To What Extent Was Innocent III Responsible for the Sack of Constantinople

In 1204 Innocent’s crusade had spiralled out of control, first attacking the Christian city of Zara before adopting the young “rightful” emperor Alexius’ cause, and turning ominously towards the capital of eastern orthodox Christianity. There are two main arguments for how this tragic turn of events came to happen. Bartlett argues towards the intrigue theory which is the corruption of a group or groups of individuals which steered the crusade off course towards the tempting prospect of Constantinople. Queller counters this idea, arguing that sack came as the unfortunate result of a series of fateful occurrences.

It has been argued that the signing of the “extortionate” terms imposed by the Venetians in the treaty of Venice was the point at which the crusade became doomed to attack Constantinople; the naive western diplomats conned into signing an agreement which would place them in the pocket and at the mercy of the scurrilous Doge [24]. However, the problematic issue of the treaty was not the projected cost per unit, which was quite modest by contemporary standards [12], but in the severe over-estimation of the number of Crusaders. Interestingly Villehardouin gives no record of any estimation from delegates’ behalf of the number of crusaders who would require transport, however, such an omission, coming from the senior envoy of the expedition highlights the embarrassing overestimation of the Frankish envoys rather than any underhand actions by the Venetians.

It is not believable that the envoys had failed to receive such an estimation from the magnates of the crusade at Compienge or that they would have failed to convey it to the Doge. Moreover, it would have been impossible to have opened negotiations with the Venetians for a fleet of an unspecified size. Queller points out that the treaty contracted by Phillip Augustus with the Genoese in 1190 would have charged only half a mark less per unit of one Knight, two Horses and two Squires for a year’s transportation than the Treaty of Venice and whilst with the Genoese treaty wine was only to be provided for four months, and the performance of the contract was a continuing source of complaint to the French; sources on the Fourth Crusade have only praise for the fleet prepared by Venice [13]. Any fault one can find in the treaty comes consequently as a result of the gross estimation of the Franks rather than any devious actions by the Venetians as suggested by Bartlett.