, lodging, finances, and communication. He examines the crusaders’ intense concern over their ability to keep their oaths, and the papacy’s inability to control the crusade. Their points aren't particularly original, but he does expand the context a bit. The authors examine the many decisions and turning points in context as they happen.
The narrative is a little dry, and some of the authors’ judgments may strike some readers as oversimplified, but the book is readable for the most part. A straightforward, thoughtful and balanced work.
May 8, 2015
While perhaps not the most riveting history ever written, with its dense narrative and historiographical focus, "The Fourth Crusade" is a solid read. I appreciated the authors' emphasis on contingency and the "concatenation" of events that led to the sacking of Constantinople - and while I am not well-read enough to say definitively, I doubt they can be accused of not being thorough enough. I'm not sure I would recommend this book for someone who wanted a really engaging account of the Crusade; the authors attempt to add a human-interest element, but somehow manage to remain dry even when discussing court intrigues and massacres. On the other hand, given the choice between dramatic but historically-weak narrative and dull but solid analysis, I prefer the analysis. I just wish there were more histories that combined the drama with historical circumspection.
February 27, 2009
The most shameful act of the late medieval period. Upon reading, you may never forgive Venice.
January 28, 2016
Exceptional history book. Well written and easy to read. Informative and well researched. Highly recommended
March 9, 2011
The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople written by Donald Queller and Thomas Madden provides the reader with a detailed account of the events of the Fourth Crusade. The twists and turns that were taken in order for Pope Innocent III’s call for a crusade to have dissolved into the conquests of two Christian cities, Zara and Constantinople, are examined and discussed. The uncertainty and tensions present among the crusaders are evident. A sentence which summed up the overall themes of the book was “The Fourth Crusade lived and died by its contracts, oaths, and vows.” For Queller and Madden all of the troubles and difficulties that the crusaders faced came down to the Treaty of Venice, and the crusaders inability to uphold their side of the bargain and pay off their debts to the Venetians for the fleet. The estimated numbers agreed upon for the treaty were far more generous than those who actually assembled. The crusader’s were stuck outside Venice, their honor would not allow them to turn back, but a solution was needed if the Venetians were to agree to help them. The economic effects of the crusaders lack of hard money had long lasting consequences, and altered the whole course of the crusade.
Pope Innocent III found out firsthand the difficulties of controlling a crusade army once it was set loose. He wrote letters, threatened excommunication, and withdrew his official legate in attempts to stop the crusaders from disobeying. His words fell on deaf ears; the crusade leaders agreed on a plan, created justifications, and then followed through. With their financial problems threatening to dissolve the army the crusaders accepted the Venetian plan in order to finally move and encourage the troops to remain and not return home. They agreed to attack Zara, and justified it as attacking a rebel state which needed to be restored to its rightful ruler.
Against the will of the pope the crusaders time and time again had their local clergy vocally support their actions and offer reasons for attacking fellow Christians. They ignored and suppressed his letters to keep the common men in the dark. When they set out for Constantinople to seek the promised assistance of Alexius IV if they would help him gain the throne, no one expected to attack the city, much less break through its defenses and put a Latin on the throne. The crusaders only meant to intimidate the usuper, see Alexius crowned and then they expected him to fulfill his promises and aid them in reaching the Holy Land.
The original emperor Alexius III escaped into exile. Then Alexius IV’s father Isaac II was re-declared emperor and Alexius was co-emperor. But since the Latin army camped outside the walls were friends of Alexius he gained more power. Isaac died shortly after his reunion with Alexius. Alexius realized that he could not make good on his promises to the crusaders and Venetians, without completely alienating the Greeks. Eventually he was overthrown by a native high ranking official and the new emperor Alexius V began to rule. He later had the young Alexius killed to stop any rescue attempts by the crusaders. With Alexius IV dead the crusaders felt no remorse for attacking the city and the countryside to “pay themselves” off of the bounty of the Byzantine Empire.
In the end economic factors were major influences on the trials and difficulties faced by the crusaders. The majority of the crusaders never went further east than Constantinople. During the campaign the crusaders twice attacked Constantinople, broke through the defenses, and three times parts of the city burned. Four emperors were crowned; the final Greek emperor escaped the city right after his coronation as the crusaders swept through the city. He established the Nicean Empire which lasted 60 years. The Fourth Crusade forced Latin Christians to attack and kill fellow Christians, ignore the pope, plunder the greatest city in Europe, and set up a Latin Empire in Byzantium. During the sack of Constantinople all the churches and monasteries were cleaned of relics and anything of value, the Hagia Sophia was stripped bare. Once the crusaders had control they elected delegates to choose a new emperor. Baldwin of Flanders gained the most support and a Latin knight was crowned emperor.
Through plundering Zara and Constantinople the crusaders were finally able to pay off their debts, and some of the leaders reaped great material benefits. However for the common soldier who survived the hardships and years of being deterred from Jerusalem the crusade was seen in a very critical light. The common man must have felt disillusioned and guilty from attacking two Chrisitan cities and never once fighting Muslims.
The Fourth Crusade which was initially summoned to aid the defense of the Levant against Muslim forces had a very different outcome from those expected by the pope or even the secular leaders. The initial planning went well and for the first months the crusade seemed to be blessed by good luck. A treaty was signed with Venice, men began mustering and men were confident of success. Economic hardship combined with chivalric honor was the undoing of the crusade and led to its derailment and failure.
