Asking this since they give conflicting accounts in regards to the events that happened during the 4th Crusade. I lean towards Villehardouin since his position as a marshal should give him a more credible perspective compared to de Clari's position as a knight participating in the Crusade. What is the consensus on the matter?
Been reading both lately, Gallimard pléiade edition, so aletered version in dialectal ancien français. Both give what seems an honest account of the event, according to their place in the event and their general knowledge. Robert de Clari is less politic, but as more hearsay and the point of view of a lesser knight, whereas Villehardouin gives way more details concerning the nobility and the operations in general. The later as with some obvious bias, concerning the siege of Zara and the decision to go for Constantinople instead of Babylon. For exemple, Robert de Clari mention the excomunication of the crusaders because of the assault on Zara, whereas Villehardouin only mention some tentions with the pope and the envoy from the ost to Rome.
That being said, in the end, both are convinced that the cause was just and that the ost did godly deeds.
We should not discrimate sources of this quality, being first hand account of a key event in medieval history. Both are complementary and any serious historian will use both accounts. Anyway, the real apple of discord, the choice to siege and take a christian city, is not really denounced by any of them.
Sorry for the wanky english, it's been some time I did not write in proper english.