A Most Dreadful Translatio Imperii:

The Seizure of Byzantiums Destiny by the Latin Empire of Constantinople

and the Consequences of the Fourth Crusade

When Pope Innocent III called for renewed crusade to aid the ailing Kingdom
of Jerusalem, which had only recently suffered a number of reverses thanks to the

incompetence of the King of Jerusalem, Guy de Lusignan, and the political and
military efficacy of the Ayyubid Sultan Saladin, little did he know that he was setting
into motion a campaign that would inadvertently serve only Christendoms myriad
enemies in a most deleterious fashion. The Fourth Crusade crippled the remnants of
the Byzantine Empire in the east which had recently decayed badly under the
neglect of the Angeloi dynasty, and would directly contribute to Constantinoples
eventual seizure by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. Moreover, the sack of
Constantinople in 1204 was a disaster from the point of view of religious unity
between east and west, poisoning irreversibly the already tense relationship
between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Lastly, the foundation of new
crusader states, most prominently the Latin Empire of Constantinople, on the ashes
of Byzantium would actually siphon away the manpower and resources of Europe
from the remaining Latin states of Outremer, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Principality
of Antioch and County of Tripoli. Upon hearing that the crusaders and Venetians
composing the expedition had sacked Constantinople, Pope Innocent III was
enraged he had already warned the crusaders about waging war against their
fellow Christians after the Siege of Zara, threatening the entire crusader army with
excommunication if they shed the blood of their coreligionists rather than fulfilling
their oaths to liberate the Holy Sepulchre and buoy up their Latin brothers and
sisters in the east1. Indeed and as promised, after the sack of Constantinople the
crusaders were excommunicated2 and Pope Innocent III railed furiously against this
military pilgrimage run amok in a letter addressed to the papal legate
accompanying the crusade:

How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks, no matter how severely she
is beset with afflictions and persecutions, return into ecclesiastical
union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen in
the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so
that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As
for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ,
not their own ends, who made their swords, which they were supposed
to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood, they have spared
neither religion, nor age, nor sex. They have committed incest,
adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed
both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid
lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury
and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid
their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more
serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates
from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves.
They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics 3.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the Fourth Crusade, one of the
most momentous events in western history, is a subject of immense controversy
amongst scholars even eight centuries after the fact. Still, Pope Innocent IIIs
assessment of the situation would prove to be eerily astute several respects. It
should be entirely clear, apart from any moralizing or attempting to determine
precisely how bad the Fourth Crusade was in relation to other great atrocities of
history, that the consequences of the Fourth Crusade were, as regards matters

political and religious, grossly deleterious to Christendom as a whole, forever

poisoning relations between the Latins of Western Europe and the Greeks of the
Byzantine Empire, fundamentally changing the nature of the military pilgrimage
that is, crusading and forever altering the distribution of major relics across the
face of Europe, dispersing what had previously been limited to a smaller number of
chief sacred centres.
The political consequences of the Fourth Crusade are perhaps the most easily
ascertained and were the most terrible for medieval Christendom as a series of
polities, nominally, united by a common religion. Most immediately and obviously, a
number of Latin crusader states were founded atop the desolation of the Byzantine
Empire, namely the aforementioned Latin Empire of Constantinople called the
Imperium Romaniae or Empire of Romania by contemporaries, the Kingdom of
Thessalonica, Principality of Achaea, Duchy of Athens and Duchy of the
Archipelago4. These latter crusader states were ostensibly vassals of the Latin
Empire of Constantinople, but with the sole exception of the Kingdom of
Thessalonica, outlived their overlord by two or three centuries. The remnants of the
Byzantine Empire were likewise split into a number of Greek successor states the
Empire of Nicaea, the Empire of Trebizond, and the Despotate of Epirus 5.
Where once there had been some semblance of political unity in Romania,
the land of the Romans, as the territories of the Byzantine Empire were
contemporaneously known, now there was only factionalism and warfare between
the numerous Christian states that had sprung up in the aftermath of the Fourth
Crusade6. Immediately a ferocious competition began between the Latin Empire and
the Greek successor states to claim the legacy of the fallen Byzantine Empire and

meanwhile the Bulgars encroached on the borders of the Latin states from the
north7.
Suddenly the Latin Empire, formerly wrought by the hands of conquerors,
found itself beset on all sides and forced to a defensive footing. This crusader state
whose so-called emperor aspired to take up the legacy of the Eastern Roman Empire
survived only fifty seven years, and during its lifetime the Latin Empire was
chronically short of funds, a function of the dismissal of the Greek bureaucracy by
the transplanted Frankish nobility, and like the crusader states in Outremer, also
found itself perpetually lacking manpower for its armies, particularly in comparison
to its many enemies. This was a perennial problem for the crusader states, whether
in the Latin East, or later on in the Balkans and Baltic, as crusaders generally fulfill
their vows and return home8, assuming they are not slain in battle, or otherwise
along the way. In any case, having restored the Byzantine Empire and returned its
capital to Greek rule, Michael VIII Palaiologos had his revenge against the hated
Latins9. The Venetian quarter of Constantinople was put to the torch, and any
Venetians who had been foolish enough to remain in the city as the tide began to
turn against the Latin Empire were deprived of their property and blinded. Many of
these penniless refugees subsequently died on overcrowded ships fleeing to safer
outposts of Venices colonial empire.
Despite this great victory, and the complete dissolution of the Latin Empire
and eventual subjection of its vassals to Byzantine rule, by the time the Emperor of
Nicaea had retaken Constantinople from the Franks, this struggle had weakened
Greeks and Latins both, and the weakness of the Christian states in the Balkans and
Anatolia paved the way for the rise of the Ottoman Turks in 1299, who would
eventually bring about the final death of the Byzantine Empire. The rest of Europe

hardly escaped unscathed, however, as no sooner had the Ottomans conquered the
remnants of Byzantium than they began to campaign vigorously against more
westerly Christian states. Finally the Ottomans were defeated utterly at the Siege of
Vienna in 1683 by a Polish-Austrian alliance, but between 1453 and 1683 the
Ottoman Empire had been a dire threat to what remained of Christendom all the
same and much of Eastern Europe was lost to their often triumphant armies.
With the end swift approaching for the Byzantine Empire as their Ottoman
foes waxed in strength, a permanent reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox
Churches was one of the principle issues discussed at the Council of Florence,
convoked by Pope Martin V in 1431, in hopes that such a maneuver would induce
the kingdoms and principalities of Western Europe to levy their might for the
assistance of the now vestigial Byzantine Empire 10. Eventually the emperor agreed
to recognize the primacy of the Apostolic See, but just as Pope Innocent III had
predicted, the Byzantines did indeed despise the Western Europeans with a
ferocious, almost irrational, hatred even two centuries after the capitulation of the
Latin Empire of Constantinople. If the recognition of papal primacy was required in
order to gain the aid of the Catholic realms of Western Europe, then much of the
Byzantine population preferred subjugation by the Turks. It made little practical
difference, as during the final decades of the Byzantine Empires existence two
scourges stripped Western Europe of its capacity to engage in any sort of expedition
for the rescue of Byzantium. The first, of course, was the Black Death, and it
coincided at times with the second the Hundred Years War. During previous
crusades, knights from France and England had been amongst the most
enthusiastic participants, but the military strength of both kingdoms was utterly
spent with more immediate concerns for reasons that are obvious. Ironically, among

the Western European states it was only Venice and Genoa that bolstered the
Byzantine defense of Constantinople with substantial contingents, perhaps
perceiving that Ottoman hegemony would not serve the interests of the maritime
republics in the Balkans and Eastern Europe. The French crown only had the victory
in 1453, the same year that the massive armies of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II
besieged Constantinople, battering down the previously inviolate Theodosian Walls
with an immense bombard cast in bronze. Again Constantinople was sacked, with
Ottoman soldiers looting all they could seize from the city and butchering its
inhabitants with as much enthusiasm as any medieval army before them.
Ultimately, as many as 34,000 civilians were massacred or sold into slavery,
according to the estimates of certain scholars 11.
Aside from being politically ruinous, the Fourth Crusade and sack of Constantinople
had tremendous consequences from a religious point of view, and specifically had a
profound impact on the nature of the crusading movement. Popes after Innocent III
became, for whatever reason, far less inclined to call for an iter generalis a
general passage, as a major crusading endeavour was known to contemporaries.
The remainder of the numbered crusades were generally conducted under the
auspices of a particular king or prince, who initiated the endeavour and then took
the cross with the popes blessing of his particular military pilgrimage 12. This was
the case for the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Crusades, spearheaded in the case of
the former two by Saint Louis IX, King of France, and in the latter by Edward I of
England. Amusingly Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, conducted the Sixth Crusade
whilst under the ban of excommunication and ultimately succeeded in temporarily
restoring the city of Jerusalem to the dominion of the Kingdom of Jerusalem,
whereas his successors as kingly crusaders, Louis IX and Edward I, actually failed to

