Villehardouin's De la Conquête de Constantinople

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Geoffrey of Villehardouin was a knight, a crusader, and most importantly a historian. In his work De la Conquête de Constantinople (On the Conquest of Constantinople,) Villehardouin chronicles his intricate experience in the Fourth Crusade.

Villehardouin was present at the origins of the Crusade during the 1199 tournament held by Thibauld III of Champagne. Throughout the five-year crusade he acted as an envoy, an ambassador, a councilman, and even a military leader at the Battle of Adrianople in 1205. Several years later, Villehardouin took the time to write down his account, one of the earliest works in French prose, and one of the most important as well.

Villehardouin choose to write his work epic fashion. He writes his work in the third-person, and ombines objectivity and ecclesiastical points-of-view.. A common technique in his work is to narrate a battle or episode along subjective and even militaristic guidelines, and follow this with his personal and religious explanation of what the results were.

Villehardouin makes constant hints and references to future events and the unknowingness of the characters at this moment. He defines the outcome in his own terms and does not allow the audience to reach their own conclusion for the actions of the characters. He recapitulates the events leading to Alexis's negotiations with the Crusaders. Compare this to Robert de Clari's account of the Fourth Crusade.

His Crusade is more than just a Holy War, it is an event of such great magnitude that he must recapture it within his work in lengthy detail and describe the actors. Villehardouin describes the Doge of Venice as a blind man who valiantly leads his mean into battle. Contemporary studies are undecided but lean towards this man being only short-sighted or having poor eye sight. He makes many references to The Song of Roland. Much like this earlier epic, Villehardouin describes the French Army as elected to execute God's will. When Villehardouin describes how Count Louis refuses to leave the field, there is a clear reference to the functions of Roland's climax in his epic.

Villehardouin's words — while sometimes accurate and other times not — present a vivid personal account of the Fourth Crusade. From the outset, Villehardouin states that he is a pilgrim, but he never explains this tenet of the Crusade. Another omission is Fulk of Neuilly's influence on the origins of the Fourth Crusade. Villehardouin merely reports of the successes of his work.

A misleading portion of the book is Villehardoui'’s treatment of the envoy and negotiations that lead to Venice being the central port for the Fourth Crusad. Many historians have described the calculation by Villehardouin on the number of men and horses needed as chivalrous enthusiasm combined with Christian idealism. Villehardouin claims that it is in fact the Venetians who were outwitted, but Villehardouin has overcalculated (only 11,000 showed up instead of over 33,000 as planned). Villehardouin directs attention to crusaders possiblly leaving from other ports.

The Crusade sailed to Zara and Constantinople instead of its goal of Jerusalem. Villehardouin makes no reference as to why, beyond the explanation of a convenient place to stay over the winter, omitting the fact that the Venetians had lost Zara. This evasiveness when addressing why the Crusaders are marching onto Constantinople instead of Jerusalem does receive some attention from Villehardouin. To historians, this event is now seen as the decisive break between Greek Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

Villehardouin captures the Council at Zara with specific detail, and so creates a negative view of this portion of the Crusade. He describes how Zara's citizens pleaded with the Crusaders not to attack a Christian city and gives an unbiased description of the looting by the Crusaders. He also points out that the French would not attack Zara and that many deserted the Crusade. This attitude continues with his description of the Siege at Constantinople as well. He is appalled at the actions of the Crusaders and describes the destruction and thefts. He claims that Constantinople had prized and ancient relics equivalent to the rest of the world combined. Throughout his book, Villehardouin shows an understanding of history and of Greek culture that allows for a more complete view.

[edit] External links

[edit] Sources

  • Beer, Jeanette M. A. Villehardouin: Epic Historian, Librarie Droz, 1968
  • Burckhardt, Jacob. Judgement on History and Historians, Garland Publishing, 1984
  • Godfrey, John. 1204: The Unholy Crusade, Oxford University Press, 1980
  • Joinville and Villehardouin. Chronicles of the Crusades, Penguin Books, 1963
  • Michaud, Joseph Francois. Michuad's History of the Crusades, AMS Press, 1973
  • Queller, Donald E. The Fourth Crusade, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/l/Villehardouin%27s_De_la_Conqu%C3%AAte_de_Constantinople_b8e1.html"