THE FOURTH CRUSADE (1202-1204) The history of the fourth crusade is a history of the predomi nance of the lay motive, of the attempt of the papacy to escape from that predominance, and to establish its old direction of the crusade, and of the complete failure of its attempt. Until the accession of Innocent III. in 1198 the lay motive was supreme; and its representative was Henry VI.—the greatest politician of his day, and in many ways the greatest emperor since Charlemagne. In '195 Amalric, the brother of Guy de Lusignan,and his successor in Cyprus, sought the title of king from Henry and did homage; and at the same time Leo of Lesser Armenia, in order to escape from dependence on the Eastern empire, took the same course. Henry thus gained a basis in the Levant; and the death of Saladin in 1193, followed by a civil war between his brother, Malik-al Adil, and his sons for the possession of his dominions, weakened the position of the Mohammedans. As emperor, Henry was eager to resume the imperial crusade which had been stopped by his father's death; and both as Frederick's successor and as heir to the Norman kings of Sicily, who had again and again waged war against the Eastern empire, he had an account to settle with the rulers of Constantinople. The project of a crusade and of an attack on Constantinople wove themselves into a single thread, in a way which very definitely anticipates the fourth crusade of 1202-04. In 1195 Henry took the cross; some time before, he had already sent to Isaac Angelus to demand compen sation for the injuries done to Frederick I., along with the cession of all territories ever conquered by the Norman kings of Sicily, and a fleet to co-operate in the new crusade. In the same year, however, Isaac was dethroned by his brother, Alexius III. ; but Henry married Isaac's daughter Irene to his brother, Philip of Swabia, and thus attempted to give the Hohenstaufen a new title and a valid claim against the usurper Alexius. Thus armed he pushed forward the preparations for the crusade in Germany—a crusade whose first object would have been an attack on Alexius III. ; but in the middle of his preparations he died in Sicily in the autumn of 1197, and the crusade collapsed. Some results were, however, achieved by a body of German crusaders which had sailed in advance of Henry; by its influence Amalric of Cyprus succeeded Henry of Champagne, who died in 1197, as king of Jerusalem, and a vassal of the emperor thus became ruler in the Holy Land; and the Teutonic order, which had begun as a hospital during the siege of Acre (1190-9r), now received its organization. Some of the coast towns, too, were recovered by the German cru saders, especially Beirut; and in 1198 the new king Amalric II. was able to make a truce with Malik-al-Adil for the next five years.
"The true heir of Henry VI.," Ranke has said, "is Innocent III.," and nowhere is this more true than in respect of the crusad ing movement. Throughout the course of his crowded and mag nificent pontificate, Innocent III. made the crusade his ultimate object, and attempted to bring it back to its old religious basis and under the papal direction. By the spring of 1200, owing to Innocent's exertions, a new crusade was progress, especially in France, where Fulk of Neuilly played the part once played by Peter the Hermit. Like the first crusade, the fourth crusade—in its personnel, but not its direction—was a French enterprise; and its leading members were French feudatories like TheobaId of Champagne (who was chosen leader of the crusade), Baldwin of Flanders (the future emperor of Constantinople), and the count of Blois. The objective, which these three original chiefs of the fourth crusade proposed to themselves, was Egypt'. Since 1'63 the importance of acquiring Egypt had been definitely understood ; in the summer of 1192 Richard I. had been advised by his counsel lors that Cairo and not Jerusalem was the true point of attack; and in 1200 there was the additional reason for preferring an 'M. Luchaire, in the volume of his biography of Innocent III. called La Question d'Orient, shows how, in spite of the pope, the fourth crusade was in its very beginnings a lay enterprise. The crusading barons of France chose their own leader and determined their own route, without consulting Innocent.
attack on Egypt, that the truce in the Holy Land between Amalric II. and Malik-al-Adil had still three years to run. It is Egypt therefore—to which, it must be remembered, the centre of Mo hammedan power had now been virtually shifted, and to which motives of trade impelled the Italian towns (since from it they could easily reach the Red sea, and the commerce of the Indian ocean)—which is henceforth the normal goal of the crusades. This is one of the many facts which differentiate the crusades of the 13th from those of the preceding century. But, with Syria in the hands of the Mohammedans, the attack on Egypt must necessarily be directed by sea ; and thus the crusade henceforth becomes—what the third crusade, here as elsewhere the turning point in crusading history, had already in part been—a maritime enterprise. Accordingly, early in 1201, envoys from each of the three chiefs of the fourth crusade (among whom was Villehar douin, the historian of the crusade) came to Venice to negotiate for a passage to Egypt. An agreement was made between the doge and the envoys, by which transport and active help were to be given by Venice in return for 85,000 marks and the cession of half of the conquests made by the crusaders.
