Historians have recognized there are two sides to the Sack of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade. One side believes there was justification, while others believe it was wrongful. Those that claim there was justification view the actions of the Crusade as holy. Scholars recognize that crusaders saw the Sack of Constantinople as an opportunity to bring the state into Roman obedience and also to bring honor to the Church. In “Vows and Contracts in the Fourth Crusade” , Thomas Madden who has analyzed personal statements from the Fourth Crusade shows that in the clergy to Crusaders, they were told “that this war is right and just, and if you have a right intention in conquering this land and bringing it into Roman obedience, those who die after confession shall have part in the indulgence granted by the pope.” Crusaders were not only convinced that their actions were right, but also if they died, the reassurance of indulgence from sinning brought them relief. The Crusaders also fought “for the honor of the Holy Roman Church and the conquest of the Holy Land.” This justification shifted the crusade to one that waged against heretics instead of just a crusade against the Greeks. Madden also include that “reclaiming Constantinople for Catholicism would become the equivalent of reclaiming Jerusalem for Christendom…” This was because if they died, they would be granted indulgence and also fulfil their vows as a Crusader. After the Crusaders had successfully sack Constantinople, they saw their victorious actions as “indeed carried out God's will.” St.Neophytos who is considered the most “important Cypriot source…” “did not
