What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople
In April 1204, the armies of Western Christendom wrote another bloodstained chapter in the history of holy war. Two years earlier, aflame with religious zeal, the Fourth Crusade set out to free Jerusalem from the grip of Islam. But after a dramatic series of events, the crusaders turned their weapons against the Christian city of Constantinople, the heart of the Byzantine Empire and the greatest metropolis in the known world. The crusaders spared no one in their savagery: they murdered old and young, they raped women and girls - even nuns - in their frenzy. They also desecrated churches and plundered treasuries, and much of the city was put to the torch. Some contemporaries were delighted: God had approved this punishment of the effeminate, treacherous Greeks; others expressed shock and disgust at this perversion of the crusading ideal. History has judged this as the crusade that went wrong and even today the violence and brutality of the western knights provokes deep ill-feeling towards the Catholic Church.
400 pages, Paperback
First published March 30, 2004
54 people are currently reading
2106 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Phillips
80 books65 followersDr. Jonathan Phillips is Professor of Crusading History in the Department of History, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK. His scholarly contributions to the crusades include the books Defenders of the Holy Land: Relations Between the Latin East and West, 1119-1187, The Crusades, 1095-1197, and most recently, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople. His articles have appeared in a number of British publications including BBC History, History Today, and the Independent. Additionally, he is regularly consulted on radio and television programs as a leading expert on crusades history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews
June 20, 2017
Jonathan Phillips’ The Fourth Crusade garners a 4 Star stamp for relating this convoluted and outrageous history at the turn of the 13th Century with clarity and great war storytelling. The Catholic dictionary defines a crusade as “expeditions undertaken, in fulfillment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.” Well, this crusade got seriously off track right from the start. It never got to the “Holy Places” and wound up attacking only fellow Christian cities. Why? Well, Phillips explains this all pretty clearly. Think of it as the prequel to “The Sopranos”. A bunch of nobles set up a contract with the Venetians to transport and support 37,000+ crusaders to the Holy Land for a 9-month crusade. The price is set at 85,000 silver marks. However, only about 12,000 warriors show up at the docks. Well the Venetians want the full price regardless and when the money isn’t fully paid, they recommend the group go attack an annoying little town on the Adriatic called Zara. Unfortunately the Zarathustrians (or whatever you would call them) are Christian and the Pope said “no, no” to attacking Christian cities. Screw that said the Venetians and Zara was captured and ransacked. The Pope is pissed off and makes the Venetians and crusaders return what they stole.
Along comes this deposed prince from Constantinople and says, “Hey, I’ll give you 200,000 smackers to restore my Dad and me to rule in Byzantium”. Hmmm,…the crusaders can pay off the loan sharks from Venice and also get all the supplies they need to carry on to the real objective, the Holy Land. Just one minor detail, they have to capture the best defended Christian city in the known world. And guess what, they do. The prince and his Dad are made co-rulers and the money starts to flow. However, the Greeks are not happy people, they really don’t like the prince and they really hate the crusaders. After much tussling, the prince and his Dad are deposed again, the crusaders are kicked out of the city and have to capture it again. They do. But now they are so exhausted they can’t hold the city and also go on a crusade at the same time. And the Pope is really pissed off now. In the end, they never actually make it on a crusade.
Phillips tells the story from the initiation of the crusade to the aftermath. After a somewhat tedious start, he tells a fascinating story of this ill-starred adventure. The role of religion in people’s lives and the toughness of the individual, as well as their martial excellence, really come through clearly. How the individual organizes to go off on a crusade, the politics of the times, the military science employed in defending and attacking the cities, the logistics of armies in the medieval era, all are covered well. If you are interested in history, this is a great book to add to your collection.
Along comes this deposed prince from Constantinople and says, “Hey, I’ll give you 200,000 smackers to restore my Dad and me to rule in Byzantium”. Hmmm,…the crusaders can pay off the loan sharks from Venice and also get all the supplies they need to carry on to the real objective, the Holy Land. Just one minor detail, they have to capture the best defended Christian city in the known world. And guess what, they do. The prince and his Dad are made co-rulers and the money starts to flow. However, the Greeks are not happy people, they really don’t like the prince and they really hate the crusaders. After much tussling, the prince and his Dad are deposed again, the crusaders are kicked out of the city and have to capture it again. They do. But now they are so exhausted they can’t hold the city and also go on a crusade at the same time. And the Pope is really pissed off now. In the end, they never actually make it on a crusade.
Phillips tells the story from the initiation of the crusade to the aftermath. After a somewhat tedious start, he tells a fascinating story of this ill-starred adventure. The role of religion in people’s lives and the toughness of the individual, as well as their martial excellence, really come through clearly. How the individual organizes to go off on a crusade, the politics of the times, the military science employed in defending and attacking the cities, the logistics of armies in the medieval era, all are covered well. If you are interested in history, this is a great book to add to your collection.
January 20, 2025
A clearly written, fairly detailed (but not excessively so), account of the convoluted reasoning and deeds behind the Fourth Crusade and the eventual sack of Constantinople in 1204, and massacre of its inhabitants.
June 14, 2016
The 4th Crusade achieved its infamy by being diverted from its original goal of re-taking Jerusalem, thanks to two "targets of opportunity" that intervened: First, the city of Zara on the Adriatic, and Second, the Byzantine Empire and its capital of Constantinople. For the most part, the participants went no farther south.
Jonathan Phillips's The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople shows us in great detail why the business of crusading was fraught with perils. Pope Innocent III started the ball rolling, but once the crusaders had left Venice, he could only bluster and excommunicate. There were no kings in this crusade, only nobles like Boniface of Montserrat and Baldwin of Flanders. (The closest to a king was Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, who was not only in his nineties, but blind.)
The targets of opportunity to which I refer bent the crusade from its aim. When the crusaders contracted for some 35,000 knights and their men to be transported to the Holy Land, the Venetians demanded a price that could not be met -- as only some 12,000 men showed up. So Venice wanted the Crusaders to take the city of Zara, which was now a Hungarian port -- and the Hungarians were Catholics, not infidels.
Second were the extravagant promises of a Greek, Alexius Angelos, whose father was deposed by the current Byzantine emperor Alexius III. He offered to pay extravagant sums if the crusaders put him on the throne of Constantinople -- which they did. It turned out that Alexius was unable to deliver on his promises. So the crusaders took Constantinople and ruled it for sixty years.
So the upshot was that, instead of fighting the wicked Muslims, the 4th Crusade conquered a Catholic city and the center of Eastern Orthodox Christendom.
Jonathan Phillips's The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople shows us in great detail why the business of crusading was fraught with perils. Pope Innocent III started the ball rolling, but once the crusaders had left Venice, he could only bluster and excommunicate. There were no kings in this crusade, only nobles like Boniface of Montserrat and Baldwin of Flanders. (The closest to a king was Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, who was not only in his nineties, but blind.)
The targets of opportunity to which I refer bent the crusade from its aim. When the crusaders contracted for some 35,000 knights and their men to be transported to the Holy Land, the Venetians demanded a price that could not be met -- as only some 12,000 men showed up. So Venice wanted the Crusaders to take the city of Zara, which was now a Hungarian port -- and the Hungarians were Catholics, not infidels.
Second were the extravagant promises of a Greek, Alexius Angelos, whose father was deposed by the current Byzantine emperor Alexius III. He offered to pay extravagant sums if the crusaders put him on the throne of Constantinople -- which they did. It turned out that Alexius was unable to deliver on his promises. So the crusaders took Constantinople and ruled it for sixty years.
So the upshot was that, instead of fighting the wicked Muslims, the 4th Crusade conquered a Catholic city and the center of Eastern Orthodox Christendom.
January 10, 2008
Why is the Fourth Crusade one of the most awesome events in western if not world history? It's because the idiots involved didn't even make it to the Holy Land or any Muslim controlled territory but instead attacked their Christian ally Byzantium and sacked Constantinople, one of the greatest cities in history, to pay off the debt to Venice incurred through the building of the ships for the Crusade. And then they went home. I dare you to name a stupider series of events than that.
March 12, 2024
A very fine history of the Fourth Crusade which will forever push Stephen Runcimann's work onto the back burner were, despite his magisterial prose and wonderful story telling abilities, it belongs as hopeless biased and woefully old fashioned and out-of-date. Mr. Phillips helps us to understand the Crusades in general and why the Fourth Crusade went so drastically wrong. He does not excuse, lessen or attempt to justify anything, rather he makes it possible for those of us who take a secular society and outlook for granted to understand a world were religion suffused and explained everything.
It is fascinating and readable, and for all those, like myself, who already have read and think they know something about this event, it is an eye opener for the understanding that can be gained.
It is fascinating and readable, and for all those, like myself, who already have read and think they know something about this event, it is an eye opener for the understanding that can be gained.
March 2, 2020
My rule, generally, is that for every trashy sci-fi fantasy novel I read, I need to read something intelligent, and smart. This is totally self-imposed, of course, and when I do read something smart, it tends to be a book that is about the middle ages, so it's sort of fantasy adjacent.
The Fourth Crusade is a fascinating period, filled with characters that are themselves extremely interesting. It's a challenge for the writer, to both cover a complex period, and introduce all of these figures without confusing the reader. Phillips pulls it off. He goes through a simple chronological order, covering not only the crusade, but the build up and immediate follow up. Moreover, he threads the needle of an interesting and incisive historical summary, with including fascinating anecdotes to bring in the more casual reader. Definitely check it out.
The Fourth Crusade is a fascinating period, filled with characters that are themselves extremely interesting. It's a challenge for the writer, to both cover a complex period, and introduce all of these figures without confusing the reader. Phillips pulls it off. He goes through a simple chronological order, covering not only the crusade, but the build up and immediate follow up. Moreover, he threads the needle of an interesting and incisive historical summary, with including fascinating anecdotes to bring in the more casual reader. Definitely check it out.
