The Shroud of Turin?

Robert de Clari, a knight from Picardy, was a member of the Fourth Crusade, and wrote an account [link] of what he saw. Although his knowledge of the motivations of the Crusade's leaders is scant, he offers a "ground level" view of what life was like among the rank and file.

Constantinople was an amazing experience for him, and he writes about several of the marvels he saw there:

And now in yet another part of the city was another marvel. There were two images, cast in copper, in the shape of women, most cunningly wrought and naturally, and exceeding beautiful. And neither of the two was less than twenty feet high. And the one of these images was stretching out her hand toward the West, and there were letters written upon her which said, “From out of the West will come they who shall conquer Constantinople.”

And the other image was stretching out her hand toward an unseemly place and saying, “Thither” (so spoke the image) “shall they be thrust forth again.”

This seems prophetic, since the city was about to be attacked by the Westerners of the Crusade. 

In the northwest part of the city was a suburb called Blachernae. When the Crusaders attacked, they first breached the walls near there and made Blachernae their base. Clari talks about the Church of St. Mary and an object of veneration that was displayed:

But among the rest, there was also another of the minsters, which was called the Church of my Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae, within which was the shroud wherein Our Lord was wrapped. And on every Friday that shroud did raise itself upright, so that the form of Our Lord could clearly be seen. And none knows – neither Greek nor Frank – what became of that shroud when the city was taken.

The italics are mine. Other translations say "was raised upright"; that is, by a human, not elevating itself. Some like to assume that this was the Shroud of Turin, which would make Robert de Clari the only documented witness prior to 1354, when the Shroud was known to be exhibited in a church in Lirey in north-central France. Some historians think it more likely that Clari heard about (he never says that he saw  the weekly raising himself) the sudarium (Latin: "sweat cloth") of Veronica, the cloth she used to wipe Jesus' face as he trudged to Calvary.

Clari wrote in 120 short chapters, and signs off with a very honest statement:

...Robert of Clari, Knight, hath also caused the truth to be put down in writing, how the city was conquered; and albeit he may not have recounted the conquest in as fair a fashion as many a good chronicler would have recounted it, yet hath he at all times recounted the strict truth; and many true things hath he left untold, because, in sooth, he cannot remember them all.

I've never written about the Shroud of Turin. Perhaps I did not want to tackle the question of its "authenticity." At the very least we can look at its journey through history. See you tomorrow.

Placing Blame

Yesterday we looked at Geoffrey de Villehardouin's account of the Fourth Crusade and how he managed to obscure any culpability of his in the major decision-making that took the Crusade in so many wrong directions ethically. Just as he was about to get to the attack of the Crusaders and Venetians on Constantinople, he slows down the pace and reminds the reader of:

...those who sailed from other ports than Venice, and of the ships of Flanders that had sojoumed during the winter at Marseilles, and had all gone over in the summer to the land of Syria; and these were far more in number than the host before Constantinople.

Notice how he lets you know the the group in Constantinople was significantly smaller (so marvel at all they were able to accomplish), and the others group was so much larger (meaning if they had joined up in Venice then the Crusade never would have had the financial difficulties that led to these disasters).

One could argue that the larger group was the Crusade, rather than the smaller group through Venice, since the larger group managed to get to the Holy Land. Geoffrey assures you that their choice was sinful:

...for in that case would Christendom have been for ever exalted. But because of their sins, God would not so have it, for some died of the sickness of the land, and some turned back to their own homes. Nor did they perform any great deeds, or achieve aught of good, in the land overseas.

Geoffrey neglects to mention how many of his own company died from illness or warfare.

And well does this book bear witness, that of those who avoided the host of Venice, there was not one but suffered harm or shame. He therefore must be accounted wise who holds to the better course.

As it turns out, Geoffrey's is not the only account of the Crusade. A knight from Picardy named Robert de Clari was on the Crusade, and his account is understandably different, since he was never part of any high-level meetings and negotiations. He shows no knowledge of (or chooses not to cast blame on) other Crusaders who did not go to Venice. His account is that, upon reaching Venice, they simply did not have enough to pay the Venetians, and the Venetians—who he thought already decided to accompany the Crusade—then decide to ask for the spoils of the adventure to repay the price of the ships.

Robert de Clari also claims that he saw, after the Sack of Constantinople, a cloth that, from his description, sounds like the Shroud of Turin. I want to mention that tomorrow.

Geoffrey's Account

Remember Geoffrey de Villehardouin? He was one of the leaders of the Fourth Crusade who negotiated with Venice to get the Crusaders across the Mediterranean, which turned out to be a bad deal. You could say that it wasn't Geoffrey's fault that a large number of Crusaders took port from Marseilles instead, but let's talk about the other decisions made by Geoffrey and the leaders. Agreeing to attack Zara (for which they were temporarily excommunicated), agreeing to ally themselves with Prince Alexios, agreeing to attack Constantinople—none of these were wise or appropriate for a group who had taken a vow to free the Holy land.

Geoffrey, a literate man who was involved in all the high-level discussions, wrote an account, De la Conquête de Constantinople ("On the Conquest of Constantinople"), in which he shows absolutely no shame for a Crusade attacking a Christian city. He never criticizes the actions of the Crusade leaders. In fact, he stresses that the young Emperor Alexios IV offered them more and wanted them to stay:

Now the term of your departure is nigh, and your fellowship with the Venetians is timed only to last till the feast of St. Michael. And within so short a term I cannot fulfil our covenant. Be it known to you therefore, that, if you abandon me, the Greeks hate me because of you: I shall losemy land, and they will kill me. But now do this thing that I ask of you: remain here till March, and I will entertain your ships for one year from the feast of St. Michael, and bear the cost of the Venetians, and will give you such things as you may stand in need of till Easter. And within that term I shall have placed my land in such case that I cannot lose it again; and your covenant will be fulfilled, for I shall have paid such moneys as are due to you, obtaining them from all mi lands; and I shall be ready also with ships either to go with you myself, or to send others, as I have covenanted; and you will have the summer from end to end in which to carry on the war against the Saracens.

Geoffrey lays the groundwork for the Crusade's delay, and makes Alexios' later ability to pay them a much greater betrayal of their trust in him. When the Crusaders realize that they cannot trust Alexios to make good on his promise, Geoffrey is part of the small embassy that goes to him and demands what is possible, but Geoffrey wants sympathy for his embassy, stressing that they were in danger by speaking to the emperor:

When they got outside the gate, there was not one of them but felt glad at heart; nor is that to be marvelled at, for they had escaped from very great peril, and it held to very little that they were not all killed or taken.

He then breaks off from the narrative about Constantinople to blame others. I'll tell you about that tomorrow.

Constantinople Under Siege

We saw yesterday that hostility between Byzantines and the Fourth Crusade came to a head when the new(est) emperor, Alexios V, ejected all the foreigners from the city and began reinforcing the defenses. The Crusaders of course had brought siege engines with them for use against Saracens in the Holy Land, but they were happy to use them here against a Christian city.

The first assault came on 9 April 1204 on the northwest walls. Unfortunately (for the westerners), the open ground between the shore and the wall left them open to a hail of arrows. That and bad weather made them retreat.

The weather cleared a few days later, so on 12 April the Crusaders attacked again. They managed to knock a few holes in the wall sufficient for knights to crawl through. Meanwhile, Venetians were scaling the walls and encountering the ferocious Varangian Guards. The northwest was the site of the Palace of Blachernae, where the emperors prior to Alexios V had barricaded themselves. The Crusaders used Blachernae as a base. Creating a wall of fire to defend their base got out of hand and started burning down other parts of the city.

Emperor Alexios V fled the city that night. The Crusaders spent three days looting and pillaging. Now we come to the point of the week-long build-up to explain the last paragraph of this post about influences of Italo-Byzantine art. Constantinople was looted of many of its art treasures, which found there way west to reside in and influence Western Europe.

St. Mark's Basilica in Venice became the recipient of a large number of valuable artworks, thanks to Doge Enrico Dandolo commanding them as part of the Crusade's debt to Venice. Bronze horses from the Hippodrome, a sculpture of Four Tetrarchs (confirmed by the broken-off foot being identified in Constantinople), marble reliefs (including of Alexander the Great), and even carved marble pillars taken from Byzantine buildings—these and more found their way to Venice. The Treasury of San Marco (see more here) is full of the spoils of Constantinople.

Icons and other artworks were claimed by Crusaders and became family heirlooms.

Other art was too large to take but had more valuable purposes. Gold, silver, bronze artifacts were melted down for their value in precious metal and to become coins. Contemporary historian Niketas Choniates mentions a bronze statue of a resting Hercules that was so large "it took a cord the size of a man's belt to go round the thumb, and the shin was the size of a man." That and hundreds of bronze statues at the Hippodrome were melted down. So also was a bronze statue of Hera, so large that her head alone needed four oxen to move it. You can see a longer list by Niketas Choniates here.

So what happened afterward to Constantinople? I'm going to turn back to the Western European knight who also wrote a history, Geoffrey de Villehardouin, and talk tomorrow about how history is written by the victors.

Regime Change in Constantinople

We saw yesterday that very early in 1204 Isaac and Alexios were holed up in the Palace of Blachernae against the upset citizenry, who held an election to choose another leader (who did not want anything to do with it, and fled to Hagia Sophia for sanctuary). The two sent a trusted advisor, Alexios Doukas Mourtzouphlos, to seek help from the Crusaders, whom the citizenry were also attacking.

Doukas, who had until recently been imprisoned because he had tried to overthrow Isaac's brother (who had usurped the throne from Isaac in 1195 and blinded and imprisoned Isaac), took on the assignment, but considered a way to satisfy everyone involved—and by everyone, he included himself.

Doukas went to the main palace and approached the Varangian Guards—essentially Vikings who were personal bodyguards for Byzantine Emperors—with bribes. Niketas Choniates wrote that he had help from a eunuch who had access to the treasure, but this was unnecessary, since Doukas after his release from prison was made protovestiarios—"first of the wardrobe"—a position as head of imperial finances.

Doukas made himself Emperor Alexios V. On the night of 27 January, the Varangian Guards arrested Issac and Alexios. Alexios was strangled in prison about a week later, and Isaac, old and feeble already, died around the same time. The previously elected Nicholas Kanabo was brought from Hagia Sophia and offered a position in the new emperor's court, but refused. He fled again to the Hagia Sophia but was dragged from it and killed on its steps. (Having been elected by a majority, he was a "loose thread" that a new emperor could not allow to have a rebellion form around.)

Alexios V met with Doge Enrico Dandolo (the meeting was illustrated by Gustave Doré; see above) to negotiate a resolution to the conflict between the Empire and the Fourth Crusade, but there was no easy solution. The Empire did not have the money even to help itself, never mind pay enormous sums that had been promised by the younger Alexios. The Crusaders insisted that Alexios IV, with whom they had the agreement, be restored to the throne. This demand is probably why Alexios IV was killed, to eliminate any reason for the Crusaders to attempt a coup.

Alexios V confiscated money from the aristocracy (endearing himself to the lower classes but alienating his friends and relatives) in order to begin fortifying the city against the inevitable clash with the Crusading army. The death of Alexios IV was a further sign that Constantinople was not about to deal with the Crusaders in good faith. In March of 1204, all members of the Crusade who had taken up residence in the city were rounded up and expelled. That was the final straw.

The Crusaders drew up battle plans, and then made ready to put them into action. See you next time.

Crusade versus Constantinople

(It would be best to ready yesterday's post to understand where we are.)

So the Fourth Crusade was now in Constantinople, waiting to get support of men and money from Emperor Alexios IV Angelos per their agreement for putting him on the throne (even though they had to coerce his blind emperor father Isaac II to elevate the son).