(one may suppose) a plan for the diversion of the crusade. Events played into their hands. When the crusaders gathered at Venice in the autumn of 1202, it was found impossible to get together the 85,00o marks promised to Venice. The Venetians— already, perhaps, indoctrinated in the Hohenstaufen plan—indi cated to the leaders a way of meeting the difficulty : they had only to lend their services to the republic for certain ends which it desired to compass, and the debt was settled. The conquest of Zara, a port on the Adriatic claimed by the Venetians from the king of Hungary, was the only object overtly mentioned; but the idea of the expedition to Constantinople was in the air, and the crusaders knew what was ultimately expected. It took time and effort to bring them round to the diversion : the pope—naturally enough—set his face sternly against the project, the more as the usurper, Alexius III., was in negotiation with him in order to win his support against the Hohenstaufen, and Innocent hoped to find, as Alexius promised, a support and a reinforcement for the crusade in an alliance with the Greek empire. But they came round none the less, in spite of Innocent's renewed prohibitions. In Nov. 1202 Zara was taken ; and at Zara the fatal decision was made. The young Alexius joined the army; and in spite of the opposition of stern crusaders like Simon de Montfort, who sailed away ultimately to Palestine, he succeeded by large promises in inducing the army to follow in his train to Constantinople. By the middle of July 1203 Constantinople was reached, the usurper was in flight, and Isaac Angelus was restored to his throne. But when the time came for Alexius to fulfil his promises, the difficulty which had arisen at Venice in the autumn of 1202 repeated it self. Alexius's resources were insufficient, and he had to beg the crusaders to wait at Constantinople for a year in order that he might have time. They waited ; but the closer contact of a pro longed stay only brought into fuller play the essential antipathy of the Greek and the Latin. Continual friction developed at last into the open fire of war; and in March 1204 the crusaders resolved to storm Constantinople, and to divide among themselves the Eastern empire. In April Constantinople was captured ; in May Baldwin of Flanders became the first Latin emperor of Constan tinople. Venice had her own reward; a Venetian, Thomas Moro sini, became patriarch; and the doge of Venice added "a quarter and a half" of the Eastern empire—chiefly the coasts and the islands—to the sphere of his sway. If Venetian cupidity had not originally deflected the crusade (and it was the view of contem porary writers that Venice had committed her first treason against Christianity by diverting the crusade from Egypt in order to get commercial concessions from Malik-al-Adill, yet it had at any rate profited exceedingly from that diversion ; and the Hohen staufen and their protégé Alexius only reaped dust and ashes. For, however Ghibelline might be the original intention, the result was not commensurate with the subtlety of the design, and the power of the pope was rather increased than diminished by the event of the crusade. The crusaders appealed to Innocent to ratify the subjugation of a schismatic people, and the union of the Eastern and Western Churches; and Innocent, dazzled by the magic of the fait accompli, not unwillingly acquiesced. He might soothe himself by reflecting that the basis for the crusade, which he had hoped to find in Alexius III., was still more securely offered by Baldwin ; he could not but feel with pride that he had become "as it were pope and apostolicus of a second world." Yet the result of the fourth crusade was on the whole disastrous both for the papacy and for the crusading movement. The pope had been forced to see the helm of the crusades wrenched from his grasp; and the Albigensian crusade against the heretics of southern France was soon afterwards to show that the example could be followed, and that the land-hunger of the north French baronage could exploit a crusade as successfully as ever did Hohenstaufen policy leagued with Venetian cupidity. The crusade lost its élan when it became a move in a political game. If the third crusade had been directed by the lay power towards the true spiritual end of all crusades, the fourth was directed by the lay power to its 'It is true that in 1208 Venice received commercial concessions from the court of Cairo. But this ex post facto argument is the sole proof of this view ; and it is quite insufficient to prove the accusation.
own lay ends; and the political and commercial motives, which were deeply implicit even in the first crusade, had now become dominantly explicit. In a simpler and more immediate sense, the capture of Constantinople was detrimental to the movement from which it sprang. The precarious empire which had been founded in 1204 drained away all the vigorous adventurers of the West for its support for many years to come, and the Holy Land was starved to feed a land less holy, but equally greedy of men. No basis for the crusades was ever to be found in the Latin empire of the East ; and Innocent, after vainly hoping for the new crusade which was to emerge from Constantinople, was by 1208 compelled to return to the old idea of a crusade proceeding simply and immediately from the West to the East.