cg~1 
 r6o A HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES 
 
 
could have conceived of no reconquest other than Byzantine. But the immense
majority either were reasonably satisfied or else, if they had anything to
complain of, placed their hopes on MalikShah. The most that can be said is
that in the disorders which were to follow his death, those hopes would no
longer have a focus. It has been established that no oriental appeal, except
Byzantine, was ever sent westward either to the pope or to anyone else. It
may be added that such an appeal would in no respect have corresponded to
the mentality of the Christians of the orient. When these latter, after the
event, wished to explain the crusade, they borrowed from the occident their
explanation, the mistreatment of the pilgrims. 
 Certainly pilgrims, who often took the land route by Constantinople, suffered
from the loss of Anatolia and the anarchy prevalent there. Some of the pilgrims
might even have suffered at Jerusalem itself, because of the disorders at
the time of Atsiz. But it should not be forgotten that we know of robberies
of pilgrims by bedouins before the Turkomans arrived, and we know of none
committed by the Turks. In any event, these grievances applied only to certain
places at certain times of disorder.~2 By sea Mediterranean commerce and
pilgrimages continued. Of course the Turkoman holy war had been a catastrophe
for Byzantium, but for it alone. Perhaps it was the very vigor of commerce
and pilgrimage which made what had previously been endured without difficulty
suddenly seem intolerable, especially since Byzantium was no longer able
to extend to Christians in its ju.risdiction the protection which it had
provided for three generations. On the contrary, the Latin influence among
them was increasing. The schism between Constantinople and Rome dating from
the middle of the century caused only slight echoes in Antioch and Jerusalem,
even among the Melkites, natives Greek in faith and Arab in speech. The idea
of taking over in the orient from a weakened Byzantium might have arisen
in Rome. It is not extraordinary that in poorly informed western Europe the
remote and the recent past should be confused, and that such a confusion,
perhaps skillfully induced, should envisage a Byzantine disaster as a great
hardship for the eastern Christians.'~ 
 
 12 For a somewhat different interpretation of the difficulties encountered,
see above, chapter II, section D, p. 78. 
 13 C. Cahen, "En Quoi la conquête turque appelait-elle Ia croisade
?" Bulletin de la faculti des lettres de Sirasbourg (1950); G. Every, The
Byzantine Patriarchate (London, 3947); S. Runciman, A History ot the Crusades,
I (cambridge, 2952); E. Cerulli, Etiopi in Palestina, 2 vols. (Rome, i943—i~47),
who discusses all the Jacobites. Cf. below, chapter Vu, p. 238.