Odo of Deuil suspected the complete submissiveness of Byzantine behaviour while Louis VII was in Constantinople, believing they would not have been so servile without ulterior motives. He stigmatised apparent kindness as showing up Byzantine falsity, in view of later events. But Odo also accepted that French burning of houses and olive trees was a provocation, especially when it was pointless, drunken vandalism. Louis tried to restrain his men from such acts by exemplary mutilations, but was unwilling to punish enough of his troops in this brutal way to keep the peace. The leader of anti-Byzantine sentiment was Godfey, bishop of Langres, who was supported by Odo in his text. Godfrey declared that the French should attack the City. He stressed the weakness of its defences and defenders, its dominant position in the empire (obviating the need for other fighting), and its rulers' purely nominal Christianity, shown in attacks on Antioch. He said that Ioannes II captured Antiochene cities, replacing Catholic bishops by heretics. Instead of uniting Christians, he tried to destroy them with aid from infidels, so died from a minor wound; Manuel I kept Ioannes' gains and hoped for more, exacting homage from Raymond of Poitiers and choosing a rival patriarch. Others suggested legal reasons for these actions, and said that a crusade should not enrich itself by attacking Christians - an action which would place the crusaders outside the definition of the crusade made by Eugenius III and put his indulgencies in doubt. But Godfrey would (in Odo's view) have carried the day if the Byzantines had not tricked them