Latin conquest of Constantinople

No historical subject has attracted more attention in France and Germany during the last twenty years than the Latin conquest of Constantinople. No other historical question has had devoted to it during the same period the labors of an equal number of illustrious historical students. A literary controversy has been waged, and is still waging, about several of the important questions which have arisen in connection with the subject.

Chronography of Byzantine History

The larger question of the history of Constantinople and of the Eastern Empire in the Middle Ages has likewise, during the last quarter of a century, occupied the attention of a considerable number of Continental scholars, whose labors have added much to our stock of knowledge on the subject. Among the most important of their contributions a few may be here noticed. Muralt’s “ Chronography of Byzantine History,” between 1057 and 1453, is an immense aid to all students of the period treated of. It is hardly possible to mention any statement respecting any event, however trifling, within the period dealt with, for which all the authorities are not cited. Heyd’s “History of Trade in the Levant during the Middle A”es”is also a monument of careful research.

Ilurter, though belonging to a somewhat earlier period, has given a singularly vivid and impartial sketch of the dealings of Innocent the Third with the Eastern Empire, perhaps the more remarkable that he was himself a Protestant pastor.

The labors of Charles Hopf and of Tafel and Thomas have thrown light on much which was obscure in the dealings of Venice with the Xew Rome. Krause’s examination of Byzantine manners, customs bulgaria private tours, court and domestic history, gives a useful and interesting account of the social life of Constantinople. The valuable histories of Finlay were written before most of the works to which I allude in this preface appeared, but still show considerable insight into Byzantine history. On the influence of the Saracens and the Turks invaluable suggestions are found in Professor Freeman’s “ History and Conquest of the Saracens,” his “ History of the Ottoman Power in Europe,” and in his “ Historical Essays.”

The labors of a considerable number of other writers to whom I allude have been mainly occupied in elucidating the story of the Fourth Crusade, to which the second part of this volume is exclusively devoted. Contemporary authors have been carefully edited. The great work of Hicetas and those of other Greek authors have been diligently compared with the narratives of Villehardouin and others belonging to the West. Forgotten manuscripts have been brought to light. Incidental references in charters, bulls, and other documents have been carefully collected to control, confirm, or condemn the statements in the usually accepted narratives of this pop tion of my subject.

I am indebted for many valuable suggestions to Klimke’s essay on the “ Sources of the History of the Fourth Crusade,” to Krause’s History, and to Dr. Mordtmann’s history of the two captures of Constantinople. The latter work, as well as the “ Meletai ” of Dr. Paspati, are especially useful for the topography of Constantinople during the Middle Ages. Dr. Paspati and Dr. Mordtmann, the son of the author of the work just quoted, the Dev. Canon Curtis, and a number of archaeologists in Constantinople, have worked very successfully at the topography of the city, and by means of the excellent Greek Syllogos have brought to light much interesting information on the subject, and have especially produced a map of the ancient walls, embodying all the recent discoveries, which is extremely valuable.

Historia Constantinopolitana

Most of the writers I have named have occupied themselves more or less with the conduct of Yenice. This is a subject of controversy as old as the crusade itself. A contemporary of the Fourth Crusade, a Franco-Syrian named Ernouil, was the first to charge Yenice with treason to Christendom. Other contemporary authors are quoted in the following pages who took, speaking generally, the same side.

Gunther, a Cistercian monk belonging to Pairis in Alsace, and who died about 1210, has given us in his “ Historia Constantinopolitana ” many facts which are not to be found elsewhere, and was one of the few contemporaries of the crusade who appears to have understood that there was an understanding between the Sultan of Cairo and Yenice. Light has been thrown on the question by the “ Devastatio Constantinopolitana,” the discovery of which is due to recent research.