August 29, 2015
One of the best books I've read on the Fourth Crusade. Well-sourced throughout, the author strikes a very good balance between rich and dense historical facts and a narrative that makes it engaging (without reading like the work of a frustrated wannabe novelist).
March 25, 2019
I read this to get more background on this crusade. One of the textbooks I use for my world history class has a series of primary sources from different sides, and I wanted to know more about the crusade itself.
Phillips does a good job of bringing together all of the threads to explain how this whole thing happened. (Actually, his afterword is pretty much all you need--the rest of the book is just more detail and lots of little asides) There's the chivalric culture/honor and the idea of serving your lord, there's the religiosity of the age for the background. The lack of funds and the over-estimation of personnel that makes the treaty with the Venetians so hard to fulfill (and seemingly requiring the sacking of Zara [also a city of Christians] and Constantinople to make up for it). The schism between the Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church. The financial/commercial incentives of the Venetians (and everybody else, let's be honest). The instability within Constantinople itself and its decaying navy/army. The whole thing is a potent stew.
Having said that, the over-arching idea I draw from this is that it was underfunded from the start, which meant that even if the crusaders were in it for the recapturing of the Holy Land and for the religious glory and rewards, once they made a concession to attacking a city (Zara) for money to keep it going, they were compromised and much more likely to make a similar decision for similar reasons. It got easier for the bulk of the force (Phillips points out that many grumbled, if not outright dissented or left) to justify their immediate actions for money, plunder, even food on the grounds that they were trying to get back on track to liberate the Holy Land. The failure of the thing seems like God's retribution in the long run, from Phillips's reading. It took awhile, but the infamy of the Fourth Crusade was well-deserved.
Phillips's writing is weird. He repeatedly does this thing where he mentions something that happens and then jumps backward in time to explain something else that happened. There's a chapter on "Alexius IV's murder and the descent into war": the descent into war happens FIRST and the murder comes at the END of the chapter. Granted, this isn't a spoiler alert, but his chronological oddities are off-putting.
Phillips does a good job of bringing together all of the threads to explain how this whole thing happened. (Actually, his afterword is pretty much all you need--the rest of the book is just more detail and lots of little asides) There's the chivalric culture/honor and the idea of serving your lord, there's the religiosity of the age for the background. The lack of funds and the over-estimation of personnel that makes the treaty with the Venetians so hard to fulfill (and seemingly requiring the sacking of Zara [also a city of Christians] and Constantinople to make up for it). The schism between the Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church. The financial/commercial incentives of the Venetians (and everybody else, let's be honest). The instability within Constantinople itself and its decaying navy/army. The whole thing is a potent stew.
Having said that, the over-arching idea I draw from this is that it was underfunded from the start, which meant that even if the crusaders were in it for the recapturing of the Holy Land and for the religious glory and rewards, once they made a concession to attacking a city (Zara) for money to keep it going, they were compromised and much more likely to make a similar decision for similar reasons. It got easier for the bulk of the force (Phillips points out that many grumbled, if not outright dissented or left) to justify their immediate actions for money, plunder, even food on the grounds that they were trying to get back on track to liberate the Holy Land. The failure of the thing seems like God's retribution in the long run, from Phillips's reading. It took awhile, but the infamy of the Fourth Crusade was well-deserved.
Phillips's writing is weird. He repeatedly does this thing where he mentions something that happens and then jumps backward in time to explain something else that happened. There's a chapter on "Alexius IV's murder and the descent into war": the descent into war happens FIRST and the murder comes at the END of the chapter. Granted, this isn't a spoiler alert, but his chronological oddities are off-putting.
December 5, 2018
A clear, thoughtful and well-researched history of this catastrophe.
Phillips argues that the lack of manpower and financial resources was the main weakness of the crusaders and that their subsequent course stemmed from this. He also contends that a conquest of Constantinople only became a goal after Alexius IV was toppled by Murtzuphlus.
The narrative is strong, engaging and accessible, and Phillips does a great job setting up context, explaining how the ideas behind crusading developed and how confidently the crusaders anticipated success. He ably describes how overconfidence, bad timing, bad judgment and political expediency led the crusaders to a city they never even intended to visit. His writing makes the characters and their surreal twists of fate come to life, and his portrait of the crusaders is nuanced.
Some more analysis of the empire’s weakness, corruption and finances would have been helpful. The book does skim over the military aspects in a somewhat hurried fashion, though, especially in the sections covering the city’s fall. Some more material on Pope Innocent III would also have helped. There are also a few oddities that could have been caught by an editor (the blind doge of Venice at one point breaks into tears “at the sight” of one event, for example)
A solid, well-written and readable work.
Phillips argues that the lack of manpower and financial resources was the main weakness of the crusaders and that their subsequent course stemmed from this. He also contends that a conquest of Constantinople only became a goal after Alexius IV was toppled by Murtzuphlus.
The narrative is strong, engaging and accessible, and Phillips does a great job setting up context, explaining how the ideas behind crusading developed and how confidently the crusaders anticipated success. He ably describes how overconfidence, bad timing, bad judgment and political expediency led the crusaders to a city they never even intended to visit. His writing makes the characters and their surreal twists of fate come to life, and his portrait of the crusaders is nuanced.
