Appearance
Excerpt
Excerpt from History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire — Volume 6, by Edward Gibbon
Chapter LIX: The Crusades.--Part I.
Preservation Of The Greek Empire.--Numbers, Passage, And<br />
Event, Of The Second And Third Crusades.--St. Bernard.--<br />
Reign Of Saladin In Egypt And Syria.--His Conquest Of<br />
Jerusalem.--Naval Crusades.--Richard The First Of England.--<br />
Pope Innocent The Third; And The Fourth And Fifth Crusades.--<br />
The Emperor Frederic The Second.--Louis The Ninth Of<br />
France; And The Two Last Crusades.--Expulsion Of The Latins<br />
Or Franks By The Mamelukes.
In a style less grave than that of history, I should perhaps compare the
emperor Alexius [1] to the jackal, who is said to follow the steps, and
to devour the leavings, of the lion. Whatever had been his fears and
toils in the passage of the first crusade, they were amply recompensed
by the subsequent benefits which he derived from the exploits of the
Franks. His dexterity and vigilance secured their first conquest of
Nice; and from this threatening station the Turks were compelled to
evacuate the neighborhood of Constantinople. While the crusaders, with
blind valor, advanced into the midland countries of Asia, the crafty
Greek improved the favorable occasion when the emirs of the sea-coast
were recalled to the standard of the sultan. The Turks were driven from
the Isles of Rhodes and Chios: the cities of Ephesus and Smyrna, of
Sardes, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, were restored to the empire, which
Alexius enlarged from the Hellespont to the banks of the MÊander, and
the rocky shores of Pamphylia. The churches resumed their splendor: the
towns were rebuilt and fortified; and the desert country was peopled
with colonies of Christians, who were gently removed from the more
distant and dangerous frontier. In these paternal cares, we may forgive
Alexius, if he forgot the deliverance of the holy sepulchre; but, by
the Latins, he was stigmatized with the foul reproach of treason and
desertion. They had sworn fidelity and obedience to his throne; but he
had promised to assist their enterprise in person, or, at least, with
his troops and treasures: his base retreat dissolved their obligations;
and the sword, which had been the instrument of their victory, was the
pledge and title of their just independence. It does not appear that
the emperor attempted to revive his obsolete claims over the kingdom of
Jerusalem; [2] but the borders of Cilicia and Syria were more recent in
his possession, and more accessible to his arms. The great army of the
crusaders was annihilated or dispersed; the principality of Antioch
was left without a head, by the surprise and captivity of Bohemond; his
ransom had oppressed him with a heavy debt; and his Norman followers
were insufficient to repel the hostilities of the Greeks and Turks. In
this distress, Bohemond embraced a magnanimous resolution, of leaving
the defence of Antioch to his kinsman, the faithful Tancred; of arming
the West against the Byzantine empire; and of executing the design which
he inherited from the lessons and example of his father Guiscard.
His embarkation was clandestine: and, if we may credit a tale of the
princess Anne, he passed the hostile sea closely secreted in a coffin.
[3] But his reception in France was dignified by the public applause, and
his marriage with the king's daughter: his return was glorious, since
the bravest spirits of the age enlisted under his veteran command; and
he repassed the Adriatic at the head of five thousand horse and forty
thousand foot, assembled from the most remote climates of Europe. [4] The
strength of Durazzo, and prudence of Alexius, the progress of famine
and approach of winter, eluded his ambitious hopes; and the venal
confederates were seduced from his standard. A treaty of peace [5]
suspended the fears of the Greeks; and they were finally delivered by
the death of an adversary, whom neither oaths could bind, nor dangers
could appal, nor prosperity could satiate. His children succeeded to the
principality of Antioch; but the boundaries were strictly defined, the
homage was clearly stipulated, and the cities of Tarsus and Malmistra
were restored to the Byzantine emperors. Of the coast of Anatolia, they
possessed the entire circuit from Trebizond to the Syrian gates. The
Seljukian dynasty of Roum [6] was separated on all sides from the sea
and their Mussulman brethren; the power of the sultan was shaken by
the victories and even the defeats of the Franks; and after the loss of
Nice, they removed their throne to Cogni or Iconium, an obscure and in
land town above three hundred miles from Constantinople. [7] Instead of
trembling for their capital, the Comnenian princes waged an offensive
war against the Turks, and the first crusade prevented the fall of the
declining empire.
