While the degree of Robert's sophistication may be up open for debate, the importance of his account as a major source for the Fourth Crusade is not. Robert's work, in addition to the Latin accounts of Gunther von Pairis, Geoffroy de Villehardouin, and the Byzantine perspective of Nicetas Choniates, is among the best sources for the sack of Constantinople in 1204, which remains a point of controversy for east-west ecclesiastical relations even today.
Robert's chronicle is one of the few accounts we have from a regular soldier, as most sources from the crusades were written by ecclesiastical authors. Although Robert likely returned to France in 1205, his account ends in the year 1216. The intended destination of the Fourth Crusade was Egypt, but they never made it. Instead, through a series of unusual and unexpected events, the Fourth Crusaders attacked the Christian cities of Zara and Constantinople.
The conquest of Constantinople marked the end of the crusade resulting in a harsh rebuke from Pope Innocent III for the crusaders. As a result, parts of Robert's account are dedicated to explaining the crusaders rationale for the diversion to Constantinople and, when necessary, shifting the blame.
His account differs from Villehardouin's in that Robert blames the diversion of the crusaders from Egypt to Constantinople on the Doge of Venice, whereas Villehardouin cites the crusader leadership of the Marquis of Montferrat and the Counts of Flanders. Robert also makes the point that the diversion was sanctioned by the Bishops who cited the restoration of the deposed Byzantine Emperor Isaac II to the throne as a just and worthy cause.
In addition, Isaac's son Alexius had promised that when he and his father were restored to the throne, they would finance the cash strapped crusaders expedition to Egypt. Robert's account ends with an examination of the political disputes that arose between petty nobles over authority in the newly conquered Byzantine capitol and its surrounding areas.