The Fourth Crusade The Conquest of Constantinople SECOND EDITION Donald E. Queller and Thomas F, Madden With an essay on primary sources by ALFRED J. ANDREA PhiladelphiaBibliography Essay on Primary Sources Alfred J. Andrea The most comprehensive eyewitness account of the Fourth Crusade is Geof fey of Villehardouin’s La conguéte de Constantinople, and consequently any dscusion of that crusade’s sources must begin wich Villehardouin’s chronicle. Without his memoirs, which trace the course of the crusade from Fulk of Neuill’s preaching in 1198 to the death of Boniface of Moneferrat in 1207, oar knowledge of the events that made up the Fourth Crusade would be sverely diminished. Geoffrey, who was about fifty years of age witen he took tie crusade vow in late 1199, had been the marshal of Champagne since 118s. Asthe count of Champagne’s chief logistical officer and frst deputy in all ad rinistrative and military matters, Villehardouin was widely respected for his gpod sense and organizational skis. Despite the fact that he was not a major fendal lord, Villchardouin's experience, maturity, and deserved reputation for suber judgment assured him a place in the second rank of the Fourth Cru: side's leadership and full participation in the councils of the barons where allof the major strategic and tactical decisions were made. In fact, it was Geoffrey who had suggested to the French barons that they offer leadership cf the army to Boniface of Montferrat. Villehardouin’s crusade colleagues sO used Geoffrey that they chose him to serve on a number of critical mis Sons. He was one of the six plenipotentiaries who negotiated the army"s treaty with Venice in 1201. Along with Hugh of Saint Pol, Villeharcouin was sent in the early summer of 1202 t0 Pavia to convince Count Louis of Blois sad large numbers of other French crusaders not to renege on their iment to embark from Venice. On 18 July 1203 Villehardouin functioned as spokesman for the four-man crusader delegation that forced Emperor Isaac II to atify the Treaty of Zara, and in November of that same year he was one of sx crusader envoys chosen for the difficult and! dangerous task of enter ing Blachernae Palace to demand full imperial compliance with the Treaty of Zara and, failing Alexius [V's acknowledgment of his obligation, to defy the emperor formally, chereby initiating a state of war. In brief, as a member of aae 20 Bibliography se erusade’s inner citcle of decision-makers and as one of its major actors, coffee of Villchardouin possessed a knowledge of events unequaled by any ther chronicler of the Fourth Crusade. ‘Several other characteristics also set Villehardouin’s chronicle apart from rost others. In an age whose writers generally exhibited lite regard for uantiative precision, Villehardouin stood almost alone asa reporter whose tumbers had the ring of authenticity. As we might well expect from a man vhose office in Champagne had placed him in charge of all military prepa stions, Geoffrey of Villehardouin had a deep respect for correct facts and gures. When he informs us that, following the fire of 19-20 August 1203, ome 15,000 resident Latins fled Constantinople to take refuge inthe crusader amp, we can be reasonably sure that Villehardoutin had not arbitrarily chosen ome high figure as an artistic means of indicating that a large but indrermi- tate number of refugees had sought shelter in the crusader encampment, A nan who was responsible for mustering armies naturally counted heads and sossessed a good eve for estimating tne size of crowds "A good memory is also a desirable attribute for any successful staff off cer, but even more important is that person's ability to keep and use records When Villehardouin, then marshal of the entire Latin Empire of Constant nople, began to narrate his memoirs sometime prior to his death in 1212/1313, he possibly had access to copies of various official crusade documents, such its teatics, Some historias have maintained that amber of passages in che Congest of Constanzinople appear to have been composed with such docw Hees natorveve cmavenconse hs, at dee that the chronicle’ rich details, which are unmatched by any other account of this crusade, suggest that Villehardoutn used a personal journal or some form of notes as an ad to memory. . Given his position, talents, and acces ro information, Georey of Wil hardouin could and di proudly claim that never knovsingly urtered 3 fs word in this account. A number of scholars, most notably Edmond Ess who has produced the best modern edition of the Congucte de Conant essentially accept Vilehardouin’ sel judgment ay true, Other mode fans, however, are less sanguine when it comes to judging Villehareoh reliability and even his veracity. The reason for their skepticism Is Sm? Villehardouin’s postion within the crusade leadership strongly stBEe= them that his account is biased ro the point of distortion and even cont deliberate flschoods or, atleast, suppressions ofthe whole truth. These ST tics often refer to Villehardouin as the crusade’s “official historian. apes than of them mean he vated oF concealed facts that could damage the SP tations of his colleagues and himself—all of whom, in some manner oF Bibliography 3or had diverted the crusade to Constantinople for their own ends. Other, per- haps more charitable, skeptics simply see him asa dupe, Although he was not srsonally involved in a plot to divert che crusade, he was £00 ingenuous to probe deeply into the factors that drove the army co Constantinople. There- fore, he naively believed that the apparent happenstances that led the army’ to Constantinople constituted a series of totally random “accidents.” when actu- ally darker forces were at work, Asis often the casein such matters, the truth concerning Villehardouin’s reliability asa witness seems to lie somewhere between the extremes. It would be foolish to believe that what we have in this chronicle is pure, unvarnished truth reported by an objective, uninvolved narrator. Such sources do not cxist, At the same time. it is not inconceivable that Villehardouin honestly attempted to render a truthful and fairly complete account of the Fourth Cru- sade and its aftermath, and did a reasonably good job of it, despite blindspots, prejudices, and values that inevitably colored his narrative, as well a sharing the natural tendency of all memoir-writers to conveniently forget or under play embarrassing details. ‘The thesis of Queller and Madiden’s study of the Fourth Crusade is that there was no conspiracy to divert the crusade in order to capture Constanti- nople. If one accepts that conclusion, then Villehardouin is exonerated ofall charges of complicity in some putative plot to cover up the guilt of the cru- sade leadership. He also can no longer be viewed as a simple-minded dupe who was blind to the machinations of his feudal superiors, All ofthis in no way, however, belies what is to me the obvious reality that Villehardouin re- ported and interpreted events from the perspectives of his clas, his culture, and the crusade leadership and that he also, at times, failed to report certain disquieting facts that could place the crusades, and especially the leaders, in a bad light. These unreported events include Boniface of Montferrat’s meeting with Alexius the Younger at Christmas in t20r and the sacking of Constanti- ‘ople’s churches in April of 1204. As one of the architects of the 1201 Treaty of Venice, a treaty that Quel- Jer and Madden point to as the fatal flaw that ultimately led to the erusade’s diversions to Zara and Constantinople, Villehardouin had a natural affinity With the party of the leadership that sought to keep the army together, what- ‘ver the price, and that resisted the party of conscientious recusants that, from Geoffrey's simplistic point of view, was continually working to break 4p the army. Needless to say, his history reflects his “spin” on the events that drove the crusade. From his perspective, the crusade leaders, of which he Was one, acted reasonably and prudently in the face of a series of unforeseen ‘ses, What is more, they acted honorably. Villehardouin was a chevalier, that