Explanation
Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Vol. 6, Ch. LIX) by Edward Gibbon
1. Context of the Excerpt
This passage is from Chapter LIX of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, which examines the Crusades—particularly the First Crusade (1096–1099) and its immediate aftermath. Gibbon, an 18th-century Enlightenment historian, writes with a skeptical, ironic, and often critical perspective on medieval religious fervor, political maneuvering, and the decline of empires.
The excerpt focuses on:
- Emperor Alexius I Comnenus (r. 1081–1118) of the Byzantine (Greek) Empire and his opportunistic relationship with the Crusaders.
- The tensions between the Byzantines and the Latin (Western) Crusaders, particularly over control of Antioch and Anatolia.
- The military and political consequences of the First Crusade, including the temporary revival of Byzantine power in Asia Minor.
- The failed invasion of Bohemond of Taranto (a Norman Crusader leader) against Byzantium.
Gibbon’s broader argument in this chapter is that the Crusades, while failing in their long-term religious goals, temporarily preserved the Byzantine Empire by weakening the Seljuk Turks—though at the cost of deepening the schism between Eastern and Western Christendom.
2. Breakdown of the Excerpt with Analysis
A. The Jackal and the Lion: Alexius’ Opportunism
"In a style less grave than that of history, I should perhaps compare the emperor Alexius to the jackal, who is said to follow the steps, and to devour the leavings, of the lion."
Metaphor & Animal Imagery:
- Gibbon compares Alexius to a jackal, a scavenger that benefits from the lion’s kills without doing the hard work.
- The "lion" represents the Crusaders—ferocious, direct, and driven by religious zeal.
- The "jackal" is Alexius, who exploits their victories for his own gain while avoiding their risks.
- This sets the tone: Gibbon disdains Alexius’ cunning but acknowledges its effectiveness.
Historical Context:
- The First Crusade (1096–1099) was called by Pope Urban II to liberate Jerusalem, but it also passed through Byzantine territory.
- Alexius demanded oaths of loyalty from Crusader leaders (like Bohemond) in exchange for supplies and safe passage.
- While the Crusaders fought the Turks in Anatolia and Syria, Alexius reclaimed lost Byzantine territories (e.g., Nicea, parts of western Anatolia).
"Whatever had been his fears and toils in the passage of the first crusade, they were amply recompensed by the subsequent benefits which he derived from the exploits of the Franks."
- "Fears and toils": Alexius was initially wary of the Crusaders, seeing them as both potential allies and threats (they had a history of pillaging, e.g., the People’s Crusade in 1096).
- "Exploits of the Franks": The Crusaders’ military successes (e.g., the Siege of Nicaea, 1097) weakened the Seljuk Turks, allowing Alexius to reclaim lost lands.
B. Byzantine Territorial Gains & Crusader Resentment
"His dexterity and vigilance secured their first conquest of Nice; and from this threatening station the Turks were compelled to evacuate the neighborhood of Constantinople."
- Nicea (modern İznik) was a key Seljuk stronghold near Constantinople.
- Alexius negotiated its surrender to the Byzantines after the Crusaders besieged it, ensuring the city did not fall into Latin hands.
- This frustrated the Crusaders, who felt betrayed—Gibbon hints at the growing distrust between Greeks and Latins.
"The Turks were driven from the Isles of Rhodes and Chios: the cities of Ephesus and Smyrna, of Sardes, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, were restored to the empire..."
- List of Reclaimed Cities: Gibbon enumerates the territories Alexius recovered, emphasizing the scale of Byzantine revival.
- Geographical Scope: From the Hellespont (Dardanelles) to the Maeander River (near modern Denizli), Alexius reclaimed western Anatolia.
- Significance: This temporarily reversed the Byzantine decline after the Battle of Manzikert (1071), where the Seljuks had crushed the Byzantines.