Some more analysis of the empire’s weakness, corruption and finances would have been helpful. The book does skim over the military aspects in a somewhat hurried fashion, though, especially in the sections covering the city’s fall. Some more material on Pope Innocent III would also have helped. There are also a few oddities that could have been caught by an editor (the blind doge of Venice at one point breaks into tears “at the sight” of one event, for example)
A solid, well-written and readable work.
March 9, 2008
It's always refreshing to come across a writer who can make history interesting and engaging without dumbing it down.
May 29, 2007
I loved this book! Jonathan Philips describes the events leading up to the Sack of Constantinople with perfect clarity. Supported by a plethora of facts and a clear writing style this book is an excellent account of the Fourth Crusade
April 19, 2019
A fascinating and extremely readable account of this strange misadventure. Phillips uses sources from all sides of the conflict to deftly examine the motivations of the nobles who led the crusade and found themselves trapped in one impossible situation after another; the pope who kicked it off but later railed impotently at the crusaders' attacks on Christian cities; the lesser men who, aiming to 'liberate' Jerusalem, were instead directed against Zara and Constantinople, ripping them to pieces and still feeling cheated of their spoils; and the Byzantine emperors (six of them!) whose poor leadership doomed the Queen of Cities.
Possibly the best 10p I've spent on a book!
Possibly the best 10p I've spent on a book!
April 24, 2024
Thanks Irene!
December 26, 2022
This is how history should be written. A well-written history is always far better than what the best fiction can offer.
July 7, 2009
An honest and concious account of the Fourth Crusade written by a superb historian. Jonathan Phillips explains how an initially Egypt bound expedition goes wrong from the start and ends up taking one of the most splendid cities of Christianity. The seemingly incredible event is broken down and analysed, leaving the reader with the understanding that the Fourth Crusade was an avalanche of unfortunate accidents one after the other, leading to an outcome no one ever could have foreseen.
A crusader army leased a fleet from Venice but fails to bring enough participants to pay off the debt. The crusaders gave what they had, but both they and the Venetians, who halted their normal mercantile business for a year, were on the verge of bankrupcy. To ease the disastrous financial burden, the crusader army tries to muscle Zara, an economic opponent of Venice, into surrender. When Zara is on the brink of surrendering, unrest in the crusader army prevents a bloodless outcome. The pope forbade the attack, and some crusaders tell the inhabitants of Zara that the Franks won't support the Venetians, and so they will only face their small part of the army. In this belief, Zara prepares to hold out. But the crusaders did support the Venetians, feeling honor bound to their outstanding debt. Zara could not withstand the combined force of the crusaders and Venetians. All the loot and money raised from the siege went directly to settling the debt. The crusaders earned no penny, but at least their crusade was back on track, only to be thrown off trail yet again. A young Greek prince offers the crusaders a deal that sounds too good to be true: If they return him and his father to power, he will pay them handsomely projecting the end of the debt, reunite the church of Byzantium with Rome, and support the current crusade by sending Greek soldiers and leasing the Venetian fleet for one more year on his costs. Again the crusaders and Venetians think it will only come down to a mere show of force, presenting the rightfull ruler to his people and rounding up the false regent. But it proved to be more difficult. They eventually succeed in bringing the prince and his father Isaac Angelos back on the throne. But the Byzantine rulers have trouble filling in their promises. To raise money, they mulc their subjects, creating an atmosphere of hatred towards the crusaders. The crusaders demand their rightfull pay and the Byzantines can't gather that sum. It is the same situation as arose in Venice. The crusaders were still broke and the expenses kept mounting with every diversion. When the people of Constantinople turn to full scale rebellion and overthrow the new rulers, the crusaders besiege the city. A small broke and frustrated crusader army attacks Constantinople, and almost by miracle captures it. What follows is a grim and gruesome scene of pillaging, looting, raping and sacking. But with the previous troubles in mind, it is no longer an incredible outcome. The crusaders choose a new emperor from their midst and create the Latin kingdom of Constantinople. The pope who once forbade the crusaders to attack Zara now saw his dream of a united church came true. But the capture of Constantinople diverged crusader energy, and in the end weakened the christian cause. Even when the Greeks recaptured their fair city, they would never recover from the blow dealt that day.
