I continue assessing the data collected on the Fourth Crusade, especially its diversion to Constantinople and the sack of the Queen of Cities. I began writing notes, groping my way to understanding the events.
Donald E. Queller & Thomas F. Madden's "The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople" traces the whole enterprise from its proclamation by Pope Innocent to the inception of the Latin Empire on the ruins of Byzantium. I accept the author's conclusion that found no clues for the malicious plot on the part of Venetians or Philip of Swabia against the Eastern Roman Empire. I disagree with those who search the Roman emperors to blame for the destruction of their power. Though politicians tend to make erroneous decisions, the diversion of the Crusade was a gamechanger ushering in a vicious circle of crime.
Now, I reread Geoffrey of Villehardoiun's chronicle about the conquest. He seems to be a knowledgeable source for the train of events. We can rely on him for figures, dates, and motives as he seems to base his plot on previous notes.
My guess is that when the barons' envoys arrived in Venice, they had a vague idea about the logistics of the future crusade. They could only present their chivalric enthusiasm and hope that the doge would help them fulfill their dream. Enrico Dandolo talked business. He figured out the size of the fleet required for this outstanding enterprise and picked up the target, Egypt. He also used crusading rhetoric but did not forget about the commercial boost of his hometown, which he hoped to raise to new heights. The inability of crusaders to pay their debts gave the doge enormous power to use the host of warriors as pawns in his geopolitical game.