"The churches resumed their splendor; the towns were rebuilt and fortified; and the desert country was peopled with colonies of Christians..."
- Rebuilding & Repopulation:
- Gibbon notes economic and demographic recovery—Alexius resettled Christians from frontier zones to safer areas.
- This was strategic: strengthening borders while reducing exposure to Turkic raids.
"In these paternal cares, we may forgive Alexius, if he forgot the deliverance of the holy sepulchre; but, by the Latins, he was stigmatized with the foul reproach of treason and desertion."
- Irony & Moral Judgment:
- Gibbon sarcastically suggests Alexius’ focus on Byzantine survival was justified, even if it meant abandoning the Crusade’s religious mission.
- The Latins (Western Crusaders) accused him of betrayal because he did not fulfill his promise to aid them militarily.
- This foreshadows the 1204 Sack of Constantinople, where Crusaders would turn on Byzantium in the Fourth Crusade.
C. The Broken Oaths & Bohemond’s Revenge
"They had sworn fidelity and obedience to his throne; but he had promised to assist their enterprise in person, or, at least, with his troops and treasures: his base retreat dissolved their obligations..."
- Legal & Moral Argument:
- The Crusaders swore oaths to Alexius in exchange for support.
- When Alexius withdrew his aid, they considered themselves freed from their vows.
- Gibbon implies both sides acted in bad faith:
- Alexius exploited the Crusaders but did not fully commit.
- The Crusaders used the oaths as a pretext to seize land (e.g., Bohemond taking Antioch, 1098).
"The sword, which had been the instrument of their victory, was the pledge and title of their just independence."
- Justification of Crusader States:
- Gibbon acknowledges the Crusaders’ logic: Since they conquered lands by force, they had a right to rule them.
- This legitimized the Principality of Antioch and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, though they were technically Byzantine vassals.
D. Bohemond’s Failed Invasion of Byzantium
"In this distress, Bohemond embraced a magnanimous resolution, of leaving the defence of Antioch to his kinsman, the faithful Tancred; of arming the West against the Byzantine empire..."
- Bohemond’s Motive:
- After being captured by the Turks (1100–1103), Bohemond was ransomed but left in debt.
- He sought revenge against Alexius for betraying him (in his view) and reclaiming Cilicia.
- His plan: Invade Byzantium to force Alexius to recognize his claims.
"His embarkation was clandestine: and, if we may credit a tale of the princess Anne, he passed the hostile sea closely secreted in a coffin."
- Dramatic Anecdote:
- Anna Comnena (Alexius’ daughter and historian) claimed Bohemond hid in a coffin to escape.
- Gibbon questions the story’s credibility ("if we may credit") but includes it for colorful effect.
- This highlights Bohemond’s cunning—mirroring Alexius’ own deceit.
"But his reception in France was dignified by the public applause, and his marriage with the king's daughter..."
- Bohemond’s Prestige:
- He married Constance, daughter of King Philip I of France, gaining political and financial backing.
- This shows how Crusader leaders leveraged European nobility to fund their wars.
"He repassed the Adriatic at the head of five thousand horse and forty thousand foot, assembled from the most remote climates of Europe."
- Military Scale:
- A massive army (though likely exaggerated) was raised for the invasion of Byzantium (1107–1108).
- This demonstrates the Crusades’ pan-European nature—soldiers came from France, Italy, Germany, etc.
"The strength of Durazzo, and prudence of Alexius, the progress of famine and approach of winter, eluded his ambitious hopes..."
- Failure of the Invasion:
- Durazzo (modern Durrës, Albania) was a key Byzantine fortress—Bohemond could not take it.
- Alexius avoided direct battle, using guerrilla tactics and diplomacy.
- Logistical failures (famine, winter) broke Bohemond’s army.
"A treaty of peace suspended the fears of the Greeks; and they were finally delivered by the death of an adversary, whom neither oaths could bind, nor dangers could appal, nor prosperity could satiate."
- Bohemond’s Character:
- Gibbon paints him as relentless ("neither oaths could bind, nor dangers appal").