achieve this objective, so critical religiously and symbolically, if not particularly

strategically or politically essential for the survival of the crusader states in
Outremer13.
Perhaps the popes were reluctant to call for another mass expedition because
of the possibility of such an effort being diverted, the dire effects of which were
made all too clear during the ill-fated campaign of the Fourth Crusade. On the other
hand, the whole notion of a pan-Latin crusade had been discredited to no small
degree amongst many Western Europeans after the debacle of the Fourth Crusade,
that is, the events of the sack of Constantinople were controversial at best in the
13th century, and it was not only Pope Innocent III who took umbrage with the
crusaders turning their swords against their Greek coreligionists. Simon de Montfort,
for example, a French nobleman of considerable importance, set out on the Fourth
Crusade accompanying the French contingent and contributing a company of his
own knights and soldiers to the Latin host. However, once it became clear that the
crusade was to be diverted to Constantinople rather than launching an invasion of
Egypt as had originally been planned, he wisely departed before things got too out
of hand14. Later on, during his campaigns in the Albigensian Crusade, he takes great
pains to portray himself in such written documents as are affiliated with his person
as a righteous and legitimate crusader, in stark contrast with the false knights and
slippery Venetians of the Fourth Crusade 15. Of course, despite Simon de Montforts
protestations, in reality the difference between the schismatic Greeks and the
heterodox Cathars was considered to be a rather academic distinction, both were
held to practice doctrinally deviant branches of Christianity by orthodox Latins.
Insofar as the Fourth Crusade directly contributed to the eventual fall of the
Byzantine Empire in 1453, by weakening both Latins and Greeks with fratricidal

internecine strife and paving the way for the conquests of the Ottomans, it also set
the foundations for a fundamental shift in the nature of crusading after the final
siege of Constantinople. As the Ottomans conquered huge swathes of territory in
Eastern Europe, crusaders no longer had to undertake pilgrimages of any great
length to encounter the enemies of the faith. Even before the conquest of
Constantinople, the Ottomans crossed the Bosphorus and annexed most of what
remained of the Byzantine Empires European territories. Crusades certainly did still
happen, and as the popes became progressively more powerful and independent
once again after the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism, which had badly
damaged the papacys prestige and, moreover, harmed its de facto political
authority as well, it came to pass that pan-Latin crusades initiated by the popes
became more common once again. Of course, the fact that the threat of Ottoman
invasion was now much more immediate also undoubtedly helped procure
volunteers for these latter day crusades. These crusades, then, were no longer
military pilgrimages as such, a host of pious Christian warriors travelling to some
holy site in order to liberate it, but rather defensive campaigns coordinated with
strategic as much as spiritual goals in mind. Salient examples here are the Crusade
of Nicopolis in 1396, the Crusade of Varna in 1443-1444, the Battle of Lepanto in
1571 and ultimately the relief of the Siege of Vienna in 1683. All of these campaigns
were conducted ostensibly under the auspices of the papacy, and a plenary
indulgence was extended to the participants of each, although they did not involve
any pilgrimage per se, in contrast to the First Crusade, for example.
Now, the Fourth Crusade also had an odd effect on the distribution of relics
throughout Western Europe. As Pope Innocent III says in the quote above, many
crusaders did indeed seize the treasures of Constantinoples many churches during

the sack, but more importantly, because of the highly unstable political and military
situation within and without the Latin Empire, it came to pass as previously
mentioned, that the Latin Emperors of Constantinople often found themselves in
desperate need of more funds to pay the exorbitant costs of campaigning
constantly against their myriad enemies. Constantinople was nothing if not a
treasure trove of sacred relics, largely taken from churches in the Middle East to
prevent their being despoiled or defiled during the initial wave of Islamic conquests
in the 7th century20. As a result, selling relics to the pious lords and princes of Europe
seemed a natural solution, and this is precisely what several of the Latin Emperors
did. The quintessential example here is the sale of the Crown of Thorns by the Latin
Emperor Baldwin II, to Saint Louis IX, King of France. Having acquired a collection of
major relics, Saint Louis IX commissioned the Sainte-Chappelle in 1242, a Gothic
chapel attached to the Capetian royal palace in Paris 16. The king had purchased the
Crown of Thorns for an immense sum of 135,000 livres, whereas the chapel itself
had cost only 40,000 livres to build18. The construction of the Sainte-Chappelle and
the acquisition of the Crown of Thorns, rendered possible only by the events of the
Fourth Crusade and the foundation of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, marks a
paradigm shift in the nature of sacral sites in Europe and Palestine. Previously a
handful of sacred sites held pride of place for European pilgrims, although of course
many comparatively minor sites existed. These principal shrines were, of course,
Rome, Jerusalem, Santiago de Compostela, and for Orthodox Christians in particular,
Constantinople. After the Fourth Crusade, however, any lord with sufficient means
could procure a major relic if he so desired, so that pious Europeans no longer had
to travel vast distances in order to come into contact with relics of Christs Passion,
for example. If the trek to Jerusalem was too onerous, they could now simply travel