A crusader army leased a fleet from Venice but fails to bring enough participants to pay off the debt. The crusaders gave what they had, but both they and the Venetians, who halted their normal mercantile business for a year, were on the verge of bankrupcy. To ease the disastrous financial burden, the crusader army tries to muscle Zara, an economic opponent of Venice, into surrender. When Zara is on the brink of surrendering, unrest in the crusader army prevents a bloodless outcome. The pope forbade the attack, and some crusaders tell the inhabitants of Zara that the Franks won't support the Venetians, and so they will only face their small part of the army. In this belief, Zara prepares to hold out. But the crusaders did support the Venetians, feeling honor bound to their outstanding debt. Zara could not withstand the combined force of the crusaders and Venetians. All the loot and money raised from the siege went directly to settling the debt. The crusaders earned no penny, but at least their crusade was back on track, only to be thrown off trail yet again. A young Greek prince offers the crusaders a deal that sounds too good to be true: If they return him and his father to power, he will pay them handsomely projecting the end of the debt, reunite the church of Byzantium with Rome, and support the current crusade by sending Greek soldiers and leasing the Venetian fleet for one more year on his costs. Again the crusaders and Venetians think it will only come down to a mere show of force, presenting the rightfull ruler to his people and rounding up the false regent. But it proved to be more difficult. They eventually succeed in bringing the prince and his father Isaac Angelos back on the throne. But the Byzantine rulers have trouble filling in their promises. To raise money, they mulc their subjects, creating an atmosphere of hatred towards the crusaders. The crusaders demand their rightfull pay and the Byzantines can't gather that sum. It is the same situation as arose in Venice. The crusaders were still broke and the expenses kept mounting with every diversion. When the people of Constantinople turn to full scale rebellion and overthrow the new rulers, the crusaders besiege the city. A small broke and frustrated crusader army attacks Constantinople, and almost by miracle captures it. What follows is a grim and gruesome scene of pillaging, looting, raping and sacking. But with the previous troubles in mind, it is no longer an incredible outcome. The crusaders choose a new emperor from their midst and create the Latin kingdom of Constantinople. The pope who once forbade the crusaders to attack Zara now saw his dream of a united church came true. But the capture of Constantinople diverged crusader energy, and in the end weakened the christian cause. Even when the Greeks recaptured their fair city, they would never recover from the blow dealt that day.
September 13, 2011
I made the crucial mistake, while reading this, of listening to the Radio 4 comedy, All The World's A Globe, with the result that every now and then I would discover that I was reading it in the voice of Desmond Olivier Dingle, rendering this epic, tragic tale of the strangest left-turn in history, utterly hilarious.
It does boggle the mind, somewhat, that a holy crusade whose primary intention is to go kill Muslims in the Holy Land ends up off killing Orthodox Christians in Constantinople, but Philips lays it all out for the reader and traces the logic of how an untimely death here, a bit of uneven preaching there, some over-inflated numbers, a massive economic hole that threatens to founder both the crusade and an entire city-state, and a deposed Prince turning up at just the right time with just the right offer, all lead inexorably to the catastrophic downfall of one of the most amazing cities of the medieval world, and an entire empire falls with it.
My dimly remembered knowledge of this particular military foray recalls that most of the blame for the wayward expedition was lain at the feet of the wily Venetians, who built the fleet that was to carry the crusaders to the Levant. Phillips lucidly argues that the only truly naked act of greed and cynicism that the Venetians can be fairly blamed for is the siege of Zara. The leaders of the Crusade vastly overestimated the numbers and ordered ships accordingly, at a huge price. Venice literally stopped all other commercial activity for an entire year to produce the fleet, and when the numbers failed to materialise, were left very much in the same hole as the Crusaders. Even when settled on the shore of the great city, they had no intention of attacking the place: they fully expected the princes' extravagant promises to be honoured, whereupon it would have been hey-ho, off to Jerusalem we go. Circumstances, betrayals, mistrust, coups, murders, sneak attacks and outright hostility followed, and the rest is history.
Its a sad, fascinating story. One has to admire the drive, religious devotion, determination and sheer military skill of the Europeans, if not the use to which they are put. Phillips emphasises the importance of tournaments - wide ranging, sometimes lethal competitive brawls - in training the knights and soldiery of the west, as opposed to the neglected, poorly led and deteriorating Byzantine military forces. Even so, in the end, nothing much is achieved except a lot of dead people, tons of looted treasures, one burnt, wrecked and sacked city, and a lingering bitterness between the Catholic and orthodox churches
Basically.
It does boggle the mind, somewhat, that a holy crusade whose primary intention is to go kill Muslims in the Holy Land ends up off killing Orthodox Christians in Constantinople, but Philips lays it all out for the reader and traces the logic of how an untimely death here, a bit of uneven preaching there, some over-inflated numbers, a massive economic hole that threatens to founder both the crusade and an entire city-state, and a deposed Prince turning up at just the right time with just the right offer, all lead inexorably to the catastrophic downfall of one of the most amazing cities of the medieval world, and an entire empire falls with it.
My dimly remembered knowledge of this particular military foray recalls that most of the blame for the wayward expedition was lain at the feet of the wily Venetians, who built the fleet that was to carry the crusaders to the Levant. Phillips lucidly argues that the only truly naked act of greed and cynicism that the Venetians can be fairly blamed for is the siege of Zara. The leaders of the Crusade vastly overestimated the numbers and ordered ships accordingly, at a huge price. Venice literally stopped all other commercial activity for an entire year to produce the fleet, and when the numbers failed to materialise, were left very much in the same hole as the Crusaders. Even when settled on the shore of the great city, they had no intention of attacking the place: they fully expected the princes' extravagant promises to be honoured, whereupon it would have been hey-ho, off to Jerusalem we go. Circumstances, betrayals, mistrust, coups, murders, sneak attacks and outright hostility followed, and the rest is history.