Emperor Isaac must have been horrified when he discovered the offer made by his son to the Crusade. Isaac knew very well that Constantinople could not provide the 200,000 silver marks on top of 34,000 marks needed to repay a debt to Venice, or the thousands of soldiers promised to join the Crusade. Much of the financial problem was due to Isaac's brother Alexios III, who had usurped the throne in 1195 and fled to Thrace when the Crusaders attacked the city on 18 July 1203. Alexios III had cemented his power after usurpation with lavish bribes, depleting the treasury. When he fled, he took 1000 pounds of gold with him.

Alexios IV scraped together 100,000 silver marks by confiscating church treasures and property of those he considered enemies (supporters of his uncle), and sacking some Thracian towns. By December, however, it was clear that the Crusade was not going to get the support they were promised. Foolishly, Alexios did not even try to placate them further, stating "I will not do any more than I have done."

Meanwhile, the citizens of Constantinople were increasingly annoyed with the overbearing Westerners, and the young emperor who had brought them there and now was proving to be an incompetent ruler. The locals started acting violently toward the Europeans, attacking and killing many. Isaac compounded the problem by spreading rumors that his son kept company with "depraved men." A contemporary historian, Niketas Choniates (c.1155 - 1217) criticized Alexios' childishness, his lavish lifestyle, and his familiarity with the Western outsiders. Alexios, quite foolishly, tried to teach the Crusaders a lesson (and get the citizens on his side) by setting fire to several ships and aiming them at the Venetian fleet. (The illustration is the Venetian fleet at the shore, from a 15th century miniature.)

By January 1204, the citizens of Constantinople had had enough with the Crusaders and with the rulers that were ineffective at dealing with this threat to the city. They wanted a new emperor, and the senate and priests and populace gathered to find one. Anyone who had been paying attention knew the situation was hopeless: the Crusaders would not go away without Alexios' agreement being satisfied, and there was no way to meet their demands. On 27 January 1204 they elected Nicholas Kanabos, a young noble described by Choniates as "gentle by nature, of keen intelligence, and versed in generalship and war". He absolutely refused the authority they wanted to give him and fled to the Hagia Sophia for sanctuary.

Knowing that the citizenry en masse wanted them gone, Isaac and Alexios barricaded themselves in the Palace of Blachernae, one of the imperial residences in the northwestern part of the city. (On the Second Crusade, Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine had been hosted there.) They sent a trusted advisor, Alexios Doukas Mourtzouphlos, to go to the Crusaders and get help. Doukas had tried to overthrow Isaac's usurping uncle and been imprisoned for it. When Isaac was restored, Doukas was released and put in charge of the federal finances. Isaac felt Doukas was a man he could trust.

That was a mistake. Tomorrow the Byzantine intrigue goes on, and includes Vikings!

Going to Constantinople

After attacking Zara at the request of the Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, the members of the Fourth Crusade headed toward Constantinople. Why Constantinople and not the Holy land? After the siege, one of the leaders, Marquis Boniface of Montferrat, had left Zara to visit his cousin, the King of Germany, Philip of Swabia. There he met a Byzantine prince in exile, Alexios Angelos. His father, Isaac II Angelos, had had the throne usurped by Isaac's brother, Alexios III, who had Isaac blinded (rendering him unfit to rule) and imprisoned. Alexios wondered if the Crusaders would help put him on the throne that had been usurped from his father.

Alexios offered 10,000 Byzantine soldiers to join the Crusade if he were made emperor, as well as 500 knights to stay in the Holy land to maintain order. (The sketch above is from the Doge's Palace in Venice, and shows Alexios at Zara requesting aid.) He also offered ships and money to pay off the debt to Venice, as well as having the Greek Orthodox Church accept the pope's authority, and an additional 200,000 silver marks.

This sounded too good to be true...and it was. But at the time it seemed like a deal that could not be passed up. (Not everyone thought this was a good idea: Simon de Montfort, for instance, was opposed. They should have listened to him.)

