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

Again, at a point where a co-ordinated action by the Legate and bishops could have set right the direction of the crusade, or at least prevent it from attacking more fellow Christians they opted for a decision which in the most positive light could be described pragmatic. Although their role at this point in the crusade was reactive, they must shoulder a large proportion of the blame. Although as far as the Doge was concerned the role of Capuano and his bishops was merely pastoral, in reality these spiritual advisors had a massive role to play in the direction of the crusade; this was a Christian expedition called by no other authority than the Pope. The host would stumble three times on the course of the crusade; before the attack upon Zara; on Corfu and after the failure of the first attack upon Constantinople. Each time the ecclesiastical representatives would fail to divert the course of the crusade back towards the infidel they had vowed to suppress, instead helping to point the crusade back on a collision course with Byzantium.

In conclusion, the attack upon Constantinople came, as Queller argues, through a series of unfortunate circumstances; notably the overestimation of Crusaders during the negotiations over the treat of Venice. However, it was the exacerbation of these circumstances by the Papal Legate and ecclesiastical representatives which cemented the Crusades collision course against Constantinople. Afflicted by the worst kind of luck from the offset; beaten and bitter; tired and at ends with their Venetian allies, the host and Frankish leaders turned to their clergy in times of trouble. The internal divisions which existed within the crusade meant that a strong stand by the Church would have shattered the little confidence left in the Crusade and resulted in its capitulation.

It could be argued that Innocent was directly responsible for the attack, as he was determined to keep the host together. However, such an argument does not stand up to critical examination. Innocent’s role from the offset of the crusade was completely reactionary, he had practically lost control of the Crusade only 100 miles off the shore of Venice in the attack upon Zara, what chance did he stand of controlling it on its whirlwind campaign to the East? Moreover, it is the Papal Legate Capuano, and his Church representatives who must shoulder much of the blame. Whilst this does not completely exonerate Innocent, as it was his pragmatic attitude after all which they misinterpreted, their role as spiritual advisors on the crusade, mixing amongst the leaders and body of the force placed them in a position of utmost importance due to the spiritual nature of the campaign. Their neglect to make a coherent stand against the decidedly amoral route the crusade was falling into proved critical as the crusade spiraled out of all recognition and climaxed in the death of an ancient and respected Christian empire.