to Paris. This sacral dispersion was no doubt a major factor in Europeans increasing
apathy regarding any attempts to retake Jerusalem by crusade, just as its sacral
centrality had been a matter of great import in the desire to liberate the city in
1095, as Pope Urban II was preaching the First Crusade at Clermont.
In conclusion, then, the Fourth Crusade was a disaster in every conceivable
way. In effect it had a severe and extremely long-lasting, or permanent, impact on
both political and religious elements of medieval life, from the most westerly
corners of Europe to the Balkans and beyond. The changes wrought by the Fourth
Crusade could not possibly have been predicted by the architects of the Latin
Empire of Constantinople, and the tangible territorial shifts that took place in the
aftermath of the sack of Constantinople lasted only a few short decades, but the
intangible forces set in motion by that tragic campaign would be felt in Christendom
for centuries beyond the fall of the Latin Empire, and these forces worked almost
universally to the detriment of Europe.

Notes
1. Madden, Thomas F. "The Venetian Version of the Fourth Crusade: Memory and the
Conquest of
Constantinople in Medieval Venice." Speculum 87, no. 2 (2012): 314.
2. Ibid., 315.
3. "Pope Innocent III: Reprimand of Papal Legate." Pope Innocent III to Peter,
Cardinal Priest of the Title
of St. Marcellus, Legate of the Apostolic See. July 12, 1204.
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1204innocent.asp.
4. Nicol, Donald MacGillivray. Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and
Cultural Relations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988: 149.
5. Ibid., 151.
6. Ibid., 151.
7. Ibid., 152.

8. Madden, Thomas F. "Vows and Contracts in the Fourth Crusade: The Treaty of
Zara and the Attack on
Constantinople in 1204." The International History Review 15, no. 3 (August
1993): 441-68.
9. Nicol, Donald M. The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453. Cambridge: Camb.
U. P., 1993: 35.
10. Cross, F. L., and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church. London:
Oxford University Press, 1974.
11. Mansel, Philip. Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924. St.
Martin's Griffin, 1988.
12. Madden, Vows and Contracts, 467.
13. McKitterick, Rosamond. "Welfs, Hohenstaufen and Habsburgs." In The New
Cambridge Medieval
History, 381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
14. Madden, Thomas F. "Outside and Inside the Fourth Crusade." The International
History Review 17,
no. 4 (1995): 739.
15. Ibid., 739.
16. Cohen, Meredith. "An Indulgence for the Visitor: The Public at the SainteChapelle of Paris."
Speculum 83, no. 4 (2008): 840-83.

Bibliography
Cohen, Meredith. "An Indulgence for the Visitor: The Public at the Sainte-Chapelle of
Paris." Speculum
83, no. 4 (2008): 840-83.
Cross, F. L., and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church. London: Oxford

University Press, 1974.

"Pope Innocent III: Reprimand of Papal Legate." Pope Innocent III to Peter, Cardinal
Priest of the Title of
St. Marcellus, Legate of the Apostolic See. July 12, 1204.
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1204innocent.asp.
Madden, Thomas F. "Vows and Contracts in the Fourth Crusade: The Treaty of Zara
and the Attack on
Constantinople in 1204." The International History Review 15, no. 3 (August
1993): 441-68.
Madden, Thomas F. "Outside and Inside the Fourth Crusade." The International
History Review 17, no. 4
(1995): 726-43.
Madden, Thomas F. "The Venetian Version of the Fourth Crusade: Memory and the
Conquest of
Constantinople in Medieval Venice." Speculum 87, no. 2 (2012): 311-44.
Mansel, Philip. Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924. St. Martin's
Griffin, 1988.
McKitterick, Rosamond. "Welfs, Hohenstaufen and Habsburgs." In The New
Cambridge Medieval History,
381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995

Nicol, Donald MacGillivray. Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and

Cultural Relations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Nicol, Donald M. The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453. Cambridge: Camb. U.
P., 1993.

Bibliography