Its a sad, fascinating story. One has to admire the drive, religious devotion, determination and sheer military skill of the Europeans, if not the use to which they are put. Phillips emphasises the importance of tournaments - wide ranging, sometimes lethal competitive brawls - in training the knights and soldiery of the west, as opposed to the neglected, poorly led and deteriorating Byzantine military forces. Even so, in the end, nothing much is achieved except a lot of dead people, tons of looted treasures, one burnt, wrecked and sacked city, and a lingering bitterness between the Catholic and orthodox churches
Basically.
February 16, 2018
Phillips does an excellent job painting a vivid picture of all parties involved in the Fourth Crusade from Knights and Nobles to Clergymen and commoners as well as the adversities and adversaries they faced along the way. This book can be enjoyed by both an avid historical reader or a novice. Touching on the necessary how’s and who’s, the author is able to present a clear understanding as to the why. Which brings a refreshingly unbiased yet uniquely insightful glimpse as to what took place and why. The details of which are quite enjoyable to read and in some ways eye opening.
March 22, 2010
I have to lavish some praise on this book. I found it to be both extremely approachable for someone wanting to learn about the crusades (even if you have no prior knowledge like myself), but also entertaining and quite educational as well. Over the course of the book, a crusade intending to retake Jerusalem from those dogs in the Middle East (sarcasm intended) gets pushed towards Constantinople (the wealthiest Christian city in existence at the time) and the city's Greek rulers through a series of events. Behind the scenes there is quite a bit of royal intrigue with several different groups of people trying to seize control of the Byzantine empire. When this is combined with the inevitable siege warfare, I felt like I was reading a fantasy novel except everything actually happened. It was also commendable that author describes all of the misdeeds of the "holy warriors" in a neutral manner which shows both what they hoped to achieve and the very bad things they did in pursuit of that goal. I really appreciated the author's ability to seamlessly describe any cultural or social norms around this period. These parts were not only some of the most interesting, but also made me feel like I was learning more than a series of events in history. If you're looking for a book about the crusades or even just medieval times that is approachable and not a huge undertaking, then you should definitely give this one a look.
April 15, 2023
addictiu!
August 1, 2025
*4.53 Stars
Notes: I found this book to be useful for getting to know more about this time period (which was several centuries ago). The content in this novel is detailed in graphic descriptions. Please feel alright enough before reading. Do not read through this book with worse depression.
While I have read nonfiction books previously with larger amounts of knights fighting in them, as well as strategic knight fighting, this novel certainly had that described a lot. I was interested to know more researched content about the Fourth Crusade itself, however its end was not so okay, by far.
Someone has to really read the end of this novel and to do further previous research to know why that is. It’s not something that I’m going to spoil, given that the Fourth Crusade was a darker historical time period, with gruesome fighting. I am adding in trigger warnings for a lot of darker content.
Please do not read through this book (at all), unless someone is emotionally stable. The description format of writing narrative is mostly told in a post-script narration of sieges and battles. Concentration is required past the beginning few chapters, or some sections of this book could not be understood.
I processed what I had learned in this novel enough to be glad that I had found a copy of it. I waited sometime to read through the book, so that I could know somewhat more.
I have studied other written forms of knight history around the year 1200 [through online articles of verifiable sources], so I was okay with the type of darker knight content in this novel. While there is darker content in relation to war and graphic fighting, that is to be expected.
Why this is - this book is focused on darker historical content. I would not look through more than a few chapters, at all, unless someone feels okay enough to.
War history is something that I’ve researched before, for years, so I had no issue with how several lengthier paragraphs were written out in the second half of the book.
I am shortening this review to provide more of a smaller summary on why I could read this story fully. My interest in darker knight history has been more so recently, so I had taken proper time to properly try to understand why there are still very many consequences to battles that were not won.
[This book review was written entirely from my own perspective. I looked at no other book reviews before writing it.]
Notes: I found this book to be useful for getting to know more about this time period (which was several centuries ago). The content in this novel is detailed in graphic descriptions. Please feel alright enough before reading. Do not read through this book with worse depression.
While I have read nonfiction books previously with larger amounts of knights fighting in them, as well as strategic knight fighting, this novel certainly had that described a lot. I was interested to know more researched content about the Fourth Crusade itself, however its end was not so okay, by far.
Someone has to really read the end of this novel and to do further previous research to know why that is. It’s not something that I’m going to spoil, given that the Fourth Crusade was a darker historical time period, with gruesome fighting. I am adding in trigger warnings for a lot of darker content.
Please do not read through this book (at all), unless someone is emotionally stable. The description format of writing narrative is mostly told in a post-script narration of sieges and battles. Concentration is required past the beginning few chapters, or some sections of this book could not be understood.
I processed what I had learned in this novel enough to be glad that I had found a copy of it. I waited sometime to read through the book, so that I could know somewhat more.
I have studied other written forms of knight history around the year 1200 [through online articles of verifiable sources], so I was okay with the type of darker knight content in this novel. While there is darker content in relation to war and graphic fighting, that is to be expected.