Pope Innocent III found out firsthand the difficulties of controlling a crusade army once it was set loose. He wrote letters, threatened excommunication, and withdrew his official legate in attempts to stop the crusaders from disobeying. His words fell on deaf ears; the crusade leaders agreed on a plan, created justifications, and then followed through. With their financial problems threatening to dissolve the army the crusaders accepted the Venetian plan in order to finally move and encourage the troops to remain and not return home. They agreed to attack Zara, and justified it as attacking a rebel state which needed to be restored to its rightful ruler.
Against the will of the pope the crusaders time and time again had their local clergy vocally support their actions and offer reasons for attacking fellow Christians. They ignored and suppressed his letters to keep the common men in the dark. When they set out for Constantinople to seek the promised assistance of Alexius IV if they would help him gain the throne, no one expected to attack the city, much less break through its defenses and put a Latin on the throne. The crusaders only meant to intimidate the usuper, see Alexius crowned and then they expected him to fulfill his promises and aid them in reaching the Holy Land.
The original emperor Alexius III escaped into exile. Then Alexius IV’s father Isaac II was re-declared emperor and Alexius was co-emperor. But since the Latin army camped outside the walls were friends of Alexius he gained more power. Isaac died shortly after his reunion with Alexius. Alexius realized that he could not make good on his promises to the crusaders and Venetians, without completely alienating the Greeks. Eventually he was overthrown by a native high ranking official and the new emperor Alexius V began to rule. He later had the young Alexius killed to stop any rescue attempts by the crusaders. With Alexius IV dead the crusaders felt no remorse for attacking the city and the countryside to “pay themselves” off of the bounty of the Byzantine Empire.
In the end economic factors were major influences on the trials and difficulties faced by the crusaders. The majority of the crusaders never went further east than Constantinople. During the campaign the crusaders twice attacked Constantinople, broke through the defenses, and three times parts of the city burned. Four emperors were crowned; the final Greek emperor escaped the city right after his coronation as the crusaders swept through the city. He established the Nicean Empire which lasted 60 years. The Fourth Crusade forced Latin Christians to attack and kill fellow Christians, ignore the pope, plunder the greatest city in Europe, and set up a Latin Empire in Byzantium. During the sack of Constantinople all the churches and monasteries were cleaned of relics and anything of value, the Hagia Sophia was stripped bare. Once the crusaders had control they elected delegates to choose a new emperor. Baldwin of Flanders gained the most support and a Latin knight was crowned emperor.
Through plundering Zara and Constantinople the crusaders were finally able to pay off their debts, and some of the leaders reaped great material benefits. However for the common soldier who survived the hardships and years of being deterred from Jerusalem the crusade was seen in a very critical light. The common man must have felt disillusioned and guilty from attacking two Chrisitan cities and never once fighting Muslims.
The Fourth Crusade which was initially summoned to aid the defense of the Levant against Muslim forces had a very different outcome from those expected by the pope or even the secular leaders. The initial planning went well and for the first months the crusade seemed to be blessed by good luck. A treaty was signed with Venice, men began mustering and men were confident of success. Economic hardship combined with chivalric honor was the undoing of the crusade and led to its derailment and failure.
January 4, 2019
Incredible book. Very enjoyable. Will re-read and review it often.
Read
December 26, 2019read for grad school
February 2, 2022
A detailed account of one of the most sordid chapters of European and Catholic history.
February 4, 2016
jerry-book (edited)
I finished the Fourth Crusade, The Conquest of Constantinople by Queller and Madden. This is a history of the crusade that went off the tracks and ended up attacking two Christian cities, Zara and Constantinople, instead of recovering Jerusalem. In starting the book I had previously thought the Venetians were the bad guys. I had thought Gandolfo, the Doge of Venice, cynically used the Crusaders to accomplish Venetian goals--overthrow of two Venetian foes namely Zara and Constantinople. Clearly, Gandolfo used the Crusaders to storm Zara on the Adriatic, a thorn in Venetian's hide. But initially the Crusaders were led to Constantinople by Alexius IV, an usurper. Alexius IV made outlandish promises to the Crusaders about funding the Crusade in rerun for their support. This was a promise he could not keep. Even though the Crusaders successfully placed Alexius IV on the throne everything back-fired when Alexius IV could not pay the bill. Alexius IV was seen to be a tool of the Crusaders and was executed. This put the Crusaders in an awkward position. They couldn't pay the Venetians to go to Jerusalem. They seemed stuck at Constantinople without the money to do anything. This crisis resulted in the subsequent sack of Constantinople and a major massacre. In sum, Alexius IV was as bad a culprit as Gandolfo in causing the downfall of Byzantium. Even though Pope Innocent III was one of the most powerful popes of the Middle Ages he totally lost control of this Crusade. Even excommunicating the Venetians did no good.
August 11, 2024
Very detailed, if a bit dry, account of the background, planning, and disastrous execution of the Fourth Crusade. Particularly strong on the question of whether the sack of Constantinople was premeditated or not: Queller and Madden convincingly show that it was the result of woefully poor planning and short-sighted decisions, not a sinister Venetian plot conceived years in advance.
February 25, 2008
The history of this horrific blight on Western history and the loss of Eastern history is much more complicated than surface reviewers would have us believe.
December 28, 2012
Only thing that it was missing that I was interested in was the reaction to the sack of Constantinople by people outside of it to the east (trebizond, seljuqs, ... anyone, really).
April 20, 2024
Read for College Course
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews