The Scriptorium Article Review VI

[jimkatalanos]

Constantinople: The Sack of 1204

Author: Bulgaroctonus
Original Thread: Constantinople: The Sack of 1204

This very interesting historical article takes us to the dawn of the 13th century, when an unexpected event occurred and surprised many: The First Sack of Constantinople was a fact. The author explains us the background, how the Byzantines put themselves in danger, the traitors, the revolts, the events up to the disaster from which the 800 years -then- old Empire would suffer till its very end. The outcome of the Fourth Crusade, which ended in the Sack, is also given. In the end, Bulgaroctonus, the author, makes his personal analysis on the subject. I really enjoyed and learnt from this article, I hope you will too!



Regards,
Romanos IV

[motiv-8]

As an amateur student of Byzantine history, I am only somewhat impressed by the content of this article, particularly in its great value in displaying contemporary art and architecture. I am, however, quite disappointed at the tired and incorrect interpretation that the event was solely, or even mostly, the result of western greed. The fact is that while the sack in 1204 was the result of a months, even years-long standoff during which the fabric of the Byzantine state was crumbling from the top down, and indeed had been for some twenty years.

Dandalo was an opportunist, to be sure, but the heaviest weight in blame for the sack has to fall squarely upon the two Alexios'; the first for making empty promises which he may or may not have known to be impossible to fulfill, the second for killing the reigning emperor(s) -- one cannot forget the poor Isaac II -- while entirely shunning the Latins, denying them compensation for the loss of their patron (the first Alexios), and allowing fighting with them to go on in his city -- which was the immediate cause for the final assault but goes unmentioned in the article.

As to answering the what-if questions, it is somewhat of a paradox:
What if the Crusaders had not attacked Constantinople, and had actually gone on the Crusade to the holy land?
-- Well, what if the Byzantines had given the Crusaders what they had been promised? Pope Innocent begged Alexios IV to fulfill his promises so the crusade could continue on; the response was that there was no money, while Byzantine soldiers began to fight with Latins.

What if Enrico Dandolo had not been Doge at the time?
-- Considering Dandolo played only a secondary role in this affair, which occurred at the instigation of Alexios and Philip of Swabia, there is not much sense in saying things would have been radically different had a different Doge been in power at the time.

I'm also not too thrilled with Norwich's interpretation of events, not even in his slant in writing about the Byzantines. For a fairer look at what happened, in my opinion, seek out Chapter Twenty-One of Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society. As the historian says on page 666, "Finally, even before the Crusaders came, the empire had been suffering from an unprecedented dash of rebellions, which were both a cause and an effect of its internal decay. Byzantium's own dissensions invited the Crusaders to its capital, and left it at the mercy." It's a mark of powerful writing that, in that one last sentence, a person could so clearly define an accurate general cause of this great historical event.

Regardless of interpretation or disagreements, I thank Bulgaroctonus for bringing this calamitous and vitally important event to the masses and congratulate him for making the front page news in the process.