Byzantine Betrayal

I have always laughed at the notion of unbiased historians. History itself is biased. Depending on your nationality William Wallace is either a hero or a rebel. I have studied the relations between the Crusaders and The Byzantines for some time. I confess that I naturally ascribe to the European viewpoint because I am European. However, I was willing to give the Byzantines a chance to tell their side of history. Unfortunately, the more I read the more I am convinced the crusaders were correct and that the Byzantines were betrayers and even bedeviled!

Here is the sharp contrast of character and convictions. The Crusaders believed they were the "soldiers of Christ", that they had been commissioned by their Savior to go on crusade for the salvation of their souls and to liberate foreign Christians. The Byzantines in contrast believe in self interest. The Emperor of Byzantium believe in pushing his rights as "Emperor of All Christians" and protecting the Byzantine Territories above all alliances. The Latin Christians believed that your word or oath was your bond and that if you broke it you must suffer consequences; examples death, imprisonment, and a shattered reputation. The Byzantines in contrast were duplicitous and actually broke their word as a matter of policy. If a treaty or contract made with the crusaders interrupted the two golden rules: asserting imperial authority and protecting imperial lands, then that word was broken and often rewarded.

The value system of the Latins and Byzantines were starkly opposite. A Latin if he failed at his post or duty was shamed and would have to preform acts to either redeem his reputation or risk a shatter reputation that would haunt him all his life. Honor was almost a cult in itself via Chivalry for the crusaders. The Byzantines actually rewarded failure. When Taticus (Tatikios) who was a general (spy) of Alexius I during the First Crusade was ordered by the Crusading Princes to flee back to Constantinople; He returned to Alexios in pomp and received new titles and wealth despite his failure. Incompetency among the Crusaders was treated as sinful, incompetency among the Byzantines was treated as something to celebrate.

It is fair to say that politically the Byzantines were very self interested. While this did well to preserve their empire, it was in no way Christian. The Byzantine emperors from Alexios to Manuel promised to help the Crusaders and went back on their word and even made alliances with the Turks and later the Ayyubids. In fact, during the First Crusade Alexius warned the Turks that the Crusaders were heading for Edessa and Antioch while providing armies to help the Crusaders take back those very lands! How can this be interpreted as anything other than duplicity? Granted the decision only helped the Byzantines; if the Crusaders won they would claim those lands by imperial right, if they lost they would be on good terms with the Turks because they warned them of the Crusaders invasion. The Byzantines were playing both sides for their own gains. Imperially this is smart, but religiously is it suicide. The Byzantines claim an ancient pedigree back to St. Peter and St. Paul. The Romans or Latins claim the same as part of the former Western Roman Empire. The difference however was in piety. The Latins were vey concerned about the state of their souls; hence the crusading movement under the Reformed Papacy being an answer for the knightly class' problem of having a career of murder and being a Christian. The Byzantines in contrast seemed more concerned about relics and religious rites than actually practicing Christian virtues.

The Byzantines were shrewd politicians who knew the stratagems to play their enemies; even the Latins against each other. The Byzantines had ligitament reasons to be suspicious of the Crusaders, but their tactics were cruel and calculated. If the Crusaders were victorious they took the credit, if they failed they rejoiced that a Western Threat collapsed. In fact, the Crusaders would fare better once they made alliances with Muslims especially during the rise of Saladin and Ayyubid dynasty.

My words may be biased, but my emotion is genuine. I find the Byzantine's self interest realistic but not Christian. If they had ever read Jesus' words they would have seen, "My kingdom is not of this world, if it was my disciples would be fighting right now." (John 18:36). Christ was not political, at least not in sense men are. The Latins risked their lives and livelihood to help their foreign brethren (The Byzantines) and to deal with their sinful nature. Nowhere do you read the Byzantines making such self-sacrifices or worrying about their own sinfulness. To be balanced the Latins did have a tendency to forgo their piety for politics, especially during Baldwin III's Reign and subsequent heir disputes.

Still when juxtaposed, the Byzantines look far more despicable than the crusaders. The claims that the warriors of the cross "waded in blood up to their ankles" when they captured Jerusalem and other massacres are unfair attacks from modern historians who continue to forget the rules of war in the Middle Ages; "if your army and siege engines reach the walls of the besieged, they are to be massacred. This was universal rule of war used by Christians, Muslims, and Pagans in the Middle Ages."

No nation or people is innocent of corruption. What marks the Byzantines for further scrutiny is that they made promises and pursued politics against those promises. Rather than align with the Latins in a Pan-Greek & Latin expedition to bring liberation to Christendom; the Byzantines allowed their old policies and pride to destroy all chances of reconciliation with the West. The Latins are not without sin, but they have many rightful justifications for their enmity with the Byzantines and the cataclysmic Fourth Crusade. Maybe I am blinded by the morals of Chivalry and my Christian faith, but I find betrayal by the Byzantines to be far more abominable than an enemy who makes their disposition against them obvious. The Crusaders could expect to be betrayed by an enemy, but an ally? In fact, the alliances and treaties the Crusaders made with the Saracens were always kept and the Muslims never went back on their word. So what does that have to say about the Byzantines? That the 'enemy' of Christianity will keep their oath, but the great imperial Christians of Constantinople cannot!

At least with the Muslims the Crusaders could count on their enemy to be honorable. If deception occurred, the crusaders were not upset, after all this was a holy war. But to be betrayed by those who claimed to be your allies and who you sought to aid in first place is below treacherous, it is demonic.