The Crusader fleet arrived at Constantinople in 1202. The came up to the walls of the city and showed Alexios, telling the people that their rightful ruler had been brought to them. The reaction was less than enthusiastic. The usurper, 50-year-old Alexios III, had ruled well since 1195. The 20-year-old prince Alexios was untried as a ruler. Change for the sake of change did not appeal to the citizens of Constantinople.

The Crusaders were patient, setting up camp and taking their supplies from the countryside, but on 18 July 1203 they lost their patience and attacked Constantinople. Emperor Alexios III, seeing that the invaders were finally serious, fled. When the city gates were opened up the next morning, the Crusaders and Alexios entered to find that the citizens had released Isaac from prison and declared him emperor, even though his blindness disqualified him. They apparently preferred a seasoned politician over the untried youth. The Crusaders, showing a constant disregard for local politics, forced Isaac to declare his son co-emperor, making him Alexios IV Angelos.

So now Alexios had the authority to make good on his promises and reward the Crusaders. That's when the real trouble started.

You may recall that a few days ago I said I would explain one of the sources of Byzantine culture that influenced Italian art, etc. We are getting closer. See you next time.

Attacking Zara

As we saw in yesterday's post, Venice was able to coerce the members of the Fourth Crusade to winter over in Zara (a Dalmatian city now called Zadar and part of Croatia), on the east coast of the Adriatic. Probably unknown to the Crusaders at the time, Venice had an ulterior motive: to lead the Crusaders as an army against Zara. The reason for this requires us to dig into the past.

Zara had asked Venice for help in 998CE; they were being menaced by Narentine pirates, a south Slavic tribe. Venice took advantage of the request by sending a fleet that defeated the pirates and then landed on some of the islands in the Adriatic and took them over. Dalmatia offered little resistance.

The Zaran anti-Venice resistance led to them becoming part of the Byzantine Empire. Meanwhile, the trading power of Venice grew until they became a powerful force in the Adriatic and continued to attack Zara several times during the 1100s. Now, in November 1202, Doge Enrico Dandolo had a large army that owed him a lot of money and accepted his leadership. It was time to strike and subjugate Zara once and for all time.

As Geoffrey de Villehardouin wrote in his account of the Crusade:

On the eve of the feast of Saint Martin, they arrived before Zara in Sclavonia and saw the city fortified with lofty walls and tall towers; you would have sought a finer, stronger, more impressive city in vain. And when the pilgrims saw it they were greatly astounded and said to one another, "How could such a city be taken by force, unless God Himself brought it about?"

The ships landed; siege engines intended to be used against Saracens were unloaded, and Zara was attacked and taken. This was an appalling act: an attack by a Christian Crusading army on a Christian city. It was universally condemned. Pope Innocent III excommunicated all involved and wrote:

Behold your gold has turned into base metal and your silver has almost completely rusted since, departing from the purity of your plan and turning aside from the path onto the impassable road, you have, so to speak, withdrawn your hand from the plough [...] for when [...] you should have hastened to the land flowing with milk and honey, you turned away, going astray in the direction of the desert.

In 1203, however, Innocent undid the excommunication of the non-Venetians in the Crusading army, urging them to complete their mission. Unfortunately, the siege of Zara was simply a foreshadowing of a larger transgression. We will start leading up to that tomorrow.

Controlling the Crusaders

I wrote about Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, 10 years ago here, but let's look at the man who "imprisoned" the Fourth Crusade. Born c.1107, he was 85 when he was elected Doge. His family was very powerful in Venetian society, and the men seemed to live to ripe old ages. This world to Enrico's disadvantage, because his father (Vitale) controlled all the family business until his death in 1174, the sons didn't have much of a public record until then.

One of his first public roles was when Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Comnenos, intending to reclaim Italy as a possession, befriended the Pisa's and Genoese living on Constantinople. Pisa and Genoa were currently enemies of Venice, and the Venetians in Constantinople attacked the Genoese. Manuel responded by having thousands of Venetians in the Empire imprisoned and their goods confiscated. Enrico was part of the retaliatory expedition that failed due to plague. (The enmity between Venice and Constantine would come into play during the Fourth Crusade.)