- His death (1111) ended the immediate threat to Byzantium.
- The Treaty of Devol (1108) forced Bohemond to recognize Byzantine suzerainty over Antioch.
E. The Aftermath: Byzantine Resurgence & Turkic Decline
"The Seljukian dynasty of Roum was separated on all sides from the sea and their Mussulman brethren; the power of the sultan was shaken by the victories and even the defeats of the Franks..."
- Weakening of the Seljuks:
- The Sultanate of Rum (Anatolian Seljuks) was cut off from reinforcements by Byzantine and Crusader advances.
- Their capital moved from Nicea to Iconium (Konya), farther from Constantinople.
"Instead of trembling for their capital, the Comnenian princes waged an offensive war against the Turks, and the first crusade prevented the fall of the declining empire."
- Gibbon’s Thesis:
- The First Crusade paradoxically saved Byzantium by diverting Turkic pressure.
- However, the long-term effect was increased hostility between Greeks and Latins, leading to the 1204 Sack of Constantinople.
3. Key Themes in the Excerpt
Opportunism vs. Idealism:
- Alexius prioritized survival over religious crusading, while the Latins saw him as a traitor.
- Gibbon questions whether pragmatism or zeal was more justified.
The Clash of Civilizations:
- Byzantines (Greek Orthodox) vs. Latins (Catholic)—cultural and political divisions deepened.
- Christians vs. Muslims—the Crusades were as much about land and power as religion.
The Decline and Temporary Revival of Empires:
- Byzantium gained a reprieve but was doomed by internal decay and Latin hostility.
- The Seljuks were weakened, but the Mamelukes would later expel the Crusaders.
The Role of Deception in Politics:
- Both Alexius and Bohemond used trickery—oaths were broken, and alliances shifted.
- Gibbon portrays medieval politics as ruthless and transactional.
The Irony of the Crusades:
- Meant to save Jerusalem, they temporarily saved Constantinople—but at the cost of future Christian infighting.
4. Literary Devices & Gibbon’s Style
| Device | Example | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Metaphor | Alexius as a jackal, Crusaders as lions | Highlights opportunism vs. brute force |
| Irony | "We may forgive Alexius, if he forgot the holy sepulchre" | Mocks religious hypocrisy |
| Enumeration | Listing reclaimed cities (Ephesus, Smyrna, etc.) | Emphasizes Byzantine recovery |
| Sarcasm | "His base retreat dissolved their obligations" | Undermines moral justifications |
| Dramatic Anecdote | Bohemond hiding in a coffin | Adds narrative flair, questions historicity |
| Parallelism | "Neither oaths could bind, nor dangers appal, nor prosperity satiate" | Reinforces Bohemond’s relentless nature |
Gibbon’s prose is elegant, ironic, and often judgmental, reflecting his Enlightenment skepticism toward medieval religiosity and feudal politics.
5. Historical Significance
- Short-Term: The First Crusade weakened the Seljuks, allowing Byzantium to reclaim Anatolia and delay its collapse.
- Long-Term:
- Distrust between Greeks and Latins led to the 1204 Fourth Crusade’s sack of Constantinople, fatally weakening Byzantium.
- The Crusader States (e.g., Antioch, Jerusalem) were unsustainable without Byzantine support, leading to their eventual fall.
- Saladin’s rise (late 12th century) would reclaim Jerusalem (1187), undoing Crusader gains.
Gibbon’s account foreshadows the inevitable decline of both the Byzantine Empire and the Crusader movement, victims of their own divisions and overreach.
6. Conclusion: Gibbon’s Perspective
Gibbon does not glorify the Crusades—he sees them as a chaotic, often counterproductive series of wars that temporarily benefited Byzantium but deepened Christian divisions. His focus on Alexius’ cunning and Bohemond’s ambition reflects his view that self-interest, not piety, drove medieval politics.
The excerpt illustrates how empires survive not through idealism, but through opportunism—a theme central to The Decline and Fall. The Crusades, meant to unite Christendom, instead accelerated its fragmentation, setting the stage for the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the end of the medieval world.