Why this is - this book is focused on darker historical content. I would not look through more than a few chapters, at all, unless someone feels okay enough to.
War history is something that I’ve researched before, for years, so I had no issue with how several lengthier paragraphs were written out in the second half of the book.
I am shortening this review to provide more of a smaller summary on why I could read this story fully. My interest in darker knight history has been more so recently, so I had taken proper time to properly try to understand why there are still very many consequences to battles that were not won.
[This book review was written entirely from my own perspective. I looked at no other book reviews before writing it.]
September 29, 2025
A very good, very dense, telling of the Fourth Crusade in the early 1200s. It is obviously very well researched and thoroughly presented. I appreciated the many first person accounts Phillips provides from writings of the actual figures participating in the Crusade, from its leaders to some of the foot soldiers in the journeys and battles. We are provided with deep historical explanations of the reasons that people joined the Crusade and for this Crusade taking the course it did, in which no ever once set foot in the Holy Land it was intended to free from Islamic control, but instead turning its blades and its ships against a Christian city. One is struck by the contingency with which the lives of Constantinople's citizens, who were never thought to be under threat of the Crusaders until the Crusaders realized they had no other option but to take the city or face the humiliation of returning home empty-handed - if they ever made it home at all, were then subjected to the terror of a siege and a fight for their lives.
On a strictly personal level, it took me quite a while to finish this book. In no way do I intend this as a criticism of Phillips's writing or his relation of the story, but I found reading it always made me very drowsy. I believe this was due to the density of the information Phillips packed into his pages I mentioned earlier and not because I found his style or the subject to be boring. It likely didn't help that I read much of it very early in the morning or in the evenings on the commuter bus I take back and forth to work - a time when I'm normally sleeping, and my body probably expected me to continue my routine. In any case, despite how much time it took me to read it, I'm glad that I never gave up on it for something I could finish more quickly.
On a strictly personal level, it took me quite a while to finish this book. In no way do I intend this as a criticism of Phillips's writing or his relation of the story, but I found reading it always made me very drowsy. I believe this was due to the density of the information Phillips packed into his pages I mentioned earlier and not because I found his style or the subject to be boring. It likely didn't help that I read much of it very early in the morning or in the evenings on the commuter bus I take back and forth to work - a time when I'm normally sleeping, and my body probably expected me to continue my routine. In any case, despite how much time it took me to read it, I'm glad that I never gave up on it for something I could finish more quickly.
November 16, 2020
In this usually balanced and highly engaging work, Jonathan Phillips deftly re-tells the almost unbelievable story of the Fourth Crusade. With an eye toward the narrative, Phillips guides the reader through the background, events, and aftermath of the crusade. He provides an exciting, readable, scholarly account for the student or average reader. In this I think he fills a gap between some of the dense crusading scholarship on the one hand and the more shallow, popular works on the other hand.
If there is a thesis to this account, it is essentially that the crusading leadership (Baldwin of Flanders, Boniface of Montferrat, Doge Enrico Dandolo, and others) were convinced in their own minds that the crazy course of events in 1202-1204 were justified for moral, political, and religious reasons. The deal with the Venetians, the capture of Zara, the events at Corfu, the skirmishes at Galata, the siege of Constantinople, the capture and sack of that city, the execution of Alexius V, and the installation of a Latin emperor and Latin patriarch of Constantinople were all necessary steps toward the crusading goal: regaining Christ's patrimony in Jerusalem. These were unexpected steps (or stops) along that way that the crusaders considered to be means to an end.
This book is also balanced in that it exposes the reader to atrocities committed by both Greeks and Latins, and is willing to engage with Byzantine chroniclers as well as Latin eyewitnesses in telling the full story of what happened during the tragic days of 1204.
If there is a thesis to this account, it is essentially that the crusading leadership (Baldwin of Flanders, Boniface of Montferrat, Doge Enrico Dandolo, and others) were convinced in their own minds that the crazy course of events in 1202-1204 were justified for moral, political, and religious reasons. The deal with the Venetians, the capture of Zara, the events at Corfu, the skirmishes at Galata, the siege of Constantinople, the capture and sack of that city, the execution of Alexius V, and the installation of a Latin emperor and Latin patriarch of Constantinople were all necessary steps toward the crusading goal: regaining Christ's patrimony in Jerusalem. These were unexpected steps (or stops) along that way that the crusaders considered to be means to an end.
This book is also balanced in that it exposes the reader to atrocities committed by both Greeks and Latins, and is willing to engage with Byzantine chroniclers as well as Latin eyewitnesses in telling the full story of what happened during the tragic days of 1204.
December 27, 2022
Phillips offers less of an argument and more of a synthesis in The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, but he offers it in clear prose and with a bibliography that's geared towards the casual reader, i.e. he's already done the work and provided translated versions of most of sources. This is by far the most approachable secondary work I've read on any crusade, and by this point I've read quite a few of them, so I think that's particularly commendable. Phillips book spends a significant time providing background for the crusade from Urban II's sermon at Clermont onward, which is helpful. He contextualizes most of the information he provides. I read this as a starting point in my own research, so that's sort of how I'm reviewing it; in terms of providing well-researched, factual reporting it's excellent. I haven't read the other major Fourth Crusade book recommended to me (The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople) so I can't say how it compares, but I really enjoyed this one. I actually slowed down my research because I wanted to spend time absorbing all the information provided, rather than sprinting through and reading only what was relevant to my needs.