As Doge, he was involved in the negotiations to have ships ready to ferry the Fourth Crusade from Europe to the Holy Land, as I mentioned yesterday. When only part of the army showed up without all the men and financial resources that hd been arranged, Venice was in a bind: how to recoup the expense of the ship-building they had incurred. based on the promise of payment? The solution was also the solution to another issue: where to house an influx of thousands of people and their equipment.

The temporary housing was resolved by ferrying them all to the island of Lido, a long thin barrier island in the Venetian Lagoon. (The Venice Film Festival takes place there annually in late summer.) Once there, the Crusaders were stuck with no way to leave. Dandolo demanded 85,000 marks in payment. The Crusaders pooled what they had, and came up with 51,000 marks.

Dandolo made an additional offer. Venice would lend the remaining 34,000 marks to the Crusade, so long as it could be paid back by the spoils of the venture. At this point it was late summer, and Enrico had two further suggestions/offers. One was to spend the winter at Zara, cross the Adriatic, and resume the Crusade to the Holy land in the spring weather. This was agreed to, since they relied on the ships and good will of Venice to get to their destination anyway.

The second offer was that Enrico Dandolo, Doge of Venice, aged as he was, would take up the Cross and join them, bring the support of the people of Venice. The offer was made and accepted in a grand ceremony, and in the early days of October 1202, the Crusade departed Venice for the city of Zara to spend the harsher winter months.

The problem on the horizon? Zara was not controlled by Venice. It was a Croatia-Hungary city. Dandolo wanted it subjugated so Venice would have total control over the northern Adriatic, and now he had an army of thousands whom he could coerce to do his bidding. This will turn into the second (but not the last) disaster of the Fourth Crusade. See you tomorrow.

Geoffrey de Villehardouin

The influence of Byzantine art and culture on Italy (especially in the 13th century) was discussed yesterday, and I referred obliquely to a reason for it. The reason for it was the Fourth Crusade. Before we dig further into why the Fourth Crusade produced those influences, however, I want to mention a chief historical source of what happened on that crusade.

His name was Geoffrey de Villehardouin (his seal is to the left), and he lived from about 1150 until c.1213, not too many years after the Fourth Crusade ended. He was a literate French knight, who was made Marshal of Champagne in 1185. In 1199 the Crusade had been called by Pope Innocent III. On 28 November, Count Thibaud III of Champagne called a tournament for his nobles. Also present was Fulk of Neuilly, a preacher who fervently supported the Fourth Crusade.

Thibaud urged all present to "take up the Cross" and join Innocent's Crusade. They did, and chose Thibaud to lead their contingent. Thibaud died in 1201, a few years before the Crusade started; before he died, however, he had appointed Geoffrey and some others to go to Venice and make arrangements for ships to ferry the armies of Western Europe to the Holy Land.

In Venice, Geoffrey and the other envoys made arrangements for hundreds of ships, and predicted when (a few years hence) the armies would arrive over the Alps and reach Venice. He had to deal with the Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, who at the time was well into his 80s but still a shrewd leader. Dandolo was eager for the revenue that would come from the armies of France, etc., bringing their money to pay for their passage.

What Geoffrey could not have known, however, is that all the different groups of armed men and supporters would not follow the same plan. Instead of meeting up in Venice, some chose a different approach. Several of the collected groups that chose to join this Crusade went to Marseilles and commissioned ships there. When The French group of which Geoffrey was a part arrived in Venice, there were too few Crusaders to be able to pay for the three years of ship-building costs incurred by the Venetians.

For Venice and the Crusaders, this seemed like a disaster. For Dandolo, however, it was an opportunity, and he knew just how to exploit it. Step one was to effectively incarcerate the entire army of thousands, and he had a way to do that.

Tomorrow we'll see how the well-intentioned Fourth Crusade went "off the rails."