June 2, 2023
Why did the Fourth Crusade sack the Christian nation of Byzantium? From reading this book, it appears the number one reason was the animosity between Venice and Byzantium. The Venice forces were led by the blind Doge Enrico Dandolo. Previously, in 1171 the Byzantines had ousted Venice traders from Constantinople in favor of the Genoans. By this time in history, maritime trade was dominated by Venice and Genoa. Prior to the attack on Constantinople, the Doge had arranged for the Crusaders to attack and sack the Christian city of Zara on the Agean coast. Even though Pope Innocent III protested the attack on Zara was successful in 1202 AD. Why did the Crusaders support the Venetians? This was the only way they could pay the Venetians for their assistance transporting the Crusaders. Also, the leaders of the Crusade were able to conceal the papal protests from the regular soldiers. Then the Doge and the Crusaders agreed to support an usurper for the Byzantine throne. This was the pretext for the sack of Constantinople in 1204 AD. When the usurper could not pay Venice and the Crusaders, they took over the city and founded a Latin Empire which lasted until 1261 AD. One could argue this sack of Constantinople so weakened the City that it helped cause the eventual fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 AD.
March 8, 2023
This was a largely straight-to-the-point and readable history of the Fourth Crusade. The author does not get carried away with scholarly rants meant to impress other scholars but instead writes in a manner that keeps the pages turning. He relies largely on eyewitness accounts from the era, and there is only so much to go on. Therefore, he delves a bit further into past crusades and the lives of the crusaders than would be necessary if there was a plethora of information about the Fourth Crusade to fill the pages. But he never strays too far, and everything is relevant.
Phillips does, for some reason, gloss over the atrocities allegedly committed by the crusaders during the sack of Constantinople. I was grateful he didn't overdo it with these horrific details, but they didn't get as much attention as they deserved, either. And as is often the case with authors of history, he seems a bit smitten with the characters he's writing about, despite the fact many of them were bad people who did terrible things.
Overall this book was a well-written and readable book that anybody interested in this area will find good value in.
Phillips does, for some reason, gloss over the atrocities allegedly committed by the crusaders during the sack of Constantinople. I was grateful he didn't overdo it with these horrific details, but they didn't get as much attention as they deserved, either. And as is often the case with authors of history, he seems a bit smitten with the characters he's writing about, despite the fact many of them were bad people who did terrible things.
Overall this book was a well-written and readable book that anybody interested in this area will find good value in.
December 20, 2024
Jonathan Phillips has created a masterful work threading together a huge number of sources - to deliver what must be close to the definitive account of the sorry adventure that was the Fourth Crusade. The account describes the arrogance of church inspired conquerers who felt uninhibited in twisting meanings to serve their avarice and greed. At so many levels the morality is abhorrent. Those in leadership positions, enjoying political favours and hereditary wealth, exploited lesser mortals dependant upon their whims in a vain attempt to save their souls from mortality by murdering others. In the event, these others, were almost entirely other Christians - mostly of cities that were competitors to the Venetians.
May 23, 2023
This was a thoroughly engrossing history of the fourth crusade. It went into great detail about both the political and religious landscape of the time, and provided context for how the crusade started, and eventually became diverted. It was written in a clean style, without a heavy scholarly tone that sometimes bogs down works of this nature. In particular, I really enjoyed the heavy doses of both Latin and Byzantine primary sources sprinkled throughout which provided a view of the attitudes of both the crusaders and the Byzantines.
A great book for anyone who wants to learn more about this historic event.
A great book for anyone who wants to learn more about this historic event.
November 28, 2020
Excellently researched and written account of the Christian destruction of Christian Constantinople. The title of the book is misleading, though. It should have been called "The Crusade That Never Was" or "How Crusaders Established Venice As The Supreme Commercial Power of The 13th Century". There is ample description of the carnage European Christians wrought onto Byzantine Christians but nearly no account of what those Crusaders that actually went to the Levant accomplished or didn't accomplish.
August 4, 2017
I loved this retelling of the infamous Fourth Crusade - what led up to the decision to go to Constantinople instead of Jerusalem, why the crusaders were so brutal to their fellow Christians as the battle concluded, and the aftermath that caused a power vacuum lasting for the next two centuries. I highly recommend it to anyone even remotely interested in what became one of history's greatest sidetracks.
July 12, 2017
This is a gripping historical narrative that sort of resembles a Three Stooges bit in that the crusaders keep fucking up more and more until they're forced to sack Constantinople and it's really the only reasonable course of action. Well-sourced and well-written.
Cumanians only figure at the end of the narrative, but are, as usual, punching far above their weight.
Cumanians only figure at the end of the narrative, but are, as usual, punching far above their weight.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews