JEWELS OF THE WESTERN
CIVILIZATION
BOOK THIRD
DECLINE AND FALL OF THE
BYZANTINE GOVERNMENT
A.D. 1057-1204
CHAPTER I
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MODIFIED BY
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE POPULATION IN ASIA MINOR. A.D. 1057-1081
Section I: Reigns of Isaac I (Comnenus), and of Constantine X (Ducas)
Section II: Regency of Eudocia, A.D. 1067; Romanus IV Diogenes, A.D.
1068-1071; Michael VII, A.D. 1071-1078; Nicephorus III, A.D. 1078-1081
CHAPTER II
THE DYNASTY OF
COMNENUS, A.D. 1081-1185
Section I: The reign of Alexius I. A.D 1081-1118.
Section II: The reign of John II. A.D. 1118-1143
Section III: Reign of Manuel I. A.D. 1143-1180
Section IV: Reigns of Alexius II and Andronicus I. A.D. 1180-1185
CHAPTER III
THE FALL OF THE BYZANTINE
EMIRE
Section I: The Reign of Isaac II (Angelos) A.D.
1185-1195.
Section II: Reign of Alexius III (Angelos Comnenos) A.D. 1196-1203.
Section III: The Conquest of Constantinople and the Partition of the
Byzantine Empire. A.D. 1203-1204.
BOOK FOURTH
GREEK EMPIRE OF NICAEA AND
CONSTANTINPLE. A.D.1204-1453
CHAPTER I.
EMPIRE OF NICAEA,
AD. 1204-1261.
Section I: REIGN OF THEODORE I. (LASCARIS), A.D. 1204-1222.
Section II: REIGN OF JOHN III (DUKAS VATATZES), 1222-1254.
Section IIII: FROM THE DEATH OF JOHN III TO THE RECOVERY OF CONSTANTINOPLE
BY THE GREEKS, A.D. 1254-1261.
CHAPTER II.
GREEK EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE
UNDER THE DYNASTY OF PALEOLOGOS, A.D. 1261-1453.
Section I: MICHAEL VIII., A.D. 1261-1282.
Section II: REIGN OF ANDRONICUS II, A.D. 1282-1828.
Section III: REIGN OF ANDRONICUS III THE YOUNGER, A.D. 1328-1341
Section IV: Reign of John V
(Palaeologos), A.D. 1341-1391, including the Reigns
of John Cantacuzenos, A.D. 1347- 1354, and of
Andronicus, the son of John V, A.D. 1375-1376 and 1379-1381.
Section V: REIGN OF MANUEL II., A.D. 1891-1426.
Section VI: REIGN OF JOHN VI, A.D. 1425-1448
Section VII: REIGN OF CONSTANTINE XI, A.D. 1448- 1453
BOOK THIRD
DECLINE AND FALL OF THE
BYZANTINE GOVERNMENT
A.D. 1057-1204
CHAPTER I
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MODIFIED BY
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE POPULATION IN ASIA MINOR. A.D. 1057-1081
Sect. I
Reigns of Isaac I (Comnenus),
and of Constantine X (Ducas)
A.D. 1057-1081.
The contemporaries of Isaac Comnenus believed that the Byzantine, or, as
they called it, the Roman empire, had attained a degree of wealth and power
which secured it a permanent superiority over every other government. A review
of the vicissitudes it had undergone in the preceding ages, entitled them to
look forward with confidence to centuries of future prosperity. But to those
who study the causes of decline in the Byzantine government from a modern point
of view, the empire presents a very different aspect. To us, it is apparent
that the administrative organization of the Byzantine state, and the social and
religious feelings of the popular mind, had already undergone a change for the
worse. The power of the emperor had become more absolute in the capital, by the
neglect of official education and regular promotion among the servants of the
state. The arbitrary will of the emperor had taken the place of the usages of
the administration, and courtiers now assumed duties which were formerly
executed only by well-trained and experienced officials. This increase of
arbitrary power did not conduce to augment the energy of the central government
in distant provinces: justice was administered with less firmness and equity,
and the distant population felt fewer benefits from their connection with the
emperor and with Constantinople. The concentration of all executive power in
the cabinet of the sovereign, moreover, caused much important business, in
which neither the emperor’s personal interest nor authority appeared to be
immediately interested, to be greatly neglected; for sovereigns, like private
individuals, look with more attention at what relates to their own advantage
than at what concerns only the public welfare. The repairs of distant ports,
aqueducts, and roads, the improvement of frontier fortifications, and the civil
government of unprofitable possessions, were held to absorb more than a due
proportion of the funds required to maintain the imperial dignity. The pageants
of the palace, of the hippodrome, and of the church, became every year more
splendid, for each emperor wished to surpass his predecessors; and in no branch
of the imperial duties was it so easy to purchase popular applause. In the
meantime, the facilities of provincial intercommunication and the defence of
the frontiers were proportionably neglected.
The emperors themselves must be held responsible for the decline of the
imperial administration in the Byzantine Empire. The Basilian dynasty, which
ruined the political edifice, was an inferior race of men to the Isaurian
princes who repaired it. Basil I was ignorant of civil business, and ill fitted
by education to appreciate the value of the system of which accident
constituted him the head. Leo VI, Constantine VII, and Romanus II never
appeared as leaders of the Roman armies. It was therefore not unnatural that
these princes, alarmed by the repeated rebellions, seditions, and conspiracies
of the great officers of state and commanders-in-chief should feel extremely
jealous of the territorial aristocracy, which had secured to themselves the
possession of the highest posts in the government of the empire. In order to
avoid the danger of intrusting the nobility with official power, these emperors
established a board, consisting of their own private secretaries, which
controlled the acts of the ministers of state; and they gradually filled the
highest offices in the administration, as well as in the court, with persons
belonging to their private households. Every other object gave way to the
importance of guarding against revolutions and rebellions; and as the
nomination of eunuchs to the highest dignities was a considerable security
against the frequent attempts to change the emperor, which had proved so
destructive to private property and commercial enterprise, it was not unpopular
among the wealthy and industrious citizens and agriculturists. As eunuchs were
incapable of mounting the throne, their interests generally led them to guard
against revolution, and avoid change. Hence it was that they were so frequently
entrusted with the command of large armies and important military expeditions;
and, what appears to modern ideas a degradation of the empire, was by
contemporaries regarded as a wise conservative policy.
The practice of conducting public business through the medium of a cabinet
of private secretaries, led to many evils. Councils of the ministers and great
officers of state were laid aside, and the authority of established usages and
systematic rules was diminished. Each minister and general received his orders
directly from the emperor, and communicated with the imperial secretary charged
with the correspondence of the particular department to which the affair in
question might relate; and, consequently, subserviency to power became the
surest means of advancing the fortunes of all public servants. Wealth was
attained and ambition was gratified by affected devotion to the person of the
emperor, by mean servility to the court favourite, and by active intrigue among
the members of the imperial household, much more surely and rapidly than by
attention to professional duties or by patriotic services.
This change in the position of the dignitaries of the empire enabled the
sovereign to entrust the direction of the government to the stewards of his
household. Now, though these men were not trained in the public service, yet
their previous duties prevented the practice from producing so great an amount
of public inconvenience as to cause general dissatisfaction. It lowered the
standard of official attainments, and diminished the influence of personal
responsibility and high character, but it led immediately to no actual
disorder. We must recollect that many of the great families in the Byzantine
Empire at this period possessed households so numerous as often to count their
domestic slaves by thousands. Those who maintained such establishments in the
capital were proprietors of immense estates in the provinces, and the
intendants who managed their affairs were consequently trained to business in a
school which afforded them as extensive an experience of government as can now
be gained by the individuals who direct the administration of many of the
German principalities. This fact affords some explanation of the capacity for
government so generally displayed by the aristocracy of the Roman and Byzantine
empires, and of the aptitude shown by eunuchs to perform the duties of
ministers, and even of generals. Both these classes found their sphere of duty
enlarged and not changed, when from nobles they became emperors, or from
stewards ministers of state. But this system being opposed to the true basis of
society, which requires a free circulation in all its classes, had a tendency
to weaken the body politic. The imperfection of our knowledge in relation to
the connection between social and political science, often prevents our tracing
the decline of states to their real causes, which are probably more frequently
moral than political
We have seen that the Basilian dynasty transferred the direction of public
affairs from the aristocracy to the stewards of the imperial household. These
domestics carried on the work of political change by filling the public offices
with their own creatures, and thereby destroying the power of that body of
state officials, whose admirable organization had repeatedly saved the empire
from falling into anarchy under tyrants, or from being ruined by peculation
under aristocratic influence. In this manner the scientific fabric of the
imperial power, founded by Augustus, was at last ruined in the East as it had
been destroyed in the West. The emperors broke the government to pieces before
strangers divided the empire.
The revolution which undermined the systematic administration was already
consummated before the rebellion of the aristocracy placed the imperial crown
on the head of Isaac Comnenus. No organized body of trained officials any
longer existed to resist the egoistical pretensions of the new intruders into
ministerial authority. The emperor could now make his household steward prime-minister,
and the governor of a province could appoint his butler prefect of the police.
The church and the law alone preserved some degree of systematic organization
and independent character. It was not in the power of an emperor to make a man
a lawyer or a priest with the same ease he could appoint him a chamberlain or a
minister of state.
As it was under the later princes of the Basilian period that scientific
knowledge ceased to be a requisite for official rank, it is from this period
that we must date the decline of every species of information and learning in
Byzantine society. The farther we advance in this history we shall see that the
house of Comnenus only pursued the course traced out for the imperial
government by its predecessors. Basil II was the last emperor of the East who
had a really Roman policy, and his views were confined too exclusively to
military affairs. Circumstances henceforward directed the progress of events.
No future emperor possessed the enlarged views or the political capacity necessary
to arrest the social decay that was destroying the Byzantine power, nor did any
one aspire at the glory of giving a new organization to the imperial
government, in accordance with the new exigencies of society and the altered
interests of the various classes of the population. One example will
sufficiently explain the manner in which official ignorance and local seclusion
operated in destroying the foundations of the internal administration.
They rendered the collection of the statistical information, on which the
census had been reviewed, extremely difficult. For eleven centuries the Roman
census had been accurately compiled; and, from the time of Constantine at
least, it had been carefully revised every fifteenth year, in order that
necessary reductions and modifications of the most injurious imposts might thus
be forcibly obtruded on the attention of the central government. Although the
rigid system of dividing the subjects of the emperor into classes or castes
ceased after the fall of the Western Empire, and the Byzantine government did
not, like the Emperor Augustus, force every man to go up to be taxed into his
own city, still the census continued to be framed with great minuteness: every
proprietor, every individual inhabitant of the empire, and every species of
property, were inscribed in its registers by experienced officials. But when
whole provinces were depopulated by the ravages of the Bulgarians and the
Saracens, and extensive districts were peopled only by the herdsmen and
shepherds of large landed proprietors, like the president Basilios and Eustathios Maleinos, the old system of the census was
necessarily relaxed. The great corps of land-surveyors, estimators, and
assessors, which for ten centuries had performed its duties with systematic precision,
was first diminished, from motives of economy, and then disorganized by being
placed under the orders of ignorant and rapacious inspectors, chosen from among
the favourites of the court. The consequence was, that this great branch of the
Roman imperial constitution was gradually neglected by statesmen who pretended
to govern by precedent on conservative principles; and as the census was more
and more imperfectly executed, the central government became constantly more
ignorant of its real resources.
The insecurity of property in the frontier provinces, and the ignorance
resulting from the secluded life of the lower classes on large agricultural
estates, reduced the judicial establishments of the empire. As communications
became rarer, the business of the courts of law diminished; and, except in the
commercial cities, there no longer existed a body of independent lawyers to
watch the judges, and restrain the exactions of the fiscal administration and
the territorial aristocracy. The judges themselves soon became an inferior
class of men, as they were no longer able to procure the voluminous and
expensive law-books required to qualify them for pronouncing their decisions
with promptitude and equity. Justice consequently was ill administered, and the
people in the distant provinces became more inclined to seek protection from
the great landed aristocracy of their immediate neighbourhood, than to look, as
formerly, to the emperor alone for security and justice. The spell, which had
so long, and under so many vicissitudes, connected the people with the central
authority, was thus broken.
In this general decline of civilization, while the roads were falling to
decay and the population decreasing, it seems strange that the revenues of the
Byzantine Empire continued almost undiminished. This circumstance resulted from
two causes. The ruin of the power of the caliphs removed a commercial rival in
Asia, and the improvement in the condition of the people throughout Europe
created additional markets for the commerce of the East and the manufactures of
the Byzantine cities; at the same time, the abundant supply of the precious
metals, which for about two centuries had aided in sustaining the power of the
emperor, still continued. Though it is difficult to trace from what sources
this supply flowed, the fact itself is well established.
The army, next to the finances, was the basis on which the emperors rested
their power. The depopulation of the agricultural districts, and the high price
of labour in the manufacturing and commercial cities, rendered the Byzantine
government more dependent on foreign mercenaries in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries than it had been in the ninth and tenth. At the same
time, the rapid advances which the population of the other European nations was
now making in wealth and civilization rendered it more difficult than formerly
for the emperors to purchase the military services of the best European
warriors. From this period the Byzantine armies begin to be inferior to those
of the western nations; their military system was conservative, while that of
the western nations was progressive. The Normans were already superior to the
Byzantine troops in valour and endurance, and almost their equals in tactics
and science: they soon became their superiors in every military accomplishment,
science, and virtue.
ISAAC
I. AD. 1057
The reign of Isaac Comnenus, though short, proves that he was a man of no
ordinary powers of mind. He saw clearly the downward tendency of Byzantine
affairs, and he made a vigorous effort to arrest their descent. His education
had afforded him the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the whole fabric
of the government, and his natural talents enabled him to profit by the
advantages of his position. Hence, although he was placed on the throne as the
leader of an aristocratic revolution, his policy was to preserve and not to
alter the ancient system of administration. His father, Manuel Comnenus,
had been a favourite officer of the Emperor Basil II; and, when he died, that
prince had undertaken the guardianship of his two sons, Isaac and John. They
received the best education which the age afforded in the monastery of Studion,
and Isaac commenced his career of public service in the emperor’s bodyguard.
Under the eye of the indefatigable Basil he learned the steady application to
business and the active warlike habits of that prince; but with these virtues
he acquired also something of the grave, melancholy, and inflexible character
of his patron.
The powerful partisans who had raised him to the throne naturally shared
the principal dignities of the empire among themselves; but Isaac, in as far as
he was able, conferred on them rewards which induced them to quit the capital,
and leave him free to direct the central administration without their
interference. Katakalon received the office of curopalates, which was also conferred on the
emperor’s brother John Comnenus, in whose person it was united with that
of megas domestikos,
or commander of the forces. The support of the patriarch Michael Keroularios, whose boldness and activity made him an
important ally, was purchased by an imprudent augmentation of his political
power. The right of nominating the grand economus or
chancellor, and the skevophylax or
treasurer of the church of St Sophia, had been hitherto vested in the emperor,
who now resigned it to the ambitious patriarch.
The dilapidated state of the finances, caused by the extravagant
expenditure of Constantine IX (and indeed of most of the emperors who had
filled the throne since the death of Basil II, all of whom had wasted immense
sums in gifts to their favorites, in courtly
splendour, and in ecclesiastical buildings, called for Isaac’s immediate
attention, and his first care was to reform the administration of the public
revenue. He annulled the grants of the state domains made by the successors of
Basil II to private individuals, and resumed the sums affected for the
foundation and maintenance of a number of monasteries in which the monks were
living together rather like clubs of wealthy bachelors than as holy societies
of virtuous cenobites. To each monastery the emperor
made an allowance of a pension, fixed according to the number of the monks by
which it was tenanted. This reduction of the wealth of men who in many cases
had sought retirement to enjoy luxurious ease, very naturally excited much
dissatisfaction among the higher classes, to whom the monasteries had been
useful by affording the means of providing for near relations in a becoming
manner without expense; but John Scylitzes, the best
historian of this period, who himself attained the rank of curopalates, approves of the conduct of Isaac in
curtailing the incomes of the monks. The emperor also carried his reforms into
his own court by diminishing the expenditure of the imperial household, and
abolishing many pensions conferred on senators, nobles, and courtiers, as a
matter of favour, without their having any duties to perform. Whenever the
arbitrary will of individuals can influence government, there is a great
difficulty in preventing the unnecessary accumulation of high-paid and useless
titled functionaries. Courtiers receive military rank for which they have no
qualification, and without any reference to the numbers of the army or navy.
The reforms by which Isaac sought to eradicate these abuses offended a
considerable body of idle courtiers in the capital, who were enjoying the
fruits of severe impositions wrung from the provinces, and he was assailed with
murmurs of dissatisfaction. The poor had too many causes of suffering, which
the emperor could do nothing to relieve, to have derived any immediate benefit
from these reforms, or felt any gratitude to the reformer. Isaac, indeed,
adopted his improvements for the purpose of rendering the public establishments
of the empire more efficient, and without any view of diminishing the weight of
the public burdens. Every report to his disadvantage was eagerly circulated
among the ecclesiastics and the courtiers; they were disseminated among the
people, and have coloured the views of historians concerning his character and
policy. Every Byzantine writer cites as a proof of his unbounded arrogance that
he changed the type of the gold coinage of the empire, and impressed on it his
own figure, with a drawn sword in his right hand,—thereby, as they pretend,
ascribing his elevation to the throne, not to the grace of God, but to his own
courage.
The emperor vainly endeavoured to quiet the turbulent and ambitious
disposition of the patriarch by bestowing offices of honour and profit on his
nephews; the demands of the proud priest grew daily more exorbitant and his
language more insolent. When Isaac at length refused his requests, he
indignantly exclaimed to his followers, “I made him an emperor, and I can
unmake him”. He proclaimed himself the equal of his sovereign by wearing the
red boots which the severe ceremonial of the Byzantine court had set apart as
one of the distinctive ensigns of the imperial power. This assumption was
really equivalent to an act of rebellion against the civil power; and when the
patriarch was reproached with his pretensions, he defended his conduct by
declaring that there was little or no difference between an emperor and a
patriarch, except in so far as the ecclesiastical dignity was more honourable.
As such insolence could not be safely tolerated, the emperor determined to
depose Michael Ceroularios and appoint a new
patriarch; but as it appeared dangerous to take any measures openly against the
head of the church in the capital, Isaac watched for an opportunity to arrest
Michael when he quitted the city to perform an ecclesiastical ceremony without
the walls on the feast of the Holy Apostles. The patriarch was then taken into
custody by a company of Varangians, and transported to the island of Proconnesus. Preparations were going on to depose him in a
synod convoked for the purpose, when his death relieved the emperor from all
trouble, and enabled him to name the president Constantinos
Leichudes as his successor, who, though a layman, was
elected by the metropolitans, the clergy, and the people, in regular form. The
high reputation of Leichudes rendered his nomination
popular. For a long time he had been the principal minister of the Emperor
Constantine IX, and his prudent administration was supposed to have averted
many of the evil consequences with which that prince’s vices threatened the
empire.
An invasion of the Hungarians and Patzinaks suddenly summoned Isaac to the
northern frontier in the summer of 1059. When he reached Triaditza,
the Hungarians and the greater part of the Patzinaks retired, and concluded a
treaty of peace. Selté alone, one of the four chiefs
who had conducted the famous retreat of the Patzinak
auxiliaries from Asia Minor across the Bosphorus in 1049, refused to agree to
any terms, and carried on the war from the fastnesses he held on the banks of
the Danube. He was, however, soon defeated, and his stronghold destroyed; but
while the Byzantine army lay encamped near Lobitza,
which had been fortified by Selté as a stronghold in
the time of Constantine IX, a sudden autumnal storm broke over the camp with
fearful violence; men and horses were swept away by the torrents, and the tents
were blown down. The emperor sought shelter under a magnificent old oak, where
he was leaning against the trunk when a sudden noise behind induced him to
withdraw a few paces in astonishment. His wonder was soon increased by a
terrific clap of thunder, and the mighty oak against which he had been leaning
fell all around, shivered to pieces. The communications of the army were
interrupted by the snow for a few days, and the troops were in danger of starvation.
This storm having occurred on the 24th of September, which is the feast of St Thekla, the emperor, as soon as he returned to
Constantinople, dedicated a chapel in the palace of Blachern
to this saint, whose especial protection he believed had saved him from death.
Not long after his return to Constantinople, the emperor was suddenly
attacked by a dangerous illness as he was hunting on the shores of the
Bosphorus. Michael Psellos, whose treachery had aided
him in mounting the throne, records that his malady was an attack of pleurisy;
but Scylitzes adopts the opinion generally current
among the people, that the disease had a miraculous origin. Isaac was as
passionately devoted to the chase as any of his predecessors, or as any Norman
king. As he was pursuing a wild boar of monstrous aspect, the grim animal
directed its course straight to the sea, and vanished in the waters of the
Bosphorus. In disappearing, it shadowed forth “a demoniacal form, and a flash
of lightning threw the emperor senseless from his horse”. He was taken up in an
alarming state by his attendants, and transported in a boat to the imperial
palace. His life was for some time in danger; and believing himself to be on
the point of death, he assumed the monastic garb, and selected as his successor
Constantine Ducas, the man he deemed best able to
restore order in the administration from his financial skill. To enable the
empire to profit by the services of the man best suited to its circumstances,
Isaac set aside his own brother John; yet he was deceived in his choice. He
recovered from his illness; but when restored to health, he showed no regret
that he had resigned the throne, and retired into the monastery of Studion,
where he had received his education, performing all the duties of the humblest
monk, and taking his turn to act as porter at the gate. His wife Catherine, a
princess of the Bulgarian royal family, confirmed him in his pious resolutions,
and retired also from the world with her daughter Maria. After the death of
Isaac, his wife celebrated the anniversary of his decease by an annual
religious ceremony, at which she made a liberal distribution of alms. On one
occasion she ordered the sum to be doubled, and when it was observed that the
liberality was too great for her fortune, she replied, “Perhaps these gifts may
be the last I can bestow.” Her presentiment was soon verified, and her
last solemn command was that her body should be interred in the cemetery of
Studion as a simple nun, without any sign to indicate that she was born a
Bulgarian princess and had been a Roman empress.
Constantine X displayed on the throne little of the talent which Isaac I
had supposed him to possess. He had appeared an able minister as long as his
conduct was directed by an energetic superior, but on the throne he acted as an
avaricious pedant. He declared that he valued his learning more than his
empire, and his reign must have convinced his subjects that his intellect
fitted him for composing orations according to the rules of rhetoric rather
than for governing men according to the dictates of justice. Avarice and vanity
directed his whole conduct as emperor; naturally sluggish, he hardly thought
seriously on any subject but how to increase the receipts of the imperial
treasury, and how to display his own eloquence. To satisfy the first, he
augmented the weight of taxation by selling the public income to farmers of the
revenue, who used every exaction to augment their profits; and to give his
people an opportunity of appreciating his eloquence, he sate as a civil judge
when he ought to have been performing the duties of a sovereign. Yet even in
his judicial capacity he constantly violated the laws, from a blind
confidence in his own discernment, which led him to believe that he could measure
out equity to individuals in opposition to the general principles of the law.
To save money, he reduced the army, neglected to supply the troops with
arms, artillery, and warlike stores, and left the fortifications on the
frontiers unrepaired and the garrisons unpaid. Isaac had cleared away
an accumulation of brevet officers receiving high pay; Constantine X reinstated
many of these in their previous rank, to form a heavy and useless burden on the
military establishment of the empire. He also made great promotions among the
senators, municipal officers, and heads of corporations in Constantinople, in
order to secure a strong body of partisans in the capital. For the same
purpose, while he weakened the numerical strength of the army by neglecting to
recruit the native legions, he liberally provided for the Varangian guard in
the capital, on whose attachment his own personal security depended.
The fate of the population of the Byzantine Empire was now decided by the
personal character of the emperor. The avarice of Constantine Ducas caused the ruin of the Christian inhabitants of great
part of Asia Minor. The decline of the Byzantine power at this period has been
very erroneously attributed to a decided military superiority on the part of
the Seljouk Turks, to the great ability of Alp
Arslan, and to the rashness of Romanus IV (Diogenes); but the events of the
reign of Constantine X prove that it was the consequence of his acts. His
avarice caused the loss of the two fortresses which defended the frontiers of
the empire in the east and the west, Ani and Belgrade; and he allowed the
independent Armenians to be completely subjugated by the Mohammedans without an
effort in their favour. These warlike mountaineers had long formed an
impregnable barrier against the progress of the Mohammedan powers. The
difficulty the great Sultan Alp Arslan met with, in breaking through their
country, even though he was aided by intestine discord, fomented by the
ecclesiastical intrigues of the Byzantine court, proves that a small imperial
army might have repulsed the Seljouk Turks from the
fortified cities of Armenia, and secured the independence of the Christian
tribes who occupied the labyrinths of the Caucasian and Armenian mountains,
thereby preventing the Turks from reaching the Byzantine frontier.
It has been already noticed that the policy of the Byzantine court, under
the Basilian dynasty, was hostile to Armenian independence, and it has been
mentioned that the destruction of the Armenian kingdom had thrown open the
Byzantine possessions in Asia Minor to the invasions of the Seljouk
Turks. Constantine X made the Byzantine policy of uniting all Christians under
the imperial government and the Greek Church a pretext for gratifying his
avarice, by refusing aid to the independent Christians of Iberia and Armenia.
He pretended that it would be impolitic to aid those who refused to become
vassals of the empire, and criminal to support those who were opposed to the
Orthodox Church. Basil II had apparently united the greater part of the
Armenian clergy to the Greek Church, but in reality he only destroyed the
independence of the nation; and the very circumstances which aided his
conquests weakened the defensive power of the imperial government on their
newly-acquired frontier.
It is important to observe the precise position of the country peopled by
the Armenian race at the time of the Seljouk
irruption into Asia Minor, in order to understand how the Byzantine government
was so easily deprived of some of the richest and most populous provinces of
the empire. The emperors of Constantinople had suffered far greater losses at
the periods when Heraclius and Leo III mounted the throne, and yet both these
princes restored to the empire no inconsiderable portion of its ancient power
and glory; but the blow now inflicted by the Seljouk
Turks, or the avarice of Constantine X, proved an immedicable wound. In the
year 1016, as has been already noticed, Armenia was first invaded by this new
race of conquerors, whose descendants form at the present day the most numerous
part of the population of the Ottoman Empire in Asia Minor. Sennacherib, the
prince of Vaspourakan, ceded his possessions to Basil
II, and received in exchange an appanage in Cappadocia, including the cities of
Sebaste, Larissa, and Abara.
In the year 1022, Basil II forced John, king of Armenia, to make the cession of
his dominions after his death, which Constantine IX compelled Gaghik to carry into execution by surrendering Ani in 1045.
Gaghik received as an appanage a territory on the
frontiers of Cappadocia, including the cities of Bizou,
Khorzen, and Lykandos. The
power of the kings of Iberia was also curtailed about the same time. They were
compelled to cede the southern portion of their dominions to Liparites, an Orpelian prince, who
was taken prisoner by the Turks at the battle of Kapetrou,
and released by Togroul. Liparites
was subsequently murdered by Bagrat, the king of
Iberia, and the whole of Georgia and Abasgia were
again reunited. Ivané, the son of Liparites, retired
into the empire, and received from the Emperor Isaac I an
appanage at Archamouni, near Erzeroum.
The Seljouks continued their attacks on Armenia
during the reigns of Theodora, Michael VI, and Isaac I, and the ravages they
committed drew the serious attention of the Byzantine government to the eastern
frontier. At the accession of Constantine X it was evident that the emperor,
who was in possession of the greater part of Armenia, must undertake the
defence of the whole country, or great part would fall into the hands of the
Mohammedans. The principalities of Kars and Lorhi,
and the kingdom of Iberia (Georgia), were unable to resist the Turks, if left
to their own unassisted resources. The ambition of Ivané,
the son of Liparites, opened the passes of the
Armenian mountains to the enemies of his country and religion. Dissatisfied
with his appanage in the empire, he endeavoured to render himself master of the
neighbouring district of Karin, and involved himself in hostilities with the
imperial authorities. In order to secure allies capable of protecting him, he
connected himself with the Seljouk Turks, and guided
the plundering incursions of the Mohammedan armies. In the meantime the Emperor
Constantine X, instead of reinforcing his troops in Armenia, and establishing
order within his own frontier by seizing Ivané,
occupied himself exclusively with the project of effecting a union of the
Byzantine and Armenian churches, which he endeavoured to render a profitable
undertaking for his treasury. The disorders on the frontier were allowed to
increase, as a means of depressing the nobility and clergy hostile to the
union, or able to offer some resistance to the fiscal oppression of the
Byzantine court. The unjust proceedings of the imperial government and the
Greek clergy, in their infatuated zeal for political and ecclesiastical unity,
augmented the religious bigotry of the Greek and Armenian people, and sowed the
seeds of a deep-rooted national animosity. The calamities of the independent
Armenian Christians were regarded as gain to the Orthodox Church, and the
emperor fomented civil dissensions among the warriors who formed the strongest
barrier of his own provinces against the incursions of the Mohammedans.
In the year 1060, while the affairs of Armenia were in this disturbed
state, the armies of Togroul Beg invaded the empire
on the Mesopotamian frontier, and laid siege to Edessa. The attack was repulsed
by the activity of Vest Katchadour, an Armenian who
commanded at Antioch, in Cilicia; but the Seljouks
soon renewed their invasion, and a body of their troops advanced as far as Sebaste, which was taken by assault, and plundered for the
space of eight days. The following year they surprised the town of Arkni, a frontier fortress of the Mesopotamian theme. The
Byzantine general of the district, and a foreign officer named Frangopoulos,
with the troops stationed at Edessa, made an attempt to revenge this loss, by
attacking the Turkish fortress of Amida, but were
defeated in their enterprise.
In the year 1063, Alp Arslan, who had succeeded his uncle Togroul as great sultan, commenced his expeditions against
the Christians, by leading his army in person into Iberia and the northern
parts of Armenia. He compelled David, the Bagratian
prince of Lorhi, to give him a daughter in marriage,
and laid waste the kingdom of Iberia in the crudest manner, for it was the
policy of the Turks to depopulate the country they desired to subdue. The
desolation of the hitherto rich and well-cultivated regions of Iberia, which
had been long celebrated for the industry of the inhabitants, the wealth of its
numerous towns, and the valour of its warlike population, is to be dated from
the destructive ravages of Alp Arslan. The country was compelled to submit to
the great sultan; and though the authority of the Turks was never very firmly
established, these invaders gradually rendered Iberia, which at the
commencement of the eleventh century was the happiest portion of Asia, a scene
of poverty and depopulation.
When the spirit of the Georgians was broken, Alp Arslan marched to attack
Ani, the capital of Armenia, now garrisoned by a Byzantine force under Bagrat, an Armenian general in the Byzantine service. Ani
was situated on a rocky peninsula overhanging the rapid stream of the Rha, the ancient Harpassus. A deep
ravine joining the bed of this river protected the city on the west. The base
of the triangle on which it stood looked towards the north, and was the only
side by which the fortifications could be approached. The ruins of the massive
walls that defended the city in this direction still exist to the height of
forty feet, attesting the importance of the place, and the wealth and military
skill of the Armenian kings who fortified it in the tenth century. The position
of Ani was strong, and its fortifications solid, but the army of Alp Arslan was
numerous, and well provided with all the warlike machines then used in sieges;
the people detested the Byzantine government so much as to be indifferent to
their fate, while the spirit of the garrison was depressed by a conviction that
the Emperor Constantine would be induced by avarice to abandon them to their
own unassisted resources. Ani nevertheless made a gallant defence, and,
refusing to capitulate, was taken by storm on the 6th of June, 1064.
After the conquest of Ani, Gaghik, the Bagratian prince of Kara, made the humblest submission to
the victor, and was allowed to retain his dominions as a vassal; but he felt
his position under the Mohammedans to be so insecure, that he availed himself
of the return of Alp Arslan into Persia to cede his territories to the
Byzantine emperor, who gave him in exchange the city of Tzamandos
with its neighbourhood as an appanage. This transaction removed the last of the
Armenian princes from his native country, and was followed by an immense
emigration of the people into the provinces of the empire lying to the west and
south of their ancient seats. Adom and Abousahl, the
sons of Sennacherib, held Sebaste; Gaghik, king of Ani, resided at Bizou;
and Gaghik, prince of Kars, now took up his residence
at Tzamandos. Whatever might have been the project of
the Byzantine court in effecting these strange translocations on the Armenian
frontier, they appear to have failed. The duration of these vassal
establishments was short and troubled, but from their relics, and from the
colonies of Armenian emigrants, a new independent Armenian kingdom arose in
Cilicia, which occupied a prominent part in history during the earlier
crusades.
During the campaigns of Alp Arslan in Georgia and Armenia, several small
armies of Turks invaded the provinces of Mesopotamia, Chaldea, Melitene, and Kaloneia. They plundered the open country, putting all the
armed men to the sword, and carrying off the younger inhabitants for the
Mohammedan slave-marts. Whenever large bodies of Byzantine troops could be
assembled to oppose them, they avoided an engagement, and effected a rapid
retreat. The plan by which they expected to render themselves masters of the
provinces they invaded, was to exterminate the cultivators of the soil in the
extensive plains, in order to leave the country in a fit state to be occupied
by their own nomadic tribes. The villages, farm-houses, and plantations were
everywhere burned down, and the wells were often filled, in order that all
cultivation might be confined to the immediate vicinity of fortified towns. By
this policy they soon rendered agricultural property in many extensive
districts of Asia Minor so insecure, that whole provinces were left vacant for
their occupation before the Seljouk power was able to
conquer the cities. So boldly did they pursue these ravages, that Scylitzes records incursions of Seljouk
bands even into Galatia, Honorias, and Phrygia during
the reign of Constantine X.
About the time the fortress of Ani was irretrievably lost, the equally
important city of Belgrade, which served as the bulwark of the western
provinces, was allowed to fall into the hands of the Hungarians without an
effort on the part of the emperor to save it. Solomon, king of Hungary, seeing
the unprotected state of the Byzantine frontier in Europe, made the plundering
incursions of some brigands from Bulgaria a pretext for commencing hostilities
and laying siege to Belgrade. The garrison defended the place for three months;
but when it appeared that the emperor’s avarice would prevent his making any
attempt to raise the siege, the place capitulated. Hungarian history boasts of
several victories obtained over the imperial troops who attempted to relieve
Belgrade, but the Byzantine writers are silent even concerning
its capture.
The year after the loss of Ani, the Ouzes or Uzes, a nomad tribe of Turkish origin, whom the Byzantine
historians call a more noble and numerous race than the Patzinaks, invaded the
European provinces of the empire. This people appears to have first entered the
territory of the Patzinaks as friends, and to have lived among them as allies;
but in a short time they became engaged in the fiercest hostilities, from the
impossibility of fixing any settled frontiers for nomad tribes in the immense
plains to the north of the Black Sea. At this period some accidental
circumstance impelled an immense body of the Uzes to
emigrate, and enabled them to pass through the center
of the Patzinak territory to the banks of the Danube,
where they soon assembled boats and rafts in sufficient numbers to cross the
river. The military force of the invaders amounted to sixty thousand men and
two generals, Basilias Apokapes
and Nicephorus Botaniates, who commanded the
garrisons on the Danube, hastening to oppose their advance, were defeated and
taken prisoners. The Uzes then divided their army, in
order to extend their plundering incursions over a greater space. One division
advanced to the vicinity of Thessalonica, and sent forward parties who extended
their ravages even into Greece. But the abundance in which the barbarians
revelled during the autumn soon spread disease in their ranks; and the ease
with which they had penetrated into every province made them negligent of
military precautions. The consequence was that their dispersed bands were
everywhere attacked, and they lost all the booty they had collected. When the
severity of winter weakened them still farther, the mountaineers of Haemus
ventured to harass their main body, which was at last hemmed in on all sides by
enemies.
The Emperor Constantine remained an inactive spectator of the ruin of the
European provinces, and only availed himself of the reverses of the invaders
and the successes of the mountain tribes of his subjects to negotiate with the
leaders of the Uzes, and secure their retreat with
the smallest expenditure of money. At last, however, the complaints of the
people of Constantinople against his avarice and cowardice became so loud as to
threaten a revolution, and the emperor felt the necessity of marching out of
the capital as if he intended to put himself at the head of an army. After
holding a solemn fast, he proceeded to the town of Choirobacchus,
on the road to Adrianople, attended only by a guard of one hundred and fifty
men. Shortly after his arrival at that place, it was officially announced to
him by a courier from the army that the principal body of the Uzes was completely dispersed. One division, which had
advanced as far as Tzourla, had been overwhelmed by
the Byzantine troops, while those near the Danube had been cut off by the
combined attacks of the Bulgarian militia and the Patzinaks. There can be no
doubt that the Emperor Constantine X was aware of these circumstances before he
quitted the capital; but he affected to receive the intelligence as unexpected,
and attributed the successes to his own piety and rigid fasts, not to the
discipline of his army, or the valour of his subjects and allies. The heavenly
host, hired by prayers instead of byzants, was said to have fought like ordinary
mercenaries, and slain the Uzes with the usual
weapons. The manner in which they received payment was peculiarly
gratifying to the disposition of Constantine X. According to the usual
policy of the Byzantine court, which sought to maintain a balance of power not
only among the rival nations beyond the frontier, but even among the various
races of its own subjects, the survivors of the Uzes
were established as colonists on public lands in Macedonia. No fact can
establish more strongly the anti-Greek spirit of the Byzantine government at
this period than the notices we find of this colony of Turks. They soon adopted
the Christian religion, and were treated with great favour by the emperors, for
their isolated position rendered them more devoted partisans of the central
authority, and of the personal power of the emperors, than native subjects.
Some of their leading men were honoured with the rank of senators, and rose to
the highest dignities in the state. Their national feelings proved, however, at
times stronger than their Christianity or their Roman civilization, so that
when a body of these Uzes in the army of Romanus IV
was opposed to a kindred tribe of Turks in the army of Alp Arslan, before the
battle of Manzikert, they deserted to the sultan, and joined their countrymen.
During the reign of Constantine X a severe earthquake spread desolation
round Constantinople, and ruined many districts which lay beyond the reach of
hostile invasions. A greater amount of vested capital was destroyed in a few
hours than the fiercest barbarians could have annihilated in a whole campaign.
The walls of cities, the aqueducts, churches, and public buildings, were thrown
down throughout all Thrace and Bithynia. At Cyzicus, an ancient temple of great
size and splendour, and of a solidity of construction which seemed to announce
eternal duration to those accustomed to the puny architectural efforts of the
Byzantine emperors, was destroyed. At Nicaea, the walls of the great church, in
which the first council of the Church had assembled, were crumbled to their
foundations. Earthquakes continued to be felt with alarming violence for the
space of two years, as if to terrify men from repairing the dilapidations of
the first terrific shock.
When Constantine X found his end approaching, he conferred the regency of
the empire, and the guardianship of his sons, who had already received the
imperial crown, on his wife, Eudocia Makremvolitissa;
but he exacted from her a written promise not to marry a second husband, and he
deposited that document in the hands of the patriarch John Xiphilinos.
He also engaged the senate to take an oath that it would never acknowledge any
other emperor than his own children. The names of the sons of Constantine X who
had received the imperial title were Michael, Andronicus, and Constantine. The
last, having been born after his father ascended the throne, was called
Porphyrogenitus.
Sect. II
Regency of Eudocia, A.D. 1067;
Romanus IV Diogenes, A.D. 1068-1071; Michael VII, A.D. 1071-1078; Nicephorus
III, A.D. 1078-1081
In exacting from the senators an oath to maintain the rights of the young
emperors, it was not the intention of Constantine X to confer any additional
power on the senate; but the circumstance served as a pretext for every
ambitious member of that body to plot for his own advancement, under the
pretext that he was performing the duty imposed on him by his oath. Eudocia
soon perceived that she was in some danger of losing the regency unless she
could secure some powerful aid. Her ambition suggested to her, that by choosing
a second husband, whom she could raise to the imperial title, she would be able
to retain her position even after the majority and marriage of her eldest son.
Policy favoured her views, which were sanctioned by the prudent government of
Nicephorus II and John I, when they reigned as guardians and colleagues of the
young emperors, Basil II and Constantine VIII. Love determined the selection of
Eudocia. Her choice fell on Romanus Diogenes, who had been convicted of treason
against her children’s throne, and was then waiting to receive his sentence
from Eudocia as regent. His valour and his popularity with the army were great,
and when he received a full pardon from the empress-regent, it excited no
suspicion that she viewed him with peculiar favour. The Seljouk Turks had overrun all Cappadocia, and the capture
of Caesareia rendered it necessary to place the army
under the command of an able and enterprising general. But before Eudocia could
venture to marry Romanus, it was necessary to destroy the document she had
signed, promising never to contract a second marriage. Her written engagement
was in the hands of the Patriarch, who held it as a national deposit. It
required, therefore, some diplomatic skill to enable the empress to accomplish
her object; but she could reckon on the utter absence of any sentiment of
patriotism among the Byzantine clergy. The duplicity of the empress was aided
by the credulous ambition of the Greek Patriarch, John Xiphilinos,
who, though he had formerly quitted high rank to become a recluse on Mount
Olympus, now resumed all the vices of Constantinopolitan society. Eudocia
understood his character, and by leading him to believe that she intended to
select his brother as her husband, she induced him to deliver into her hands
the document committed to his custody, and persuaded him to become the proposer
of a measure in the senate, by which that body pronounced an opinion in favour
of her second marriage. When her plans had completely succeeded, she confounded
the Patriarch, and gratified the people and the army, by announcing that she
had selected Romanus Diogenes, the bravest general in the empire, to fill the
imperial throne, and act as guardian to her sons.
Romanus IV was of a distinguished family of Cappadocia. He was connected by
birth with most of the great aristocratic nobles of Asia Minor. His father,
Constantine Diogenes, had committed suicide in the reign of Romanus III, and he
inherited the courage, generosity, and vehemence of his parent. Though an able
and skilful officer, his military talents were obscured by a degree of
impetuosity that made him too often neglect the suggestions of prudence in
those critical circumstances, when a long train of future events depends on the
calmness of a moment’s decisions. Rashness and presumption were the defects
both of his private character and public conduct. Though his marriage with
Eudocia seated him on the throne, he found his authority in the capital
circumscribed by the influence of the officials, who pretended to support the
power of his wife as empress-regent, and who were guided in their opposition by
John Ducas, the late emperor’s brother, and the
natural guardian of the young emperors after the second marriage of their
mother. John Ducas also held the rank of Caesar, and
his family influence in the senate was very great.
The Varangian guard likewise viewed the elevation of Romanus IV
with great jealousy, on account of his popularity with the native troops, whom
he had always favoured. These foreigners had openly expressed their
discontent at the marriage of Eudocia, which they declared was injurious to the
legal rights of the sons of Constantine X, and their seditious behaviour had
been with difficulty suppressed. In this state of things, Romanus IV felt
that he could only be the real sovereign of the empire by placing himself at
the head of a powerful army in the field, and the state of the war with the Seljouk Turks imperiously demanded the whole attention of
the Byzantine government.
In the year 1067 the Turks had extended their ravages over Mesopotamia,
Melitene, Syria, Cilicia, and Cappadocia; they had massacred the inhabitants of
Caesareia, and plundered the great church of St Basil
of the wealth accumulated by many generations of pious votaries. After this
campaign, their army wintered on the frontiers of the empire. Romanus now
prepared to arrest their future incursions. He looked upon them as little
better than hordes of brigands, and thought their light cavalry was ill fitted
to contend against a regular army. Confident of superiority on the field of
battle, he expected success in the operations of a campaign. The whole
disposable forces of the empire were assembled in the Anatolic theme; but the
neglected discipline and various tactics of the troops composing the motley
army, while they revealed the ruinous effects of the avarice of the late
emperor, ought to have cautioned an experienced general to commence his
operations by giving unity of action to the body under his command before
opposing it to the enemy. Heraclius, and Leo the Isaurian, had re-established
the power and restored the glory of the Roman empire with worse materials than
the legions of Sclavonians, Armenians, Bulgarians,
Franks, and Varangians in the army of Romanus IV. But it required some time and
patience to restore the once-celebrated discipline of the Byzantine army, and
to make the modifications which were called for by new contingencies in the
arms, armour, and tactics of the native soldiers; and the conservative vanity
of Roman prejudices uniting with aristocratic pride and a headstrong
disposition, rendered the emperor utterly unfit for such a task. He hurried his
troops into the field with all their imperfections, and his rashness inflicted
a mortal wound on the empire of the East. It is not necessary to follow his
operations in detail, nor to mention all the rapid movements of the Seljouk invaders. The ruin of the Byzantine power in Asia,
the extermination of the greater part of the Christian population, the unhappy
fate of Romanus himself, and the noble behaviour of his conqueror Alp Arslan,
immortalized in the pages of Gibbon, have invested this war with romantic
interest, and conferred on it a degree of importance to which neither the
military skill nor the political wisdom of the rival combatants entitle it.
The Seljouk armies were principally composed of
cavalry, intent on plunder. The Roman troops were mercenaries, destitute of
loyalty and patriotism. The Seljouk leaders perceived
that, as long as the Byzantine provinces in Asia Minor were inhabited by a
numerous population of Christians, supported by a regular army and by a line of
fortresses commanding the great roads, it would be impossible for nomad tribes
to retain possession of any conquests they might contrive to make. Their
policy, therefore, was soon directed to two objects: in the first place, to
enrich their followers, increase their own fame, and augment the numbers of
their troops by rapid inroads for the collection of plunder; in the second, to
reduce the open country as quickly as possible to such a state of depopulation
as would admit the establishment of permanent nomad encampments, in the midst
of uncultivated plains, far within the frontiers of the empire. In the
execution of this plan they carried into effect the instincts of their rude
nomadic life, as well as their bigoted schemes for the extermination of
Christian civilization, which they felt was the most dangerous obstacle to
their power. The great Sultan Alp Arslan was well aware that this war of
incursions and devastation offered greater prospects of ultimate success than a
series of pitched battles with the disciplined mercenaries of the empire. For
two years he withdrew from the scene of action, and left to his lieutenants the
task of ravaging and depopulating the Christian provinces of Asia Minor.
The first military operations of the Emperor Romanus were attended with
some success. Antioch was exposed to the attacks of the Saracens of Aleppo, who
were now emboldened, by the assistance of Turkish troops, to attempt the
reconquest of the Byzantine province in Syria. The emperor resolved
immediately to march to the south-eastern frontier of the empire, to
re-establish the supremacy of the imperial arms; but as he was advancing towards
Lykandos, it was announced to him that an army of Seljouks had suddenly broken into Pontus and plundered Neocaesareia. Without losing an hour, he selected a chosen
body of troops, and by a rapid countermarch through Sebaste and the mountains of Tephrike, overtook the
retreating Turks, and compelled them to abandon their plunder and release their
prisoners; but their activity secured the escape of the greater part of their
troops. The emperor then returned southward, advancing through the passes of
Mount Taurus to the north of Germanicia, called then the defiles of Koukousos, and invading the territory of Aleppo, he
captured Hierapolis (Membig), which he fortified as
an advanced post for the protection of the southern frontier of the empire.
After a good deal of severe fighting with the Saracens of Aleppo, he returned
by Alexandretta and the Cilician gates to Podandos.
Here he learned that, while he had been wasting the strength of his army by a
severe and useless inroad into Syria, a fresh horde of Seljouks,
finding the eastern frontier ill guarded, passed all the fortresses, and
penetrated by a rapid march into the very heart of Asia Minor. They took and
plundered Amorium, after which they effected their
retreat with such rapidity that Romanus was unable to pursue them, and
therefore continued his march to Constantinople, which he reached in January
1069.
The emperor’s second campaign produced no better results than the first. It
was deranged by the rebellion of a Norman noble in the Byzantine service, named
Crispin, who, moved either by the unbounded insolence and rapacity of the Frank
mercenary nobles, or by the necessity of securing the support of his troops,
whom the emperor may have neglected to pay with regularity, commenced
plundering the country, and robbing the collectors of the revenue. Though
Crispin was himself overpowered, and exiled to Abydos, many parties of Frank
soldiers continued to infest the Armeniac theme, and commit great disorders.
The country round Caesarea was again overrun by the Turks, and the emperor was
compelled to employ his army in clearing his native province from their bands.
He found the operation so tedious that it exhausted his patience; and in order
to bring matters more speedily to a termination, he ordered all his prisoners
to be put to death as highway robbers, and refused to spare a Seljouk chief who had fallen into his hands, though he
offered to pay an immense ransom for his life. Romanus, having delivered
Cappadocia from the invaders, marched forward by Melitene to the Euphrates, and
crossed the river at Romanopolis, with the intention
of advancing to Akhlat, on the lake of Van. By the
capture of this fortress he hoped to protect the Armenian frontier. Instead of
sending forward one of his generals to execute this duty, and remaining himself
with the main body of the army, to watch over the conduct of the campaign, he
placed himself at the head of the troops destined for the siege of Akhlat, and intrusted the command of the forces destined to
cover the frontier of Mesopotamia to Philaretos. This
general was defeated during his absence, and the Seljouks
again spread their ravages far and wide in Cappadocia and Lycaonia. They
advanced as far as the district of Iconium, which they plundered in their usual
manner, and then rapidly retreated with the spoil they had collected. The
advance of the emperor was arrested by the news of their advance on
Iconium. He returned to Sebaste, and sent on
orders to the Duke of Antioch to secure the passes at Mopsuestia,
while he pressed onward to overtake the Turks at Heracleia
(Kybistra). The invaders, hemmed in by these hostile
armies, were attacked in the mountains of Cilicia by the Armenian inhabitants;
but by abandoning the greater part of their booty, and making only a momentary
halt at Valtolivadhi, they contrived to gain a march
on their pursuers and cross Mount Sarbadik, from
whence they escaped to Aleppo.
In the year 1070 the command of the imperial army was intrusted to Manuel
Comnenus, nephew of the Emperor Isaac I, and elder brother of the future
Emperor Alexius. The general business of the administration, and a particular
desire to save Bari from falling into the hands of the Normans, by whom it was
closely besieged, detained Romanus IV in the capital. Manuel Comnenus had risen
rapidly to the highest military rank, more by means of his aristocratic
position than by superior talents, and he was distinguished more by his
personal courage than his military experience. The army was regarded in the
Byzantine empire at this period as the special occupation of the nobility, and
its highest commands were filled either by members of the great families of Ducas, Comnenus, Botaneiates, Bryennius, Melissenos, and Palaialogos,
by Armenian princes and nobles, or by captains of foreign mercenaries, like Hervé, Gosselin, Crispin, and Oursel.
Such an army required the strong hand of an emperor like Leo III, and the
indefatigable activity of a Constantine V, to compel it to respect order, and
keep it amenable to discipline.
Manuel Comnenus established his headquarters at Sebaste,
in order to watch any parties of Turks who might attempt to invade the empire.
He was soon drawn into an engagement by a Turkish general named Chrysoskroul or Khroudj, in which
he was defeated and taken prisoner. The Turks then continued their ravages,
penetrating as far as Chonae, which they sacked,
after plundering the great church of St Michael, and carrying off all the holy
plate, rich offerings, and pious dedications accumulated within its walls. The
Christians were insulted by seeing this great temple converted into a barracks
for the cavalry of the invaders, and terrified by witnessing the destruction of
other buildings. Many of the unfortunate inhabitants who attempted to escape
slavery by flight, perished, on this occasion, by a singular fate. The rivers
in the vicinity of Chonae pour their waters into an
immense subterraneous cavern, and it happened that while the wretched fugitives
were attempting to escape from the Turks, a sudden inundation swept men, women,
and children into this fearful chasm.
At this time Chrysoskroul was revolving projects
of rebellion against Alp Arslan, and he soon admitted his prisoner, Manuel
Comnenus, to his counsels, for he was anxious to secure some support from the
emperor. Manuel persuaded him to visit Constantinople in person, in order to
conclude an alliance with the Byzantine Empire, which was soon completed. The
news of this act of rebellion called Alp Arslan to the scene of action. Though
he had intrusted the conduct of the war to his officers as long as the plunder
of the Roman Empire was its principal object, the moment that the aspect of
affairs was changed, by the appearance of a rival to his throne, the great
sultan hastened to the Byzantine frontier. He besieged and captured Manzikert,
and invested Edessa; but, after losing fifty days before its walls, he was
compelled to retire into Persia.
Early in the spring of 1071, Romanus marched at the head of a numerous army
to recover Manzikert and meet the sultan. Various inauspicious omens are said
to have announced the disastrous issue of his enterprise, and the proofs his
army gave of insubordination warranted the inference that his military
operations were in great danger of proving unsuccessful. The soldiers pillaged
the emperor’s subjects wherever a camp was formed; and when an attempt was made
to enforce stricter discipline, a whole corps of German mercenaries broke out
into a dangerous mutiny, which the emperor had great difficulty in appeasing.
The army, however, continued to advance by Sebaste to
Theodosiopolis, where the plan of the campaign was
finally arranged. Romanus, believing that Alp Arslan would be delayed for some
time in Persia on account of the backward state of his preparations, resolved
to divide his army in order to gain possession of Akhlat,
in which there was a strong Turkish garrison, and which, in the possession of
the Byzantine army, would form an excellent base of operations against Persia. Oursel, a Frank chief with a division composed of European
mercenaries and Uzes, was sent to besiege Akhlat; while Trachaniotes, with
a strong division of Byzantine infantry, was detached to cover the operation.
The main body, under the immediate command of the emperor, advanced after this
reduction to Manzikert, which was soon retaken. Romanus had hardly taken
possession of his conquest before his advanced guard fell in with the
skirmishers of the army of Alp Arslan, and in some cavalry engagements which
took place the Byzantine troops were severely handled. On the first encounter,
Romanus, who was not aware of the sultan’s rapid advance, supposed that only a
small force was opposed to the imperial army; but when he became aware that the
whole Turkish army was in his vicinity, he dispatched orders to Trachaniotes and Oursel to rejoin the main body. These officers, however, finding
themselves unexpectedly in the immediate neighbourhood of a large Turkish
force, retreated within the frontiers of Mesopotamia, instead of
countermarching to effect a junction with the emperor’s army. It is difficult
to say whether they were induced to take this step from military reasons or
treasonable motives. In the meantime a body of Uzes,
which had remained with the main body of the army, finding themselves opposed
to a division in the hostile army of similar language and race, deserted to the
Turks.
BATTLE OF MANZIKERT, AD.
1071
The two armies were now so near that a battle seemed unavoidable; but still
Alp Arslan, who would willingly have avoided risking a general engagement with
the regular army of Romanus, made an offer to conclude peace on favourable
terms. Romanus, however, haughtily rejected the proposal, unless the sultan
would consent to retire, and allow the Byzantine army to occupy the ground on
which he was then encamped, before concluding the treaty. Alp Arslan knew that
no secure peace was ever purchased by disgrace. Romanus allowed visions of
vainglory to mislead him from performing the duty he owed to the
empire. He thought of rivalling Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar,
when he ought to have been meditating on the causes which had enabled the Turks
to plunder Caesarea, Amorium, Iconium, and Chonae.
Both parties prepared for a desperate contest. Romanus placed himself at
the head of his own centre; the right wing of his army was commanded by
Alyattes, a Cappadocian general; the left, by Nicephorus Bryennius;
and the reserve was led by Andronicus, the son of the Caesar John Ducas, the emperor’s bitterest enemy. The Turkish sultan
intrusted the immediate command of the battle to the eunuch Tarang,
who acted as his lieutenant-general, reserving to himself the direction of the
reserve and the power of performing all the duties of a general, without being
called upon to act as a mere soldier. But he felt the importance of this first
great battle between the Byzantine and Seljouk armies
in deciding the fate of the two empires; and he declared that, unless he proved
victorious, the field of battle should be his grave. The strength of the Roman
army lay in its legions of regular infantry and heavy-armed cavalry, while that
of the Turks reposed principally on the excellence of its light cavalry; hence
the difficulty of obtaining a partial advantage was not great, but it required
a well-combined system of manoeuvres to secure a complete victory. The object
of the regular army ought to have been the capture of the enemy’s camp, while
that of the irregular force was concentrated in forcing any portion of their
enemy to make a retrograde movement, in the hope of converting the retreat into
a total rout. The rash conduct of Romanus, the vigorous caution of Alp Arslan,
the treachery of Andronicus Ducas, and the cowardice
or incapacity of the Byzantine nobility, combined to give the Turks a complete
victory. The battle had lasted all day without either party gaining
any decisive advantage, when the imprudence of the emperor, in ordering a part
of the centre to return to the camp before transmitting proper orders to the
whole army, afforded Andronicus Ducas a pretext for
abandoning the field. Romanus, when he perceived his error, vainly endeavoured
to repair it by his personal courage. After fighting like a hero, his horse was
at last killed under him, and, a wound in the hand having rendered him
powerless, he was taken prisoner. The night had already set in, and the emperor
was left to sleep on the ground with the other prisoners, if the pain of his
wound and the agony of his mind could admit of repose. In the morning he was
brought before Alp Arslan, who, hearing that the Emperor of the Romans had
fallen into his hands, placed himself on his throne of state, in the great tent
set apart for the ceremonies of the grand sultan’s court. As soon as Romanus
approached the throne, he was thrown on the ground by the guards, and Alp
Arslan, according to the immemorial usage of the Turks, descended from his seat
and placed his foot on the neck of his captive, while a shout of triumph rang
through the ranks of the various nations of Asia who composed his army. But the
Byzantine historians who record this official celebration of his triumph, bear
testimony to the mildness and humanity of the conqueror; and add that the
emperor was immediately raised from the ground, and received from the grand
sultan assurance that he should be treated as a king. That evening Alp Arslan
and Romanus supped together, and their conversation is said to have been
characterized by the noblest philanthropy on the part of the sultan, and the
most daring frankness on that of Romanus. Alp Arslan was really a man of noble
sentiments; but at this time his policy led him to gain the goodwill of his
prisoner in order to conclude a lasting treaty of peace, for he was eager to
pursue other schemes of conquest in the native seats of his race beyond the
Oxus. Instead, therefore, of consuming his time in ravaging the empire, and
planting his standards on the Asiatic shores of the Bosphorus, he concluded a
treaty of peace with Romanus, who engaged to pay him a sum of money large
enough to be a suitable ransom for a Roman emperor.
The release of Romanus only overwhelmed the unfortunate emperor with new
misfortunes. The aristocracy and people of Constantinople both disliked his government,
because it had withdrawn a large part of the public expenditure from the court
and the capital, and reduced the salaries of the nobles and the profits of the
tradesmen; while the provincial governors and military chiefs were not attached
to his person, because he controlled their peculations and oppressions by his
presence. Corruption had penetrated so deep into the official society of the
Byzantine Empire, that the ruling classes were everywhere bent on converting
the public service into a means of gain; and the people, deprived of all power,
and even of the capacity of obtaining any political knowledge, were utterly
helpless. Romanus had reformed the court, restrained the peculations of
the aristocracy, and enforced discipline among the foreign mercenaries; but he
was not popular with the people, for he had neither amused them with shows in
the hippodrome, nor lightened the burden of their sufferings in the provinces.
He was indeed the only man in the empire whose interests and policy were identical
with the public welfare, but unfortunately he was deficient in the prudence and
judgment necessary to render this fact generally apparent.
The captivity of Romanus had produced a revolution at court. The Empress
Eudocia was compelled to take the veil and retire into a monastery, while the
Caesar John Ducas became the real sovereign in the
name of his nephew, Michael VII. As soon as the news reached Constantinople
that the Emperor Romanus had returned into the empire, orders were sent off by
the Caesar to prevent his being acknowledged as emperor. He had only been
elevated to the throne to act for Michael VII, and that prince was now able to
conduct the government. Such was the reasoning of the enemies of Romanus. Both
parties collected troops to support their pretensions. A battle was fought at Doceia, in which the army of Romanus was defeated, and that
emperor fled to the fort of Tyropoion; but finding
that he could not maintain himself there, he gained the mountains of Cilicia,
and retired to Adana. He was soon pursued by Andronicus, who had betrayed him
at the battle of Manzikert; and the Armenian governor of Antioch, Katchadour, who had advanced to assist him, having been
defeated, the garrison of Adana was so dispirited that they compelled Romanus
to surrender on receiving assurance of personal safety. Andronicus
required that Romanus should resign the empire and retire into a monastery.
This treaty was ratified at Constantinople, and the safety of the dethroned
sovereign was guaranteed by the Archbishops of Chalcedon, Heracleia,
and Coloneia with the most solemn promises. But the
Caesar John Ducas seized the opportunity to gratify
his implacable hatred, and, in defiance of the engagement of his son and the
promises of the bishops, ordered the eyes of Romanus to be put out.
Executioners were sent to inflict the sentence, and to carry the unfortunate
emperor to the island of Prote, where he was left
without an attendant to dress his wounds, which began to putrefy. The dying
Romanus bore the tortures inflicted on him with unshaken fortitude, neither
uttering a reproach against his enemies nor a lamentation against his fate,
praying only that his sufferings might be received as an expiation
of his sins. His wife Eudocia was allowed to honour his remains with a
sumptuous funeral. It is said that, before quitting Adana, he collected all the
money of which he could dispose, and sent it to the sultan as a proof of his
good faith. It was accompanied with this message: “As emperor, I promised you a
ransom of a million and a half. Dethroned, and about to become dependent on
others, I send you all I possess as a proof of my gratitude”.
While Romanus was marching to the defeat which left all Asia Minor at the
mercy of the Turks, the Byzantine Empire lost its last hold on Italy. Arghyros, the son of Mel, had been sent by Constantine IX
as katapan or viceroy, to arrest the progress of the
Normans. He exerted himself with indefatigable energy both in open war and
secret intrigue; but the defeat of Pope Leo IX, who fell into the hands
of the Normans, rendered all the projects of the Byzantine government
vain, and Arghyros repaired in person to
Constantinople to solicit additional support. Isaac I, displeased with his
conduct, dismissed him from all his employments, and the affairs of Italy were
neglected. In the reign of Constantine X, an opportunity presented itself of
re-establishing the imperial influence, in consequence of the dissensions of
the Normans, but that emperor was too avaricious to take advantage of the
circumstances. Robert Guiscard had unjustly seized the heritage of his brother
Humphrey, and Abelard, his nephew, fled to Constantinople, attended by
Gosselin, a Norman officer of ability and influence. Though the Byzantine
officers in Italy received little support from the central government, one of
their number, named Maurice, obtained considerable success, and with a corps of
Varangians under his command defeated the Normans on several occasions, and
regained possession of several towns. But Robert Guiscard, concentrating the
whole force of his countrymen, at last captured Otranto, Tarentum, and
Brindisi, and laid siege to Bari, the last possession of the Byzantine
emperors. The place was attacked in 1068, but was so well defended that the
Normans were compelled to convert the siege into a blockade, and Romanus IV
determined to make an effort in its favour. In 1070 a fleet was intrusted to
Gosselin, with ample supplies for the besieged city; but Gosselin was met by a
Norman fleet under the command of Roger, the younger brother of Guiscard, and
the future conqueror of Sicily. The Byzantine expedition was defeated, Gosselin
was taken prisoner, and the garrison of Bari, hopeless of relief, capitulated
on the 15th of April 1071, abandoning for ever the last relics of the authority
of the Roman empire of the East in Italy.
MICHAEL VII
The education of the Emperor Michael VII had been intrusted to Michael Psellus, an able but intriguing pedant, who rendered the
young prince a learned grammarian, but, either from natural defects or improper
instruction, he turned out a worthless sovereign. Instead of attending to
political business, he spent his time in rhetorical exercises or in writing
iambics. Feeble, vain, and suspicious, he was easily made the tool of those who
flattered his weaknesses. The Archbishop of Side, an able and virtuous prelate,
was replaced in the duties of prime-minister by Nicephoritzes,
who was recalled from the office of chief judge in Greece to perform the duties
of postmaster-general. The emperor being as idle as he was incapable, and the
new prime-minister as active as he was unprincipled, Nicephoritzes
soon gained the exclusive direction of the weak mind of his sovereign, and
established a complete supremacy over the court as well as the public administration.
This was done in a great measure by a lavish expenditure of public money; and
while he satisfied many claimants on the treasury, he took care to enrich
himself.
The Byzantine Empire had now reached a state of society in which wealth was
the universal object of pursuit. Every poetic aspiration in the heart of
man was dead; honour and fame were the dreams of children. Power itself was an
object of ambition, because it was the surest means of attaining wealth, and it
is needless to say that under such circumstances rapacity and extortion were
vices inherent in official life. The financial difficulties of the government,
after the disasters of Romanus IV, must have caused some disorders even under
the administration of an honest minister. The imperial revenues were diminished
by the incursions of the Turks, which were pushed forward almost with impunity
up to the very walls of Nicaea and Nicomedia. The Byzantine practice of filling
the provinces with colonies of foreign races, and the lately-adopted usage of
settling appanaged chieftains in Asia Minor, now led
to several Armenian principalities in Cappadocia and Cilicia assuming an
independent position. Yet even under these circumstances the great officers in
the capital, the courtiers and the governors of provinces, all insisted on the
full payment of their exorbitant salaries, leaving the troops of the line, the
fleet, and the public buildings to suffer from the diminished resources of the
empire. The court of Constantinople and the shows of the hippodrome were as
brilliant as ever; the fortifications, the aqueducts, the roads and the ports
of the provincial cities were allowed to fall to ruin. The whole of the money
which the minister could draw into the central treasury was devoted to satisfy
the rapacious nobility, and keep the turbulent populace of the capital in
good-humour. As usually happens when police and cleanliness are neglected for
any length of time, famine and plague began to ravage the provinces of Asia
Minor which the nomads had plundered. The people, crowded together in the
cities, died of starvation, and spread disease. Yet the rapacity and the
exigencies of the treasury were so great, that the Emperor Michael availed
himself even of these appalling disasters to collect money. Imperial ships were
employed to form magazines of grain at Rhaedestum,
where a corn-market was established, and the trade in grain became a government
monopoly. It is said that the imperial agents took advantage of the public
distress to sell the modius of wheat for a byzant, and the
popular indignation propagated the report that the measure was reduced to three
quarters of its legitimate contents. The emperor, who was held by his subjects
to be responsible for this fraud, received from them the nickname of Michael Parapinakes, or Michael the Peck-filcher.
While the people were thus oppressed, the principal military chiefs, both
natives and foreigners, began to arrogate to themselves the authority of petty
princes. Still, in attributing due importance to the temporary misgovernment of
Michael and his minister, we must not neglect the general tendency of all
extensive territories in the eleventh century to separate into smaller circles
of political action. Centralization in an extensive state, even in the most
civilized state of society, requires rapid means of communication. The theories
of Roman law and administration, which had long tended to bind the subjects of
the Byzantine Empire together, had now lost their influence, and were
supplanted by the authority of personal and local power. The same social
condition which caused the Byzantine Empire to exhibit a tendency to separation
may be traced alike in the history of feudal France and of the Seljouk Empire.
Rebellions against the vigorous sway of Alp Arslan and Malekshah
followed one another as rapidly as against the feeble rule of Michael Parapinakes and Nicephorus Botaniates.
The impulse of society was the same in the Byzantine and the Seljouk empires; the results only were modified by the
character of the individual sovereigns: the valour of the sultans preserved
their thrones, the cowardice of the emperors drove them into monasteries, but
both empires were equally broken in pieces.
The oppressive conduct and the weakness of the Byzantine government
suggested to the Bulgarians the hope of re-establishing their national
independence. The Bulgarian aristocracy was always sure of finding a large body
of supporters among the Sclavonian population of
Macedonia and Greece, as well as among the Bulgarians of Thrace, who were as
anxious to be governed by a prince of their own race as the tribes north of
Mount Haemus. On this occasion the rebels sent a deputation to Michael, the
sovereign of Servia and Croatia, who appeared to be the only Sclavonian prince powerful enough to protect them, and
offered the sovereignty of Bulgaria to his son Constantinos
Bodinos. The offer was accepted, and the Servian
prince was proclaimed king of the Bulgarians, under the name of Peter, at Prisdiana. The Byzantine army, under the command of Damian Dalassenos, a presumptuous noble, was completely defeated,
the camp was taken, and a mercenary chief, named Longibardopoulos,
was made prisoner with many other officers of rank. This Lombard chief,
who had entered the imperial service rather than submit to the Normans, soon
gained the favour of the prince of Servia, whose daughter he married, and whose
troops he commanded against the emperor he had lately served. The king of the
Bulgarians, after his victory, marched to Naissus, which he occupied, while he
sent a division of his army to besiege Kastoria, and
rouse the Sclavonians of Greece to take up arms. But
the attack on Kastoria was defeated, the Sclavonians remained firm in their allegiance, and the king
himself was routed and taken prisoner at Taonion in
the month of December 1073. The German and Frank troops in the Byzantine army
committed the greatest disorders in the country through which they marched. At Prespa, they destroyed the ancient palace of the kings of
Achrida, and they plundered the churches of their plate and ornaments whenever
they could enter them.
In Asia, Philaretos, an Armenian, who commanded a
division of the army of Romanus IV at the defeat of Manzikert, remained at the
head of a considerable body of troops. After the death of Romanus he assumed
the title of Emperor, and kept possession of a considerable territory in the
neighbourhood of Germanicia, which he governed as an independent prince, until
at last he made his peace with the emperor on condition of being appointed Duke
of Antioch.
Amidst these scenes of disorder, Nestor, a slave of Constantine X, who had
risen to the rank of governor of the towns on the Danube, suddenly rebelled.
Placing himself at the head of the garrisons under his orders, which were in a
state of mutiny from want of pay, and eager to plunder the Bulgarians because
some of their countrymen had rebelled, he obtained the assistance of one
of the chiefs of the Patzinaks, and marched straight to Constantinople. The
rebels demanded the dismissal of Nicephoritzes, but
finding their forces inadequate to attack the capital, they separated into
small parties, and spread over the country to collect plunder. Nestor remained
with the Patzinaks, and retired with them beyond the Danube.
Every calamity of this unfortunate period sinks into insignificance when
compared with the destruction of the greater part of the Greek race by the
ravages of the Seljouk Turks in Asia Minor. As soon
as the conditions of the treaty with Romanus were repudiated by the government
at Constantinople, Alp Arslan resolved to revenge himself for the loss of the
stipulated ransom and tribute. Other wars demanded his personal attention, but
innumerable hordes were instructed to plunder the Roman Empire; and his son Malekshah intrusted Suleiman, the son of Koutoulmish, with a permanent command over all the Turkish
encampments in Asia Minor. Suleiman began to lay the foundations of a lasting
dominion by attaching the agricultural population to his government,
whether they were freemen or serfs. This class cultivated the lands
belonging to the great Byzantine landed proprietors, without any hope of
bettering their condition. Suleiman now treated them as proprietors of the land
they occupied, on their paying a fixed tribute to the Seljouk
Empire, and thus the first foundations of the Turkish administration were laid
in the opposing interests of two different classes of the Christian population,
and in the adverse interests of landlords and tenants.
The progress of the Turks at last roused the Byzantine government to
exertion, and a motley army, composed of a variety of different nations, was
brigaded together; the principal object kept in view was to prevent the troops
agreeing to elect a new emperor. Isaac Comnenus, an elder brother of Alexius I,
was appointed to command this force, but was unable to prevent it becoming a
scene of anarchy. The mercenaries plundered the people, and when Isaac
attempted to punish the soldiers of Oursel for their
misdeeds, that Norman, who claimed an exclusive jurisdiction over his own
corps, deserted the camp, and induced all the Franks to join his standard. He
took possession of Sebaste, expecting to form an
independent Norman principality in Pontus, as Robert Guiscard had done in
Italy. In the meantime the army of Isaac Comnenus was defeated at Caesarea, his
camp stormed, and himself taken prisoner by the Turks. The state of affairs in
Asia Minor became then so alarming, that the Caesar John Ducas,
who had hitherto spent the greater part of his time hunting in the forests near
the shores of the Bosphorus, found himself compelled to take the command of the
army. His first operations were directed against the rebel Oursel.
He fixed his headquarters at Dorylaeum, and the
Norman encamped near the sources of the Sangarius. The
two armies met near the bridge over that river called Zompi,
which was one of the great lines of communication between Constantinople and
the central provinces of Asia Minor. The desertion of his Frank mercenaries,
and the disgraceful retreat of Nicephorus Botaniates
with the Asiatic reserve, caused the complete defeat of the Caesar’s army. John
Ducas and his son Andronicus were both made
prisoners, and the victorious army of mercenaries advanced to the shores of the
Bosphorus, and set fire to some of the houses at Chrysopolis
(Scutari). Oursel, however, already perceived that
the force under his command was insufficient to overthrow the administrative
fabric of the empire, even as then degraded, and he resolved to advance his
fortunes by acting as general-in-chief for an emperor of his own creation. A
similarity in the circumstances of his position taught him to imitate the
policy of Ricimer, and he easily persuaded his prisoner, the Caesar John Ducas, to assume the title of Emperor, and aid in
dethroning his nephew.
Michael and his minister were now infinitely more alarmed by their own
personal danger than they were concerned at the calamities of the subjects of
the empire. An alliance was formed with Suleiman, who commanded the forces of
his cousin the great sultan; and a formal treaty was concluded between the
Byzantine emperor and the Seljouks in Asia Minor,
which received the official ratification of Malekshah.
The Emperor Michael conferred on Suleiman the government of the provinces of
which the Seljouk Turks were then in possession;
which was the phrase adopted by Byzantine pride to make a cession of that large
portion of Asia Minor already occupied by the Mohammedans, and the Seljouk emir engaged to furnish the emperor with an army of
mercenary troops. The precise conditions of the treaty, or the exact extent of
territory ceded to the Turks, are not recorded; and indeed the Byzantine
writers mention the existence of this important treaty only in a casual way,
though it laid the foundation of the independent power of the Seljouk sultans of Roum, of whom
Suleiman was the progenitor, and whose dynasty long survived the elder branch
of the house of Togrulbeg, who reigned as great
sultans in Persia.
This treaty was concluded in the year 1074, and a Turkish army immediately
marched, with the rapidity that distinguished their military movements, to
Mount Sophon, where Oursel
was encamped. The light cavalry soon drew Oursel into
an ambuscade, and he was taken prisoner, along with his phantom emperor. The
wife of Oursel, however, who was residing at a
neighbouring castle, in which he had laid up a considerable treasure, instantly
paid the ransom demanded by his captors, and, collecting his Franks, he marched
back to his old quarters in the Armeniac theme, in order to recruit his
strength. The Emperor Michael gained possession of his uncle’s person by paying
the ransom demanded by the Turks, and allowed him to retain his sight on his
resigning all his political pretensions, and adopting the monastic life.
Alexius Comnenus was now sent to command the Byzantine troops against Oursel, and succeeded in reducing him to such difficulty
that he attempted to form an alliance with a Turkish chief named Toutash, who was watching his movements. Alexius had,
however, secured the fidelity of the Turk, by promising him a large ransom if
he delivered Oursel into his own hands. The Frank
leader was at last seized at a conference, and the intriguing Alexius carried
him a prisoner to Constantinople, to bargain for wealth and honours for
himself.
After the capture of Oursel, the Turks made the
treaty with the emperor a pretext for encroaching on the possessions and
plundering the wealth of the subjects of the empire; but all open warfare
having ceased in Asia Minor, Isaac Comnenus was sent with an army to Antioch,
to protect the Byzantine possessions in Syria from the tribes of Seljouks who had conquered Aleppo and Damascus. He was not
more fortunate at Antioch than he had been at Caesarea; his army was defeated,
his brother-in-law, Constantine Diogenes, the son of Romanus IV, was slain, and
he himself wounded and taken prisoner. He was, nevertheless, soon after
delivered from captivity by the inhabitants of Antioch, who paid the Turks
twenty thousand byzants as his ransom.
MICHAEL VII DETHRONED, AD.
1078. REBEL EMPERORS.
The weakness of the emperor and the avarice of the minister invited several
members of the aristocracy to profit by the general discontent, in order to
mount the throne. Two military nobles of distinguished families took up arms in
Europe and Asia. Nicephorus Bryennius, who had gained
considerable reputation at Dyrrachium, assembled an army composed of Thracian
Bulgarians, Macedonian Sclavonians, Italians, Franks,
Uzes, and Greeks. With this army he advanced to
Constantinople; but he had no feelings in common with the mass of the
inhabitants of the empire, and he permitted his troops to plunder and burn the
suburbs of the capital. This conduct produced so determined an opposition to
his pretensions, that Michael compelled him to raise the siege and retire,
under the pretext that the incursions of the Patzinaks rendered his presence
necessary to protect the open country of Thrace. The proceedings of Nicephorus Botaneiates in Asia were even more injurious to the public
welfare than those of Bryennius. He purchased the
support of Suleiman, the sultan of Roum, by ratifying
the treaty concluded with Michael, and abandoning an additional Christian
population to the power of the Mohammedans, in order to obtain the assistance
of a corps of Seljouk cavalry. Yet he was welcomed by
the inhabitants of Nicaea as a deliverer with great rejoicings; and before he
reached the Bosphorus he received the news that Michael VII had been dethroned
by a general insurrection, in which the senate, the clergy, and the people had
with one accord taken part. The imperial pedant had retired into the monastery
of Studion with his son Constantine, and left the throne vacant for his
successor.
The history of the reign of Nicephorus III (Botaneiates)
may be comprised in a few words. He was an old idle voluptuary; the palace was
a scene of debauchery, and the public administration, intrusted to the
direction of two Sclavonian household slaves, fell
into utter disorder. The old emperor thought only of enjoying the few years he
had to live, rather as a brute than a man; each member of the aristocracy was
engaged in plundering the public treasury, or plotting to seize the empire; and
the two ministers, whose very language proclaimed their foreign origin, pillaged
the provinces by their agents, or left them to be overrun by the Turks or by
rebels. The infatuated Nicephorus moreover excited the disgust of his subjects
by marrying Maria the ex-empress, though her husband, the dethroned
Emperor Michael VII, was still living as Bishop of Ephesus, and residing in the
capital; but it was his wasteful expenditure of public money, and his
fraudulent conduct in issuing a base coinage to supply his extravagance, which
converted the contempt of all ranks into hatred, and caused his ruin.
Nicephorus III reigned three years, and during that period no less than
four rebels assumed the imperial title, besides Alexius Comnenus, by whom he
was dethroned. Several Armenian princes in Asia Minor attempted to establish
their independence; and two Paulician leaders took up arms in Thrace, and
committed many cruelties, to revenge themselves for the persecutions they had
suffered. The religious bigotry of the Greeks concurred with the
disorganization of the government in accelerating the ruin of the empire.
The rebel emperor Bryennius had failed to take
Constantinople from political incapacity, not from want of military force. As
soon as Nicephorus III was established on the throne, he sent Alexius Comnenus,
now the first general of the empire, to attack the rebels with an army composed
of Asiatic Christians, Franks, and Turkish cavalry. The two armies were equal
in number, and neither exceeded fifteen thousand men. A battle was fought at Kalavrya, near the river Almyros,
in which Bryennius was defeated and taken
prisoner. He was then deprived of sight.
As soon as the country round Adrianople was pacified Alexius was sent
against the second rebel emperor, Basilakes, who had
occupied Thessalonica, and was waiting the result of the contest between Bryennius and Botaneiates to fall
on the victorious army. The forces under the command of Basilakes
consisted of veteran Frank, Sclavonian, Albanian, and
Greek soldiers, and his confidence in his own valour and military talents made
him look on success as certain. Alexius, however, contrived to entrap him into
a night attack on the imperial camp, which was eighteen miles distant from
Thessalonica, on the banks of the Vardar. Basilakes
was defeated, and when he attempted to defend the citadel of Thessalonica, he
was seized by his own soldiers, and delivered to the emperor, by whose orders
he was deprived of sight. Constantine Ducas, the
brother of the dethroned Michael VII, was proclaimed emperor by the troops in
Asia Minor; but his incapacity was soon so evident that his own partisans
delivered him to Nicephorus III, who only compelled him to become a monk, and
take up his residence in one of the monasteries in the islands of the
Propontis. Nicephorus Melissenos was the fourth rebel. He had strongly opposed the
election of Botaneiates, and soon took up arms to
dethrone him. His high rank, great wealth, ancient family, and extensive family
alliances among the aristocracy, rendered him a dangerous political rival. He
was utterly destitute of noble ambition or patriotic feelings; and, to gratify
his lust of power, was willing to degrade the Greek race, and dismember the
empire. In order to secure the assistance of a large body of Turks, he
concluded a treaty with their chiefs, by which he engaged to divide the cities
and provinces his army should conquer with these enemies of his faith and
nation. Suleiman, the sultan of Roum, took advantage
of the opportunity thus afforded him to gain possession of Nicaea and plunder
Cyzicus. An imperial army was foiled in an attempt to recover possession of
Nicaea, which remained in the hands of the Seljouk
Turks, until it was restored to the Byzantine Empire by the first crusade.
The troubled state of the empire, and the age of Nicephorus III, rendered
the nomination of his successor the great object of court intrigue, and it
became known that the old man had selected his nephew Synadenos
to be the future emperor. His procrastination in carrying his determination
into effect caused his dethronement. The beautiful Empress Maria had expected,
by her marriage with the aged Botaneiates, to secure
the throne for her child, and the regency for herself, and she was now alarmed
at the prospect of descending from the throne she had occupied as the wife of
two emperors, and which she had expected to retain as mother of a third. She
now sought support from her relations. The marriage of Isaac Comnenus with her
cousin Irene, an Alanian princess, and of Alexius,
his brother, with Irene, the daughter of Andronicus Ducas,
the cousin of her first husband, attached that influential family to her
interest. She now drew closer the bonds of union by adopting Alexius as
her son. Court intrigues commenced, a conspiracy was formed, and the Sclavonian ministers, Borilas and
Germanos, who had risen to power by studying the
characters of the aristocracy, saw that the profound dissimulation of Alexius
(which his daughter celebrates as political sagacity), joined to his popularity
with the troops, rendered him the most dangerous man among the nobility. They proposed
to arrest him, and deprive him of sight; but the conspirators were informed of
the danger in time to escape to Tzourulos, where
Alexius and his friends joined an army assembled to act against Melissenos. The
Caesar, John Ducas, who had quitted the monastic
habit, George Paleologos, a dashing officer, who married Anna, a younger sister
of the wife of Alexius, and several of the ablest officers among the
aristocracy, fled to the camp, which was moved to Schiza.
As it was necessary to elect an emperor capable of commanding the army, the
legitimate claims of Constantine, the son of Michael VII, were set aside, and
Alexius was proclaimed emperor by the whole army. The rebels then marched to
attack Constantinople; but as the land wall is about four miles long, the
besiegers were unable to occupy the whole extent with their lines, and Alexius
contented himself with forming his camp on the elevated land which overlooks
the Propontis and the city. Romanus IV had constructed a country palace in this
sterile and exposed position, which enjoys the advantage of a healthy summer
climate, and an abundant supply of water. The spot was called Aretas.
Alexius had no time to lose. Melissenos had already advanced to Damalis, and had opened negotiations for a partition of the
empire both with Nicephorus III and the rebels. The imperial ministers urged
their master to conclude a treaty with Melissenos, and then fall on the camp of
Alexius with an overwhelming force. Procrastination, however, again ruined the
affairs of the old emperor. A careful examination of the fortifications of
Constantinople, which did not then present its existing aspect of a dilapidated
rampart and half-filled ditch, convinced Alexius that there was no hope of
taking the place by storm, and that if he entered the city, he must do so by
treachery. The most exposed portions of the wall were guarded by native troops
and Varangian guards, whose fidelity was proof against seduction; but a tower
in the Blachernian quarter, commanding the Charsian gate, had been intrusted to German mercenaries,
whose leader, Gilpracht, was bribed to betray his
charge. At night, George Paleologos was admitted, and on a given signal the
rebel troops took possession of the towers adjoining the gate, and defiled into
the streets of Constantinople, which was soon treated as if it had been taken
by storm. The army, which hardly recognised any acknowledged leader, dispersed
in quest of plunder, and the rebel emperor and his principal partisans were
left almost alone in the square called Tauros,
exposed to the danger of falling into the hands of the old emperor, had he
possessed courage enough to make a vigorous effort in his own defence. The
imperial party was still in possession of the palace, which had been converted
into a strong citadel by Nicephorus II; while the Varangians and the Chomatian legion, who occupied the city from the forum of
Constantine as far as the Milion, stood ranged in
order, ready to attack the dispersed bands of the rebels. Alexius was striving
to bring forward his best troops, and a battle seemed inevitable. The capital
was on the eve of being destroyed by the conflagrations with which each
party would cover their operations, when the activity of George Paleologos, who
made himself master of the fleet, and the weakness of Nicephorus III, who
abandoned his army, and fled to St Sophia’s, terminated the contest, and saved
Constantinople from ruin. The old emperor consented to resign his crown, and
retire into a monastery. Alexius entered the imperial palace, and the rebel
army commenced plundering every quarter of the city. Natives and mercenaries
vied with one another in license and rapine. No class of society was sacred
from their lust and avarice, and the inmates of monasteries, churches, and
palaces were alike plundered and insulted.
This sack of Constantinople by the Sclavonians,
Bulgarians, and Greeks in the service of the families of Comnenus, Ducas, and Paleologos, who crept treacherously into the
city, was a fit prologue to its sufferings when it was stormed by the Crusaders
in 1204. From this disgraceful conquest of Constantinople by Alexius Comnenus,
we must date the decay of its wealth and civic supremacy, both as a capital and
a commercial city. It was henceforth unable to maintain the proud position
among the cities of the earth which it had held from the time that Leo III
repulsed the Saracens from its walls. New Rome, like old Rome, was destined to
receive its deepest wounds from the dagger of the parricide, not from the sword
of the enemy. Even Zonaras, a Byzantine historian, who had held high
office under the son and grandson of Alexius, points out with just indignation
the calamities which attended the establishment of the family of Comnenus on
the imperial throne. The power which was thus established in rapine terminated
about a century later in a bloody vengeance inflicted by an infuriated populace
on the last emperor of the Comnenian family,
Andronicus I. Constantinople was taken on the 1st of April 1081, and Alexius
was crowned in St Sophia’s next day.
CHAPTER II
THE DYNASTY OF COMNENUS
A.D. 1081-1185
Sect. I
The reign of Alexius I
A.D 1081-1118.
No ordinary talents were required to enable Alexius Comnenus to keep
possession of the throne he had suddenly ascended, to the disappointment of
many earlier claimants. Surrounded by the families of dethroned emperors, by a
warlike nobility, and an army accustomed to rebellion, his position required
even greater aptitude as a diplomatist and administrator than ability as a
commander-in-chief.
(Two dethroned emperors, Michael VII and Nicephorus III, were living in
Constantinople, and four sons of emperors who had received the imperial title
during the reigns of their fathers. These were, Constantine Ducas
Porphyrogenitus, the son of Constantine X; Leo and Nicephorus Diogenes, sons of
Romanus IV and Eudocia (Anna Comnena proves they were
crowned, 19-266); and Constantine Ducas, son of
Michael VII, who was for some time the titular colleague of Alexius. There were
also several rebel emperors who had worn the crown and the red boots for a
time, like the Cesar John Ducas, Bryennius,
Basilakes, and Melissenos. The three blind calenders, kings’ sons, were nothing to this congregation
of emperors).
That Alexius was a man of courage cannot be doubted, though, even as a
soldier, he trusted more to cunning and deceit than to valour and tactics.
There was also a mixture of vanity, presumption, and artifice in his character,
which seem to indicate that he was a lucky adventurer, indebted in a great
measure to the utter worthlessness of all his competitors for his signal
success. His talents, indeed, were chiefly employed in balancing the personal
interests of those around him, in neutralizing the effect of their vices, and
in turning the vicissitudes of public events to his individual advantage. The
mind of Alexius presents us with a Greek type, which becomes predominant as we
advance in Byzantine history. The Roman traits, which had given a firmer
political character to its earlier annals, had been long fading away, and under
the dynasty of Comnenus they disappeared. Alexius never framed any permanent
line of policy for improving the national resources, or performing the duties
incumbent on the imperial government; his conduct was entirely directed by
temporary contingencies and personal accidents; in short, he was a politician,
not a statesman. He never aspired beyond the game of personal intrigue, and in
that game he acted without principle, mistaking deceit for wisdom, as his
daughter, who records his actions, candidly testifies by many an anecdote in
her courtly ignorance of the value of common honesty. Personal courage in the
field, and low cunning in the cabinet, present so incompatible a union in a
great historical character, that we are apt to consider the combination an
anomaly of Byzantine society; but an impartial examination of the authentic
memoirs of modern courts would convince us that a candid biography of many
brilliant sovereigns, written by a daughter to display her learning and eloquence,
might afford curious revelations concerning the moral obtuseness of other
courts and greater princes.
In weighing the vices of Alexius we must not overlook his merits. When he
ascended the throne, the empire was in a state of anarchy and rebellion—its
territories were invaded by the Patzinaks, the Turks, and the Normans—yet he
succeeded in arresting its partition; and at a later period, when Europe poured
into his dominions innumerable hosts of crusaders, whose military force set all
direct opposition at defiance, his prudence and administrative knowledge
carried the empire through that difficult crisis in safety. His admirers may
truly say that, by activity, courage, and patience, he conducted the government
through a period of the greatest difficulty, and, like Leo III, saved the
empire on the very brink of ruin; but the historian must add, that he made no
attempt to reorganize the administration according to the exigencies of a new
state of society, nor did he seek to infuse new vigour and moral principles
into the decayed institutions of his subjects. Now, it was by doing these
things, more than by defeating the Saracens, that Leo III merited the title of
the saviour and second founder of the Eastern Empire. Whether any measures
Alexius could have adopted would have effected a reform in the social and
political evils which were destroying the Byzantine power, and enabled it to
prolong its existence, is not a question which history can solve.
While Alexius was placing the imperial crown on his head, his followers
were transferring the wealth of the imperial city to their knapsacks. But as
soon as his prize was secured, he felt that, in order to retain possession of
it, he must immediately repress the disorders of the troops and assuage the
indignation of the people. The soldiers were bribed with the little money which
the extravagant administration of Nicephorus III had left in the public
treasury, to return to their standards and submit to discipline. As it was
impossible to make restitution to the plundered citizens, Alexius sought to
appease the general indignation by addressing himself to the religious
prejudices of the people. The Greek Church, unlike the Roman, has generally
been the servile instrument of princes. The emperor was sure of obtaining its
pardon, which he hoped would prove effectual in appeasing the indignation of
the laity. Those who had not suffered would be edified by the emperor’s piety,
and those who had been plundered would no longer venture to complain loudly.
Alexius openly accused himself as the unfortunate cause of the disorders
committed by the army, loudly expressed his sincere repentance, and humbly
implored the Patriarch and the synod to impose on him a penance to efface the
stain of his sin. The Greek clergy considered that Heaven would be appeased by
the emperor sleeping on the floor of his chamber with a stone for a pillow, by
his wearing a hair-cloth shirt, and by his eating only dry bread and herbs, and
drinking nothing but water, for a space of twenty days. To Alexius, who
was young, hardy, and temperate, this punishment was not very terrific; and
when he found that the pardon of Heaven could be so cheaply purchased, he
availed himself of his knowledge, when in great want of money after his defeat
by Robert Guiscard, to seize the wealth of the clergy. But the church, though
it pardoned the plunder of laymen without restitution, would not rest satisfied
with personal penance alone when the interests of the clergy suffered.
The Byzantine court operated so powerfully in accelerating the decline of
the empire, and in preventing any reform in the government, that it is
necessary to notice its constitution at the accession of Alexius. Under the
Basilian dynasty, eunuchs and slaves had acted as generals and ministers, and
the public administration had been conducted, as it generally is in the
absolute monarchies of Asia, like a private estate. But Isaac I had been raised
to the throne as the leader of the aristocracy, and Alexius was placed in the
same position. In the interval, however, the resources and power of the central
government had been much diminished, and Alexius was compelled to reward his
aristocratic partisans with a lavish distribution of honours and pensions,
which imposed a check on his own power and a heavy burden on the public
revenues. In order to attach the family of Ducas to
the existing state of things, the young Constantine, son of Michael VII,
received the title of Emperor as the colleague of Alexius, and John Ducas quitted the monastic habit and resumed his rank as
Caesar. The Emperor Alexius and the family of Comnenus occupied the great
palace, and the assemblage of apartments clustered round it, which had been
fortified by Nicephorus II Phokas, and towered proudly over the port Boukoleon and the hippodrome; while the Empress Maria, the
widow of two living husbands, who had been driven from the throne into the
monastery, resided with her son, the titular Emperor Constantine, and the
whole family of Ducas, in the palace called Mangana, on the lower ground, towards what is now the
Seraglio Point. The traitor Nicephorus Melissenos laid down his arms as soon as
he saw his brother-in-law Alexius firmly seated on the throne, and received the
rank of Caesar. The title of Augustus, in its Greek form Sevastos,
was conferred on several nobles; but to observe some discrimination in the
distribution, it was divided into four gradations, sevastos,
protosevastos, panhypersevastos,
and sevastokrator. New titles were
invented to gratify inferior partisans, and every title, by insuring to its
possessor a pension, swelled the imperial civil list, increased the burdens of
the people, and encroached on the resources applicable to the maintenance of
the army, the navy, and the judicial establishment. The profits of a career of court
favour eclipsed the highest rewards that could be gained in the honourable
service of the state during the longest life. Attachment to the personal
interests of the emperor was held to be more important than official experience
and talent in administration.
(Constantine Ducas wore the imperial robes,
signed the imperial decrees, and was named after Alexius in the public prayers.
He was betrothed to Anna Comnena, but died before
they were married. The Roman empire of Germany at a subsequent period contested
the preeminence in titular absurdities with that of
Constantinople. The title of protosevastos or archaugustos, with the pension annexed to the
dignity, was conferred on the doges of Venice, Dominico
Silvio and Vital Faliero; and the latter was made King of Dalmatin,
the title on which the doges founded their right to the sovereignty of the
Adriatic. Aboulkassim, sultan of Nicaea, was
created sevastotatos, or most august).
Though the personal position of Alexius at the commencement of his reign
was controlled by the influence of the leading members of the aristocracy, he
soon delivered himself from this restraint, and assumed despotic power. The
admirable central organization of the administrative power enabled the emperor
to suppress every attempt at provincial independence, and the political ideas
and social habits of the people favoured the imperial authority as much as the
mode of conducting public business. The emperor’s power was still the only
guarantee against anarchy; it was, consequently, still popular, though it was
no longer under the legal restraint which a firm and systematic administration
of the Roman law had long imposed on the arbitrary acts of its inferior agents.
After the time of Alexius, the firmest support of despotism in the Byzantine
Empire was in the minds and habits of the Greek people, who from this period
became the dominant race at Constantinople.
The government of the Roman Empire, as we have had occasion to observe,
exhibited, during its decline, a strong tendency to congeal society into fixed
orders and separate castes or classes. This tyrannical system had nearly
destroyed the state and exterminated the population, when a great effort of the
people and a series of reforming princes in the Iconoclast period saved the
empire and modified its institutions into their Byzantine type. The effects of
time became again visible at the end of the eleventh century; but at this
latter period the spirit of conservatism pervaded the whole mass of society,
and each individual citizen clung to the practice of fixed forms and existing
usages with a tenacity that rendered any reform difficult. A persuasion that
everything was so perfect that it ought to remain stationary, infused as much
self-conceit into the minds of the people as it did presumption into the policy
of the emperor. This attachment to a stationary condition of society was
carried to such a degree that the relics of old formalities and ceremonious
usages were considered the essential duties of life in civil and ecclesiastical
affairs. In this way the Greek race voluntarily circumscribed its intellects
and restrained its reasoning faculties, at the very moment when the nations of
Western Europe were boldly entering on a career of reform and progress. Nor are
we to suppose that all means of introducing improvement was shut out in the
Eastern Empire, had the throne been occupied by an emperor of enlarged views.
The respect universally entertained for the Roman law insured the support of
popular opinion to every measure of judicial reform, and the whole frame of
society was thus open to amelioration. But to enter on the path of law and
equity would have compelled the emperor and the ruling classes to make some
concessions of fiscal reform, and the patriotism necessary to make any considerable
sacrifice of personal interest was utterly wanting in every class of Byzantine
society at this period.
The throne which Alexius had gained by intrigue and daring was considered
by others also as a lawful prize. No sovereign, therefore, had to contend with
so many rebels. The first rival who claimed the throne was a Byzantine monk,
who presented himself to Robert Guiscard in Italy as the dethroned emperor
Michael VII. This deception could only have imposed on a willing mind, for the
real Michael could be seen at Constantinople by hundreds who knew his person.
Michael was so generally despised that, even had he cast off his episcopal
robes and appeared in the Norman camp, he would have found few of his former
subjects inclined to replace him on the throne he had forfeited. In the year
1084 while Alexius was busily engaged with the Norman war, several senators and
officers of the army engaged in a conspiracy, which was discovered before, the
leaders had enlisted many followers. As it was a matter of policy to conceal
the importance of the plot, Alexius was satisfied with the banishment of the
wealthiest culprits, and the confiscation of their estates. In 1091, Ariebes, an Armenian, and Constantine Humbertopoulos,
who had assisted Alexius in mounting the throne, engaged in a conspiracy, and
were treated in the same way. John Comnenos, governor
of Dyrrachium, son of Isaac, the emperor’s elder brother, as well as Theodore Gabras, who governed Trebizond almost as an independent
prince, with his son Gregory, who subsequently married Maria, the emperor’s
second daughter, were also accused of treasonable projects. The Turkish pirate Tzachas, who had rendered himself master of Smyrna, Chios, Mitylene, Samos, and Rhodes, assumed the title of Emperor
in the year 1092, and inflicted a sensible wound on the vanity of Alexius, by
appearing constantly in public with all the ensigns peculiar to an emperor of
the Romans. In the same year the fiscal oppression of the Byzantine
administration produced revolts in Crete and Cyprus, where the leaders of the
insurgents urged the inhabitants to render themselves independent; but Karykas, the Cretan leader, was abandoned by his followers,
and put to death on the first appearance of the imperial fleet; while Rapsomates, after a feeble resistance, was captured in
Cyprus, and order was restored in both islands.
These troubles were followed by an extensive conspiracy among the members
of the imperial family, in which the ex-empress Maria and Michael Taronites, a brother-in-law of Alexius, took part. If we
credit the narrative of Anna, Nicephorus Diogenes, son of Romanus IV and
Eudocia, undertook to assassinate Alexius. Nicephorus and his brother Leo,
who was killed in a battle with the Patzinaks, had been crowned in their
infancy, but after their father’s captivity they were deprived of the imperial
title, and confined in a monastery by the Caesar John Ducas
and Michael VII. Nicephorus was admired for his handsome athletic figure,
popular manners, skill in warlike exercises, generosity, and courage, so that
whenever he appeared in public he was received by the people with friendly
salutations. Such popularity is dangerous in a despotic government, yet it is
said that he first excited suspicion at court by an open violation of
etiquette, and then made some very awkward attempts to murder the emperor.
Anna, indeed, represents his conduct as that of a person verging on insanity.
He was arrested and put to the torture, which, it was said, compelled him to
reveal his accomplices. He and Katakalon Kekavmenos, who had commanded under Alexius at the battle
of Kalavrya, lost their eyes; the fortune of Michael Taronites was confiscated, but the ex-empress Maria, being
the mother of Alexius by adoption, escaped all punishment. After the loss of
his eyes, Nicephorus Diogenes devoted his time to study, and made great
progress in geometry by means of figures in relief which were prepared for his
use. The fate of Nicephorus affected public opinion so powerfully that an
impostor, who assumed the character of Constantine, the eldest son of Romanus
by his first marriage, was generally welcomed. Though Constantine had been
killed at the battle of Antioch, in which Isaac Comnenus, the emperor’s elder
brother, had been taken prisoner, twenty years before the appearance of the
impostor, he yet found credit with many persons of rank in the capital.
Alexius, in alarm, banished him to Cherson, from whence he escaped to the
Romans, whom he induced to invade the empire. The hostile army
advanced as far as Adrianople, when Alexius was released from the fear of
this dangerous rebel by a Byzantine officer, who decoyed him into an ambuscade
and took him prisoner. He was deprived of sights (A.D. 1094).
While the armies of the Crusaders threatened Constantinople, no one
ventured to intrigue against the government of Alexius, who was generally
considered the only man capable of directing the state. But in 1106, when
affairs appeared more tranquil, new competitors were again eager to seize the
throne. Salomon, a senator of great wealth, but a vain literary coxcomb, who
affected the character of a philosopher, engaged in a plot with four brothers
named Anemas, descendants of that Anemas
who had been slain in a battle with Swiatoslaff. The
plot was discovered; the wealth of the philosophic Salomon and several of his
accomplices was confiscated. The four brothers, whose descent from the Saracen
emir of Crete was not forgotten, were conducted through the streets of
Constantinople mounted on oxen, the hair of their heads and beards torn out
with pitch plaster, crowned with horns, and decorated with entrails. After
this, they were imprisoned in a tower near the palace of Blachern,
which retained the name of the Tower of Anemas until
the city was conquered by the Turks. About the same time Gregory Tironites, who had acted as an independent prince in the
government of Trebizond, was brought prisoner to Constantinople by
his cousin John, and imprisoned in the same tower.
The following year (1107) a new plot was formed to murder Alexius by an illegitimate
descendant of Aaron the Bulgarian prince, who was assassinated by his brother
Samuel, king of Achrida. The emperor was encamped near Thessalonica, but the
presence of the empress and her attendants rendered the execution of the plot
difficult. Libels and satires were placed in the imperial tent, in the hope
that Irene would be induced to quit the encampment. A search for the author of
these libels brought to light the whole plot, yet Aaron was only banished, in
consequence of his connection with the royal line of Bulgaria, whose blood
flowed in the veins of the empress.
We are inclined to give Alexius credit for extreme moderation, when we find
him condemning those who are said to have been convicted of plotting his murder
merely to imprisonment and banishment; but as he condemned heretics to be
burned alive, we are compelled to suspect that the accusation of having plotted
against his life was in many cases a charge added to the real crimes of the
culprit, merely to increase the public indignation, and that Alexius knew the
charge was without foundation, though his daughter Anna readily adopted every
prejudice against those who had certainly shown hostility to her father’s
authority and person. The want of all political principle among the courtiers,
and of all attachment to the government among the people, are, however, proved
incontestably by these numerous conspiracies.
The unpopularity of Alexius among the people was caused by the severity
with which the public taxes were collected, by the injustice of the monopolies
he created for the profit of the fisc and of members
of the imperial family, and by the frauds he committed in adulterating the
coinage. This mode of cheating his subjects was carried to a greater extent by
Alexius than it had been by any of his predecessors, and is one of the
strongest symptoms of the incurable decline in the government of the Byzantine
Empire. A government which systematically commits such frauds is utterly
demoralized; and a people which is so weak as to submit to such oppression, has
sunk into a hopeless state of degradation. Alexius paid the public debts in his
own debased coinage, but he enforced payment of the taxes, as long as it was
possible, in the pure coinage of earlier emperors. The ruin produced by these measures
at last compelled him to adopt new regulations for collecting the land-tax; and
the credit of his coinage became so bad throughout all the countries in
Europe in which Byzantine gold had previously circulated, that the emperor was
compelled, in all his public acts with foreigners, to stipulate that he would
make all his payments in the gold coins of his predecessors of the name of
Michael The decline of Byzantine commerce in the Mediterranean may be traced to
these measures of Alexius, which ruined the credit of the Greek merchants, and
transferred a large quantity of capital from the cities of the empire to the
republics of Italy.
Ecclesiastical animosities and religious persecutions contributed their
share to increase the disorders in the empire. Though Alexius was both
superstitious and hypocritical, his necessities, after the Norman war, induced
him to assemble a servile synod of Greek ecclesiastics, who authorized him to
employ the wealth accumulated as offerings in the churches for the public
service. But this act was violently opposed by many of the clergy, and Leo,
bishop of Chalcedon, went so far as to maintain that the government had
committed sacrilege in melting down sacred objects which were entitled to the
adoration of Christians. Alexius took advantage of his imprudence in
attributing more than orthodox importance to these objects; and his opinions
being condemned by a synod as heretical, he was banished to Sozopolis,
where, however, the people regarded him as a saint. The general indignation
soon forced the emperor to yield to public opinion, and he published a golden
bull ordering restitution to be made for all the sacred plate already employed
for the public service, and declaring it to be sacrilege for any one in future
to apply church plate to profane uses.
Soon after this Constantinople was troubled by disputes arising out of the
opinions taught by a professor of philosophy named Italos,
from the native country of his father. Italos had
succeeded Psellos as the chief of the philosophers,
and his lectures on the Platonic philosophy had gained him so much popularity
and influence as a teacher that the clergy became jealous. They soon discovered
a taint of heresy in his opinions, and the Patriarch Eustratios
Garidhas, who supported him, was deposed. Nikolaos
the Grammarian was appointed Patriarch, and Italos
was compelled to recant his opinions publicly in the church of St Sophia, (A.D.
1084).
BOGOMILIANS.
The heresy of Italos afforded some mental
occupation for the people of the capital, but it was followed by a Paulician
rebellion, which inflicted many evils on the inhabitants of Thrace. Various Asiatics, generally tainted with heretical opinions, had
been established in the neighbourhood of Philippopolis from the time of Constantine
V, and had long been remarkable for their industry, and the vigour they
displayed in conducting their local affairs. Their moral education was
excellent, though their religious opinions were deficient in Grecian orthodoxy.
Their lands were well cultivated and bravely defended, and their commercial
dealings extended over a great part of Western Europe. After the conquest of
the Paulician state at Tephrike by Basil I, numbers of that sect had
established themselves in Thrace, where other Asiatic colonists united with
them. When Alexius marched against Robert Guiscard, two thousand eight hundred
of these Paulicians joined his army as the military contingent they were bound
to furnish; but having lost three hundred men in the defeat at Dyrrachium, the
remainder, instead of rallying in the imperial camp, returned home. After the
conclusion of the war, Alexius determined to punish them for this desertion,
and destroy their communal system. He established himself at Mosynopolis, where he summoned the principal men of the
Paulicians to his presence. By separating them from one another he disarmed the
whole. A judicial sentence was then promulgated, depriving them of their
property; and their families were expelled from their houses with great
cruelty. It happened that a Paulician, who had been baptized during the
reign of Nicephorus III, and had attained the rank of domestikos,
heard that his four sisters had been driven from their home. Eager to avenge
the cause of his family and countrymen, he seized a fortress called Veliatova, and plundered the property of the orthodox
Greeks and Bulgarians to the very walls of Philippopolis. In the year 1086 he
effected a junction with a colony of Patzinaks which had crossed the Danube,
and extended his expeditions over all Thrace. Pakuvian,
the grand domestikos of the West, and Branas, were sent to arrest his progress, but the Byzantine
army was completely defeated, and both its generals were slain. After this the Patzinak war insured impunity to their Paulician allies for
a considerable period; but towards the end of his reign, Alexius found time to
think of converting these heretics. Many were established in a new town called Alexiopolis or Neokastron. Some
affected to be converted by the arguments of the emperor, but others persisted
in their hereditary heresies. Partly on account of the aversion entertained by
the provincial population to the imperial government, whose fiscal severity
became from age to age more burdensome, and partly on account of national
antipathies, roused into activity by the arrogance which the Greeks displayed
as soon as they could assume the position of a dominant race, a very general
desire was felt by the inhabitants of Thrace and Bulgaria to emancipate
themselves from the ecclesiastical power of the Greek church. This sentiment
had long supplied the Paulicians with a perpetual influx of votaries, and
enabled them to increase in numbers while the population of the provinces
around them was sensibly diminishing. Other heresies also derived a portion
of their success from this general feeling of opposition to the central
authority of the church and state.
The original constitution of the Eastern Church had been well suited to
prevent the formation of heresies based on national feelings, for it admitted
the formation of a separate ecclesiastical establishment in each nation, while
its central government, by general councils, rendered the subdivision of the
hierarchy into a number of independent churches highly advantageous both to the
cause of morals among the priesthood and of religion among the people. The
power of emperors and popes put an end to this early constitution of the
church. The emperor enslaved the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch
enslaved those Christians who remained in communion with the Greek Church.
Still, wherever a nation was politically independent, it wished also to be so
ecclesiastically. Men may unite voluntarily to receive the dogmas of a common
religion, but they cannot accept a foreign ecclesiastical establishment without
some feeling of hostility to the foreign priesthood which invades their
independence. This feeling gained so great strength in Bulgaria, as to render
the Bulgarian hierarchy at last independent of the priesthood at
Constantinople. Though the king and people of Bulgaria had adopted all the
rites and ceremonies of the Eastern Church, and rejected the solicitations of
the popes to acknowledge the supremacy of Rome, they nevertheless seized the
opportunity, when it presented itself, to constitute their own ecclesiastical
establishment as a national church, under a patriarch entirely independent of
the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. This was probably effected
in practice long before it received its official recognition from the Byzantine
emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. At length, however, the victorious
army of Simeon, king of the Bulgarians, was enabled to dictate terms of peace
to the Emperor Romanus I in the year 923, and one of the stipulations of the
treaty appears to have been that the emperor and the Byzantine church should
publicly recognised the primate of the Bulgarians as a patriarch equal in
authority to the other patriarchs of the Eastern Church. In virtue of that
treaty, the Patriarch of Constantinople was compelled to acknowledge the
complete independence of the Bulgarian church, and to admit the Patriarch of
Bulgaria to all the ecclesiastical honours and rank held by the patriarchs of
Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. It is true that the conquest of Bulgaria by
John I Zimiskes put an end to the national independence and the patriarchal
dignity in about fifty years; but neither the Emperor John nor his successors
could eradicate the feelings of hostility to the ecclesiastical domination of
the Greeks, which had sunk deep into the hearts of the Bulgarian and Sclavonian population.
It is to the influence of these national feelings, rather than to the
mystical religious doctrines which the Paulicians had brought with them from
the East, that we must ascribe the growth of the sect called Bogomilians. Their name is derived from the Sclavonian language, and the sect had its origin among the Sclavonian population of Thrace and Bulgaria. It is not
necessary to trace the first principle of their dissent from the Byzantine
church to intellectual speculations, tending to harmonize the Oriental
doctrines concerning the existence of good and evil as two distinct powers in
the universe with the Gospel dispensation; but, on the other hand, there can be
no doubt that the Paulicians and Catharists, who had
derived their religious sentiments directly from Oriental sources, mingled some
of their mystical tenets with the opinions of the Bogomilians.
Among the mass of the Sclavonians in the Byzantine
empire, however, the origin of heresy was simply hatred of the Greek church on
account of its simony, aversion to the Greek ecclesiastics on account of their
corruption, and a craving for some purer religious instruction than was offered
by an established church, in which religion was suffocated by mechanical forms
and unmeaning ceremonies. This is proved clearly by the sympathies which the Bogomilians manifested for the memory as well as the
doctrines of the Iconoclasts, and their hostility to the adoration of the
Virgin and of saints. At the same time, there is convincing proof that they
adopted some of their heretical opinions from the Paulician and Euchite
teachers, who never ceased to preach the doctrines of an Oriental theosophy
throughout Thrace and Bulgaria during the tenth and eleventh centuries.
The Bogomilian heresy was propagated among the Sclavonian population for some time before it excited the
attention of the church at Constantinople; but at last its followers became so
numerous as to cause alarm among the Byzantine clergy. When the Emperor Alexius
was fully informed of the progress the sect was making, he readily joined the
Patriarch in rousing the prejudices of the orthodox against the new heresy. His
politic spirit felt the importance of forming a close alliance with the clergy
on a question where the interests of the church were more directly involved
than those of the state; and he was eager to avail himself of a favourable
opportunity of awakening passions in the minds of the people which would tend
to divert their attention from the political errors, fiscal abuses, and lavish
expenditure of the imperial government. The Bogomilian
teachers had, however, made so little public display of their opinions, that
they were only discovered by means of spies; and perhaps they might have
escaped all notice in the political history of the time, had the Emperor
Alexius not engaged in personal discussions with Basilios their leader; a
controversy which the imperial theologian terminated by committing his
inflexible opponent to the flames as a heretic. The conduct of Alexius in the
whole transaction fixes a deeper stain on his character than any mystical
speculation could reflect on his adversary.
A Bogomilian who was put to the torture by the
imperial officers revealed to them that a monk named Basilios was regarded as
the leader of the sect, and that he had selected twelve teachers to act as his
apostles. When Basilios was brought before the emperor, his demeanour was
modest and respectful; his figure was good, but his thin beard gave his withered
countenance the air of an ascetic more than of an enthusiast. His manners and
conversation made the emperor look on him as a worthy antagonist. The
Emperor Alexius, as his daughter informs us repeatedly, prided himself more on
gaining his ends than on choosing honourable paths. He received Basilios
with an appearance of frankness, and he even invited him to enter on the
discussion of religious opinions, in order to make a public display of the
political cunning with which he could deceive a heresiarch who had deceived
thousands. The learned Anna even boasts that her father knew how to rub
sweets on the rim of the cup he induced his antagonist to swallow, and how,
with a dose of flattery, he purged the Bogomilian
monk of his heretical opinions. “I am anxious”, said the imperial hypocrite,
“to hear the opinions of your reverence, and learn all the arguments by which
you have laboured to correct the vain superstitions of our clergy”. The
courtiers supposed that the ascetic was misled by flattery; it is more likely
he deceived himself by enthusiasm, and expected to make Alexius a convert to
truth. He knew but little of the emperor. Roused by his subject,
however, Basilios fully explained all his objections to the established
church, and revealed the full extent of his heretical opinions, while an
imperial secretary, concealed behind a curtain, committed his words to
writing. When the discussion was terminated, the emperor drew aside the curtain
and showed Basilios that he had been speaking with the patriarch and the most
bigoted members of the senate and clergy as his audience. His conviction and
condemnation as a heretic before the patriarchal tribunal of Nikolaos the
Grammarian followed as a matter of course, and as he refused to renounce his
opinions, he was ordered to be burned at the stake. This sentence was
passed about the year 1110, but it was not carried into execution until the
year 1118; for Anna mentions that it was one of the last, and, in her opinion,
one of the most glorious acts of her father's life to burn the heretic. Every
solicitation was employed to induce Basilios to retract, and own himself a
convert to the imperial arguments, but all was vain; and the courageous
demeanour of the heretic induced the people to believe that he expected angels
to descend from heaven to release him from the stake. The clergy, however,
pretended that he was tormented in his cell by demons, who stoned him during
the night for revealing their secrets. He was burned in the hippodrome, and
suffered with the firmness of the noblest martyrs. The spectacle of a
fellow-creature committed to the flames was so agreeable to the populace of
Constantinople, that they shouted to the emperor to bring out more heretics to
be burned; but Alexius prudently cut short the tumult by dismissing the
assembly. On another occasion, the emperor ordered two fires to be lighted in
the tchukanesterion for the purpose
of burning other Bogomilians; but some, having shown
a disposition to recant, were immediately released, and the others who remained
firm in their opinions were remanded to prison.
It is necessary to notice an example of the superstition of Alexius, in
order to show how completely his mind was ruled by the spirit of false devotion
prevalent in his age and nation. As Alexius was riding with his elder brother
Isaac, before he ascended the throne, a reverend old man in the garb of a
priest approached and whispered in his ear the words of the Psalmist, “Advance
prosperously and reign, because of truth, meekness, and righteousness”. He then
exclaimed, “0 Emperor Alexius” and suddenly disappeared. Both brothers sought
the strange priest in vain; and though Alexius pretended to consider the
apparition as an illusion of the imagination, his daughter asserts that in his
heart he was persuaded that he had received a direct revelation from St John
the Evangelist, the son of thunder. On a later occasion, he gave a curious
instance of his confidence in a belief that God habitually revealed his will to
mortals. In the year 1094, when the Romans invaded the empire to support the
pretended Diogenes, Alexius, in the presence and with the participation of the
Patriarch Nikolaos, consulted the will of Heaven by depositing on the high
altar of St Sophia's two rolls inscribed with the questions whether the Romans
were to be attacked or not to be attacked. A priest ignorant of the contents of
the two rolls, was ordered to approach the altar, after the Patriarch had
performed divine service, and take up one of the papers, which was unfolded,
and its contents read to the emperor. The communication thus obtained appeared
to him an oracle of God, commanding him to march against the enemy.
When the emperor was so completely under the guidance of superstition, it
is not surprising that his conduct was extremely inconsistent. At times the
suggestions of reason and true religion could not fail to overpower his
fanatical fancies. We find him, accordingly, at times favouring popular
preachers whose avowed theme was the eulogy of some beloved saint, and at times
persecuting these orators because their doctrines were suspected of heretical
or seditious tendencies. At times he tolerated, and at times he persecuted
astrologers; for these impostors frequently made the imperial crown one of the
prizes which futurity allowed them to distribute. An Athenian astrologer was
allowed to sell his predictions to the Constantinopolitans unmolested, while an
Alexandrian was banished for mixing too much truth in his predictions. A hermit
named Nilos, who had gained great popularity as a
public preacher, was accused of heresy, and the emperor was led by his
inordinate vanity to engage in personal controversy with the enthusiast; but
the monk foiled his theological skill, and defied his earthly power by
expressing his readiness to suffer martyrdom for the truth.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH THE
TURKS, A.D. 1081.
One of the earliest acts of the reign of Alexius was to conclude a treaty
of peace with the Seljouk emir Suleiman, who acted in
Asia Minor as if he were completely independent of the Grand Sultan Malekshah. The treachery of Nicephorus Melissenos had
placed Suleiman in possession of Nicaea, and his troops occupied several posts
on the shores of the Bosphorus and the Sea of Marmora; while Alexius, who
required the whole forces of the empire to resist the invasion of Robert
Guiscard, was compelled to purchase peace at any price. Under such
circumstances, it was only to be expected that the immediate neighbourhood of
Constantinople could be kept free from the Turks, and accordingly the
boundaries of the Roman Empire in Asia Minor were by this treaty reduced to
very narrow limits. The country immediately opposite the capital, as far as the
mouth of the river Sangarius and the head of the gulf
of Nicomedia, was evacuated by the Turks, as well as the coast of the Sea of
Marmora, from the little stream called Drako, which
falls into the gulf of Nicomedia, westward to the city of Prusias.
Already the mountains of the Turkish territory were visible from the palace of
Alexius and the dome of St Sophia; but the Crusades were destined to repel this
torrent of Mohammedan invasion from the shores of Europe for several centuries.
The spirit of enterprise and conquest which, when placed under the guidance
of religious enthusiasm, carried the bravest warriors of western Europe as
Crusaders to the East, had, in the preceding generation, under the direction of
civil wisdom, produced the conquest of England and southern Italy by the
Normans. These conquests had raised their military reputation and
self-confidence to the highest pitch; and Robert Guiscard, who was lord of
dominions in Italy far superior in wealth to the duchy of Normandy, hoped to
eclipse the exploits of Duke William in England by conquering the Byzantine
empire. But as he knew that he must expect a more prolonged resistance than
England had offered to its conqueror, he sought a pretext for commencing the
war which would conceal his own object, and have a tendency to induce a party
in the country to take up arms against the government he was anxious to
overthrow. His daughter Helena had been betrothed to Constantine Dukas, the son of Michael VII, and was still so young that
she was residing in the imperial palace at Constantinople, to receive her
education, when Michael was dethroned. Nicephorus III sent the child to a
convent, and Robert her father stood forward as the champion of Michael’s right
to recover the throne from which he had been expelled. Under the cover of this
pretext, the Norman expected to render himself master of Constantinople, or at
all events to gain possession of the rich provinces on the eastern shore of the
Adriatic.
The preparations of Robert Guiscard were far advanced when Alexius ascended
the throne. To inflame the zeal of his troops, he persuaded Pope Gregory VII
that a Greek monk, who had assumed the character of Michael VII, was really the
dethroned emperor, and thus induced the Pope to approve of his expedition, and
to grant absolution to all the invaders of the Byzantine empire, as if they had
been about to commence a holy war. The soldiers were impressed with a deep
conviction of the justice of their cause at its outset, and when the imposture
of the Greek monk was generally acknowledged, they were inflamed with hopes of
plunder and glory.
In the month of June 1081, Robert Guiscard sailed from Brindisi with a
well-appointed fleet of a hundred and fifty ships, carrying an army of thirty
thousand chosen troops. His first operation was to render himself master of the
rich island of Corcyra (Corfu), which then yielded an annual revenue of fifteen
hundred pounds’ weight of gold to the Byzantine government. He then seized the
ports of Butrinto, Avlona,
and Kanino, on the mainland, and laid siege to the
important city of Dyrrachium, the strongest fortress on the eastern coast of
the Adriatic, and the capital of Byzantine Illyria. It was fortunate for the
empire that George Paleologos, one of its bravest officers, had entered the
place before Robert commenced the siege.
Alexius immediately hastened to the relief of Dyrrachium with as large an
army as it was in his power to assemble. He had endeavoured to raise up every
obstacle to Robert’s expedition, and still hoped that the Emperor of Germany,
Henry IV, would cause a serious diversion in his favour by attacking the Norman
dominions in Italy. To induce the German emperor to do this, Alexius had paid
him a subsidy of 144,000 byzants, and sent him many valuable presents; but
Henry was too deeply engaged in his contest with Pope Gregory to spare either
time or troops to act against the Normans in southern Italy, and the Byzantine
Empire gained little by his alliance. The Venetians proved more valuable
allies. Alexius solicited their assistance, as bound to aid the empire by the
ties of their ancient allegiance; and he engaged not only to pay them for their
services, but also to make good any losses of ships which they might sustain by
the war. The interests of Venice bound them to the cause of the Byzantine
government at this time. They were alarmed lest their lucrative trade with
Greece and the Levant should be placed at the mercy of the rapacious Normans,
in case Robert Guiscard should succeed in gaining possession of the entrance of
the Adriatic. They plunged, therefore, into the war without hesitation or
reserve.
The Doge Dominic Sylvio sailed from Venice with a
powerful fleet to attack the Normans before the Emperor Alexius could collect
his army and march to the relief of Dyrrachium. The Norman fleet, which was
commanded by Bohemund, the illustrious son of Robert Guiscard, suffered a
complete defeat, and the communications of the invading army with Italy were
cut off. This difficulty only excited Robert to press the siege with additional
vigour. He employed every device then known for the attack of towns. Towers of
wood were prepared in frame; battering-rams were used to shake the walls, and balists to sweep the defenders from their summits. But the
fortifications of Dyrrachium were too solid to be seriously injured by the
feeble machines the Normans had prepared. The immense blocks of stone that
formed their foundations were the work of the ancient Greeks who first
colonized Epidamnus. The more modern superstructure
was so broad that four horsemen could ride abreast on its summit, and it was
flanked at proper intervals by towers raised eleven feet above the line of the
curtain.
The mode of attack generally most successful in that age consisted in
filling up the ditch, and pushing forward a high wooden tower close to the
walls. This structure, which moved on rollers, was furnished with a drawbridge,
which, reaching the ramparts of the place, enabled the storming party to come
to an engagement with its defenders hand to hand. Robert had at first attempted
to take Dyrrachium by escalade, and for that purpose had brought up the usual
battering machines as close as possible to the body of the place, but all his
attacks had been repulsed. Showers of stones, and torrents of burning naphtha
and Greek fire, had broken the ladders and burned the tortoises and pavisses of the assailants, while Paleologos, in several
desperate sallies, had destroyed the greater part of the battering-rams and balists. The only hope of taking the place before the
arrival of the emperor was at last concentred on a mighty wooden tower which
Robert Guiscard had constructed from the timbers of his ships which the
Venetians had rendered useless. This fabric, higher than the towers of
Dyrrachium, was built out of reach of the flaming missiles of the besieged, and
well protected against their sallies. The interior consisted of a broad
staircase, to enable companies of armed men to mount in close order to the
summit, whence a drawbridge hung suspended to fall on the ramparts of the
enemy. When this tower was completed, an inclined plane and wooden tram-way brought
it close to the edge of the ditch with as much ease as a ship glides from the
stocks into the sea. But Paleologos and his engineers had watched the progress
of the work with attention, and before the mighty tower was put in motion, a
framework of masts and yards was constructed on the tower of the city against
which it was directed. The appearance of a slender scaffold to resist their
mighty tower only excited the contempt of the Normans, and the monster was
advanced slowly to the very edge of the ditch without any opposition from the
besieged. Five hundred chosen men, in complete armour, were ready to rush on
the drawbridge, and already crowded the staircase, when the order was suddenly
given to halt. The long masts and yards on the city tower had already
descended, and wedged the drawbridge firmly against the body of the structure,
where it served as a door to enclose its occupants, and prevent them from
making any use of their arms.
At the same instant an immense quantity of combustible materials was
projected from the walls, and the tower was in a short time enveloped in flames
and smoke, while the whole attack was terminated by a vigorous sortie, which
enabled Paleologos to destroy its last relics.
In the middle of October, Alexius at last approached Dyrrachium. He had
been joined on his march by Pakurian, the grand-domestikos, with the European troops stationed at
Adrianople, and by Bodin, king of Servia, who brought
an auxiliary force of active Sclavonian mountaineers
to aid the heavy Byzantine infantry. The imperial army was composed of so great
a variety of troops that an enumeration of its different corps and nations will
afford the reader some information concerning the military condition of the
empire at this interesting period, just before it was visited by the great
armies of the Crusaders. The legion of the guards, which usually did duty on
the outer walls of the great palace at Constantinople, was commanded by
Constantine Opos. The Macedonian legion, recruited in
great part from the Sclavonian population of that
province, was under the orders of Antiochos. The
Thessalian, composed of Greeks, was commanded by Alexander Kavasilas.
The contingent of Turkish troops, from a colony settled near Achrida, to
overawe the Sclavonian population, and keep open the
communication with the Adriatic by the Via Egnatia,
was led by Tatikios, an active and able soldier, son
of a Saracen who had been taken prisoner by John Comnenus, the emperor’s
father. The body-guard called Vestiarites was
commanded by Panukometes; the Frank mercenaries by
Constantine Humbertopulos, a nephew of Robert
Guiscard; and the Varangians by Nampites. A corps of
two thousand eight hundred Paulicians, from the colonies in the neighbourhood
of Philippopolis, had also joined the imperial army, under their own leaders, Xantas and Kuleon. The military
proceedings of Alexius, when he reached the neighbourhood of Dyrrachium, were
very injudicious. The position of the Normans was extremely dangerous, hemmed
in on one side by the numerous army of the emperor, and exposed on the other to
constant attacks on the part of an active garrison. Their foraging parties were
daily destroyed by the Dalmatians and Albanians, so that, if Alexius had taken
up a strong position, and thrown out his light troops all-round the Norman
camp, he would soon have destroyed their cavalry, and reduced them to
capitulate. But he was jealous of the military glory acquired by Paleologos,
and resolved to eclipse it.
The first measure of Alexius betrayed the meanness of his disposition. He
ordered Paleologos to quit Dyrrachium, in order that he might confer with him
in the imperial camp, and he thus relieved Robert Guiscard from an active enemy
in his rear on the day of battle. In opposition to the advice of all the most
experienced officers in his army, the emperor then decided on risking a general
engagement, though it was evident that by this rash proceeding he offered the
enemy the only chance for safety that now remained to them. The battle
which took place was as disgraceful to the Byzantine arms as to the
emperor’s judgment. Alexius commanded the centre in person; his
brother-in-law, the Caesar Nicephorus Melissenos, who had put the Turks in
possession of Nicaea and the greater part of Bithynia, commanded the right wing,
and Pakurian the left. The Varangian guard, having
quitted their horses in order to make a display of their valour, led the van on
foot. For some time the attack of the Varangians on the Norman line was
completely successful, and one wing of Robert’s army was broken. A part of the
cavalry was forced back to the sea-shore, where the Venetians began to assail
them from boats. But Robert regained the advantage by promptly bringing up a
fresh division of his troops to attack the flank of the Varangians, to whom the
emperor brought no succour. The victors were compelled to retreat to a church
in order to make a stand against the Norman cavalry. In the meantime, after a
short engagement, the rest of the Byzantine army was broken and fled. Several
nobles of the highest rank perished on the field, and the emperor himself was
slightly wounded, and compelled to fly without a follower. The King of Servia
had remained an idle spectator of a battle which he probably considered as an
act of imperial folly, and he retired from the field as soon as his allies were
defeated. The loss of the vanquished amounted to about six thousand; but from
the loss of the military chest and baggage, and the defective arrangements
adopted by Alexius in his confidence of victory, many corps dispersed, and
could never be brought back to their standards. The Paulicians, who had behaved
with courage and lost three hundred men, finding that they had no hope either
of plunder or pay, returned home, in spite of all the exertions of the emperor
to detain them.
After the battle, Paleologos found it impossible to enter Dyrrachium; but
Alexius succeeded in transmitting orders to the garrison, appointing an
Albanian general named Komiskorta governor of the
place, and intrusting the custody of the citadel to the Venetians. In the month
of February 1082, a Venetian, who guarded one of the towers, betrayed the city
to Robert, who had previously put his army into winter-quarters at Glabinitza and Joanina, in order
to escape the severe cold of the winter farther north. Alexius collected the
remains of the Byzantine army at Deavolis, and
repaired himself to Thessalonica, where he passed the winter collecting a
second army; which he was enabled to do, as he had replenished his military
chest from the church plate of the richest cathedrals and monasteries in his
dominions. The affairs of Italy, before the opening of the second campaign,
fortunately compelled Robert Guiscard to quit Illyria, and leave his son
Bohemund in command of the Norman army.
The progress of the Normans was arrested by the number of fortified towns
in the mountains of Illyria and Epirus, most of them the remains of Hellenic
cities or Roman municipalities, whose strong walls secured them against any
attack short of a regular siege. The whole summer of 1082 passed without any
operation of importance, and Bohemund established his army in its old
winter-quarters at Joanina. In the spring of 1083,
Alexius had collected an army so powerful that he again marched forward to
attack the Normans. In order to break the terrible charge of their cavalry,
which no Byzantine horse could resist, the emperor placed a number of chariots
before his own troops, armed with barbed poles extending in front like a line
of lances, and in these chariots he stationed a strong body of heavy-armed
infantry. Bohemund, however, on reconnoitring this strange unwieldy measure of
defence, broke up his line of cavalry into two columns, and, leaving the centre
of the Byzantine army with the chariots unassailed,
fell with fury on the extremity of the two wings. The resistance was short, and
the Emperor Alexius again fled with precipitation to Achrida, where Pakurian assembled the fugitives. Bohemund considered it of
more importance to the success of his enterprise to render himself master of
Arta, than to pursue the beaten army. While he was engaged besieging Arta,
Alexius, before the end of autumn, had collected troops sufficient to risk a
battle to relieve the besieged city; but he was again defeated by Bohemund,
and, seeing his inability to contend with the young Norman in the field, he
left Arta to its fate, and retired to Constantinople.
The Normans soon overran all Epirus, and invaded Macedonia, extending their
incursions as far as Skopia; but they failed to
reduce the citadel of Achrida, though they gained possession of the town.
Bohemund, finding that he was unable to take Ostrovos
and Berrhoea, could not venture to advance into the
plain of Thessalonica, though he penetrated by Vodhena
as far as Moglena, and proceeded by Pelagonia and Kastoria into
Thessaly, where, after making himself master of Tricala
and Tziviskos, he laid siege to Larissa, in which he
intended to establish his winter-quarters. This city, however, was defended by
Leo Kephalas with great obstinacy; and Alexius,
having procured a subsidiary force of seven thousand light cavalry from
Suleiman, the Sultan of Nicaea, again took the field in the spring of 1084.
After passing Mount Kellia, he quitted the high-road,
and, diverging to his left, descended by the southern side of Ossa, having
avoided the vale of Tempe. Passing Exeban, a Vallachian village near
Andronia, he encamped at Plavitza,
on the banks of a stream of the same name. From thence he advanced by the
gardens of Delphina to Tricala, from which the Normans
had retired. He there learned, by a letter from Leo Kephalas,
that Larissa was reduced to the last extremity, and must surrender unless it
received immediate succour. Alexius immediately formed his army into two
divisions, and advanced to engage the Normans before Larissa. His preparation
for a battle was on this occasion made with considerable skill. The principal
division of his forces, with which he left the imperial standard, was ordered
to engage the enemy with caution, and, after some fighting, to retire in order
to a pass called Lykostoma, or the Wolfs Mouth, where
they would be protected by the nature of the ground from further pursuit.
Alexius, with the other division, at the same time marched with a chosen body
of men through the pass of Livatanino, and, avoiding Reveniko, took post at Allage,
where he lay concealed until Bohemund should have pursued the other division of
his army to a considerable distance. When he found that his stratagem had
proved successful, he issued from his concealment, and stormed the Norman camp.
This exploit was facilitated by a body of archers, who were instructed to shoot
the horses of the Normans as they were forming to make a sally.
The wounded horses became unmanageable, and the dismounted Normans,
though terrible on horseback, were almost helpless, on account of the weight of
their armour and their pointed boots, which impeded their motions on foot.
Bohemund, believing that he had again defeated the emperor, was boasting that
he had driven him into the wolf's jaws, when a messenger arrived with the news
that his camp was lost and Larissa relieved. He immediately galloped back with
all his knights, but he found that Alexius had already-established himself so
strongly in the camp that there was no hope of recovering it. Still the
Byzantine army feared the Norman lance too much to venture any engagement in
the plain; but next day Bohemund, seeing that he was in danger of being cut off
from his resources, retreated to Kastoria. As soon as
the Norman army was cut off from plunder, and without any hope of making
further conquests, it began to display a mutinous spirit; and Bohemund was
compelled to return to Italy, to obtain supplies of money and fresh troops.
Brienne, the constable of Apulia, who commanded in his absence, found himself
compelled to surrender Kastoria to the Emperor
Alexius, and to engage not to bear arms again against the Byzantine Empire.
While Bohemund was carrying on the war against the Emperor of the East,
Robert Guiscard had driven the Emperor of the West out of Rome; and after
vanquishing Henry IV, he had plundered the Eternal City like another Genseric.
He was now ready to resume his schemes of ambition in the East. Collecting a
powerful fleet to carry over his victorious army into Epirus, he raised the
siege of Corfu, which was invested by the combined naval forces of the
Byzantine Empire and the Venetian republic. The united fleets were completely
defeated in a great naval battle, in which, according to Anna Comnena, they lost thirteen thousand men. But in the month
of July 1085, Robert died in the island of Cephalonia, and with him perished
all the Norman projects of conquest in the Byzantine Empire. Dyrrachium was
recovered by Alexius with the assistance of the Venetian and Amalphitan merchants established in the place, and the
services of the Venetians in this war were rewarded by many commercial
privileges which were conferred on them by a golden bull. The Amalphitan merchants at Constantinople were also obliged to
place themselves under Venetian protection, and pay dues to the Venetian
corporation. The Venetians had been so displeased with their doge, Dominico Silvio, to whose negligence they ascribed their
defeat by the Normans, that he had been deposed, and Vital Faliero appointed
doge in his stead. On Faliero the Emperor Alexius conferred the title of Protosevastos, to which he attached a considerable pension,
and the title of the republic to the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia was
formally recognised. From this time the doge appears to have styled himself
lord of the kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia.
PATZINAK WAR, A.D. 1085.
It was fortunate for Alexius that neither the Patzinaks nor the Seljouk Turks availed themselves of his defeats during the
Norman war to attack the empire. Their united efforts would, in all
probability, have destroyed the Byzantine Empire, and might have exterminated
the Greek race. The dominions of the Patzinaks at this time extended along the
northern bank of the Danube, from the Carpathian Mountains to the shores of the
Black Sea and the Sea of Azof. Over these extensive plains the nomad Patzinaks
wandered as lords of the country, amidst a numerous fixed population of Sclavonians and Vallachians. It
seems at variance with our modern theories concerning the great superiority
which civilization is supposed to confer in the arts of war and government, to
find the Patzinaks carrying on the administration of their extensive dominions
from a movable camp of waggons, and displaying a degree of military and
political skill which rendered them for several generations formidable enemies
to the Byzantine empire. But it requires no very profound knowledge of history
to perceive that military superiority often exists distinct from social
civilization, that literary cultivation affords no guarantee for national
wisdom and honour, and that theological learning is no proof of individual
virtue.
During the Norman war the Patzinaks were themselves attacked by a new horde
of Komans. But when the tyranny of Alexius drove the
Paulicians into rebellion, a union was formed between large bodies of Patzinaks
and Romans, who invaded the empire under the guidance and with the assistance
of the persecuted Paulicians. Their success in defeating the Byzantine army
under the grand-domestikos Pakuvian
has been already noticed. In the following spring, A.D. 1087, a fresh army of
invaders, to the number of eighty thousand men, ravaged Thrace under the
command of Tzelgu, but were at last defeated by Nikalaos Mavrokatakalon, and
their leader slain. The Byzantine army soon after proved again unfortunate; and
in the following campaign the emperor, in order to recover the ground then lost
crossed the range of Mount Haemus by the central pass called the Iron Gates, in
opposition to the counsels of Nicephorus Bryennius,
his blind rival, who, when he heard of the imprudent determination of Alexius,
observed, “Well! on the other side of the mountains it will soon appear who is
best mounted”. The emperor pushed forward as far as Dorostylon,
but he was there met by the Patzinaks and completely defeated. The enemy made
such good use of their victory that they pursued the imperial troops over Mount
Haemus, and wintered in the valley of the Hebrus,
about seven leagues from its mouth, in the neighbourhood of Kypsele
and Taurokomon.
In the spring of the year 1089 the Patzinaks advanced to the vicinity of
Constantinople, and the whole campaign was passed in a variety of movements,
which led to no certain result except that the barbarians ravaged the country
between Adrianople and the capital without sustaining any serious loss. The
Princess Anna recounts an occurrence during this campaign which places in a
strong light both the weakness of her father and the extreme difficulty of his
position. A Patzinak chief named Neantzes,
having deserted his countrymen, became a great favourite with the
emperor. But Alexius having laid a plan to surprise the Patzinak army by a sudden attack, a soldier discovered that
Neantzes contrived to hold a parley with some of his
countrymen, and from his knowledge of their language he was satisfied that the
deserter was a double traitor. He immediately repaired to the emperor's tent
and denounced Neantzes. The Patzinak
was summoned to answer the charge, but as soon as his accuser had concluded his
narrative, Neantzes drew his sabre, and before anyone
could interpose or the soldier make a movement either to defend himself or
escape, he slew his accuser in the emperor's presence. Yet, either from
timidity or suspicion, the emperor overlooked this insolent act of rebellion;
nay, he had even the baseness to attempt to conceal his natural indignation, by
making Neantzes a present of one of his own horses.
The Patzinak, who knew well that his conduct was
unpardonable, used the emperor’s horse to make his escape to his countrymen.
Though Alexius could gain no advantage of any importance over the Patzinaks
in the field of battle, and was forced to leave all Bulgaria and the greater
part of Thrace exposed to their devastations, he nevertheless contrived to
destroy considerable numbers of their cavalry in different skirmishes,
and his daughter loudly celebrates these partial successes. On one
occasion he was besieged at Tzurulos. A rapid but
smooth slope lay before the town like a long glacis. Along the top of this
slope the emperor ranged all the wheels of his baggage-waggons attached to
their axles, and when the Patzinak cavalry had
charged half way up the slope, to capture the plunder they saw without the
walls, the wheels of the waggons were let loose to run down on them. When the
Patzinaks broke their ranks to escape this new mode of attack, the Byzantine
troops sallied out of the place and inflicted on them a serious loss. The Patzinak army, however, maintained its ground, and wintered
at Bulgarophygia and Nizitza.
In the spring of the year 1090 the emperor took up his position at Choirobacches, and the Patzinak
army soon encamped before the place. They were so strong that they were able to
detach a body of six thousand cavalry to plunder the country within ten miles
of Constantinople, but their confidence became so great that the emperor was
enabled to surprise their camp before Choirobacches,
and put a considerable number of their troops to the sword. He then disguised
his own cavalry by making use of the standards of the Patzinaks, and in this
way he destroyed many of their troops who were returning from plundering in the
vicinity of Constantinople. But the enemy’s force was not broken by this
victory, and their innumerable light horse continued to ravage every corner of
Thrace. The inordinate vanity of Alexius, nevertheless, induced him to
celebrate this trifling advantage (though it was insufficient to protect the
country round his capital from hostile attacks) by a triumphal procession back
to Constantinople. The advanced guard of his army wore for the occasion the
dress and carried the arms of Patzinaks, as if the emperor was prouder of his
own stratagems than of the valour of his army. The prisoners followed, each led
by a peasant; then came a body of soldiers, bearing aloft the heads of the
slain on their lances; and after this display, the emperor, surrounded by his
household and usual body-guard, with the imperial standards, and followed by
the trophies of his success. The pageant excited the spleen of Nicephorus
Melissenos, who characterized his brother-in-law’s vanity with more justice
than his brother-in-law had treated his treason. Melissinos sneered at the
emperor's victory, as bringing joy to the empire without gain, and grief
to the Patzinaks without loss.
Alexius, however, at last succeeded in concluding a treaty with the Komans, by which these barbarians engaged to send a large
army to cooperate with him in Thrace. In order to prepare for a great effort
Nicephorus Melissenos was sent to assemble the armed peasants of Thrace and
Macedonia called Vlachs, and join the regular forces of the empire, which the
emperor conducted in person to Enos. The imperial army was there increased by
the arrival of the Komans, who were about forty
thousand strong; and the Patzinaks, who had concentrated all their troops,
found themselves hemmed in between two hostile armies. A great battle was
fought at a place called Levounion, in which these
barbarians, who had so long ravaged Thrace, were completely defeated on Tuesday
the 29th of April 1091. The number of prisoners who were captured by the
Byzantine troops was so great that fear induced the soldiers to put many to
death during the night after the battle. The remainder, with the families
captured in their camp, were established as colonists at Moglena,
where they long continued to supply recruits to the imperial armies. The Komans, distrusting the treachery of Alexius, hastened to
regain their own seats beyond the Danube, with the booty and prisoners they had
secured. A few who remained behind were rewarded by Alexius with
additional presents, to secure the goodwill of their nation.
The wars carried on by Alexius with Bodin king of
Servia, and Balkan prince of Dalmatia and Rascia,
though they occupied a considerable force at different times, exerted too
little influence on the general condition of the Byzantine Empire to be noticed
in detail.
On the other hand, the fortunes of the Seljouk
Turks influenced the course of European history. We have already seen that
their conquests in Asia Minor were facilitated by two causes—by the destruction
of the Christian population, and the treachery of the Byzantine rulers. Their
incessant plundering incursions systematically exterminated the agricultural
classes who were beyond the immediate protection of fortified towns; while the
disgraceful cessions of territory they obtained from emperors and rebel chiefs
yielded them the possession of as many provinces as they conquered. History
records few periods in which so large a portion of the human race was in so
short a period reduced from an industrious and flourishing condition to
degradation and serfage. Yet the details of this
great catastrophe are almost utterly neglected by the Byzantine historians,
though its causes can be directly traced to the proceedings of the imperial
administration and the conduct of the leading members of the aristocracy of
Constantinople. Family prejudice and courtly blindness concealed from the minds
of the Prince Nicephorus Bryennius and his spouse,
the Princess Anna, how much of the decline of human society was the work of
their own relations; and national prejudices, combined with political
servility, rendered other contemporary writers more anxious to conciliate
patrons by liberal eulogies than to trace the causes of the calamities they
witnessed by a searching investigation of the truth.
SELJOUK TURKS
It has been already noticed that the defeat of the Emperor Romanus IV by
Alp Arslan left all Asia Minor exposed to the ravages of the Seljouks, who even then pushed their plundering incursions
as far as Nicaea and Nicomedia. Shortly after Suleiman, the son of Koutoulmish, was entrusted with a subordinate sovereignty
in Asia Minor by the Grand Sultan Malekshah, and thus
became the founder of the Seljouk sultanat
of Roum. The dominion of Suleiman over the greater
part of Asia Minor was recognised by a treaty with the Byzantine Empire in
1074, when Michael VII purchased the assistance of a Turkish auxiliary force
against the rebellion of Oursel and his own uncle
John Dukas. Nicephorus III ratified the treaty
concluded with Michael VII, augmented the power of the Turks, and abandoned
additional numbers of Christians to their domination, to gain their aid in
dethroning his lawful prince; and Nicephorus Melissenos, when he rebelled
against Nicephorus III, repeated a similar treason against the traitor, and, in
hopes of gaining possession of Constantinople, yielded up the possession of
Nicaea to Suleiman, which that chief immediately made the capital of his
dominions. It must not be forgotten that the hatred which a considerable
portion of the Christian population bore to the Byzantine government, on
account of the oppressive nature of its financial administration, and to the
Greek Church on account of its rapacity, simony, and cruelty, greatly
facilitated the consolidation of the Seljouk power.
The overthrow of the Iconoclasts and the destruction of the Paulicians were
victories of the Greek race and church over the native Asiatics,
which were neither forgotten nor forgiven. The strict centralization of power
which the emperors of the Basilian family had established also accelerated the
disunion in a population destitute of homogeneous elements, by leaving the
native population solely dependent on foreign governors for defence,
protection, and justice. The effect of this was a tendency towards the
formation of several independent principalities in Asia Minor even before the
conquests of the Seljouks; and one of these states,
the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia, long defied the Turkish power. The
administration of the Iconoclast emperors had restored Asia Minor to a high
degree of prosperity, wealth, and population; but in the time of John I
Zimiskes, individual nobles had succeeded in obtaining possession of enormous
estates, which were chiefly devoted to pasturage, and thus the diminution of
the Christian population had commenced from internal causes of decay in the
Byzantine empire before the Seljouk invasions. The
nomad Turks consequently, partly on account of this want of inhabitants, and
partly on account of the void created by their own devastations, colonized the
country to a wonderful extent, and in the course of a single generation became
the majority of the inhabitants of Cappadocia, Phrygia, and Galatia. And in this
rapid colonization of the country by the Turks, we must seek for the
explanation of the obstinate and effectual resistance which these countries
were able to offer to the Crusaders, though they had been so recently conquered
by the Mohammedans.
When Alexius ascended the throne, the Seljouk
conquests in Asia Minor were still considered as a portion of the dominions of
the Grand Sultan Malekshah, the son of Alp Arslan,
and Suleiman, the sultan of Nicaea, was only his lieutenant, though as a member
of the house of Seljouk, and as cousin of Malekshah, he was honoured with the title of
Sultan. The prominent position which his posterity occupied in the wars of
the Crusaders, their long relations with the Byzantine empire, and the
independent position they held as sultans of Iconium, have secured to them a
far more lasting place in history than has been obtained by the superior but
less durable dynasty of the grand sultans. But at the commencement of the Seljouk domination in Asia Minor, there were other emirs
who commanded extensive provinces in Asia Minor with as much independence as
Suleiman. Of these, Elchan, who possessed Cyzikus; Tzachas, who acted the
pirate at Smyrna; and Charatike, who seized Sinope,
are particularly mentioned; while Artuk and Tutak are recorded as having held the command of large
armies for particular objects. Toutoush, the brother
of Malekshah, who acted as his governor at Damascus
at the same time, became the founder of the Syrian dynasty of Seljouk sultans.
The treaty by which the river Drako was declared
the boundary between the dominions of Alexius and Suleiman has been mentioned,
and the assistance which the Turkish cavalry afforded to the Byzantine empire
in the war with the Normans. But as no limits were placed to the progress of
Suleiman towards the south, he did not consider himself bound to refrain from
the conquest of Antioch, though that city still nominally formed part of the
Byzantine Empire. Philaretos the Armenian, who had
commanded under Romanus IV at the unfortunate battle of Manzikert, after
passing through many vicissitudes, still governed Antioch, which he held rather
as an independent prince than as an officer of the imperial government; but,
like most of the Christian princes who continued to keep possession of cities
and districts surrounded by the Turkish conquests, he acknowledged allegiance
to the Emperor of Constantinople. When, however, he was informed of the
successful termination of the Norman war, he feared that Alexius would be able
to deprive him of his power in Antioch; and to secure his position, he resolved
to embrace the Mohammedan faith, and maintain his independence by means of
Turkish mercenary troops. His son, pretending that he wished to prevent his
father’s apostacy, by rendering it unavailing, fled to Suleiman at Nicaea, and
offered to put that prince in possession of Antioch before his father could
execute his purpose. The importance of the prize roused the activity of
Suleiman, who hastened to Antioch, and, arriving unexpectedly before the walls,
rendered himself easily master of the city under the guidance of the
treacherous son of Philaretos. This conquest involved
Suleiman in war with the Emir of Aleppo and with Toutoush,
the brother of Malekshah, by whom he was completely
defeated in the neighbourhood of Aleppo; and it is said that, to avoid falling
into the hands of his enemies, he committed suicide, which is a strong proof
that the manners of the Seljouk Turks were not yet
completely disciplined to the principles of the Koran (A.D. 1086).
This civil war between two of his near relations and most powerful officers
drew the attention of Malekshah to the affairs of
Asia Minor. Aboulkassim, who had been entrusted by
Suleiman with the direction of the administration at Nicaea when he departed on
his expedition to Antioch, attempted to maintain himself in a state of
independence. Malekshah, in order to secure the
assistance, or rather the neutrality, of the Byzantine Empire while he reduced
his rebellious vassals to order, concluded a treaty with Alexius, by which the
empire recovered several maritime cities from the Turks. But whatever
engagements Alexius entered into with Malekshah, he
showed himself always ready to treat with Aboulkassim,
if by so doing he could gain some immediate advantage; and, according to the
testimony of his daughter, he obtained possession of Sinope by cheating the
grand sultan, and of Nicomedia by a fraudulent violation of the hospitality he
had offered to Aboulkassim. He, however, conferred on
that Mussulman the rank of Sevastotatos; and when
Nicaea was besieged by the troops of Malekshah, he
sent a Byzantine corps under Tatikios to aid in its
defence, but with secret orders to gain possession of the place for himself
should the treachery appear practicable. Aboulkassim,
at last, finding that his own resources were insufficient to maintain his
independence, preferred throwing himself on the generosity of Malekshah to intrusting his fortunes to the aid of so
faithless an ally as Alexius proved to all persons and on all occasions. He was
soon after slain by his enemies, and his brother Pulchas
was compelled to surrender Nicaea to Kilidy-Arslan,
the son of Suleiman (A.D. 1092).
The Turkish chief who attacked the empire with the greatest energy during
the reign of Alexius was Tzachas, the emir of Smyrna.
He had been a prisoner at Constantinople during the reign of Nicephorus III,
and by entering the Byzantine service had gained the rank of protonobilissimus. When Alexius mounted the throne,
and the imperial patronage was monopolized by the native aristocracy, Tzachas, seeing he had nothing more to hope from the
Byzantine government, assembled a fleet of forty decked vessels, called agraria, and by a series of bold and successful
enterprises rendered himself master of Clazomene,
Phocaea, and Chios. His power increased so steadily that in the year 1090 he
defeated the Byzantine fleet under the command of Niketas
Kastamonites. For two years he carried on war with
the naval forces of Alexius; and having made Smyrna the capital of his
dominions in the year 1092, he assumed the title of Emperor, adopting all the
insignia of the imperial rank used by the sovereigns of Constantinople, and by
so doing inflicted a deeper wound on the heart of Alexius than he could have
struck by any loss of territory. Though Tzachas was
at length defeated by John Dukas, the brother of the
empress, and lost Samos and several other islands he had conquered, he was
still strong enough to besiege Abydos in the year 1093. But Alexius succeeded
in inspiring Kilidy-Arslan, who had married Tzachas’ daughter, with distrust of his father-in-law; and
if we believe Anna, the Sultan of Nicaea was induced by the calumnies of the
emperor to assassinate Tzachas with his own hand at a
festival. This crime strengthened the alliance between the suborner and the
murderer. But many of the Seljouk tribes beyond the Sangarius were sufficiently independent to pay little
attention to the treaties of Kilidy-Arslan, and
frequently infested the territories of the empire by their incursions. To
protect the neighbourhood of Nicomedia, which was now the frontier city of the
diminished empire, Alexius cleared out an ancient canal between the lake of Sophon and the gulf of Astacus,
which was said to have been originally constructed by the Emperor Anastasius as
a defence to the Asiatic territory in the immediate vicinity of his capital,
when he fortified its contiguous district in Europe by constructing the great
Thracian wall from the Euxine to the Propontis. Alexius erected also a fortress
called the Iron Tower, in which he placed a garrison to defend the passage of
the canal. The lake and the lower course of the river Sangarius
required only a few guards to form an effectual barrier against the plundering
incursions of the Turkish nomads. About the time this work was completed,
reports reached Constantinople of the great preparations the western nations of
Europe were making to deliver Jerusalem from the Turks. Alexius was not without
alarm at the multitudes which threatened to enter his dominions; but he hoped
to employ the arms of the Franks in such a way as would enable him to restore
the Byzantine Empire to some portion of its ancient power and dominion in the
East.
THE CRUSADES
The influence of the Crusades on the progress of European civilization, and
the change they produced in the relative condition of the governments and
people in the western nations, offers too wide a field even for cursory notice,
in a work which confines its investigations strictly to the political history
of the Byzantine Empire. I must, therefore, confine my observations on the
Crusades to their effects on the government of Constantinople, and on the
condition of the Greek Christians. These effects were very different from those
which they produced on the Latin nations. In the West, we can trace the germs
of much social improvement to the immediate results of the Crusades; but in the
East, during the whole period of their continuance, they were an unmitigated
evil to the great body of the Christian population. For a time, religious
feelings induced the leaders to behave to the Byzantine Empire with some
respect, as it was a Christian state; but when ambition and fashion, rather
than religious feeling, led men to the holy wars, the Eastern Christians
suffered more from the Crusaders than the Mohammedans. It is our task,
therefore, to view the Crusades chiefly as the irruption of undisciplined
armies seeking to conquer foreign lands, and to retain possession of their
conquests by military power; and in this light these celebrated expeditions
effected so little in comparison with the forces they brought into the field,
and with the individual military pretensions of the leaders, and the government
of their Eastern conquests was so ruinous and unjust, that the character of the
Western Europeans was for many ages regarded by the Eastern Christians with
feelings of contempt and hatred.
Like all the great movements of mankind, the Crusades must be traced to the
coincidence of many causes which influenced men of various nations and
discordant feelings, at the same period of time, to pursue one common end with
their whole heart. Religious zeal, the fashion of pilgrimages, the spirit of
social development, the energies that lead to colonization or conquest, and
commercial relations, only lately extended so widely as to influence public
opinion, all suddenly received a deep wound. Every class of society felt
injured and insulted, and unity of action was created as if by a divine
impulse. The movement was facilitated by the circumstance that Europe began to
adopt habits of order just at the time when Asia was thrown into a state of
anarchy by the invasions of the Seljouk Turks.
Great numbers of pilgrims had always passed through the Byzantine Empire to
visit the holy places in Palestine. We still possess an itinerary of the road
from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, by the way of Constantinople, written in the fourth
century for the use of pilgrims. Though the disturbed and impoverished state of
Europe, after the fall of the Western Empire, diminished the number of
pilgrims, still, even in times of the greatest anarchy, many passed annually
through the Eastern Empire to Palestine. The improvement which dawned on the
western nations during the eleventh century, and the augmented commerce of the
Italians, gave additional importance to the pilgrimage to the East. About the
year 1064, during the reign of Constantine X, an army or caravan of seven
thousand pilgrims passed through Constantinople, led by the Archbishop of Mayence and four bishops. They made their way through Asia
Minor, which was then under the Byzantine government; but in the neighbourhood
of Jerusalem they were attacked by the Bedouins, and only saved from
destruction by the Saracen emir of Kamla, who
hastened to their assistance. These pilgrims are reported to have lost three
thousand of their number, without being able to visit either the Jordan or the
Dead Sea. The invasions of the Seljouks increased the
disorders in Palestine. The prosperity of the pilgrims suffered as well as
their piety. The Easter fair of Jerusalem was of importance to most European
nations. Genoese and Pisan fleets traded to Palestine before the Crusades, and
the merchants of Amalfi had already founded that glorious hospital of St John,
which became a bulwark of Christianity in Rhodes and Malta. At the time of the
first crusade, the fleets of the Italian states would have sufficed to
transport large armies to Palestine, had conquest been the sole object of the
Crusaders; for we have seen that, in a single battle with Robert Guiscard,
Venice could lose a whole fleet, with thirteen thousand men on board, without
receiving a mortal wound.
In the year 1076 the Seljouk Turks took
possession of Jerusalem, and immediately commenced harassing the pilgrims with
unheard-of exactions. The Saracens had in general viewed the pilgrims with
favour, as men engaged in fulfilling a pious duty, or pursuing lawful gain with
praiseworthy industry, and they had levied only a reasonable toll on the
pilgrims, and a moderate duty on their merchandise; while, in consideration of
these imposts, they had established guards to protect them on the roads by
which they approached the holy places. The Turks, on the contrary, acting like
mere nomads, uncertain of retaining possession of the city, thought only of
gratifying their avarice. They plundered the rich pilgrims, and insulted the
poor. The religious feelings of the Christians were irritated, and their
commerce ruined; a cry for vengeance arose throughout all Europe, and men’s
minds were fully prepared for an attempt to conquer Palestine, when Peter the
Hermit began to preach that it was a sacred duty to deliver the tomb of Christ
from the hands of the Infidels.
Pope Gregory VII was the first pontiff who attempted to excite the European
nations to attack the Mohammedans as a religious duty. The Emperor Michael VII
had entered into communications with the Papal See, for the ostensible object
of uniting the Greek and Latin churches, but principally with the hope of
obtaining military succours against the Turks. In 1074, Gregory, moved by the
danger to which Christianity was exposed by the rapid progress of the Seljouks, called on the Christians of Europe to take up
arms to defend their suffering brethren against the Mohammedans, and proposed
to lead the troops himself to Constantinople. Many prepared to accompany the
Pope at that time; but the state of Europe, and the various political projects
in which Gregory involved himself, rendered this first project of a crusade
abortive.
Unfortunately, too, the Pope did more, by his violent interference in the
affairs of the Eastern Empire, to estrange the Greeks, than either the
exigencies of Byzantine policy or the hopes of assistance could efface. In the
year 1078, among the numerous
excommunications, anathemas, and execrations which Gregory
launched at emperors, bishops, and princes, he thought fit to excommunicate
Nicephorus III. Whether this was done because Nicephorus failed to pay an
annual subsidy of 24 lb. of gold, granted by Michael VII to the monastery of
Mount Cassino, or because he married the Empress Maria when Michael was
compelled to descend from the throne and become a priest, the step was equally
impolitic; as so violent and unwarranted an attack on the independence of the
empire, by a foreign priest, was sure to unite the Greek clergy and people in
opposition to the papal pretensions. Victor III, moved by the spirit which then
inspired the court of Rome to assume the direction of European policy, urged
the maritime states of Italy to attack the Mohammedans. Like his predecessor
Gregory VII, he promised remission of sins to all who engaged in this holy war.
The Pisans and Genoese, eager to attack the Saracen pirates who still continued
to infest the Italian seas, finding that the papal exhortations secured them a
supply of volunteers, fitted out their fleets and invaded Africa, where they
met with some success, and from whence they carried off considerable booty.
Every year brought the hostility of the Christians to the Mohammedans more
prominently before the public. Peter the Hermit began to preach, and at last,
in 1095, Pope Urban II assembled a council at Placentia, where ambassadors from
Alexius presented themselves to solicit assistance, and enrol some of the
distinguished soldiers of the Franks in the service of the Eastern Empire. At
the council of Clermont, which was held a short time after, many princes took
the cross, and the religious enthusiasm spread with such fervour among a. d.
the people that many assembled without loss of time, and commenced their march
to deliver Jerusalem.
The conduct of these first bands of Crusaders produced a very unfavourable
impression on the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire. Only a part of the expedition
consisted of soldiers, and even these troops paid little attention to the
orders of Walter the Pennyless, a soldier of some
military experience, who was the nominal leader of the army. The majority of
this first swarm of Crusaders consisted of pilgrims without arms, order, or
discipline, followed by crowds of women and children. Few had made adequate
preparation for the journey, or possessed any knowledge of the difficulties
they must necessarily encounter, and all were without the requisite pecuniary
resources. They had hardly entered the Byzantine Empire before their money was
exhausted, and they then began to plunder the Bulgarian villages, and carry off
the provisions and cattle of the inhabitants, as if they had been in an enemy’s
country. This conduct roused the fury of the peasantry, accustomed to war by
the incessant plundering incursions of the Hungarians, Patzinaks, and Romans,
who fell upon the dispersed bands of the Crusaders, and would in all
probability have destroyed the whole expedition, had not the imperial officer
who commanded at Naissos saved the greater part,
supplied them with rations, and sent them forward to Constantinople. But that
hundreds of the unarmed pilgrims, and of the women and children, were seized
and sold as slaves to pay for the ravages committed by the plunderers, cannot
be doubted. A still more numerous body of pilgrims soon followed, under the
personal guidance of Peter the Hermit himself. Though supplied with provisions
by the governor of Naissos, this body committed such
disorders that at last they were attacked by the garrison of Naissos, and only seven thousand reached Constantinople
with Peter. These first divisions of the Crusaders were not so numerous nor
powerful as to excite any alarm in Alexius, who had often encountered more
numerous armies of Patzinaks, Romans, Turks, and Normans; and as he expected to
turn their services to his advantage, he received Peter the Hermit with
kindness, and supplied his followers with provisions. But the ravages committed
by these undisciplined bands in Servia, Bulgaria, and Thrace sowed the seeds of
a deep-rooted hatred of the western nations in the hearts of the Sclavonian and Greek subjects of the Byzantine empire. The
bitter fruits of this antipathy will be often apparent in the following pages
of this history.
The followers of Walter the Pennyless and Peter
the Hermit were soon swelled into a considerable army by fresh arrivals at
Constantinople. They were transported over to Asia by the Byzantine fleet,
where their imprudence and want of discipline quickly caused their ruin. The
various nations composing the army formed separate bands, and their desultory
attacks on the Turks led to numbers being cut off in detail. The main body
marched to attack Nicaea, and was completely defeated in a battle, from which
only three thousand men escaped into the Byzantine territory.
The great army of the first Crusade only began to march eastward about the
time this advanced guard was destroyed. In the summer of the year 1096, the
chivalry of Flanders, Normandy, and France began to move towards Constantinople
by various routes. Hugh of Vermandois, brother of Philip I king of France;
Robert II duke of Normandy; Robert count of Flanders;
Stephen count of Blois and Chartres, with some other independent leaders of
inferior rank, took the well-known road through Italy, where they passed the
winter. Bohemund, now Prince of Tarentum, caught something of their religious
enthusiasm, which he engrafted on his own private schemes of personal ambition
and rapacity; but he was accompanied by his kinsman Tancred, one of the noblest
characters of the crusade. Hugh of Vermandois, proud of everything—of his high
birth, of his having received a consecrated banner from the Pope, and of his
tall person—was impatient to reach Constantinople before any of his comrades,
hoping to impose on the Byzantine court by his grandeur. Embarking at Bari with
a small suite, he landed in the neighbourhood of Dyrrachium. He soon learned
how little respect the Greeks entertained either for the piety or splendour of
crusading princes. John Comnenus, the emperor’s nephew, was governor of
Dyrrachium, and as he was well informed of the views of the imperial court, he
detained the great Hugh until he should receive orders from the capital. When
Alexius heard that the man of highest rank among the Crusaders was in his
power, he began to speculate in what manner he could turn the accident to the
greatest advantage. He sent Butumites, an officer of
rank, to conduct the Count of Vermandois to Constantinople with becoming
honour; and though he really detained him as a hostage, he received him with
distinction, and endeavoured to gain his goodwill, in which he soon succeeded.
Hugh of Vermandois, notwithstanding his presumption and the royal blood of
France, was the first leader of the crusade who was induced to do homage and
swear fealty to the Greek emperor. But the circumstance of his arrest, and the
degradation of his homage, spread distrust through the army, which had now
passed the north-western frontier of the empire, under the guidance of Godfrey
of Bouillon.
Godfrey, the future king of Jerusalem, conducted the most warlike if not
the most numerous body of the Crusaders. Though attended by irregular bands,
who committed great disorders in the march through Hungary and Bulgaria, he
maintained such discipline among his regular troops that his cavalry arrived at
Philippopolis in good condition. He there learned that the brother of the liege
lord of most of the crusading barons was a prisoner at Constantinople, and he
sent an embassy to demand his immediate release. Alexius’ refusal to comply
with this demand was the signal for commencing hostilities. Godfrey advanced by
Adrianople and Selymbria, laying waste the country
and pillaging the inhabitants, until he reached the walls of Constantinople.
Alexius, alarmed at the energy and numbers of his enemies, sent Hugh to the
camp of the Crusaders, and peace was thereby restored, but confidence could not
be so easily re-established.
It was about Christmas, 1096, that this division of the army reached the
Bosphorus. Its hostile attitude and the news that Bohemund, his ancient enemy,
was approaching, in company with another division, whose number exceeded this
army by which he had more than once been defeated, increased the alarm of
Alexius. The emperor now exerted all his ability, and used every machination of
flattery, force, and bribery, to secure himself against the evil designs of
Bohemund, whom he regarded as the heir of his father’s ambitious projects, by
engaging the crusading chief to do homage to the Eastern Empire, and swear
fidelity to his person. It was with considerable difficulty that Godfrey was
persuaded by Hugh of Vermandois to consent to this measure. At last, however, a
treaty was concluded between Alexius and the Crusaders. On the one hand, the
emperor engaged to assist the Crusaders to recover the Holy Sepulchre, to
supply them with an auxiliary force, to protect all the pilgrims who passed
through his dominions, and to take care that the armies of the Crusaders should
be amply supplied with provisions, in open markets, at reasonable prices. On
the other hand, the leaders of the crusade promised to commit no disorders in
the empire, to treat Alexius as their liege lord while within his dominions, to
deliver up to him all the cities which had recently belonged to the empire as
soon as they recovered them from the Turks, and to do him homage and swear
fidelity to his throne. The word of an emperor was regarded a sufficient
guarantee for the faith of Alexius; but the princes of the crusade, being
already the liegemen of other sovereigns, took an oath of fidelity, and did
homage to Alexius, in regular form, to the extent of the engagements contracted
by their treaty. On the nature and extent of these engagements, it is probable
that the contracting parties, even at the time, placed a different
interpretation, and they have been the subject of a good deal of discussion
since.
Bohemund would have avoided doing homage and swearing fealty to Alexius if
possible; but he soon perceived that he must follow his companions, and
endeavour to profit for the time by the favour of Alexius, rather than appear
openly as his enemy. Still, both he and Alexius for some time could not refrain
from acting on feelings of mutual suspicion and jealousy, which led them into
serious political errors; indeed, the hostile feelings and intriguing ambition
of Bohemund, rendered his presence in the crusading camp no small addition to
the numerous causes of quarrel which occurred between the Greeks and the
Crusaders. Fortunately for Alexius, the alliance he had contracted with Robert
the Frison in 1088, secured him the friendship of his
son Robert count of Flanders, one of the most powerful and valiant leaders of
the expedition, whose influence in some degree counteracted the intrigues of
the crafty Norman.
It was with the greatest difficulty, and not without actual hostilities
with Godfrey, that Alexius succeeded in persuading the leaders to transport
their troops over to Asia. All wished to enter Constantinople, and none wished
to quit it when they had entered. Its luxuries and amusements so enchanted the
young warriors of the West, that they would fain have postponed their vows in
the pursuit of pleasure. Godfrey, with the first division of the army, did
not cross the Bosphorus until the middle of March 1097. In the meantime
Bohemund, Robert count of Flanders, Robert duke of Normandy, Stephen count of
Blois, and Eustace count of Bologne, followed one
another in succession from the ports on the Adriatic, and after doing homage to
Alexius, and receiving valuable presents from him, collected all their
followers in Asia. Raymond count of St Giles and Toulouse was the last of the
chiefs who joined the army. He had been the first to take the cross, but his
preparations occupied much time, for he made a vow never to return to his rich
domains, having resolved to spend the rest of his life in the East as a
Christian soldier. Could he have foreseen that the power of his family and the
wealth of his subjects were soon to become the spoil of another crusade, what
would have been the bitterness of his feelings? Raymond collected so large an
army that he deemed it prudent to avoid as much as possible the routes of those
who preceded him. His own line of march was, nevertheless, very ill chosen.
After passing through the north of Italy, instead of descending the valley of
the Save, he proceeded from Friouli through Dalmatia.
The country was mountainous, destitute of roads, and thinly peopled; the
inhabitants were poor, and avoided the strangers, concealing their cattle and
provisions in their most sequestered valleys. Hostilities took place; Raymond
put out his prisoners’ eyes and cut off their hands and noses to intimidate
their countrymen, and thereby increased his difficulties. At last he reached Scodra, where he was met by Bodin
king of Servia, but the poverty of the country was so great that no
adequate supplies of provisions could be obtained; and this army of Crusaders,
though better prepared for their journey than any other, suffered greater
hardships. Even after reaching Dyrrachium, as they had to march over ground
traversed by their predecessors, they were compelled to fight their way through
the Albanian, Sclavonian, and Bulgarian population of
Epirus, Macedonia, and Thrace.
The conduct of Alexius to Raymond was at first extremely haughty and
imprudent. Raymond left his troops at Redestos, and
repaired to Constantinople to wait on the emperor; but his refusal to do homage
like the other princes offended the vanity of Alexius, who, thinking the troops
of the count were exhausted by fatigue, cut off their supplies of provisions,
and sent armed men to harass them in their quarters, hoping by these measures
to force Raymond to do homage. The Count of St Giles was neither to be moved by
fear of the emperor nor by the solicitations of the other Crusaders. He
declared that he had not taken the cross to enter the service of any earthly
sovereign, but that if the Byzantine emperor would place himself at the head of
the expedition, he was ready to obey all his orders. The proceedings of Alexius
threatened war, and it required all the prudence of Godfrey and Robert of
Flanders to prevent the indignation of Raymond letting loose his army on the environs
of Constantinople. Bohemund, gained over for the time by the liberality of
Alexius, went so far as to tell the Count of Toulouse that, in case of
hostilities breaking out, he should hold it his duty to serve Alexius as his
liege lord. This threat the haughty Raymond never forgave. The other leaders at
last arranged the quarrel. Raymond swore to observe the treaty entered into by
the other Crusaders, and never to undertake anything against the life or the
honour of Alexius, but he refused to do him homage. A more intimate
acquaintance with the honourable though haughty character of the count showed
the emperor the impolicy of the quarrel. He perceived that no projects of
worldly ambitions caused the refusal of Raymond, nor could power ever be held
by a Crusader less inclined to seek wealth and conquest at the expense of the
empire. He found that the word of Raymond was as good a guarantee as the oath
of others, and he then endeavoured, by every means in his power, to gain the
good opinion of one he had received in the beginning so ill. As Raymond, though
severe and haughty, was frank and loyal, he soon forgave the hostilities of
Alexius, but he never pardoned the insolent threat of the upstart Bohemund.
The conduct of Alexius towards the Crusaders was certainly deficient both
in candour and prudence, but he had a very difficult part to act; and it must
be admitted that all his fears and distrust were fully justified by the rapine
of the private soldiers, who plundered his subjects, and the insolence of the
chiefs, who insulted his authority. The memorable anecdote of the insolence of
a petty French chieftain, who has been supposed by Ducange
to have been a count of Paris, and who rudely seated himself on the imperial
throne at a solemn audience, is familiar both to the readers of history and
romance. His conduct must have appeared to the Byzantine courtiers an act of
high treason deserving death, and it was regarded by the princes of the crusade
as an intolerable piece of rudeness and brutality. The Franks and Greeks were
at this time in social conditions which rendered it impossible for them to
associate together without feelings of mutual contempt. The narration of Anna Comnena enables us to contrast in a curious manner the
experienced anility of the Byzantine court with the idleness and mental inanity
of the Western aristocracy. She complains, with great reason, of the
presumption, vanity, and loquacity of the chiefs, who, considering themselves
entitled by their rank to converse with the emperor, compelled him to sacrifice
hour after hour of his valuable time listening to their pretensions and
solicitations. Alexius knew that these men were independent chiefs, and he was
anxious to avoid giving them offence, for their power so often exceeded their
judgment that the neglect of a childish demand or the irritation of an
unintentional slight might plunge his empire in a dangerous and bloody war. The
personal behaviour of Alexius was more judicious than his political system. He
did everything to conciliate the nobles, and his patience, good-humour, and
liberality overcame many difficulties, but his health suffered from the fatigue
of the interminable audiences he gave the leaders amidst the toils of his other
occupations. The silly loquacity of men who wasted their days in idle talk and
vain boasting made a very unfavourable impression on the Byzantine nobles,
whose social intercourse retained much of Roman gravity, formalized by Oriental
ceremony. The chiefs of the crusade also displayed an unseemly eagerness to obtain
money and presents from the emperor. Tancred, the flower of Norman chivalry,
openly expressed his disgust at the rapacity of his companions. When solicited
to do homage to Alexius, which he would fain have avoided, he could not repress
his sneers at their venality. Looking one day at the magnificent tent of the
emperor, which all were admiring, Tancred exclaimed, “If Alexius would give me
that tent full of money, and as much more as he has given to our princes, I
might think of doing him homage”.
The feudal nations and the subjects of the Byzantine Empire formed
different estimates of the exigencies of society. Political order, security of
property, and the supremacy of the judicial administration, were, in the
opinion of the Eastern Christians, the true objects of government. Personal
independence, and the right of each noble to redress his wrongs with his own
sword, were the most valuable privileges of freemen, in the opinion of the
Frank nations, lie authority of a central administration, which made the most
powerful noble submit to the law, was regarded by the feudal barons as an
intolerable despotism; while the right of private war, as it existed in western
Europe, was considered by the Greeks as a state of anarchy suitable only to a
society of lawless bandits. Nor were the feelings of the Eastern and Western
clergy towards one another calculated to infuse any addition of Christian
charity into the intercourse of the Greeks and Franks. The unfounded and
arrogant pretensions of the popes excited the opposition of the whole Greek
Church, and were ably exposed by its more learned members. The general
ignorance of the Latin clergy raised feelings of contempt, which were changed
into abhorrence when the Greeks beheld men calling themselves bishops clad in
coats of mail, riding through the streets on fiery chargers, and returning from
battle covered with blood. On the other hand, the Latin priests despised the
Eastern clergy as a timeserving and slavish body, utterly unfit to uphold the
dignity of the priesthood, and they condemned those doctrines as heretical
which taught that the clergy were bound to submit to the civil magistrate. In
addition to these incongruities, the rival nations mutually reproached one
another as insolent, false, and treacherous.
One of the primary causes of the quarrels between the Crusaders and the
subjects of the Byzantine Empire arose from the attempts made by the government
and its officials to make unfair profits in selling provisions to the
strangers. The financial administration of Alexius was remarkable for its
rapacity and bad faith. He had cheated his own subjects by issuing debased coin
in payment of his debts, and enriched his treasury by oppressive monopolies. He
attempted the same system with the Crusaders; but when he beheld the numbers of
the armies they assembled under the walls of Constantinople, he saw the
necessity of laying aside his previous practice, and attempted, by a liberal
distribution of money and provisions, to efface the memory of his earlier
frauds. For a time the crusading army appeared to be no better than a host of
Byzantine mercenaries; the imperial paymasters carried bags of gold byzants to
the leaders, and distributed quarter byzants, or tetartera,
among the inferior officers and men.
CONQUEST OF NICAEA, A.D.
1097.
The first warlike operation of the Crusaders against the Turks was the
siege of Nicaea, a city which, by the terms of their treaty with Alexius, they
were bound to restore to the empire. The Byzantine army was so much inferior to
that of the Crusaders in number, that the emperor deemed it prudent to watch
the siege from a camp at Pelekanon, without taking
part in the attack. His general, Tatikios, joined the
besiegers with two thousand light cavalry; and a number of boats were
transported on waggons from Kios to the Ascanian Lake and filled with Byzantine troops, under the
command of Butumites, to blockade Nicaea on the side
towards the lake. The Sultan Kilidy-Arslan was
defeated in an attempt to raise the siege, and the inhabitants, seeing that
they could not long resist the incessant assaults of the Franks, entered into
secret arrangements with the Byzantine troops on the lake, and admitted them
into the city on receiving a charter from the emperor promising that the lives
and property of the Turkish inhabitants should be respected. By this treaty the
Byzantine forces entered the city unknown to the Crusaders, who were informed
of its surrender by seeing the Byzantine ensigns displayed
on the walls. Many of the besiegers were enraged at being thus
deprived of the plunder of the first Mohammedan city they had attacked.
Alexius, however, pacified the discontent by dividing great part of the public
property that fell into his hands among the Crusaders, and furnishing them with
abundant supplies of provisions, to enable them to hasten forward through Asia
Minor. The emperor at the same time placed a strong garrison in Nicaea, and
enrolled in his service many Franks who were without the means of continuing
their journey.
The crusading army quitted the neighbourhood of Nicaea about the end of
June, and reached Antioch on the 21st October 1097. The country through which
they passed had long been the ordinary line of march for the Byzantine armies,
and an excellent road for the transport of baggage and provisions had existed
only thirty years before, when Romanus IV Diogenes commenced his unfortunate
war with Alp Arslan; but the country was now everywhere depopulated, the roads
had become impassable, the bridges were broken down, the cisterns ruined, and
the wells filled up. The assistance of the petty Armenian princes in Cilicia
and Mount Taurus proved of more use to them than the alliance of Alexius.
Never, perhaps, had any country fallen so rapidly from civilization to
barbarism, or changed the great body of its inhabitants, its language,
religion, and mode of life so completely as Asia Minor in the latter half
of the eleventh century. A single generation accomplished what a thousand years
have often in other circumstances vainly laboured to effect. But the Crusaders,
in defiance of sufferings and opposition, advanced steadily, if slowly,
storming every city that refused to assist them. At Germanicia, Baldwin, the
brother of Godfrey, quitted the grand army, which continued its march to
Antioch, and moved eastward to take possession of Edessa, a city which still
acknowledged allegiance to the Byzantine emperor. It had surrendered to Pouzan, one of the generals of Malekshah,
in the year 1087, but during the contests of the Turks and Saracens in the north
of Syria it had recovered its independence. Baldwin now sullied the honour of
the Franks, by exciting the people to murder their governor Theodore, and rebel
against the Byzantine authority; he then took possession of the place in his
own name, and founded the Frank principality of Edessa, which lasted about
forty-seven years. This was a direct violation of the treaty with Alexius.
Antioch was besieged for seven months. It was winter, and the sufferings of the
Crusaders were so great that many deserted the army. Tatikios
retired with the Byzantine auxiliaries to Cyprus. Robert duke of Normandy went
off to Laodicea, and it required three citations of the chiefs to recall him to
his duty. William viscount of Melun, and Peter the Hermit himself, attempted to
escape to Europe, but were brought back to the camp by Tancred. At length
Antioch was taken by the treachery of an officer, who admitted Bohemund into
one of its towers. The departure of the Byzantine contingent served as a good
pretext for refusing to cede the city of Antioch to Alexius, who had afforded
them no assistance, nor attempted any diversion in their favour, when they were
placed in a very critical position immediately after gaining possession of the
city. Alexius was advancing with a considerable army in the spring of 1098, in
the hope of securing Antioch to himself but on reaching Philomelium
he heard that it had already surrendered; but at the same time he was informed
that an immense army, under Kerboga, the emir of Mossoul, which had been sent by the Grand Sultan Barkyarok, was about to make an attempt to recover the
place. Several deserters from the crusading army, and particularly Stephen
count of Blois and Chartres, brought alarming accounts of the magnitude of the
Turkish army, and of the unprepared condition of the Crusaders. Their reports
induced Alexius to make a precipitate retreat to Constantinople; and in order
to retard the progress of the Turks, whom he imagined were already pursuing his
army, he invited all the Christians in Phrygia to retire with their families
and property into the provinces of the Byzantine empire, and thus save
themselves from the inroads of the Mohammedans. The Crusaders defeated the
Turkish army, and Bohemund became prince of Antioch rather by his own intrigues
than in consequence of any regular concession on the part of the leaders of the
crusade.
As Alexius had employed the summer of 1097 in recovering possession of
Smyrna, Ephesus, Sardis, Philadelphia, and many other cities on the west coast
of Asia Minor, the Crusaders determined to ask some explanation of his
neglecting to make a diversion in their favour when they were attacked by Kerboga. Hugh of Vermandois and Baldwin of Hainault were
sent to Constantinople as ambassadors for this purpose, and to invite the
emperor to join the army and march at its head to Jerusalem; on that condition
they offered to put him in possession of Antioch and all their other conquests.
But in case of his refusal, the ambassadors were instructed to declare that,
Alexius having failed to perform his engagements, the treaty was annulled, and
the Crusaders renounced the fealty they had sworn. All this was strictly in
accordance with feudal usages, and Alexius had no reason to complain of the
proceeding. The mission proved every way unfortunate. Baldwin was never heard
of and was probably murdered by the bands of brigands who infested Asia Minor.
Hugh of Vermandois, finding Alexius occupied with other business, and not
likely to afford his companions any assistance, abandoned their cause, and
returned to France.
It is not surprising that Alexius declined joining the Crusaders. He knew
that he was not likely to be obeyed, and he might doubt whether he would be
able to force Baldwin and Bohemund to surrender their conquests. His own
absence from Constantinople might also be attended with danger, in an empire
where pretenders to the throne were constantly starting up, and where feelings
of loyalty and hereditary right were almost unknown. Besides this, the arrival
of fresh bands of Crusaders required the presence of a considerable military
force, under his immediate direction, to protect Constantinople and the
environs. Armed pilgrims, who considered that by taking the cross they had
purchased absolution for every crime, could only be restrained from plundering
the emperor’s subjects by fear of the consequences; for we must not overlook
the fact, that the Crusaders began about this time to drain off poverty and
crime from the western nations of Europe, somewhat as emigration and transportation
perform that service for Great Britain at present. It was also a matter of
greater importance to the security of the Byzantine Empire that the Turks
should be expelled from Bithynia and Phrygia than from Syria and Palestine.
Unfortunately for the Byzantine Empire, Alexius was more eager to gain some
diplomatic advantage over the Latins than to promote the prosperity of his
subjects and consolidate the strength of the empire. He sent an embassy to the
leaders of the crusade, which found them encamped before Archas.
His ambassadors demanded that all the towns they had conquered in Syria should
be surrendered to the imperial officers. The princes of the crusade, already
disgusted with the cowardly manner in which he had deserted their cause before
the battle with Kerboga, and no longer standing in
need of his assistance, since they had opened communications with the fleets of
the Italian republics, treated his ill-timed demand with scorn, and dismissed
his envoys with reproaches. Nevertheless the emperor gained possession of the
city of Laodicea in Syria, which, however, he soon lost. The inhabitants
of Laodicea had thrown off the Turkish yoke, with the assistance of a Flemish
pirate named Guymer, about the time the Crusaders
took Antioch. The Byzantine fleet soon after landed a garrison, and Guymer, who was endeavouring to establish himself as an
independent prince, was thrown into prison. But the Crusaders, on their march
from Antioch to Acre, entered Laodicea, and the Byzantine garrison retired to
Cyprus. Guymer gained his liberty. Raymond of
Toulouse, who was left in possession of the city, now surrendered it to the
officers of Alexius, rather than leave it to be occupied by his enemy Bohemund.
Andronicus, the Byzantine governor, however, was unable to retain possession of
it for any length of time. Tancred soon laid siege to it, and compelled it to
capitulate.
In the meantime the Crusaders, who continued to arrive at Constantinople,
gave Alexius almost as much trouble, and threatened the empire with as great
danger, as the expedition under Godfrey. Jerusalem was already in the hands of
the grand army, when a body of Lombards, accompanied, but certainly not
commanded, by their archbishop, entered Bulgaria. Their conduct was more
lawless than that of the followers of Walter the Pennyless
and Peter the Hermit. They remained sometime in the environs of Constantinople,
awaiting the arrival of a number of French and German pilgrims who were known
to have taken the cross. Their insolence alarmed Alexius, who insisted on their
passing over into Asia before new bands arrived, as it would be impossible to
furnish all with provisions. With this requisition they refused to comply, and
it was necessary to compel them by force. Hostilities broke out; the Lombards
attempted to storm the quarter of Blachern, and it
was with great difficulty that the Archbishop of Milan and Raymond of Toulouse
succeeded in re-establishing order, and persuading them to cross the Bosphorus.
They were soon after joined by the Count of Blois and the Constable of the
Emperor of Germany. The brilliant appearance of their camp, which was soon
filled with wealthy nobles, raised the confidence of the Lombards to the
highest pitch. They spoke with contempt of the exploits of the first army which
had taken Jerusalem, and, scorning to follow in the track of others, they
determined to march to Bagdad, and destroy the caliphate. Raymond of Toulouse
was appointed their leader, but he had little power over the disorderly
Italians. Alexius, however, supplied them with five hundred Turkopuls
to serve as guides,—an admirable species of light cavalry, but whose origin
made them an object of suspicion to the Crusaders.
This army took Ancyra without difficulty, and crossed the Halys without order or precaution, plundering the
inhabitants indiscriminately whether they were Christians or Mohammedans. On
one occasion the inhabitants of a town came out to meet them in solemn
procession, headed by their priests, bearing the crucifix and pictures of their
protecting saints. Some acts of hostility had taken place in the neighbourhood,
and the dress of the Greek priests being different from that of the Latin
clergy, the Crusaders would not listen to a word of explanation, but
immediately massacred the peaceful citizens and the ministers of
religion. Their brutal conduct and want of discipline caused
their ruin. Before they reached Amasia they were
surrounded by the Turks, their foraging parties were cut off; they could obtain
no information, for the Christians feared them more than the Turks. They were
at last attacked and completely defeated. A few only of the leaders escaped, by
haying maintained some discipline among their personal followers. Raymond, who
had long foreseen the inevitable issue of the enterprise, saved himself with
the Turkopuls by a precipitate flight.
This unfortunate expedition was followed by others equally disastrous. The
Count of Nevers, with a large army, was defeated; and he himself with a few
others, reached Antioch on foot. The Count of Poitiers and Hugh of Vermandois
made their line of march a scene of disorder and devastation. Before they
reached Adrianople they were involved in hostility with the Bulgarian and Sclavonian subjects of the empire, and with the Patzinak and Koman mercenaries in
the Byzantine service. The imperial troops were defeated, the governor of
Adrianople was taken prisoner, and Alexius was compelled to make every
concession they wished, in order to facilitate the progress of these furious
pilgrims, and allow them to expend their vigour in contests with the infidels.
This army reached Phrygia during the season of the great heats. The harvests
were already removed, the forage exhausted, the wells on their road filled up,
and the cisterns emptied. Disaster and defeat followed in quick succession. At
last their camp was captured and the army dispersed. Hundreds of ladies had
joined this band, which it was supposed would make their pilgrimage a triumphal
precession, under the leading of the great Hugh: these ladies now became slaves
of the Mussulmans, and for many years the slave-markets of Bagdad and the
harems of the East were supplied with noble ladies, whom the defeats of the
Crusaders were continually consigning to perpetual slavery. Hugh of Vermandois
escaped to Tarsus, where he died of fatigue, and the Count of Poitiers reached
Antioch with only six attendants. The Latins would not allow that their
disasters were caused by their own misconduct and imprudence; they persisted in
attributing all their misfortunes to the treachery of the Greeks; and though
Alexius delivered many from captivity, the Crusaders generally regarded him as
an enemy.
The personal jealousy of Alexius and Bohemund in the end became the
immediate cause of war between the Greeks and Latins. Alexius could not forget
his defeat in Epirus, and he sought revenge by endeavouring to expel Bohemund
from Antioch. Nothing could be more ill-judged, for the city was too distant
from the center of his power to be a possession of
any value, and the conquest was sure to involve him in hostilities with the
Crusaders. In the year 1103 Bohemund was taken prisoner by the Emir Danishmend, who had formed a principality embracing Sevaste and all the country round. Alexius, hoping to gain
possession of Antioch, offered to purchase Bohemund from Danishmend;
but Kilidy-Arslan claiming the prisoner, as
representative of the grand sultan in Asia Minor, Danishmend,
to secure some profit to himself, released Bohemund on receiving a sum of money
paid down, and a promise of support should either Alexius or Kilidy-Arslan attack him. Alexius, foiled in his attempt to
make Bohemund his prisoner, attacked Antioch. The Byzantine Empire was thus
rashly brought into collision with the Crusaders; and the Greeks, already
involved in a contest of commercial interests with the maritime states of
Italy, were soon excluded from a considerable portion of the trade of the
Mediterranean at a time when it was receiving a great extension. The Byzantine
army, commanded by Butumites and Monastras,
advanced from Cilicia, but gained no advantage. The imperial fleet, on the
other hand, commanded the sea, and reduced Bohemund to the greatest difficulty.
He, however, succeeded in forming an alliance with the Pisans, who sent a fleet
to his aid. Part of the Pisan force was detached to plunder Corfu, Cephallenia, Leucadia, and Zante. The main body fell in
with the Byzantine fleet between Rhodes and Patara.
The Greeks were commanded by Tatikios and Landolph, a Lombard officer of great naval experience;
their vanguard was led by Perichytanes, a
Peloponnesian noble, who traversed the whole Pisan fleet, sending out streams
of Greek fire from both sides of his vessel; but he was not seconded with
promptitude, and the engagement, though advantageous to the imperial forces,
reflected little honour on the Greek navy. A storm proved more injurious to the
Pisans than the battle, and only a small part of their ships gained the
port of Laodicea. The Byzantine army now occupied Seleucia and Korykos, near the mouth of the Kalykadnus,
and repaired the fortifications of these towns. A naval division on the station
completely commanded the channel between Cilicia and Cyprus, and excluded the
allies of Bohemund from shelter on the Asiatic coast, so that the
communications of the Prince of Antioch were cut off during the winter, when
the navigators of the time feared to venture into the open sea to the south of
Cyprus.
In 1104 a Genoese fleet, engaged in conveying pilgrims and merchandise to
the East, was instructed to assist the Prince of Antioch, with whose dominions
the Genoese had established commercial relations. The Genoese succeeded in
avoiding the Byzantine fleet. The Greek admiral in the meantime captured the
city of Laodicea, but could not take the citadel, though it was only defended by
one hundred cavalry and five hundred infantry. The army in Cilicia, under the
command of Monastras, having received considerable
reinforcements, proceeded to attack the Normans with vigour, and captured
Tarsus, Adana, and Mopsuestia (Mamistra).
The result of the campaign convinced Bohemund that without fresh troops he
could not make head against the forces of the Byzantine Empire; but it was no
longer an easy matter for succours to escape the Greek cruisers. Bohemund,
seeing that his own presence would be necessary to obtain adequate assistance
from the West, resolved to run every risk. In order to deceive any spies the
emperor might have placed in Antioch, he is said to have spread a report of his
own death; and Tancred assumed the direction of the government of Antioch.1 A
coffin was then prepared in which he could conceal himself, and in this way he
was embarked at the port of Suda, in a vessel of
which all the equipage were dressed in mourning. The Princess Anna adds
that a dead fowl was shut up with him in the coffin; that even in case the
vessel should be visited by the Greek officers, they might be deterred from
opening the coffin by the offensive odour. “I must acknowledge”, says the
learned lady, “that there is nothing capable of overcoming the obstinacy with
which the barbarians pursue their plans”, Bohemund reached the coast of Italy
in safety, but a contrary wind delayed him at the entrance of the Adriatic
until his provisions and water were exhausted. He ventured to visit Corfu in
order to obtain refreshments and purchase provisions; and the governor, not
possessing a sufficient force to attack this redoubted enemy of the empire,
permitted the communication. On quitting Corfu, Bohemund sent this message to
the Byzantine governor—“Inform your master that the Prince of Antioch has
arisen from the dead, and will soon give proofs of his vitality”.
Bohemund hastened to Rome in order to excite the Pope to aid him against
the Emperor Alexius. Pope Pascal II, who adopted all the ambitious schemes of
Gregory VII, and strove to establish the papal domination over all Christian
princes, approved of the projects of the Norman. Bohemund then visited France,
to collect troops for a crusade against the Byzantine Empire. He was received
with great honour. Philippe I of France gave him his daughter Constance in
marriage, and this alliance alarmed Alexius to such a degree that he forgot his
imperial pride so far as to write letters to the republics of Pisa, Genoa,
and Venice, refuting the injurious reports which Bohemund had spread concerning
his conduct, and declaring that it was a disgraceful calumny to call him an
enemy of the Christians and a traitor to the Crusaders. As a proof of the
calumnious nature of Bohemund’s accusations, he immediately obtained the release
of three hundred knights who were prisoners at Cairo.
Alexius made every preparation to encounter this crusade against the
Greeks. He formed a camp at Thessalonica in the autumn of 1105, and sent his
nephew Alexius Komnenos to take the command at
Dyrrachium, and put that important place in a good state of defence. Isaac Koutostephanos was also sent into the Adriatic with a
powerful fleet assembled in the ports of the Aegean Sea. Bohemund was not ready
to invade the empire until the autumn of 1107. In the meantime Koutostephanos made an attempt to surprise Brindisi, in
which he failed. The Normans on this occasion captured a few of the mercenaries
of Turkish race who served in the Byzantine armies. These prisoners may have
been Patzinaks, Uzes, Romans, or Turks of the colony
at Achrida, and were probably Christians; but their dress and arms were
different from anything in use throughout the west of Europe, so that Bohemund
presented them to the Pope as a convincing proof that the emperor of
Constantinople was in close alliance with the enemies of Christianity.
Bohemund, with his usual skill, availed himself of an opportunity to cross the
Adriatic when the Greek fleet had retired to Chimaera. He left the port of Bari
with two hundred transports and thirty war-galleys, and arrived safely at Avlona on the 9th October 1107, where he landed his army.
The cavalry alone amounted to five thousand.
This army resembled that with which William the Conqueror subdued England.
It was composed of experienced military adventurers, whom the hope of a richer
conquest than that of England had assembled under the banner of the Prince of
Tarentum and Antioch. But, fortunately for the Byzantine Empire, instead of
fighting a battle immediately on its landing, it was compelled to pass the
winter before the walls of Dyrrachium. The strength of that fortress, and the
ample supplies with which it had been furnished, saved Alexius from the
necessity of giving battle until it suited his convenience; and he had every
advantage in his favour. Bohemund was compelled to leave his warriors idle,
while his engineers were preparing movable towers, tortoises, and
battering-rams; and in the meantime Alexius assembled his army at Thessalonica.
The Byzantine court was the real cause of the ruin of the Eastern Empire; its
expenses were so great that every branch of the public service was paralyzed to
supply its demands whenever money was scarce in the treasury at Constantinople.
That Caesars and sevasts might be maintained in
becoming pomp, the emperors had long been in the habit of disbanding a
considerable part of the native troops at every cessation of active
hostilities; and when this happened, court influence, not length of service,
decided what officers and troops were to profit by the arrangement. The vanity
of Alexius, the necessity he was under of conciliating several powerful
aristocratic families, and the exigencies of his numerous relations, had always
prevented his reducing the expenses of the court within reasonable bounds; and
while the pomp and magnificence of his court at Constantinople surpassed every
other in Europe, we find him constantly commencing his military operations with
new armies enrolled for the occasion. This circumstance is alone sufficient to
explain why his continual wars were productive of such trifling results.
Alexius had considered it politic to form an aristocratic guard, consisting of
two thousand chosen youths, who were trained with care to military exercises,
and instructed in military science. Of these archontopuls,
three hundred were sent forward, as soon as Bohemund landed, to secure the
passes between Achrida and Dyrrachium.
At the approach of spring, Bohemund began to push forward his works. His
ships being useless in consequence of the superiority of the Byzantine fleet,
he destroyed them, and employed the timber in the construction of his towers
and military engines; but the interruption of his communications with Italy
soon proved disastrous to his army. The country round Dyrrachium had been laid
waste in the preceding war, and was now either depopulated, or well protected
by fortified towns and castles, in which the cultivators had secured their
property. From these posts Byzantine troops watched the movements of every
forager, and rendered it difficult for the besieging army to obtain the
smallest supplies of provisions. On the other hand, the magazines of Dyrrachium
were abundantly furnished both with provisions and military stores, the
garrison was numerous and in high spirits, the ramparts were well garnished
with military engines, and the governor was active and popular. Bohemund
assaulted the place in vain; he advanced his towers and battering-rams,
which were of extraordinary size, up to the walls, and he worked mines
under the foundations; but his assaults were repulsed, his towers and
battering-rams were reduced to ashes, and his miners were suffocated at their
work.
Alexius advanced as far as Deavolis, which
commands the most important and easiest pass over the great range of mountains
between Epirus and Macedonia to the south of Achrida. Experience had convinced
him that his mercenaries and militia were unable to resist the Normans in the
open field; so he determined to remain in his camp, and direct a series of
desultory operations for wearing out the strength of the invaders. His love of
intrigue showed itself in a mean artifice he used to spread distrust in the
camp of Bohemund. Letters, addressed by the emperor to several of the Norman
leaders, in which he pretended to have received information concerning the
plans of Bohemund, were sent in a way that they fell into that prince's hands.
The artifice appears not to have deceived the crafty Norman, who was more
inclined to suspect the perfidy of Alexius than of his companions. He
communicated the letters to his officers, and left everyone in the command of
the positions they had previously occupied. If this anecdote of imperial policy
had been communicated to us in some frank chronicle written by a prejudiced
monk, we might have doubted its accuracy, and suspected the writer of having
given a calumnious colouring to the incident; but the fact is attested by the
beloved daughter of the imperial diplomatist, and affords us a valuable
portraiture of the moral obtuseness of the Byzantine court, for Anna Comnena never suspected that she was holding up her
father’s conduct to the contempt of every honorable
man.
The prudence of Alexius in his military proceedings soon placed Bohemund in
great difficulties. The mountain passes were all fortified with strong entrenchments.
Avlona, Yericho, and Canina
were occupied by Michael Kekavmenos; Petroula by Alexander Kavasilas; Divri by Leo Nikerites; and the Kleisoura, or passes of Albania, by Eustathios
Kamytzes. But the population of the country, which
consisted in great part of Albanians, hardly viewed the Byzantine troops with
more favour than the Norman; and when Bohemund paid his guides well, he was
enabled to plunder at times with considerable success. While the war was thus
prosecuted on shore with very little effect, the negligence of Koutostephanos and the Byzantine nobles on board the fleet,
who ran into port when the sea became stormy, enabled the Italians to send a
large convoy with provisions and reinforcements to Bohemund. At length,
however, Mavrokatakalon having superseded Koutostephanos in the command of the fleet, and the Patzinak, Turkish, and Alain cavalry having posted
themselves nearer and nearer to the Norman camp, Bohemund found his army
reduced to a state of absolute famine, and made propositions of peace to the
governor of Dyrrachium. These proposals were transmitted to the emperor, who
still occupied his camp at Deavolis; and Alexius
required that Bohemund should visit him in person to settle the terms of the
treaty.
Two princes less deserving of trust could hardly have engaged in a
negotiation; but after numerous precautions and mutual guarantees, their
interests induced them to come to terms, and peace was concluded in the month
of September 1108. Bohemund and his principal officers signed an act containing
the obligations imposed on them, while Alexius, in order to preserve all his
imperial superiority, only ratified these conditions, and made the concessions
required on his part in the form of a golden bull. By this treaty, the stipulations
of the alliance between the Crusaders and Alexius concluded in 1107 were
annulled, in as far as they were applicable to the relations between the
emperor and the Prince of Antioch. Bohemund again declared himself the liegeman
of Alexius, and of his son John Porphyrogenitus, and bound himself to make war
against all the enemies of the emperor who were not invulnerable like the
angels, nor endowed with bodies of iron. He engaged to hold his principality in
Asia as a fief of the Byzantine Empire, and to surrender any place he might
take in future which had in old time belonged to the Byzantine emperors. He
bound himself to make war on Tancred in case he should not cease all hostility
in Cilicia, and promised immediately to surrender the whole coast between the Cydnus and the Hermon, and the cities of Laodicea, Gabala, Valanea, Marathos, Tortosa, and Antarados in Syria, and to accept the investiture of the
principality of Antioch from the emperor by a golden bull. The limits of his
principality were defined as extending to Germanicia, with the exception of the
country in the possession of the two Armenian brothers, Leo and Theodore,
princes of the house of Reuben, who were subjects of the Byzantine Empire. A
pension of two hundred talents or pounds’ weight of gold, in byzants of the
coinage of the Emperor Michael, was granted to Bohemund, who swore never to
separate his interests from those of Alexius and his son John; but to observe
all the stipulations of the treaty by the passion of our Saviour—by the Gospel
which has subdued the world —by the crown of thorns—and by the nails and lance
which pierced the body of the Redeemer. After this termination of all his
ambitious schemes of conquest, the Norman prince hastened back to Italy,
leaving his army to winter in Epirus, where Alexius promised to supply them
with provisions. In the following spring many entered the Byzantine service,
some proceeded to Jerusalem, and some returned to Italy. Bohemund, though
compelled to remain quiet for some time, was collecting another army, either
for the purpose of extending the limits of his principality of Antioch, or of
seeking to avenge his defeat, when death put an end to his schemes in the month
of February 1111.
The indefatigable energy of Alexius deserves the highest praise. As
soon as he had put an end to the war with Bohemund, he turned all his attention
to the affairs of Asia Minor; but in the conduct of the war, and in the policy
of his civil administration, he allowed his ambition to blind his judgment.
Instead of confining his operations to the country nearest to Constantinople,
and to the Aegean Sea, he engaged in hostilities with Tancred and the Crusaders
on the coast of Syria, leaving the Turks in undisturbed possession of the
greater part of the intervening country, though the condition of the Seljouks at the time rendered it probable that a combined
attack of the Franks and Greeks might have expelled them from the whole
country between Constantinople and Antioch. The brave Sultan Kilidy-Arslan perished in the year 1106. His sons Melek and Massoud succeeded to
his dominions, and Melek, the eldest, ruled the
western part of Asia Minor. But though a brave soldier, his administration was
weak, and many of the Turkish provincial governors assumed an independent position,
and were called Sultans. During the ten years that Melek
reigned, the Seljouk dominions were a scene of
intestine war, Alexius acted with no great energy against the Turks at this
period, but during their civil war he succeeded in getting possession of the
whole coast of Asia Minor from the Hellespont to Attalia.
He repaired the walls of Adramyttium, which had been
destroyed by Tzachas, and endeavoured to make it a
flourishing commercial city, as it had formerly been, by repeopling it with the
inhabitants of the surrounding country. This was perhaps not the most likely
way to restore prosperity to Adramyttium, but the
reparation of the fortifications excited the jealousy of the nomad Turks in the
province, and they assembled a large force to attack the new colony. They were
completely defeated in an engagement, and the Greeks captured their camp, with
their wives and children. The inhuman cruelty with which the Christians treated
their prisoners on this occasion roused the fury of the whole Turkish nation,
and gave an energy to their military operations against the Byzantine territory
which checked all the plans of the emperor for its improvement. Hassan, the
emir of Cappadocia, invaded the empire at the head of twenty-four thousand
men, resolved to exact a bloody vengeance for the carnage at Adramyttium. The prudence of Philokales,
the governor, who had rebuilt Adramyttium, and
happened to be at Philadelphia on his way to assume the command of Attalia, saved the coast of western Asia from ruin. Hassan,
not expecting to meet with any opposition in the field, formed his army into
three divisions, in order to extend the sphere of his ravages. These divisions
were directed against Sardis, Smyrna, and Pergamus;
but the Byzantine troops under Philokales, issuing
from Philadelphia, successively defeated the two first divisions, and compelled
the third to abandon the attack on Pergamus, and save
itself by a precipitate retreat.
The progress of the Turkish war was interrupted by the hostilities Alexius
carried on with Tancred, which involved the empire in a maritime warfare with
the Genoese and Pisans, whose piratical expeditions against the islands and
coasts of the Aegean proved ruinous to the commerce and trade of the Greeks. In
the year 1112, while the emperor was encamped in the Thracian Chersonesus preparing to send a fleet against the Latins,
five Genoese galleys entered the Hellespont, and plundered the neighbourhood of
Abydos. Four, it is true, were captured by the Byzantine fleet, but one escaped
to encourage its countrymen to new acts of piracy.
The imposing force Alexius had assembled in Asia Minor enabled him to
conclude a temporary peace with Sultan Melek in the
year 1112, yet, as the conditions of the treaty are not recorded by his
daughter, it seems probable that no cession of territory was made. New armies
of Turks arriving in Asia Minor from the frontiers of Persia, and Melek exercising no very extensive authority over the Seljouk chiefs, the sultanat of
Iconium was soon again involved in hostilities with the Byzantine Empire.
Bithynia, Mysia, the Troad,
and the coast of Paphlagonia were ravaged by the Seljouks
in successive campaigns. Brusa, Apollonias,
and Cyzikos were taken and plundered, the governor of
Nicaea was defeated and made prisoner, the inhabitants abandoned the
cultivation of the open country, and either emigrated to Europe or clustered
round castles in which they could quickly seek protection, or else formed their
dwellings in places of difficult access, where they could escape the search of
invading armies. These places of refuge and concealment, called Kataphygia, now began to assume a certain degree of
political importance in the Byzantine government. The imperial troops often
defeated the invaders, but new bands of Turks and Turkomans daily extended the
field of their devastations.
The last campaign of Alexius was in the year 1116. The Sultan of Iconium
had assembled a large army, composed not only of his own troops and those of
the emirs who acknowledged his authority, but also of an army of auxiliaries
sent to his assistance by the Sultan of Aleppo. The Turks expected to carry
their ravages as far as the shores of the Bosphorus, and to retake the cities
which the Crusaders had compelled them to surrender. Alexius determined to avert
the danger by carrying the war into the heart of the dominions of Melek before his preparations were completed. After
defeating a body of Turks on the banks of the Bhyndacus,
near Lopadion, and clearing the neighbourhood of
Nicaea from their nomadic hordes, the emperor advanced with his army by Dorylaeum to Santabaris. Here the
army was divided into three columns. One, under Stypeiotes,
was detached to the left, in order to attack the Turks who had assembled at Amorium, and, falling in with the enemy at Poimanenon, it gained a complete victory. The second
division, under Kamytzes, was sent forward to drive
back a Turkish force stationed at Polybotos. When
this service had been performed, the main body of the army, under the command
of the emperor in person, advanced to Kedrea, on the
road to Polybotos. Finding, however, that the sultan
had carried off all the provisions from the country through which he had
proposed to advance, the emperor began to see the necessity of retiring. To
pretend that his retreat was dictated by the command of Heaven, he performed a
ceremony worthy of his superstition and hypocrisy. Writing on two papers the
questions whether he should advance to attack Iconium or stop at Philomelion
(Ak Sheher), he deposited his interrogatories on the
altar of a church in which he passed the night in prayer. In the morning the
priest entering took up one of the papers, and announced that the will of
Heaven had fixed Philomelion as the limit of the campaign. In the meantime all
the Turkish hordes were hastening to the scene of warfare. A strong body
advancing to join the Emir Monolykos, by crossing the
bridge over the Sangarius at Zompi
(Tchanderl), was defeated by a Byzantine corps, under
Bardas, in the plain of Amorium; but to this corps
Alexius was compelled to detach reinforcements, to enable it to preserve its
advantage over the enemy. The emperor then advanced to Mesonacta,
near the Lake of the Forty Martyrs, and continuing his advance, soon reached
Philomelion, which he took at the first assault. After ravaging the possessions
of the Turks, and summoning the Christians who desired to escape from their Kataphygia to retire under the escort of his army, he
commenced his retreat in the most deliberate manner, arranging his order of
march so as to afford effectual protection to the immense number of Christian
families and enormous quantity of spoil that accompanied his troops. The forces
of Melek and Monolykos hung
on his flanks and rear, and compelled him to fight a battle in the plain of Polybotos; but they were defeated with loss, and Alexius
continued his retreat to Ampous. The subsequent
attacks of the Turks were equally unsuccessful, and at last the sultan sent
proposals of peace to the emperor. A meeting between Alexius and Melek, who came attended by the old warrior Monolykos, took place between Augustopolis
and Acroinion, at which the terms of a treaty were
arranged. What these terms were we are not informed; but the emperor terminated
his retreat with honour, bringing all the Christian colonists, with their
families and property, safe into the Byzantine territory. Melek
perished shortly after, the victim of assassination and fratricide. His brother
Massoud, who was his murderer, succeeded him on the
throne of Iconium.
Violent attacks of gout, accompanied by increasing weakness, warned Alexius
of his approaching end. Near the conclusion of his reign he gained great
popularity by burning the Bogomilian heresiarch
Basil, and by founding a splendid hospital and orphan asylum.
The deathbed of Alexius affords a melancholy picture of the effects of his
duplicity in the bosom of his own family. It seems like a satire on his reign.
His habitual distrust of all men had induced him to make his wife and his
learned daughter his chief companions, and to employ them in aiding him to
perform the routine duties of the imperial administration. The Empress Irene
and the Princess Anna proved apt pupils in the school of political intrigue.
They deluded themselves into the belief that they understood the whole art of government,
and proposed that Anna’s husband, the Caesar Nicephorus Bryennios, should share
the task of government with them. To effect this, Irene endeavoured to persuade
Alexius to nominate the Caesar his successor, though his eldest son John had
been invested with the imperial title for twenty-six years. The empress
entertained an aversion for John, whose short and ugly figure showed to little
advantage in the pageants of the court, while his love of truth and frank
character appeared to her a proof of rudeness and stupidity. During the last
illness of the emperor she frequently pressed him to declare Nicephorus his
successor; but Alexius, who was well acquainted with his son’s talents,
listened patiently to her advice without following it. When the emperor's end
approached, Irene took more daring measures to secure the realization of her
wishes. The palace was filled with her creatures, and the Varangian guards on
duty were gained over, and prepared to dispute the title of John to the throne.
In the meantime John, who had watched all his mother’s intrigues, took prompt
and decided measures for securing his succession, without bringing matters to
an open rupture. While the empress was absent from his father's bedside, he
entered his chamber and drew the imperial signet from his finger; an act of
which the dying emperor perfectly understood the import, and of which,
consistent with his habitual dissimulation, he said nothing to the empress on
her return. John immediately employed the signet to assume the direction of the
public administration—the treasury, the army, and the fleet. He then hastened
to the palace, where the Varangians for a time disputed his authority, and he
had some difficulty in avoiding a collision between these foreign guards and
the people who supported him; but at length he gained possession of the great
palace, which was the citadel of Constantinople. The empress, finding that all
her schemes were thus rendered abortive, rushed to the apartment of her dying
husband and accused her son of treason, urging him to declare another
successor; but Alexius only raised his hands and eyes to heaven, to indicate
that his concerns on earth were terminated, and that his thoughts were now
directed to another world. The empress, interpreting the gesture according to
the emperor's habitual system of duplicity, supposed the movement was made to
avoid giving a direct answer, and as she gazed on the dying emperor exclaimed,
“You die as you have lived, a hypocrite”.
The Emperor Alexius died in the year 1118, aged seventy, having reigned
thirty-seven years, four months and a-half.
Sect. II
The reign of John II
A.D. 1118-1143
John Comnenus was the most amiable character that ever occupied the
Byzantine throne. He was stainless in his private conduct, frank, merciful,
generous, prudent, active and brave, economical without avarice, and pious
without superstition. Even the Latins bear testimony to his virtue, while the
love of his own subjects is declared by the singular exception his government
offers of exemption from rebellion and sedition. The only traitors during his
reign, which lasted almost a quarter of a century, were members of his own
family. The moral and political feelings of his sister and brother appear to
have been corrupted by their father’s duplicity and their mother’s ambition.
The position of John when he mounted the throne was one of some difficulty
and danger. His virtues alarmed the courtiers, and were almost unknown to the
people. He was consequently compelled to secure his authority by administrative
arrangements and military power, and to do this without any effusion of blood
was his first care. To avoid all chance of collision with the members of the
conspiracy organized by his mother, he never quitted the great palace until he
was assured that all his commands for preserving order in the capital and its
immediate vicinity had been carried into execution. During this
interval his father’s funeral was celebrated; and though he took care that
the ceremony should be performed with imperial pomp, he did not venture to be
present.
The selfishness of his own relations, and the treachery of the Byzantine
aristocracy, made a deep impression on his mind. Though they never destroyed
his feelings of family affection, nor infused any tinge of melancholy into his
equable disposition, they led him, at an early age, to seek elsewhere for a
friend. A Turkish lad, remarkable for his personal grace and amiable
disposition, fell into the hands of the Emperor Alexius at the capture of
Nicaea, and was placed as a domestic slave and personal companion with his son
John Porphyrogenitus, who was nearly of the same age. The two youths were
educated together, and became sincerely attached to one another. In Axouchos John found the frank character and the love of
truth which he sought in vain among his own relations and the Greek courtiers.
Years ripened the youthful friendship into mutual respect. Axouchos
showed himself a man of talent as well as of courage and virtue; and John,
seeing that the fidelity of all his father’s ministers had been tampered with
by his mother, made the Turkish slave his prime-minister. Axouchos
proved himself worthy of the high post; but whatever may have been the amount
of his virtues, the very circumstance that the people regarded the appointment
of a slave to the rank of minister as a boon to humanity, must be taken as a
proof of the oppressive conduct of the aristocracy, the corruption of the
general administration, and the decay of wise institutions and right feelings in
the people.
The government of John II was disturbed by no internal troubles. Two
conspiracies occurred during his reign; one headed by his literary sister Anna,
and the other by his brother Isaac, but both proved abortive. The Princess Anna
induced several members of the imperial family to join in a plot for placing
the imperial crown on the head of her husband Nicephorus Bryennios. For the
success of her plan it was necessary that her brother should be murdered, or
that his eyes should be put out; and when her more humane husband testified
some reluctance to proceed with the plot, the learned princess expressed her
contempt for his feminine weakness, as she termed it, in very strong terms,
contrasting it with what she considered her own manly inhumanity. The
conspiracy was revealed, and John thought it necessary to confiscate his
sister's wealth in order to check her future intrigues. He bestowed her palace,
which was richly and luxuriously furnished, on Axouchos;
but that minister, who thought more of performing the duties of his situation
for the emperor's advantage than of enriching himself by the imperial favour,
suggested that it would be more politic to restore the palace to Anna. John
felt all the prudence as well as the justice of his minister’s advice, and
replied, “I should, indeed, be unworthy to reign, if I could not forget my
anger as readily as you forget your interest”. Anna was reinstated in her
palace.
Isaac, the only surviving brother of the emperor, was always treated with
the greatest kindness and the highest honour. But it would appear that his
capacity and disposition prevented his being entrusted with as great a
share of political power as he wished, and, dissatisfied with his position, he
fled to the court of the Sultan Massoud at Iconium,
accompanied by his eldest son John. During this voluntary exile he led
many predatory incursions into the Byzantine Empire, but at last, finding
himself both poorer and more neglected at Iconium than he had been at
Constantinople, he made his peace with his brother, and was reinstated in his
former wealth and rank. The conduct of his son John, however, soon caused a new
alienation of feeling between the brothers. John accompanied the emperor his
uncle at the siege of Neocaesarea. An Italian knight,
highly esteemed for his valour, happened to be dismounted, which the emperor
observing, ordered his nephew to remount him on an Arabian horse he was riding,
adding, “You have other excellent horses at hand”. The pride of the young
prince was hurt, and he turned to the Italian, saying, “Take some other horse,
and try if you can make me quit my saddle with your lance”. A look of the
emperor, however, made him think it wise to dismount and surrender his horse.
Shortly after he rode oft joined the Turks, with whom he had formerly lived,
and embraced the Mohammedan religion. His father Isaac also appears to have
engaged in some plots, concerning the details of which we have no information,
but he was banished by his brother to Heracleia in
Pontus towards the end of his reign.
The historical records of the reign of John II are very imperfect, and
relate only to his warlike enterprises. Hence it has been supposed that he
was either too strongly biassed in favour of military
fame, or that he considered success in war as the surest means of increasing
the power and restoring the prosperity of the empire, overlooking the necessity
of infusing new vigour into the social organization of the motley population of
the Byzantine provinces, and of reforming the gross abuses of the fiscal
administration. There can be no doubt that the general opinion of the age
viewed military success as the true preservative against all political evils,
and the emperor’s popularity with the inhabitants of Constantinople must have
been considerably increased by the conviction that such was his opinion. The
material prosperity of the people of Constantinople was closely identified with
the augmentation of the imperial dominions, and only indirectly influenced by
the general wellbeing of the rest of the empire. This identification of
prejudices and interests between the inhabitants of the capital and the rulers
of the state is one of the usual results of strict administrative
centralization, and its basis is generally laid by some sacrifice of the interests
of the people in the provinces for the profit of the crowds congregated in the
vicinity of the sovereign. Rome and Constantinople, by their public
distributions of provisions and expensive public amusements, afford proofs of
this fact quite as strong as any Eastern despotism, and modern Europe offers
something similar in the state of Paris.
The superiority assumed by the Byzantine armies whenever John appeared in
the field, proves that he was an able general as well as a brave soldier. His
troops showed perfect confidence in his military skill, even when his
operations proved unsuccessful; and he used their services with that daring
energy which marks the existence of the highest military qualities in a
leader. His enterprises were at times foiled; but neither failure nor
retreat ever produced discomfiture to his army. His opinions
concerning the constitution of the force under his command were those of a
professional soldier, not of a patriotic general nor of a feudal monarch. The
native militia of the Byzantine provinces, and the nobles of the empire, who
were in the habit of returning to pass the winter, after each campaign, in
their domestic quarters, were a force on which he placed no reliance; to use
his own phrase, he desired soldiers whose thoughts were concentrated in a
military life, and who were ready at every season and for any enterprise he
might command. This naturally led to a preference of mercenary troops, and his
choicest army appears to have been composed of very few Byzantine subjects; its
principal divisions consisting of Macedonians, which doubtless means Sclavonians and Bulgarians, of Scythians, which signifies
Patzinaks and Romans, of Turks and veterans, or guards. His military policy was
pursued with skill and energy; the plan of each campaign was well conceived and
ably executed; he gained for himself great military renown, and he made the
Byzantine armies a terror both to the Turks and Franks. But there appears to
have been a want of political system in his Asiatic wars, and he seems to have
expended too much of the military resources of his dominions on distant
expeditions to Syria, and unnecessary attacks on Armenian Cilicia, from which
no permanent advantage could be expected. It cannot be doubted that, even
during his victorious reign, the social condition, and perhaps the numerical
population, of the empire continued to decline; and before a generation
had elapsed from the death of his son Manuel I, the Byzantine Empire was
overthrown, and a Flemish count occupied the imperial throne.
The private conduct of the Emperor John indicates that he viewed with
regret the internal evils which weakened the moral and political energy of
Greek society; for we must now observe that the Byzantine Empire had assumed a
Greek character. Yet we have no reason to suppose that he adopted any measures
to root out the administrative abuses or reform the social state of his
dominions. The undertaking may have appeared to him one in which the power of
government could effect very little; and he may have thought
that Divine Providence alone could bring about the revolution in
men's thoughts and conduct necessary to produce any effectual improvement.
Many persons even at the present day may be of the same opinion, and ask, with
reference to our time, what Catholic emancipation, municipal and parliamentary
reform, improved central administration, and free trade, could have effected
towards improving the general condition of the inhabitants of the British
empire, without an extensive emigration, and the accidental discovery of gold
in California and Australia, events with which Government had certainly very
little connection. But to these persons it may be replied, that unless the
previous changes had placed the social and political condition of all British subjects
on a harmonious scale, the subsequent events might have increased many evils
which they have contributed to diminish. And thus it is not impossible, that if
John had endeavoured to improve the administration of justice in the provinces,
to relieve trade from monopolies, to secure the fruits of their labour to the
agriculturists, and to diminish the burden of fiscal oppression on his people,
his reign might have opened a new era of prosperity to the Greek nation.
Perhaps, like Leo III, he might have ranked as a restorer of the Eastern Empire
under a Greek phase.
There are so many points of similarity between the situation of the empire
at the accession of Leo III and at the accession of the family of Comnenus,
that they must have made some impression on the mind of the Emperor John II,
had history been then studied for political instruction. At both periods the
Mohammedans had overrun Asia Minor and threatened Constantinople. In both cases
they were driven back, and the empire gained time to reorganize its resources.
In the first instance, however, the victory was gained by Leo and the Byzantine
army; but in the second, the advantage was derived from the accidental passage
of foreign Crusaders. We have seen in the preceding volume with what political
prudence Leo profited by his military successes. He boldly forsook the beaten
track of Roman conservatism, and created the Byzantine Empire by reforming the
whole circle of the imperial administration; and by so doing he infused new
life into Christian society. The inhabitants of the Eastern Empire, who
appeared to be on the eve of extinction when he mounted the throne, increased
rapidly in numbers and wealth before his reign was concluded; while the scheme
of policy he traced out for his successors, gave three centuries and a half of
prosperity to the Byzantine empire.
When Alexius Comnenus seized the throne, the Byzantine administration
required to be once more reformed. New evils had again depopulated the empire
and enfeebled the government. Everything was falling to decay. The systematic
administration of the Roman Empire, which had preserved the fabric of the
imperial power in many periods of difficulty, was now swept away, and
replaced by temporary expedients and arbitrary counsels. The emperor had become
more despotic as his instruments of government became weaker, and his officials
more incapable. The expenses of the imperial court now absorbed the greater
part of the revenues of the state; and the army and navy were diminished and
neglected, while princes, courtiers, and chamberlains were multiplied and
honoured. The civil, financial, and judicial administration was treated as a
field for enriching those favoured by the emperor and by the emperor’s
favourites. The Roman law, which for ages had formed the bulwark of individual
rights and the basis of public prosperity in the Eastern Empire, no longer
protected the persons and the property of the people against the rapacity of
the imperial officers. Ever since the death of Basil II the public property of
the state had been visibly going to ruin.
Roads, bridges, aqueducts, ports, public warehouses, and city
fortifications, arsenals, warlike machines, and ships, were everywhere
becoming unserviceable. Even cisterns, wells, farm-houses, plantations, and
other signs of rural civilization, were disappearing over extensive districts
where they had once flourished. Colonies of nations in the rudest state of
civilization, like the Turks, Patzinaks, and Romans, to whom the cultivation of
gardens, vineyards, olive-grounds, silk, and plants used in manufactures was
unknown, were established on sites once occupied by populous cities. A little
grain was raised in the enclosures of ruined gardens, while sheep pastured
through abandoned vineyards, orchards, and olive-groves. It is evident that
agricultural industry must have been sadly degraded, and the depopulation of
the empire must have made great progress, before the Emperor Alexius could have
found vacant lands in the rich plains about Thessalonica and Philippopolis, for
the colonies he planted at Moglena and Alexiopolis. In the period of anarchy which preceded the
reign of Leo III, the civilized inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire were driven
into cities and walled towns; and under such circumstances the Greek race must have
diminished much more rapidly than the rude colonists who entered the country
could increase.
We shall have occasion to remark that the policy of John, with reference to
the agricultural population in Asia Minor was not very enlightened. With the
short-sighted view of diminishing the revenues of the Sultan of Iconium, he
ruined a flourishing class of Christian agriculturists, who maintained some
local independence by paying taxes to the Turks. These people were compelled by
the emperor to abandon their farms, with all those improvements which the
expenditure of capital for ages on their property had effected, in order to
colonize some ruined site in the empire, where all capital of a similar
kind had been already annihilated. There can be no doubt that such a colony
would soon become extinct.
It is not difficult, even at this distance of time, to point out the
measures which ought to have been adopted in order to arrest the decline and
depopulation of the empire; but how far the adoption of these measures would
have tended to improve the moral condition of the Greek nation must, of course,
remain problematical; and without a great improvement in the moral rectitude
and political energy of the Greeks at this period, no exertions of the central
administration would have sufficed to save the Byzantine empire. The first task
was to root out the all-pervading corruption of court influence. Without this,
there was no possibility of restoring the systematic and equitable
administration of justice. All the benefits which Roman law had conferred on
society for so many ages were now nullified by the despotic power of inferior
officials; and as long as the expenditure of the court absorbed the greater
part of the public revenues, no effective system of administrative control
could be framed to check the abuses of the agents of the court in the
provinces. The secondary measures were, to sweep away all the monopolies and
privileges which were ruining Greek commerce, and to reform the fiscal
exactions which were annihilating all capital invested in agriculture. Had such
measures of improvement been perseveringly pursued during the quarter of
century that John reigned, the Byzantine Empire might perhaps have escaped its
impending ruin, and the Greek race its subsequent debasement.
The Emperor John II was engaged in constant wars; but the inhabitants of
the empire enjoyed during his reign a degree of internal security to which they
had been long strangers. No armies of plunderers ravaged Thrace, Macedonia,
Bithynia, and Ionia; and the Greeks especially were secured from all hostile
attacks, and were afforded an opportunity of recovering their former commercial
and manufacturing activity. The Patzinaks, the Hungarians, and the Servians, indeed, ventured at different times to invade the
northwestern provinces of the empire; but they were
soon repulsed, and permanent peace was established.
In the autumn of 1122, the Patzinaks, who had remained quiet ever since
their defeat in 1091, crossed the Danube in great force, and spread over the
country north of Mount Haemus. The emperor established a camp at Beroea to cover the passes, and passed the winter with the
army. At the approach of spring, the Patzinaks advanced to force the passes,
but were completely defeated. Even the barrier of waggons, which served as
an entrenchment to their encampment, was broken through by the Varangian guard
with their battle-axes. This victory terminated the war, and broke the force of
the Patzinaks so completely, that it was long commemorated as a feast by the.
Byzantine Church. The most robust of the prisoners were draughted
into the imperial army—some were sold as slaves for the profit of the
victorious soldiers, and many were settled as colonists on waste lands in the
European provinces, where their descendants were still dwelling at the time of
the Latin conquest.
A war with the Servians who had invaded the
empire, ended in their complete defeat, and the Servian prisoners were
established as colonists on waste lands in the neighbourhood of Nicomedia.
Hostilities broke out between the emperor and Stephen king of Hungary, in
consequence of John, whose wife was a Hungarian princess, protecting Bela, who
was regarded as the rightful heir to the Hungarian throne. Stephen took
Belgrade, which he destroyed, and employed the materials to construct a new
town called Zeugmin (Semlin)
on the northern bank of the Save. The Hungarian army marched forward to Triaditza, and the emperor established his headquarters at
Philippopolis, where, with a strong body of Italian heavy and Turkish light
cavalry, he shut up the passes, and waited until he was informed that his
flotilla had entered the Danube. He then crossed Mount Haemus, and, driving the
Hungarians before him, effected a junction with his flotilla, and defeated a powerful
Hungarian army near the fort of Chram. He established
a garrison in Branitzova, and returned to
Constantinople. The Hungarians, taking the field during the winter, recaptured Branitzova, and the emperor was obliged again to place
himself at the head of his army; but both parties, after some severe fighting,
became convinced that nothing was to be gained by continuing the war, and peace
was concluded, in which the Servians, and perhaps the
Venetians, were comprised, on terms favorable to the
extension of Byzantine commerce.
(Stephen II was the son of Coloman, who had put
out the eyes of his brother Almus and nephew Bela to
secure the throne to Stephen, for the brother in Hungary succeeded before the
son. Coloman and Almus were
sons of Geïsa I, the elder brother of Ladislas, the father of the Empress Irene, John’s
wife. L'Art de vérifier
les Data makes Irene (Pyriska) daughter of Geïsa I. But as Geïsa died in
1077, and she was married during the reign of Coloman
in 1104, when John was sixteen years of age, it is impossible to place her
birth earlier than 1088. Cinnamus says she was the
daughter of Ladislas; but he errs in making Almus and Stephen also sons of Ladislas.
Bela, though blind, succeeded to the throne of Hungary on the death of Stephen.
The series of Hungarian kings is—Geïsa I, from 1075
to 1077; Ladislas, to 1005; Coloman,
to 1114; Stephen II, to 1131; Bela II, to 1141).
Previous to this time, the Venetian republic had generally been a firm ally
of the Byzantine Empire, and, to a certain degree, it was considered as owing
homage to the Emperor of Constantinople. That connection was now dissolved, and
those disputes commenced which soon occupied a prominent place in the history
of Eastern Europe. The establishment of the Crusaders in Palestine had opened a
new field for the commercial enterprise of the Venetians, and in a great
measure changed the direction of their maritime trade; while the frequent
quarrels of the Greeks and Franks compelled the trading republics of Italy to
attach themselves to one of the belligerent parties, in order to secure a
preference in its ports. For a short time, habit kept the Venetians attached to
the empire; but they soon found that their interests were more closely
connected with the Syrian trade than with that of Constantinople. They joined
the kings of Jerusalem in extending their conquests, and obtained considerable
establishments in all the maritime cities of the kingdom. From having been the
customers and allies of the Greeks, they became their rivals and enemies. The
commercial fleets of the age acted too often like pirates; and it is not
improbable that the Emperor John had good reason to complain of the aggressions
of the Venetians. Hostilities commenced; the Doge Dominico
Michieli, one of the heroes of the republic,
conducted a numerous fleet into the Archipelago, and plundered the islands of
Rhodes and Chios, where he wintered. Next year he continued his depredations in
Samos, Mitylene, Paros, and Andros. Modon was also
taken and occupied by the Venetians, to serve them as a harbour of refuge on
their voyages to and from Syria. The war which the emperor carried on in
Dalmatia and Servia appears to have been connected with his hostilities against
the Venetians, but the events are hardly noticed by any Byzantine writer. They
were really insignificant in the history of the empire, though they appeared of
vast importance to the republic of Venice. Peace was re-established by the
emperor reinstating the Venetians in the enjoyment of all the commercial
privileges they had enjoyed before the war broke out. The attention of the
Emperor John was early directed to the affairs of Asia, but he employed the
forces of the empire too often rather to extend the authority and increase the
fame of his government than to consolidate the prosperity of his dominions.
He left the power of the Turks almost unbroken, while he wasted the wealth
and strength of the empire in harassing the Armenians of Cilicia and the Franks
of Antioch. Two of his early campaigns (A.D. 1120 and 1121) were devoted to
regaining possession of Laodicea and Sozopolis, and
clearing the country between the Meander and Attalia
from Turkish garrisons and encampments. After the termination of the
Hungarian war, John again placed himself at the head of his army in Asia Minor.
Three campaigns appear to have been successfully devoted to re-establishing the
Byzantine authority on the southern coast of the Black Sea; yet even towards
the end of his reign, an alliance between Mohammed the successor of Danishmend, on whom the Turks of Paphlagonia and Pontus
were dependent, and Massoud the sultan of Iconium,
forced the emperor to form a winter camp on the banks of the Rhyndacus to protect Bithynia, A.D. 1139.
Before this (A.D. 1137) the emperor reduced the Armenian principality of
Cilicia to complete dependence on the government at Constantinople. His
conquest, however, was not effected without great exertions and considerable
loss, while the hatred of the Greeks which it roused in the breasts of the
warlike Armenian population of the Cilician mountains favoured the progress of
the Turks. Leo, the sovereign of Armenian Cilicia, after carrying on war for
some time with the Turks of Antioch, concluded peace with them, and endeavoured
to gain possession of Seleucia, the frontier fortress of the Byzantine Empire,
and a city of considerable commercial importance. The Emperor John appeared in
person, at the head of a powerful army, to punish the Armenian prince, and
compel his ally the Prince of Antioch to do homage to the empire, according to
the treaty with Bohemund. Tarsus, Adana, and Mopsuestia,
were soon reduced by the operations of the Byzantine engineers; but Anabarza and Vahkah, where the
natural strength of the position opposed great obstacles to an attack, were
only taken by the perseverance of the emperor after an obstinate resistance.
After the loss of Vahkah, Leo and his family sought
refuge and concealment in the fastnesses of Mount Taurus, but were captured and
imprisoned at Constantinople. Leo died in captivity: on some suspicion of
treason the emperor ordered the eyes of his son Reuben to be put out, and the
Armenian prince died of the operation; but the other son of Leo, named Thoros, returned to Cilicia after the death of John, and
re-established the power of the Armenians in Cilicia.
After the reduction of Cilicia the emperor compelled the Prince of Antioch
to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Byzantine Empire. The reigning prince was
Raymond of Poitiers, who had married Constance the infant daughter of Bohemund
II. Constance had been proposed by the people of Antioch to the Emperor John as
a wife for his youngest son Manuel, but from some unknown cause he had refused
the match. The people of Antioch, and indeed all the inhabitants of the Syrian
cities, were extremely hostile to the administrative and judicial authority
assumed by the Byzantine clergy; they were, consequently, warmly opposed to the
emperor’s pretensions to the sovereignty over Antioch. Raymond, however, knew
that his forces were insufficient to oppose the army of John. When, therefore,
he was summoned to do homage as a vassal, and prepare to receive the emperor,
he solicited an interview. At this meeting it was stipulated that Antioch
should remain under the existing administration, civil and ecclesiastical, but
that Raymond was to hold the principality as a dependence of the Byzantine
Empire, and do homage to John as his sovereign. On the other hand, the emperor
engaged to unite his arms with those of the Prince of Antioch and the Count of
Edessa, to drive the Turks out of Aleppo, Shizar,
Hama, and Hems, the investiture of which he promised to confer on the Prince of
Antioch.
The following campaign (A.D. 1138) was carried on against the Turks in
Syria, while the Seljouks of Iconium were left
unmolested in the rear of the Byzantine army. This appears to have been a very
ill-judged enterprise. It added to the renown of the emperor and displayed the
superiority of his army, but it conferred no advantage on his empire. Piza, a strong fortress on a rock near the banks of the Euphrates,
was taken, and given up to Joscelin, count of Edessa.
But the emperor could make no impression on Aleppo, and he only extracted a
large sum of money from Shizar. His two allies,
Raymond and Joscelin, gave him no assistance, and the
manner in which they spent their time in feasting and gambling disgusted the
emperor, who felt little anxiety to extend their dominions. He saw that unless
he could make Antioch his place of arms, and the headquarters of his army
during the winter, there would be great difficulty in making any permanent
conquests in Syria. He therefore proposed to Raymond to admit the Byzantine
troops into Antioch. The proposition alarmed both the prince and the people;
and after the Emperor John had entered the place to treat of the arrangements
which it would be necessary to make, a popular tumult arose, which compelled
him to withdraw, and he retired with his army from Syria to wait for a more favorable opportunity.
While he had been pursuing his schemes of ambition in the south, the Turks
had ravaged the country along the banks of the Sangarius.
The emperor was occupied, during the summer of 1139, with an expedition into
Paphlagonia and Pontus, in which he advanced as far as Neocaesarea.
In this campaign his youngest son Manuel distinguished himself by his valour,
and his nephew John fled to the Turks, as has been already mentioned. In winter
the army was encamped on the banks of the Rhyndacus,
to protect the rich plains of Bithynia.
The emperor now prepared a powerful army, at the head of which he proposed
to march to Jerusalem and re-establish the Byzantine supremacy in Syria. The
Frank princes, the King of Jerusalem, the Pope, and the Latin clergy, all
viewed his project with fear and jealousy, and were eager to thwart his
operations. The year 1141 was occupied by military operations against the
Sultan of Iconium, in order to secure the frontiers of the empire from all
danger during the emperor's absence in Syria. One of the measures adopted by
John during this campaign has been already blamed.
On the frontiers of Lycaonia, nearly in a direct line between Attalip and Iconium, there is a large freshwater lake
surrounded by mountains, called Pasgusa by Cinnamus. This lake, the Koralis
of Strabo, is about twenty miles long and eight broad, and is distant upwards
of forty miles from Iconium. Many islands are interspersed on its surface,
which in the time of John II were inhabited by a numerous Christian population,
enjoying a considerable degree of municipal liberty, and carrying on a flourishing
trade with Iconium under the protection of the sultan. The emperor now
summoned these islanders to receive Byzantine garrisons; but as the islands
were well fortified, and the people feared the fiscal rapacity of the imperial
administration, and hated the ecclesiastical tyranny of the Greek Church, they
rejected the summons, and prepared to resist the emperor. But though the lake
and the island fortifications had proved an effectual defence against the Seljouk Turks, they could oppose only a weak barrier to the
scientific attacks of John. Boats were soon constructed, battering-rams and
storming-towers were floated on rafts close to the walls, and after a brave
resistance the island fortresses were taken and their inhabitants made
prisoners. Byzantine garrisons for a while retained possession of these
conquests, but when deprived of their industrious inhabitants the islands
became useless, and the shores of the lake were deserted.
The emperor passed the winter near Anazarba, on
the frontiers of Cilicia, holding his army ready to enter Syria and take
possession of Antioch in spring. But while he was revolving his projects, and
arranging everything necessary for his march to Jerusalem, an accident suddenly
terminated his life. While he was hunting on Mount Taurus, it happened that he
received the charge of a wild boar with his hunting-spear, and in his struggle
with the wild beast a poisoned arrow from his own quiver wounded his hand. At
first he paid no attention to the wound, and when his arm began to swell with
the effect of the poison, he refused to submit to amputation, which would then,
perhaps, have proved unavailing. Without loss of time, he made every
arrangement necessary for the tranquil transmission of the imperial power to
his youngest son, Manuel, whom he selected for his successor on account of his
superior talents. John II expired tranquilly on the 8th of April 1143, after a
reign of twenty-four years, seven months, and twenty-five days, at the age of
fifty-five.
Sect. III
Reign of Manuel I
A.D. 1143-1180
Manuel was not unworthy of his father’s preference, but the possession of
absolute power at an early age brings temptations which no man can resist.
Perhaps if Manuel had enjoyed the advantage of passing a few additional years
under his father’s eye, he might in his maturer age
have become a wise and great prince. He possessed courage, ability, and
strength of character; nor was he deficient in literary cultivation, political
sagacity, or theological knowledge; but he ascended the throne of a corrupted
empire before his passions were disciplined. We need not wonder, therefore, at
finding that his vices developed themselves so rapidly as to choke many of his
virtues. Neither the institutions of Byzantine society nor the political
organization of the government enabled the. higher and middling classes of the
capital to acquire the knowledge or the virtues necessary to invest them with
the authority of public opinion, so that Manuel felt little moral restraint,
and rarely considered it an imperative duty to make his conduct conformable to
the dictates of his judgment by sacrificing his inclinations. A middle class
could hardly be said to exist any longer in the empire, and the Byzantine
officials were corrupted by every vice.
Manuel’s authority as emperor was peaceably recognised at Constantinople in
consequence of the energy and prudence of Axouchos,
his father’s friend and prime-minister, who hastened to the capital, and took
all the necessary precautions before the death of John II was publicly known.
The young emperor’s elder brother, Isaac, was confined in a monastery and
closely watched, while the intrigues of his brother-in-law, the Caesar Roger,
were easily rendered abortive. The support of the clergy was purchased by a
yearly pension equal to the value of two hundred pounds’ weight of gold, and
the goodwill of the Patriarch was secured by a further donation of one hundred
pounds, which Manuel placed on the high altar of St Sophia’s at the time of his
coronation. The army was attached by promotions, bounties, and furloughs; and
the citizens of Constantinople were gained by the grant of a donative of two
pieces of gold to every householder in the capital. The circumstances
attending Manuel's accession compelled him to hasten in person to Constantinople,
in order to receive the imperial crown in St Sophia’s. Custom and popular
prejudice rendered the immediate performance of this ceremony absolutely
necessary to give a legal sanction to his occupation of the throne, for it
often happens that, long after law and religion are neglected, forms and
ceremonies exert despotic power over nations deaf to the voice of justice and
truth.
Manuel possessed both the personal advantages and mental qualities most
admired by his contemporaries. He was tall, handsome, vigorous, and brave;
skilled in all military exercises, and indefatigable as a sportsman and a
soldier. But his headlong courage degenerated into rashness, and his personal
skill made him seek the fame of a daring knight oftener than was prudent in an
able general. His unlimited power and violent passions rendered his wars as
much a matter of amusement as his hunting parties, and induced him to engage in
them with as little reference to their effects on the welfare of his subjects.
The wealth of the empire was lavished on brilliant fêtes and tournaments, which
were renowned through all Europe as the most magnificent spectacles of the kind
that had ever been seen. But the dignity of the empire was forgotten in the
emperor’s private society, and his love of pleasure was unrestrained by
morality and religion. The Byzantine court, already familiar with every vice,
was taught by him to tolerate even the crime of incest.
Two anecdotes may be selected to give a picture of the state of society
early in Manuel's reign. At one of the social meetings in which he indulged,
the conversation of his relations present turned on his own and his father's
military exploits. His nephew, John, the son of his deceased brother
Andronicus, extolled the deeds of the Emperor John as superior to those of
Manuel, and the preference was admitted to be just by Manuel himself who loved
his father, and respected his memory. But the emperor's brother Isaac and his
cousin Andronicus engaged in a violent altercation on the subject, in which
something which Andronicus said offended Isaac to such a degree that he drew
his sword, and made a blow at his cousin's head. The emperor, with his usual
boldness and promptitude, warded off the blow with his arm, and John Ducas, another cousin of the emperor’s, assisted in
parrying it with his hunting-whip. Manuel, however, received a wound from his
brother’s sword, even through his gold-embroidered
dress, of which he carried the mark to his grave. His cousin Andronicus showed
little gratitude to the emperor in his future life. The circumstances of this
affair made a deep impression on the mind of Manuel, to whom it revealed a
degree of concealed ill-will and envy the existence of which he had not
previously suspected, and he is said ever after to have worn armour under his
clothes.
The other anecdote exhibits the court in a state of society so disgusting,
that we should be unable to believe the possibility of so much vice under the
eye of a Christian clergy and an established church, unless we possessed convincing
proofs of the fact. It shows us how far crime may proceed where the aristocracy
have no feelings of moral responsibility, and where the church is the creature
of a corrupted state. The amours of Andronicus with his cousin Eudocia were the
object of much remark, as the connection was considered incestuous among the
Greeks. It was notorious, however, that the emperor was carrying on an
adulterous and incestuous intercourse with his niece Theodora, the sister of
Eudocia. Andronicus, therefore, openly made a jest of his own and his
sovereign's infamy, observing that water from the same fountain has the same
taste. Yet while such was the state of the court, Manuel gave his imperial
sanction to an ecclesiastical prohibition of the marriage of his subjects to
the seventh degree of consanguinity.
At this time the aristocracy of Western Europe far surpassed the nobles of
the Byzantine Empire in all warlike accomplishments. The military spirit of the
times of Nicephorus Phokas, John Zimiskes, and Basil the Bulgarian-slayer, had
passed away. This degeneracy of the Greeks induced the Emperor John II to fill
his ranks with Turkish mercenaries, and it now caused Manuel to adopt the
habits and prejudices of Western chivalry, and in military affairs to show a
strong preference in favour of the Franks. Both Manuel's wives were Latin
princesses. His first was Bertha, called by the Greeks Irene, who was daughter
of the Count of Sulzbach, and sister of the wife of
Conrad, emperor of Germany. His second was Maria, the daughter of Raymond and
Constance of Antioch, and this marriage mingled the blood of Alexius and
Bohemund in an unlucky alliance. His daughter Maria, after having been
betrothed to Bela III before he became king of Hungary, promised to William the
Good, king of Sicily, and asked in marriage by the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa
for his son, Henry VI, was at a ripe age (years, however, not having in any way
impaired her beauty) bestowed on Rayner, second son of William, marquis of
Montferrat, who received the rank of Caesar at the marriage, which took place
in 1180. At the same time, the emperor's young son Alexius was married to
Agnes, the daughter of Louis VII, king of France. To this disposition of the
emperor Manuel in favour of the Latins we may trace something of the hostile
feeling which the Greek clergy showed to his government on more than one
occasion, and there can be no doubt that it was from political and personal
reasons, not from religious preference, that Manuel endeavoured to effect a
union with the papal church.
(The Patriarch Kosmas of Aegina was deposed by a synod of bishops of the
court party. He was accused of favouring the heretical opinions of his friend Niphon, a monk convicted of holding some of the doctrines
of the Bogomilians. But the real ground of the
deposition of Kosmas was his hostility to Manuel’s views, and the suspicion the
emperor entertained that he was intriguing with his brother Isaac. The deposed Aeginetan patriarch had very little Christian charity. He
appears to have been an ecclesiastic worthy of Manuel’s court, for when he
heard his sentence, he heaped curses on the heads of his accusers, on the
synod, and on the emperor; and his frantic rage went so far that he implored
Heaven the empress might never have a child.— Kosmas was patriarch for only ten
months, until February 1147).
To form a correct estimate of the position occupied by the Byzantine Empire
at this period in the international system of the Christian states, we must
bear in mind the superior intellectual cultivation of its rulers and its
immense pecuniary resources. Though the Byzantine nobility were
inferior to the Western barons in warlike accomplishments, they surpassed
even the Latin clergy in intellectual culture. Even the Emperor Manuel, who
rivalled the valour of Richard Coeur-de-Lion in the field, was instructed in
all the learning of his age. His knowledge of surgery enabled him to dress the
broken arm of Baldwin III, king of Jerusalem, and his theological studies
enabled him to direct the determinations of the synods of the Byzantine church.
After a long dispute with the Greek clergy, he succeeded in expunging an
anathema against the God of Mahomet from the church catechism, and replacing it
by an anathema against Mahomet and his doctrines.
The relative superiority of the Byzantine Empire to the other Christian
states was still very great, though the foundations of its prosperity and
strength were already undermined. This superiority was also rendered more
apparent in a political point of view, from the immense power conferred on the
emperor by the centralization of the whole governmental authority in his
person, and by the arbitrary power he was thereby enabled to exercise over the
fortunes of his subjects. But we shall see that the splendour of Manuel’s reign
was purchased by the expenditure of the capital as well as of the income of the
empire, and the diminished resources of his dominions became apparent
immediately after his death. The wasteful extravagance of his court and his
tournaments, together with the expense of the large military establishments he
maintained, kept his treasury so low that he was compelled to use both
oppression and rapacity in order to fill it; his financial administration was
marked by injustice; wealth was seized wherever he could lay his hands on it;
the people were impoverished by monopolies, and individuals were enriched by
privileges, so that the inhabitants of the provinces began to contemplate
subjection to the Franks and the Mohammedans as an alternative by which they could
escape spoliation. Unfortunately for the empire, the family of Comnenus was a
fruitful stock, and every member of the house required to be provided with an
income suitable to their imperial rank; so that if we glance our eye over the
long catalogue of these Byzantine princes in the volume of Ducange,
and estimate their cost to the state by the fact that, when prisoners, their
ransom was generally rated at twenty thousand pieces of gold, there can be no
doubt that an army of one hundred thousand men, with its officers and materials
of war, might have been maintained for the same expenditure.
But when we look beyond the corruption of the administration, the vices of
the court, and the servility of the clergy, we perceive that a desire for
improvement still existed in those classes who were free from the immediate
circle of official influence. The degraded condition of society was felt, and
some anxiety to escape its evils was manifested. The scanty records of the
civil and ecclesiastical jurisprudence of the time, and the pedantic remains of
Byzantine literature, allow us to trace this spirit in the history of the law
and of the church. Unfortunately for the Eastern Empire, the Greeks, in whom
these feelings could alone have produced some practicable political reform,
sacrificed their nationality to the pride of calling themselves Romans, and to
the profit arising from appropriating to themselves the innumerable offices in
the public and in the ecclesiastical administration. The Greeks never made any
national opposition to the ruinous abuses of the imperial government. The only
constitutional remedy on which all classes in the empire could ever agree, was
to depose an emperor when his conduct became intolerable. The officials, who
shared in the plunder of the people, declared that no earthly power was
entitled to circumscribe the imperial authority, and the people were unable to
discover any practical guarantee for their natural rights. The consequence was,
incapacity in the rulers and apathy in the subjects, so that the subjugation of
the Byzantine Empire by foreigners became at last an easy task
The Greeks were almost excluded from military service by fiscal
regulations, for they were regarded by the emperors as more useful in their
capacity of taxpayers than they were likely to become as soldiers; yet their
prosperity was neglected, their country was left unprotected, and was ravaged
by invaders, who destroyed their property, ruined their manufactures, and
carried away their artisans to exercise their industry in other lands. A
national feeling at length arose among the provincial clergy in Greece, but it
was prevented from producing any political effects favourable to popular
liberty, by being diverted into a bigoted hatred against the Latins.
We derive some valuable information concerning the condition of the
Byzantine Empire during the reign of Manuel from the travels of the Jewish
rabbi, Benjamin of Tudela. Whether Benjamin visited
in person all the countries he describes is a matter of no great importance,
for he certainly records the observations of an eyewitness. The state of the
Eastern Empire is sketched with as much clearness and precision as is generally
displayed even by modern travellers. The wealth of Constantinople, the power
and magnificence of the Emperor Manuel, the commercial activity and
manufacturing industry of the Greeks, the riches and luxury of the Byzantine
nobles, the unwarlike spirit of the people, the mercenary composition of the
imperial armies, and the heterogeneous population of various races and
indifferent states of civilization that peopled the provinces, from the Vallachians of Thessaly to the Armenians of Cilicia, are
all pointed out by this observing traveller, who, free both from the prejudices
of the Latin monk and the antipathies of the Byzantine official, gives us a
deeper insight into the composition of the empire than the eulogies of Greek
historians, or the calumnies of Western chroniclers.
The external policy of Manuel’s reign was guided by a desire to gain
renown; the internal was solely directed by a determination to augment the
receipts of the imperial treasury. But he was not insensible to the increasing
power of the commercial republics of Italy, as we see by the treaties he
concluded with the Pisans and the Genoese, and by his protection of the Amalphitans, who had formed a colony at Constantinople when
their city was taken by the Normans. Manuel’s object was, by these alliances,
to counterbalance the great influence the Venetians had acquired over the
Byzantine finances by the immense privileges conceded to them by Alexius I, as
a reward for their services in the Norman war. Anna Comnena
enumerates these concessions in a curious passage, which throws great light on
the history of Byzantine commerce, and proves that her father’s generosity must
have inflicted a severe loss on the native merchants of the empire. A whole
street of warehouses was given to the Venetians in the capital. The Amalphitan shopkeepers were compelled to pay them tribute.
Their merchandise was exempt from custom duties, and they were permitted to
trade over the whole extent of the empire as far as Constantinople and the
entrance of the Black Sea, with some special privileges. It is difficult to fix
the precise nature of the advantages which they acquired by this treaty over
the native merchant; but there is no doubt that it marks the commencement of a
system of a commercial policy on the part of the Byzantine government to which
we must attribute the ruin of Greek commerce in the Mediterranean, and the
estrangement of the Greeks from the imperial administration. These concessions
were also made the ground of many abuses on the part of the Venetians, who,
because they paid little, endeavoured to pay nothing, and thus innumerable
disputes arose with the fiscal officers as well as with the native merchants.
The mutual dissatisfaction arising from such discussions broke out into open
hostilities during the reign of John II; and Manuel, warned by his father's
difficulties, endeavoured to render the empire independent of the Venetians, by
encouraging their commercial rivals to visit his dominions.
In attempting to estimate the effect produced on the trade and manufactures
of the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire by the privileges conceded to the
Venetians, it is necessary to avoid drawing our inferences from the state of
commerce in modern times. The difficulties of transport both by sea and land
confined commerce within a smaller sphere, and restricted it to fewer articles.
Jews exacted fifty per cent interest, barons gloried in plundering merchants,
and merchants often acted as pirates. To us it would seem that immunity from
import duties must have very soon thrown the whole trade of the empire into the
hands of the Venetians. But we know that this was not the case, and we observe
three circumstances which exercised great influence in preventing the immunity
from proving as injurious to the imperial treasury as it must have been to
private traders. The first was the exclusion of all foreign ships from the
Black Sea. The second, the monopoly which the Byzantine government retained of
the commerce in grain and all kinds of provisions, both as regarded importation
and exportation. And the third was, that the rents of shops and warehouses
formed no trifling portion of the imperial revenues at Constantinople; though
it is not easy to say how the privileges granted to the Venetians raised the
value of this species of property. Other circumstances probably contributed to
modify the natural effect of fiscal immunities, and to render them less
oppressive to the general trade of the empire than is apparent from historical
records. Still, there can be no doubt that the preference accorded by the
Byzantine emperors to foreigners during the twelfth century was one of the
principal causes of the decline of Greek commerce, which ought to be attributed
rather to the direct effect of the fiscal measures of the house of Comnenus
than to the increased commercial activity of the Italian republics caused by
the Crusades.
TREATIES WITH PISA AND
GENOA.
The Emperor Alexius I had concluded a commercial treaty with Pisa towards
the end of his reign. Manuel renewed this alliance, and he appears to have been
the first of the Byzantine emperors who concluded a public treaty with Genoa.
The pride of the emperors of the Romans, as the sovereigns of Constantinople
were styled, induced them to treat the Italian republics as municipalities
still dependent on the empire of the Caesars, of which they had once formed a
part; and the rulers both of Pisa and Genoa yielded to this assumption of
supremacy, and consented to appear as vassals and liegemen of the Byzantine
emperors, in order to participate in the profits which they saw the Venetians
gained by trading in their dominions. Several commercial treaties with Pisa and
Genoa, as well as with Venice, have been preserved. The obligations of the
republics are embodied in the charter enumerating the concessions granted by
the emperor, and the document is called a chrysobulum,
or golden bull, from the golden seal of the emperor attached to it as the
certificate of its authenticity.
In Manuel’s treaties with the Genoese and Pisans, the republics bind
themselves never to engage in hostilities against the empire; but, on the
contrary, all the subjects of the republics residing in the emperor's dominions
become bound to assist him against all assailants: they engage to act with
their own ships, or to serve on board the imperial fleet, for the usual pay
granted to Latin mercenaries. They promise to offer no impediment to the
extension of the empire in Syria, reserving to themselves the factories and
privileges they already possess in any place that may be conquered. They submit
their civil and criminal affairs to the jurisdiction of the Byzantine courts
of justice, as was then the case with the Venetians and other foreigners in the
empire. Acts of piracy and armed violence, unless the criminals were taken in
the fact, were to be reported to the rulers of the republic whose subjects had
committed the crime, and the Byzantine authorities were not to render the
innocent traders in the empire responsible for the injuries inflicted by these
brigands. The republicans engaged to observe all the stipulations in their
treaties in defiance of ecclesiastical excommunication, or the prohibition of
any individual, crowned or not crowned.
Manuel, in return, granted to the republicans the right of forming a
factory, erecting a quay for landing their goods, and building a church; and
the Genoese received their grant in an agreeable position on the side of the
port opposite Constantinople, where in after times their great colony of Galata
was formed. The emperor promised to send an annual present of from four hundred
to five hundred gold byzants, with two pieces of a rich brocade then
manufactured only in the Byzantine empire, to the republican governments, and
sixty byzants, with one piece of brocade, to their archbishops. These treaties
fixed the duty levied on the goods imported or exported from Constantinople by
the Italians at four per cent; but in the other cities of the empire, the
Pisans and Genoese were to pay the same duties as other Latin traders,
excepting, of course, the privileged Venetians. These duties generally amounted
to ten per cent. The republics were expressly excluded, by the Genoese treaty,
from the Black Sea trade, except when they received a special license from the
emperor. In case of shipwreck, the property of the foreigners was to be
protected by the imperial authorities and respected by the people, and every
assistance was to be granted to the unfortunate sufferers. This humane clause
was not new in Byzantine commercial treaties, for it is contained in the
earliest treaty concluded by Alexius I with the Pisans. On the whole, the
arrangements for the administration of justice in these treaties prove that the
Byzantine Empire still enjoyed a greater degree of order than the rest of
Europe.
The state of civilization in the Eastern Empire, as we have had already
occasion to observe, rendered the public finances the moving power of the
government, as in the nations of modern Europe. This must always tend to the
centralization of political authority, for the highest branch of the executive
will always endeavour to dispose of the revenues of the state according to its
views of necessity. This centralizing policy led Manuel to order all the money
which the Greek commercial communities had hitherto devoted to maintaining
local squadrons of galleys for the defence of the islands and coasts of the
Aegean, to be remitted to the treasury at Constantinople. The ships were
compelled to visit the imperial dockyard in the capital to undergo repairs, and
to receive provisions and pay. A navy is a most expensive establishment; kings,
ministers, and people are all very apt to think that when it is not wanted at
any particular time, the cost of its maintenance may be more profitably applied
to other objects. Manuel, after he had secured the funds of the Greeks for his
own treasury, soon left their ships to rot, and the commerce of Greece became
exposed to the attacks of small squadrons of Italian pirates who previously
would not have dared to plunder in the Archipelago. It may be thought by some
that Manuel acted wisely in centralizing the naval administration of his empire;
but the great number, the small size, and the relative position of many of the
Greek islands with regard to the prevailing winds, render the permanent
establishment of naval stations at several points necessary to prevent piracy;
and unless local interests possess considerable influence in appropriating the
funds required for this purpose, it is a duty which is always in danger of
being neglected by the central administration. The monarchy established in
Greece by the three protecting powers has annihilated the navy of Hydra,
Spezia, and Psara, and piracy is at present only kept down by the steamers of
the protecting powers. But no general rule can be safely applied to a problem
in practical administration. Manuel and Otho ruined the navy of Greece by their
unwise measures of centralization; Pericles, by prudently centralizing the
maritime forces of the various states, increased the naval power of Athens, and
gave additional security to every Greek ship that navigated the sea.
The same fiscal views which induced Manuel to centralize the naval
administration when it was injurious to the interests of the empire, prompted
him to act diametrically opposite with regard to the army. The Emperor John had
added greatly to the efficiency of the Byzantine military force by improving
and centralizing its administration, and he left Manuel an excellent army,
which rendered the Eastern Empire the most powerful state in Europe. But
Manuel, from motives of economy, abandoned his father's system. Instead of
assembling all the military forces of the empire annually in camps, where they
received pay, and were subjected to strict discipline, towards the end of his
reign he distributed even the regular army in cities and provinces, where they
were quartered far apart, in order that each district, by maintaining a certain
number of men, might relieve the treasury from the burden of their pay and
subsistence while they were not on actual service. The money thus retained in
the central treasury was spent in idle festivals at Constantinople, and the
troops, dispersed and neglected, became careless of their military exercises,
and lived in a state of relaxed discipline. Other abuses were quickly
introduced; resident yeomen, shopkeepers, and artisans were enrolled in the
legions, with the connivance of the officers. The burden of maintaining
the troops was in this way diminished, but the army was deteriorated. In other
districts, where the divisions were exposed to be called into action, or were
more directly under central inspection, the effective force was kept up at its
full complement, but the people were compelled to submit to every kind of
extortion and tyranny. The tendency of absolute power being always to weaken
the power of the law, and to increase the authority of the executive agents of
the sovereign, soon manifested its effects in the rapid progress of
administrative corruption. The Byzantine garrisons in a few years became
prototypes of the shop keeping janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, and bore no
resemblance to the feudal militia of Western Europe, which Manuel had proposed
as the model of his reform. This change produced a rapid decline in the
military strength of the Byzantine army, and accelerated the fall of the
empire.
For a considerable period the Byzantine emperors had been gradually
increasing the proportion of foreign mercenaries in their service; this
practice Manuel carried farther than any of his predecessors. Besides the usual
Varangian, Italian, and German guards, we find large corps of Patzinaks,
Franks, and Turks enrolled in his armies, and officers of these nations
occupying situations of the highest rank. A change had taken place in the
military tactics of the East, caused by the heavy armour and powerful horses
which the Crusaders brought into the field, and by the greater personal
strength and skill in warlike exercises of the Western troops, who had no
occupation from infancy but gymnastic exercises and athletic amusements. The
nobility of the feudal nations expended more money on arms and armour than on
other luxuries; and this becoming the general fashion, the Western troops were
much better armed than the Byzantine soldiers. War became the profession of the
higher ranks, and the expense of military undertakings was greatly increased by
the military classes being completely separated from the rest of society. The
warlike disposition of Manuel led him to favour the military nobles of the West
who took service at his court; while his confidence in his own power, and in
the political superiority of his empire, deluded him with the hope of being
able to quell the turbulence of the Franks, and set bounds to the ambition and
power of the popes.
The wars of Manuel were sometimes forced on him by foreign powers, and
sometimes commenced for temporary objects; but he appears never to have formed
any fixed idea of the permanent policy which ought to have determined the
constant employment of all the military resources at his command, for the
purpose of advancing the interest of his empire and giving security to his subjects.
His military exploits may be considered under three heads:—His wars with the
Franks, whether in Asia or Europe; his wars with the Hungarians and Servians; and his wars with the Turks.
His first operations were against the principality of Antioch. The death of
John II caused the dispersion of the fine army he had assembled for the
conquest of Syria; but Manuel sent a portion of that army, and a strong fleet,
to attack the principality. One of the generals of the land forces was Prosuch, a Turkish officer in high favour with his father.
Raymond of Antioch was no longer the idle gambler he had shown himself in the
camp of the Emperor John; but though he was now distinguished by his courage
and skill in arms, he was completely defeated, and the imperial army carried
its ravages up to the very walls of Antioch, while the fleet laid waste the
coast. Though the Byzantine troops retired, the losses of the campaign
convinced Raymond that it would be impossible to defend Antioch, should Manuel
take the field in person. He therefore hastened to Constantinople, as a
suppliant, to sue for peace; but Manuel, before admitting him to an audience,
required that he should repair to the tomb of the Emperor John, and ask pardon
for having violated his former promises. When the Hercules of the Franks, as
Raymond was called, had submitted to this humiliation, he was admitted to the
imperial presence, swore fealty to the Byzantine Empire as Prince of Antioch,
and became the vassal of the Emperor Manuel. The conquest of Edessa by the
Mohammedans, which took place in the month of December 1144, rendered the
defence of Antioch by the Latins a doubtful enterprise, unless they could
secure the assistance of the Greeks.
Manuel involved himself in a war with Roger, king of Sicily, which perhaps
he might have avoided by more prudent conduct. An envoy he had sent to the
Sicilian court concluded a treaty, which Manuel thought fit to disavow with
unsuitable violence : this gave the Sicilian king a pretext for commencing war,
but the real cause of hostilities must be sought in the ambition of Roger and
the hostile feelings of Manuel. Roger was one of the wealthiest princes of his
time; he had united under his sceptre both Sicily and all the Norman
possessions in southern Italy; his ambition was equal to his wealth and power,
and he aspired at eclipsing the glory of Robert Guiscard and Bohemund by some
permanent conquests in the Byzantine Empire. On the other hand, the renown of
Roger excited the envy of Manuel, who, proud of his army, and confident of his
own valour and military skill, hoped to reconquer Sicily. His passion made him
forget that he was surrounded by numerous enemies, who would combine to prevent
his employing all his forces against one adversary. Manuel consequently acted
imprudently in revealing his hostile intentions; while Roger could direct all
his forces against one point, and avail himself of Manuel’s embarrassments. He
commenced hostilities by inflicting a blow on the wealth and prosperity of
Greece, from which it never recovered.
At the commencement of the second crusade, when the attention of Manuel was
anxiously directed to the movements of Louis VII of France, and Conrad, emperor
of Germany, Roger, who had collected a powerful fleet at Brindisi, for the
purpose either of attacking the Byzantine empire or transporting the Crusaders
to Palestine, availed himself of an insurrection in Corfu to conclude a
convention with the inhabitants, who admitted a garrison of one thousand Norman
troops into their citadel. The Corfiotes complained
with great reason of the intolerable weight of taxation to which they were
subjected, of the utter neglect of their interests by the central government,
which consumed their wealth, and of the great abuses which prevailed in the
administration of justice; but the remedy they adopted, by placing themselves
under the rule of foreign masters, was not likely to alleviate these evils. The
Sicilian admiral, after landing the Norman garrison at Corfu, sailed to
Monemvasia, then one of the principal commercial cities in the East, hoping to
gain possession of it without difficulty; but the maritime population of this
impregnable fortress gave him a warm reception, and easily repulsed his
attack. After plundering the coasts of Euboea and Attica, the Sicilian
fleet returned to the west, and laid waste Acamania
and Aetolia; then entered the Gulf of Corinth, and debarked a body of troops at
Crissa. This force marched through the country to
Thebes, plundering every town and village on the way. Thebes offered no resistance,
and was plundered in the most deliberate and barbarous manner. The inhabitants
were numerous and wealthy. The soil of Boeotia is extremely productive, and
numerous manufactures established in the city of Thebes gave additional value
to the abundant produce of agricultural industry. A century had elapsed since
the citizens of Thebes had gone out valiantly to fight the army of Sclavonian rebels in the reign of Michael IV the Paphlagonian, and that defeat had long been forgotten. But
all military spirit was now dead, and the Thebans had so long lived without any
fear of invasion that they had forgotten the use of arms. The Sicilians found
them not only unprepared to offer any resistance, but so surprised that they
had not even adopted any effectual measures to secure or conceal their movable
property. The conquerors, secure against all danger of interruption, plundered
Thebes at their leisure. Not only gold, silver, jewels, and church plate were
carried off, but even the goods found in the warehouses, and the rarest
articles of furniture in private houses, were transported to the ships. Bales
of silk and dyed leather were sent off to the fleet as deliberately as if they
had been legally purchased in time of peace. When all ordinary means of
collecting booty were exhausted, the citizens were compelled to take an oath on
the Holy Scriptures that they had not concealed any portion of their property;
yet many of the wealthiest were dragged away captive, in order to profit by
their ransom; and many of the most skilful workmen in the silk-manufactories,
for which Thebes had long been famous, were pressed on board the fleet to
labour at the oar.
From Boeotia the army passed to Corinth. Nicephorus Kaluphes,
the governor, retired into the Acro-Corinth, but the garrison appeared to his
cowardly heart not strong enough to defend this impregnable fortress, and he
surrendered it to George Antiochenus, the Sicilian
admiral, on the first summons. On examining the fortress of which he had thus
unexpectedly gained possession, the admiral could not help exclaiming that he
fought under the protection of Heaven, for if Kaluphes
had not been more timid than a virgin, Corinth should have repulsed every
attack. Corinth was sacked as cruelly as Thebes; men of rank, beautiful women,
and skilful artisans, with their wives and families, were carried away into
captivity. Even the relics of St Theodore were taken from the church in which
they were preserved; and it was not until the whole Sicilian fleet was laden
with as much of the wealth of Greece as it was capable of transporting that the
admiral ordered it to sail. The Sicilians did not venture to retain possession
of the impregnable citadel of Corinth, as it would have been extremely
difficult for them to keep up their communications with the garrison. This
invasion of Greece was conducted entirely as a plundering expedition, having
for its object to inflict the greatest possible injury on the Byzantine Empire,
while it collected the largest possible quantity of booty for the Sicilian
troops. Corfu was the only conquest of which Roger retained possession; yet
this passing invasion is the period from which the decline of Byzantine Greece
is to be dated.
The century and a-half which preceded this disaster had passed in
uninterrupted tranquillity, and the Greek people had increased rapidly in
numbers and wealth. The power of the Sclavonian
population sank with the ruin of the kingdom of Achrida; and the Sclavonians who now dwelt in Greece were peaceable
cultivators of the soil, or graziers. The Greek population, on the other hand,
was in possession of an extensive commerce and many flourishing manufactures.
The ruin of this commerce and of these manufactures has been ascribed to the
transference of the silk trade from Thebes and Corinth to Palermo, under the
judicious protection it received from Roger ; but it would be more correct to
say, that the injudicious and oppressive financial administration of the
Byzantine emperors destroyed the commercial prosperity and manufacturing
industry of the Greeks; while the wise liberality and intelligent protection of
the Norman kings extended the commerce and increased the industry of the
Sicilians.
When the Sicilian fleet returned to Palermo, Roger determined to employ all
the silk-manufacturers in their original occupations. He consequently
collected all their families together, and settled them at Palermo, supplying
them with the means of exercising their industry with profit to themselves, and
inducing them to teach his own subjects to manufacture the richest brocades,
and to rival the rarest productions of the East. Roger, unlike most of the
monarchs of his age, paid particular attention to improving the wealth of his
dominions by increasing the prosperity of his subjects. During his reign the
cultivation of the sugar-cane was introduced into Sicily. The conduct of Manuel
was very different: when he concluded peace with William, the son and successor
of Roger, in 1158, he paid no attention to the commercial interests of his
Greek subjects; the silk-manufactures of Thebes and Corinth were not reclaimed
and reinstated in their native seats; they were left to exercise their industry
for the profit of their new prince, while their old sovereign would have
abandoned them to perish from want. Under such circumstances, it is not
remarkable that the commerce and the manufactures of Greece were transferred in
the course of another century to Sicily and Italy.
Though Manuel has been blamed with justice for his conduct to the
Crusaders, it would be wrong to give credit to all the accusations of the Latin
writers, who frequently attribute to his conduct disasters which arose solely
from the rashness and incapacity of the Franks. The Crusaders, ashamed of their
defeats, indulged their national and ecclesiastical antipathies by attributing
all their misfortunes to Manuel, forgetting that every accusation brought
against him could with equal truth be made against the Latin princes and nobles
of Syria, in whose conduct the crimes assumed a blacker dye. The truth is, that
all the Christian princes in the East, whether Greek, Latin, or Armenian,
watched with fear and jealousy the conduct of the great Western monarchs who
took the cross. Princes were not then amenable to the tribunal of public
opinion, and the powerful, consequently, generally regarded it as a glorious
exploit to seize every country of which they could hope to retain possession.
When, therefore, the crusading monarchs were unable to conquer the Mohammedans,
they were too apt to conquer the Christians.
CONRAD III, EMPEROR OF
GERMANY.
The second crusade commenced in 1147. Conrad III, emperor of Germany, was
the first prince who marched eastward; and he took the route through Hungary
which had been followed by the first Crusaders. His army was numerous and well
furnished; but it was embarrassed by an immense crowd of pilgrims, over whom
the military chiefs could exercise very little control It had, however, the
advantage of being attended by a numerous body of workmen, to make roads and
construct bridges; for the army feared nothing but delay. The agents of the
Emperor Manuel, who were sent to count these troops as they crossed the Danube,
reported that the number exceeded ninety thousand; and if we may trust the
report of contemporary chronicles, seventy thousand
of these were horsemen. During their progress through the Eastern Empire, they
were accompanied by a strong body of Byzantine troops, under the command
of Prosuch, who advanced parallel to their line
of march, and endeavoured to restrain the plundering propensities of the
pilgrims, who thought they were entitled to help themselves to everything they
desired, as they had received ample absolutions for every crime they might
commit. The precautions of Conrad and the prudence of Manuel were insufficient
to preserve order. The Greek suttlers, accustomed to
cheat and to be cheated by their own government, defrauded the German soldiers;
and the bands of robbers, whom the false piety of the Papal Church had allowed
to take the cross, plundered the open country as a hostile district. The
Bulgarians and Greeks took up arms to revenge themselves. A relation of Conrad,
falling sick, rested in a monastery at Adrianople, where some Byzantine
soldiers murdered him, and plundered his effects. The news reached the German
emperor when he was already two days’ march beyond Adrianople; but he
immediately sent back his nephew, the celebrated Frederic Barbarossa, to punish
this act of treachery. Frederic, naturally more violent than his uncle, set
fire to the monastery, and attacked the Byzantine troops in the vicinity; but
after some slaughter, Prosuch succeeded in appeasing
his anger and preventing a battle.
The Emperors Manuel and Conrad had married sisters; but pride and etiquette
prevented their meeting, and they became engaged in disputes which produced
various acts of hostility between their armies. The Germans destroyed many of
the splendid villas round Constantinople, and thereby ruined one of the
greatest ornaments of that capital. But as Conrad was eager to pursue his
route before Louis VII of France could witness the disorder which already began
to manifest itself in his army, and as Manuel was anxious to transport one army
into Asia before the other reached the Bosphorus, the two emperors arranged
their quarrels, and the Byzantine navy transported the Germans into
Asia. Manuel also supplied Conrad with guides for his march to Antioch;
and to his treachery in furnishing guides instructed to mislead the army, the
Crusaders attributed all their subsequent misfortunes, forgetting that the road
from Constantinople to Antioch was quite as well-known as that from Vienna to
Constantinople, and that the real cause of their disasters was to be found in
their own rashness, and in the natural difficulty of finding provisions for a
large army, whose flanks were infested with brigands in the guise of pilgrims,
whom the Emperor Conrad could not venture to hang, as they were the chosen
sheep of the Pope. Conrad had unfortunately selected the summer as the
season for marching through the arid plains of Phrygia. It is not
surprising, therefore, that the men died of fever, and the horses from want of
forage. But it cannot be denied that the envious and malignant policy
which marked the proceedings of the Byzantine court in its communications with
Western Europe did much to increase the unavoidable difficulties of the
Crusaders. It was undoubtedly a measure of prudence to exclude them from
all walled towns; but it was an act of the basest infamy to mix chalk with the
flour that was sold to them, and to coin false money to defraud them when they
exchanged their gold and silver. Yet Nicetas
tells us that Manuel was guilty of these meannesses. The
Turkish cavalry attacked the German army when it was weakened by disease, and
Conrad, with the portion of his cavalry still capable of service, was compelled
to retreat. After meeting Louis VII at Nicaea, he again advanced with the French
monarch as far as Ephesus; but sickness compelled him to return to
Constantinople, where Manuel gave him the kindest welcome as soon as he had
ceased to be an object of fear.
Louis conducted his march with more prudence than Conrad. He possessed more
control over his troops, and he was not attended by so many idle followers and
disorderly brigands. But Louis found even the European provinces of the
Byzantine Empire on his line of march so hostile, that he had to force his way
through the country up to the walls of Constantinople. Manuel received Louis
with demonstrations of friendship; but while the French army was encamped
before Constantinople, it became known that the Byzantine emperor had concluded
a truce with the Sultan of Iconium. A council was held in the French camp, and
the Bishop of Langres proposed that the Crusaders
should commence their military operations for the deliverance of Christ’s
sepulchre by conquering the heretics of Constantinople. He employed all his
eloquence to incite his countrymen to attack the Greeks; but the French nobles
declared that they had taken the cross to fight with infidels and defend
Jerusalem, not to destroy Christian cities or punish heretics. The King of
France was so anxious to preserve amicable relations with the Byzantine
government, and so eager to march forward, that he permitted his barons to do
homage to Manuel, in order to remove all jealousy on the part of that emperor,
and gave him the fullest assurance of the good faith of the French army. Louis
also enforced the strictest discipline possible in his age, and punished any
soldiers who committed acts of brigandage with as much cruelty as they had
exercised in their depredations; some had their hands and feet cut off.
In Asia the French army kept nearer the coast than the Germans, which
enabled them to proceed farther in the Byzantine territory. But when they
entered the Turkish dominions they soon began to suffer the same evils as their
predecessors, and only a small part gained Attalia in
an efficient state. With these troops Louis embarked for Antioch, leaving
upwards of seven thousand men behind. These soldiers, abandoned by their
leaders and ill-treated by the inhabitants of the country, perished in
attempting to force their way to Syria by land. At Antioch, Louis found the
Frank princes of Syria no better disposed to favour his expedition than he had
found the Greek emperor at Constantinople. Every intrigue was employed to delay
his march to Jerusalem; and when at last Conrad returned, and he and Louis united
their forces with the troops of Baldwin III, king of Jerusalem, and laid siege
to Damascus, the enterprise failed in consequence of the jealousy or treachery
of the Syrian barons, the Templars, and the Prince of Antioch. But in western
Europe every failure, whether it was caused by the folly of the Crusaders, the
perfidy of the Latin Christians in Syria, or the jealousy of the Byzantine
government, equally tended to increase the outcry against the treachery of the
Greeks.
The destruction of the crusading armies left at liberty to turn all his
attention to Corfu; but the Patzinaks having availed themselves of the
opportunity afforded by the passage of the Crusaders to plunder in Bulgaria, it
was first necessary to clear the country of this enemy. The whole summer of
1148 was employed in this task. In the following year the Byzantine forces
invested Corfu by sea and land. The position of the citadel is extremely
strong, occupying the base of a bold rocky promontory which rises abruptly out
of the sea with a double head. The city itself was strongly fortified by art as
well as by its natural position. When the emperor had assembled all his forces
before the place, he ordered a general assault under the cover of showers of
missiles from all the military machines then in use, which were planted in his
ships and along the shore so as to enfilade the points which were assailed; but
the advantage of their position enabled the Sicilian garrison to repulse the
attack, and the Grand-duke Koutostephanos, who
commanded the fleet was slain as he encouraged his men to plant a ladder
against the walls. In spite of this defeat Manuel continued to press on his
attacks at a considerable sacrifice of men without gaining any advantage, until
an unexpected circumstance had nearly rendered him master of the citadel It was
observed that a gully in the rock would admit the assailants into the body of
the place, if they could gain possession of a single wall that covered it
towards the sea. A lofty tower was constructed on the hulls of several
transports, which were bound firmly together, and on this tower a ladder was
fixed which reached the ramparts. Pupakes, a Turkish
officer of the guard of Axouchos, and four brothers
of Frank descent named Petraliphas, led a body of
four hundred chosen troops to the assault. Pupakes
mounted the ladder and reached the rampart with a few followers; but while the
rest of the forlorn hope were mounting, the ladder broke with their weight, and
many were precipitated into the sea or dashed to pieces on the rocks of the
citadel. Pupakes, and those who had gained a firm
footing, cleared for themselves a space on the wall; but when they saw there
was no hope of receiving further aid, they availed themselves of the confusion
into which they had thrown the garrison, and with singular audacity and
presence of mind they descended from the ramparts and escaped by a wicket to
the Byzantine army. Manuel, undismayed by this failure, continued to direct his
attacks against the place with great courage, but with a degree of impatience
which often proves injurious to the military operations of sovereigns who
command their own armies. At length a quarrel occurred between the Byzantine
troops and the Venetian marines, in the large naval force which the republic
had sent to act against the Normans in conjunction with the emperor. The tumult
threatened to become a general engagement, when Axouchos,
unable to appease the combatants, determined at least to separate them. By
ordering his guards to charge the Venetians, he forced them to retire to their
ships. The republicans, furious at their discomfiture, immediately weighed
anchor and sailed to attack a division of the Greek fleet which was stationed
in the channel between Cephalonia and Ithaca, to prevent the Sicilians from throwing
supplies into Corfu on that side. The Venetians burned several of the Greek
ships and captured the emperor’s own galley, in which they placed a negro clad
in the imperial robes with a crown on his head; and having seated him on a
throne placed under a canopy, they paraded before the Byzantine camp at Corfu,
saluting their black pageant of an emperor with all the multifarious and
servile prostrations practised at the Constantinopolitan court. The Emperor
Manuel, however, had the good sense to smile at this buffoonery, in which his
dark complexion was ridiculed; and by his prudence he succeeded in bringing the
Venetians back to their duty. A fleet sent by Roger to relieve Corfu was
defeated, and the garrison, being cut off from all hope of succour, at length
capitulated. The Norman and Sicilian troops were allowed to retire with their
arms; but Theodore Capellan, their commander, fearing to encounter the
indignation of Roger, or satisfied that his courage and military skill would be
better appreciated by Manuel, entered the Byzantine service.
The emperor resolved to make the recovery of Corfu a step to the invasion
of Sicily. A division of the Byzantine fleet ravaged the coast of Sicily, and
Manuel twice attempted to invade the island, but was driven back to Avlona by storms; and the damage his ships sustained
compelled him to abandon the undertaking for the time, nor did future wars ever
allow him to resume this enterprise. His officers, however, were ordered to
persist in a vain struggle to restore the Byzantine domination in southern
Italy, in order to form a base for operations against Sicily. The war was
prolonged for several years. On one occasion a Sicilian fleet of forty sail
passed the Hellespont, and appeared unexpectedly before Constantinople while
the emperor was absent; but the city was too well fortified to be exposed to
any danger from such a force. The Sicilian admiral, after proclaiming his
sovereign master of the sea, shooting a flight of gilded arrows at the walls of
the great palace, and plundering some houses at Damalis
on the Asiatic coast, retired. The Byzantine generals enrolled
considerable bodies of mercenaries at Ancona and Venice, and obtained some
success in Apulia; but at last Alexius Comnenus, the son of the Princess Anna
the historian, having been defeated and taken prisoner, and Constantine Angelos, who was sent to regain the superiority with a
powerful fleet, having met with the same fate, Manuel became inclined to peace.
The terms of the treaty satisfied the vanity of the Byzantine emperor, and
served the policy of the Sicilian king. The Byzantine officers and soldiers who
were prisoners in Sicily were released without ransom; but Manuel, with that
indifference to useful industry, and to the feelings of his peaceful subjects,
and with the ignorance of the true sources of national strength, as well as
riches, which is so common among princes, left the artisans of Thebes and
Corinth to pass their lives in bondage under the Norman king. The fact that
they were well treated, and settled as freemen with their families around them,
reflects honour on Roger and additional disgrace on Manuel. As they were living
in a climate similar to that of their native cities, and in the midst of a
population speaking the Greek language, they probably were happier in their
favoured exile than they could have been under the fiscal oppression that
reigned in Byzantine Greece. The peace between Manuel and William the Bad,
Roger’s son and successor, was concluded in the year 1155.
The appearance of the crusading monarchs of Germany and France, and the
events of the war with the King of Sicily, gave Manuel a more correct knowledge
of the resources and wealth of Western Europe than he had previously
possessed. He began to fear their power as well as to esteem their valour,
and during the remainder of his reign he watched the politics of a
Italy with great attention. On more than one occasion he assisted the Italian
cities in their struggle for liberty against Frederic Barbarossa, both with
troops and money. He feared lest a general pacification of the Western states
should enable some crusading monarch to employ an irresistible force against
the Byzantine Empire and the Greek Church.
For about twenty years, from 1148 to 1168, the chief field of Manuel’s personal
exploits was on the northern frontier of his empire. His first campaign, after
the fall of Corfu, was against the Sclavonian princes
who ruled in Servia and Dalmatia, whom the Byzantine emperors always affected
to consider as vassals, and who had been really dependent on the empire as long
as the state of the roads enabled the population of these mountainous districts
to transport their produce with profit to the markets of the populous cities in
Macedonia and Thrace. But the decay of communications by land had depopulated
and barbarized the mountain districts, while the inhabitants of the sea-coast
began to be more closely connected with Italy, by their commercial interests,
than with the Byzantine Empire. During the Sicilian war, the Prince of Servia
had leagued himself with Roger; Manuel now marched into his country in order to
punish him. The Hungarians sent a powerful army to his assistance, and the
united forces encountered the emperor on the banks of the Drin, not far from
its junction with the Save. Manuel led his own troops to the attack, and
behaved in the battle rather as a valiant knight than as a prudent general. At
the head of his noble guard, he charged Bachin, the
Servian archzupan, with his lance; but the Servian
general was a man of immense size, and his heavy armour turned aside the
imperial lance. Bachin rushed at Manuel with his
drawn sword, and cut away the linked veil that hung before the emperor’s face
as a visor. The broken clasps wounded Manuel’s cheek, yet he instantly closed
with his antagonist, and, seizing him by the sword arm, secured him as a
prisoner. The result of this combat decided the victory in favour of the
imperial troops. Peace followed; for the Servian prince, abandoning all hope of
resistance after the defeat of the archzupan, swore
fidelity to the emperor as a vassal, engaging to furnish a contingent of two
thousand men to the Byzantine army whenever it took the field in Europe, and
five hundred when the Servian auxiliaries were required to pass over into Asia.
This treaty, after subsisting some years, was violated by Primislas,
prince of Servia, on which Manuel again invaded the country, dethroned Primislas, and conferred the government on his younger
brothers Beluses and Deses. The latter, entering into
secret alliances with Frederic Barbarossa and Stephen III of Hungary, prepared
to revolt; but he was arrested by Manuel as a perfidious vassal, tried,
condemned, and imprisoned at Constantinople. His successor Neeman
continued to give the emperor as much trouble as his predecessors, planning
rebellion when an opportunity presented itself and making the humblest
submissions whenever the emperor was prepared to invade Servia. All the wars
which Manuel carried on in Europe were of secondary importance to his contest with
the kings of Hungary, though by prudence and policy he might easily have
avoided the necessity of wasting so large a portion of the military resources
of his empire on this unnecessary and unprofitable war. His pretext for
commencing hostilities was the circumstance that Geïsa
II had afforded assistance to the Prince of Servia at the battle of the Drin;
but the real cause of his engaging in this ill-judged enterprise was a hope
that he should be able to conquer a part of Hungary, in consequence of the continual
disputes in that country concerning the succession to the crown. Manuel coveted
the possession of the country between the Save and the Danube. This district
was the centre of a rapidly increasing commerce. In order to avoid the
oppressive duties and fiscal severity of the Byzantine government, a very
considerable portion of the trade which had once taken the routes by Cherson
and Trebizond to Constantinople now avoided the empire, and passed along the
northern shores of the Caspian and Black Seas, through the territory of the
Patzinaks, until it reached Zeugmin. The commerce of
the Greeks was thus declining in the north as well as the south. The Patzinaks,
Russians, and Hungarians became their rivals in the carrying trade by land, as
the Venetians, Pisans, and Genoese were by sea; while the Jews and Lombards
were beginning to supplant them as capitalists.
HUNGARIAN WAR. A.D. 1151.
Manuel invaded Hungary in the year 1151, when Geïsa
II was carrying on war in Russia. Zeugmin was taken.
The emperor abandoned the place to be pillaged by his troops, making a merit of
sparing the lives of the inhabitants. This mode of commencing the war naturally
rendered all the mercantile classes his determined enemies, in a country where
traders were men accustomed to encounter danger, and frequently possessed both
military skill and influence. The Byzantine army, after laying waste the
province between the Save and Danube, crossed the latter river, stormed several
cities, and spread its ravages far and wide. Geïsa,
on returning from the war in Russia, found that his forces were insufficient to
encounter Manuel in the field. He therefore solicited a truce, which
the emperor readily granted, that the Byzantine army might carry off the
immense booty it had collected without molestation. These spoils were exhibited
with great triumph at Constantinople. In the following year Geïsa
commenced hostilities by laying siege to Branisova,
the command of which Manuel had imprudently intrusted to his unprincipled
cousin Andronicus, who was suspected of inviting the Hungarians to recommence
the war, hoping that their movement would aid his own treasonable plots. But
the promptitude of the emperor saved Branisova and
deranged the projects of Andronicus. In the following year (1153) peace was
concluded with Hungary, which lasted until the death of Geïsa
II in 1161.
On Geïsa’s death, Manuel made the Hungarian law
of succession to the throne a pretext for attacking the kingdom. As in many of
the European monarchies of the time, the brother of the last monarch was
preferred to his son. But Geïsa II had done
everything in his power to change this order of succession in Hungary, and to
secure the succession to his son Stephen III. The great majority of the
Hungarians supported his views and ratified his choice; for they feared lest
the brothers of Geïsa, who had resided long at the
Byzantine court, should sacrifice the independence of Hungary. Manuel, deeming
the time favourable for his own schemes of conquest, supplied Ladislas, the elder of the two brothers of Geïsa II, with liberal aid. Stephen III was driven from the
throne, but Ladislas died after a reign of six
months. Stephen, the youngest brother of Geïsa, who
had married Maria Comnena, the daughter of Isaac, the
emperor’s eldest brother, succeeded Ladislas. The
exactions of Stephen soon rendered his government so unpopular that
the Hungarians took up arms, expelled him from the kingdom, and replaced
his nephew Stephen III on the throne. Manuel sent a Byzantine army into Hungary
to assist the husband of his niece, and the elder Stephen again recovered his
crown; but the Byzantine troops had hardly crossed the Danube on their return
before their royal client was compelled to follow them, and present himself
once more as an exile at the imperial court. Manuel, perceiving that his
endeavours to force a worthless monarch on the Hungarians would only lead to an
interminable war, consented to treat with Stephen III, whom he acknowledged
King of Hungary, on condition that Bela, his younger brother, should be
recognised as heir to the Hungarian crown; Bela engaging to adopt the Greek
church, and marry Maria, the only child of Manuel. A treaty of peace was
concluded on this basis in 1163, and the ceremony of the betrothal of Maria and
Bela (whose name was changed to Alexios by the
Greeks) was performed in the church of Blachern.
Manuel conferred the title of Despot on the Hungarian prince, and looked
forward to the union of Hungary with the Byzantine Empire as an achievement
which would reflect immortal glory on his reign, and raise the Eastern Empire
to the highest degree of power among the states of Europe.
This peace proved of short duration, for Manuel not only refused to disarm
the elder Stephen, but even permitted him to enrol troops, and invade Hungary
from the Byzantine territory. Stephen III, who justly held the emperor
responsible for these hostilities, sequestrated the appanage of Bela in order
to indemnify Hungary for the losses it suffered, and Manuel recommenced the
war. He entered Hungary in person at the head of a large army, and, bearing
down all opposition, marched to Peterwardein; but as
his object was to conciliate the Hungarian people, he, on this occasion,
prevented his troops from plundering, and offered to conclude peace if Stephen
III would restore Bela’s appanage. Stephen III preferred the chance of war, for
he was on the eve of effecting his junction with his ally Uladislas,
king of Bohemia, who had brought a powerful army to his assistance. The
Hungarian and Bohemian armies effected their junction, but Manuel was not
deterred by their numbers from advancing to attack them. He crossed the Danube,
and encamped at Titul on the banks of the Teisse, in front of the two kings. The brilliant appearance
of the Byzantine army after its rapid movements, the order with which it had
marched, the high military reputation of the emperor, the moderation of his
demands, and the justice of the King of Bohemia, prevented a battle. He
persuaded Stephen III to surrender Bela’s appanage, and Manuel immediately
retired. But the emperor, not having engaged to disarm the elder Stephen, still
allowed him to assemble troops within the frontiers of the empire, and make
plundering incursions into Hungary. The King of Hungary, finding that he had
been deceived, reassembled his army, and, laying siege to Zeugmin,
took that important city before it could receive assistance. His uncle Stephen
was taken prisoner soon after, and, falling ill, is reported to have been
murdered by a physician, who was suborned to bleed him with a poisoned lancet.
The capture of Zeugmin enraged Manuel, who now
resolved to dethrone Stephen, and place his son-in-law Bela on the throne. To
effect this he formed alliances with the Emperor of Germany, Frederic
Barbarossa, with the Venetians, and with several of the princes who then
governed different parts of Russia. In 1166 he assembled a powerful army at
Sardica, and marched to Zeugmin. Attacking the place
with his ordinary impetuosity, he soon carried it by storm. The King of
Hungary, seeing that he could offer no resistance in the field, sent an embassy
to the emperor to demand peace, offering to cede Zeugmin,
Sirmium, and Dalmatia to Manuel. To these offers Manuel replied by asking the
Hungarian envoys, with a sneer, if their king possessed other cities named Zeugmin and Sirmium, and a second province called Dalmatia,
for his troops were already in possession of the places usually known by those
names. In this campaign, the Byzantine army, under the immediate command of the
emperor, conquered all the country between the Save and the Danube; while a
second army, under the command of John Dukas, subdued
all Hungarian Dalmatia, a province which then contained fifty-seven towns,
among which were the cities of Trau, Sebenico, Spalatro, Dioclea, Scardona, Salona, and Ostrourypitza.
Next year (1167) the Byzantine army in Hungary was commanded through two
Byzantine nobles, Gabras and Branas,
by whose cowardice it was completely defeated.
(Michael Gabras was the husband of Eudocia Comnena, the paramour of Andronicus. The two historians of
Manuel’s reign, Cinnamus and Nicetas,
both record an anecdote which reveals the corruption of the Byzantine court.
The defeated generals were accused of ruining the army by their misconduct,
before they made the final exhibition of their cowardice on the field of
battle. In spite of former jealousies, they agreed to stand by one another in
their defence. When Gabras was examined by the
emperor in council, he referred to Branas as a man
who could give disinterested evidence concerning his behaviour as
commander-in-chief. Branas was in consequence brought
before the emperor to be examined; but he requested that Gabras,
as his superior officer, might bear testimony to his conduct, as second in
command, in order that he might speak more freely concerning Gabras. On this appeal, Gabras
praised the personal valour of Branas, particularly
in covering the retreat. When he concluded, Branas
coolly observed, “I am surprised you know so well what I performed, for I swear
by the head of the emperor, that when I turned myself, I hardly got a glimpse
of you galloping off in the distance”.)
The Hungarian general, Dionysius, was an officer of great military talent.
To repair the losses caused by this disaster, the emperor took the field in
person in 1168; but the state of his health prevented his accompanying all the
movements of the army, the immediate command of which he intrusted to his
nephew, Andronicus Koutostephanos. The Hungarians had
a well-appointed and numerous army under the command of Dionysius. The
Byzantine council of war decided that Koutostephanos
should engage the enemy without loss of time; and the emperor, who was
extremely superstitious, was delighted with his decision when he learned that,
just as the council rose, a Hungarian, who was galloping towards the Byzantine
camp, had fallen from his horse. This trifling accident he viewed as a lucky
omen, and Koutostephanos was ordered to hasten
forward. But the astrologers who accompanied the emperor, being anxious to
avoid falling into neglect, assured Manuel that he should himself suffer some
misfortune if the engagement took place next day. Manuel was weak enough to
send a courier to his general at their suggestion, ordering him to suspend the
attack for twenty-four hours. Koutostephanos had
already made his dispositions for battle when the imperial order reached him,
and he thought there would be more danger in withdrawing his troops from their
positions, and passing a whole day inactively, than in despising the
predictions of the astrologers, for he had no confidence in the tactics of the
stars. He knew well that nothing but a complete victory would serve as his
apology for disobeying the imperial order; and as delay seemed to him likely to
diminish his chances, the order was instantly given for attacking the
Hungarians. The battle was long and bloody. Dionysius had drawn up his best
troops in one solid mass, at the head of which he expected to break through the
ranks of the Byzantine army, and then destroy its divisions in detail. He
himself fought beside the national standard of Hungary, which was displayed on
a tall mast fixed in an immense waggon, and elevated high above the
field, that it might serve both as a guide for the attacks and a rallying-point
for the repulses of the Hungarian squadrons. The plan of Dionysius was foiled
by the dispositions of Koutostephanos. The cavalry,
which composed the best part of the Hungarian army, was broken by the Byzantine
horse, and after a desperate struggle driven from the field. The great standard
was taken; Dionysius saved himself with difficulty; two thousand suits of
complete armour were collected from the slain, against which the lances of the
Byzantine cavalry had been shivered in vain, and whose wearers had only
perished when their helmets were crushed by the weight of the terrible
mace-of-arms. Only eight hundred prisoners were taken, for the imperial cavalry
was too much exhausted to continue the pursuit; but these prisoners were the
heaviest-armed and bravest knights in the enemy’s army: among their number were
many of the highest nobility, and five Bans.
This battle, which was fought near Zeugmin, put
an end to the war. Peace was concluded in 1168, Stephen III ceding to the
empire Zeugmin, Sirmium, and Dalmatia, so that Manuel
only gained the same terms after the victory of Koutostephanos
which he might have obtained in the year 1166. When Manuel returned to
Constantinople, he made a triumphal entry into the city, riding on horseback,
with Andronicus Koutostephanos by his side. The
imperial cavalcade was preceded by a chariot of silver gilt, drawn by four
white horses, in which a picture of the Virgin Mary was displayed to the
superstitious inhabitants, who considered the protection of the Virgin as a
surer defence for the empire than either a well-disciplined army or a wise
administration. This was Manuel's last triumph, and the battle of Zeugmin was one of the last great victories gained by the
Byzantine arms. The splendour of the Eastern Empire now began to wane, and was
rapidly obscured, never to recover its brightness.
WAR WITH VENICE, A.D.
1171.
Though Manuel had suppressed his anger, and overlooked at the time the
insolence of the Venetians during the siege of Corfu, he never forgot it; nor
was he prudent enough to conceal the jealousy he felt at the increasing power
and wealth of the republic. His ill-will was displayed in the strictness
with which he interpreted every clause of the treaties and charters conceding
to them their commercial privileges and immunities in the Byzantine
Empire. It was natural, therefore, that the conquest of the southern part
of Dalmatia by John Ducas in 1166, and the
negotiations of Manuel with Frederic Barbarossa, should alarm the Venetian
senate, and render war with the Eastern Empire an event which it might soon be
impossible to avoid. In this state of feeling, Manuel availed himself of
some tumults between the Venetians and Lombards settled at Constantinople to
impose new restrictions on the Venetians. Ever since the time of Alexius I
the Venetians had possessed a street or quarter of their own, where their
warehouses were situated. This quarter possessed its own quay,
and enjoyed the privileges of a free port. All Venetian subjects were
bound to reside within its limits, and justice was there administered, in the
differences of Venetian subjects, according to the laws of Venice. But the
numbers of the Venetians established in the empire soon increased, and many
resided beyond the limits of the privileged quarter. Their wealth and character
obtained for them matrimonial alliances with many respectable native families.
It seems, at first sight, a strange fact that so many of the foreign races
which took up their residence within the limits of the Byzantine empire should
have increased more rapidly than the Greeks, and that relic of the Roman
conquerors which still formed the dominant portion of Byzantine society; but a
little attention to the history of the empire reveals the fact that fiscal
oppression deprived the natives of all hope of bettering their condition, and
compelled them to rest contented if they could preserve the possessions they
had inherited from their ancestors unimpaired, while among the higher ranks
social corruption and pride of caste prevented all increase of numbers. On the
other hand, the condition of foreign settlers, and particularly of the
Venetians, was very different: they escaped the worst effects of imperial
rapacity, and their social manners still rendered a numerous family a greater
enjoyment, and a surer means of obtaining consideration in the decline of life,
than a large house and a gallery of pictures and statues. But though the moral
and political state of Venetian society was superior to that of Greek, it had
also great defects. The spirit of personal independence, which gave strength
and dignity to the republic, too often degenerated in the individual Venetian
into disorderly conduct and insolence to others. They frequently raised tumults
in the streets of Constantinople, and set the imperial officers and the laws of
the empire at defiance.
Manuel determined to make the great party-quarrel of the Venetians and
Lombards the pretext for increasing his power over the Venetians settled in his
empire. Every Venetian was ordered to reside within the quarter set apart for
their habitation; all who continued to dwell without those limits were
commanded to take the oath of allegiance as subjects of the emperor, in order
to secure for themselves and their property the protection of the Byzantine
laws. Many Venetians complied with this ordinance rather than sacrifice the
landed property they possessed; but they could not so readily lay aside their
disorderly habits, and forget their party contests. The Venetians repeated
their attacks on the Lombards, overpowered their opponents, and plundered their
warehouses. The Emperor Manuel was justly enraged at the insolent contempt
shown for his authority in his own capital. To avenge the injured laws of his
empire, and, as was generally thought, to gratify at the same time his own avarice,
he ordered all the Venetians in his dominions to be arrested, and their
property to be sequestrated, (A.D. 1171.)
The government of Venice regarded the emperors conduct in this affair as a
direct violation of their treaty; they held that he was only authorized to
arrest those who had taken part in the tumult, and that any claim for pecuniary
indemnification ought to have been addressed to the Venetian senate, whose
refusal to pay the demand could alone authorize the sequestration of private
property. The republic, therefore, fitted out a fleet to exact reparation from
Manuel; and in the spring of 1172 the Doge Vital Michieli
II sailed with one hundred galleys and twenty carracks to attack the recent
conquests of John Dukas in Dalmatia. Trau and Kagusa were besieged and
taken, and the Byzantine forces were soon expelled from all Dalmatia. The doge
then sailed to the Archipelago, where, however, he was not so fortunate as he
had been in the Adriatic. After losing some time in a vain attempt to render himself
master of Chalcis in Euboea, he took possession of the island of Chios, where
he passed the winter. The Greeks everywhere showed the greatest animosity to
the Venetians, whose commercial immunities had robbed them of a considerable
portion of their trade, a. d. and the doge became sensible that he had no
chance of making any permanent conquest in the Aegean. The merchants of Venice
already felt the loss of their commerce with Constantinople, and the senate
began to fear lest the privileges which the Venetians had previously enjoyed
should be conferred on the Pisans or the Genoese. An embassy was dispatched to
solicit peace with the Byzantine Empire, but the terms offered were rejected by
Manuel.
In the meantime a dreadful pestilence broke out in the Venetian fleet at
Chios; while the imperial fleet, which had been almost entirely destroyed in an
unsuccessful invasion of Egypt during the year 1170, was again ready for sea.
In the spring of 1173, one hundred and fifty Byzantine galleys issued from the Hellespont
to attack the Venetians. The republican force was so enfeebled by the ravages
of the plague that the doge abandoned Chios on the approach of the enemy, and
retired successively to Lesbos, Lemnos, and Skyros, gradually abandoning
numbers of his ships, as the crews were thinned by disease. At last he quitted
the Archipelago altogether, and returned to Venice with seventeen ships; the
rest had either been abandoned from want of hands to navigate them, or they had
been captured by the Greeks.
Before quitting the Grecian seas the doge sent a second embassy to the
Emperor Manuel. One of the ambassadors was Henry Dandolo, a man whose name will
live for ever in the annals of the Byzantine Empire and in the history of the
Greek race. Thirty years after this he again visited Constantinople, and was
the principal agent in destroying the Eastern Empire and enslaving the Greek
people. The propositions of the doge were again rejected, and the ambassadors
had perhaps reason to complain of the rudeness of their reception. The Doge
Vital Michieli was held to be responsible for
misfortunes he could not prevent, and the Venetians, being as ungovernable in
their passions at home as abroad, assassinated him in a public assembly. The
social condition of the republic evidently called for reform. It was
universally admitted that there was a necessity for adding to the vigour of the
law. The ruling men in the senate made this necessity a pretext for changing
the old aristocratic democracy into an administrative oligarchy.
To revenge themselves for their losses in the East the Venetians resolved
to destroy the city of Ancona, which was their rival in the trade of the
Adriatic, and might, through the protection of the Emperor of Constantinople,
supplant them in their commerce with the East. The Emperor Frederic Barbarossa,
who was anxious to gain possession of Ancona for himself, joined the republic;
and while the Venetian fleet blockaded the port, a German army besieged the
city by land. The inhabitants defended themselves most valiantly, and all the
attacks of the besiegers were repulsed; but towards the end of autumn their
provisions failed, and hunger compelled to demand a capitulation. The
Archbishop of Mayence, who commanded the German
army, insisted that they should surrender at discretion, when the people of
Ancona, who hesitated to accept such hard terms, were saved from the dangerous
experiment of trusting to the mercy of the warlike ecclesiastic by the
patriotism of an Italian lady and of a wealthy citizen of Ferrara. An Italian
army, levied by their exertions, advanced to Ancona and defeated the Germans.
The ships in the port, elated with the victory of their allies, sailed out, and
by their sudden attack threw the Venetians into confusion, so that the siege and
blockade were both raised. William Adelard, the
patriotic citizen of Ferrara, carried the news of this success to the Emperor
Manuel, who received him with honour. The expenses of the Italian army were
repaid, rich presents were sent to the noble Italian lady, whose name the Greek
historian refuses to record, but which from other sources we learn was Aldruda, countess of Bertinoro.
The repeated losses which the Venetians had sustained disposed them to seek
peace with the Byzantine Empire on the best terms they could procure, while
Manuel was equally desirous to terminate his unprofitable contest with the
republic, in order to devote all his forces to arrest the progress of the
Turks, who were daily increasing their power in Asia Minor. A treaty of peace
was concluded about the end of the year 1174, which restored the Venetians to
the position they occupied in 1171, before the war broke out. Their ancient
privileges were confirmed, and Manuel engaged to pay fifteen hundred pounds’
weight of gold in a fixed number of instalments as an indemnity for the
property of the Venetian merchants which had been confiscated.
WAR WITH ANTIOCH AND ARMENIAN
CILICIA.
The Asiatic wars of Manuel were generally commenced and conducted with the
same indifference to the dictates of sound policy and the real interest of his
empire as the European. Instead of forming a firm alliance with the Armenian
sovereigns of Cilicia and the Frank princes of Antioch, and directing the
united forces of the confederacy to break the power of the sultans of Iconium,
and to expel the Turks from Phrygia and Bithynia, the emperor wasted the
resources of the Christians and aided the growth of the Turkish power by his
repeated attacks on Cilicia and Antioch, and his constant endeavours to force
their princes to acknowledge a temporary vassalage to the Byzantine crown.
Success unfortunately favoured his arms in the projects least conducive to his
interests. Raymond of Poitiers, prince of Antioch, was defeated, and compelled
to own himself a vassal of the imperial throne, as he had done during the life
of the Emperor John. This was Manuel's first warlike exploit as emperor, and it
took place in the year 1144, during the summer which preceded the conquest of
the Christian principality of Edessa by Zengui. Raymond
perished in a battle with Noureddin, sultan of
Aleppo, in 1149. Reynold of Chatillon married Constance of Antioch, his widow,
and conducted the government of the principality more like a leader of robbers
than a civilized prince. He renewed the war with Manuel by invading Cyprus,
which he plundered in the most barbarous manner. Manuel, however, could not
find time to punish Reynold until the year 1155, but he then imposed on him the
deepest humiliation. The emperor advanced to Mopsuestia
with an army which Reynold was unable to resist. The Patriarch of Antioch, who
had been grossly insulted by the Frank prince, would have either admitted the
Byzantine troops into the city or betrayed Reynold into the emperor's hands,
had Manuel not been more desirous to chastise his enemy than to occupy his
principality. The Prince of Antioch was also in reality only the regent of his
wife’s dominions. He was allowed to retain his authority on presenting himself
at the emperor's court in Mopsuestia with a rope
round his neck, after marching barefooted and bareheaded through the streets to
the imperial residence. When he entered the emperor's presence he fell on his
knees, and implored mercy with uplifted hands. After long solicitation he
received his pardon, on binding himself to furnish a contingent of troops to
the Byzantine armies, and engaging to treat the Greek patriarch with the
respect due to his rank in the Orthodox Church, and to furnish him with an
official residence within the walls of Antioch, (A.D. 1155.)
Armenian Cilicia was at this time governed by Thoros,
an able prince and gallant soldier, whose position exposed him to be attacked
on every side. The Byzantine emperors regarded the Armenian principality as a
portion of their dominions; and the prosperity it enjoyed, from being usually
governed in a less oppressive manner than the provinces of the empire, excited
their rapacity. The Byzantine emperors, the sultans of Iconium, and the princes
of Antioch, were all eager to make conquests from the Armenians, so that Thoros was compelled either to fight with these powerful
neighbours or form alliances with one against the others as circumstances
dictated. Manuel had twice entrusted his cousin Andronicus with the
command of armies destined to subdue Thoros, but the
folly and rashness of that debauched prince led to their complete defeat, A.D.
1145 and 1152. At length, in the year 1155, Manuel led an army in person
through the denies of Mount Taurus, and compelled Thoros
to become his vassal and receive the investiture of his dominions by a golden
bull, with the title of Pansevastos, to mark his
subjection.
While Manuel remained at Mopsuestia, his court
was visited by Baldwin III, king of Jerusalem, (who subsequently married his
niece Theodora), by Reynold of Antioch—in a very humble manner, as we have
already narrated—and by Thoros, the sovereign of
Armenian Cilicia. All were solicitous of gaining the emperor’s favour, but
Manuel derived little advantage either from his own brilliant military exploits
or from the public submission of these proud and warlike princes. He had,
nevertheless, the gratification of making a triumphal entry into Antioch in the
midst of his Varangian guard—a pageant which greatly flattered his pride,
because it appeared to elevate his power above that of his father. He had also
the pleasure of exhibiting his skill in all the exercises of chivalry at a
grand tournament, where he unhorsed every antagonist, and left the Frank
knights amazed at his skill, strength, and daring. Even Noureddin,
the Sultan of Aleppo, who was as politic as he was valiant, sought to avoid war
with so powerful an enemy, and purchased peace by releasing Bertrand, the Grand
Master of the Templars, with six thousand French and German prisoners, the
remains of the armies of Louis VII and Conrad III, who were languishing in
hopeless slavery. Manuel returned to Constantinople covered with personal
renown.
In 1161 Manuel married the beautiful Maria, daughter of Raymond of Poitiers
and Constance princess of Antioch. Raymond, count of Tripoli, who had been led
to believe that the emperor was on the eve of espousing his sister Melisenda, considered this marriage to be an insult which
he was bound to avenge. In order to obtain what was held to be honourable
satisfaction, he sent the twelve galleys he had prepared to conduct his sister
to Constantinople to plunder the islands of the Archipelago. The Saracen
pirates never committed greater cruelties than the Christians in Raymond’s
ships. They spared neither age nor sex; monasteries and churches were pillaged,
towns and villages were burned to the ground, and no inconsiderable portion of
the inhabitants in many islands were exterminated. Yet Manuel was so occupied
with his marriage festivities that he paid no attention to the sufferings of
his subjects; and when the Byzantine fleet had chased the galleys of
Raymond out of the Grecian seas, their ravages were forgotten by the
government.
The lavish and wasteful administration of Manuel caused him to adopt many
ill-judged schemes for recruiting his finances. Before his unjust sequestration
of the property of the Venetian merchants, he had expected to fill his
exhausted treasury by the spoils of Egypt. After the termination of the
Hungarian war, he joined Amaury I, king of Jerusalem, in a project for the
subjugation of Egypt, which was then in a state of anarchy. An imperial fleet,
consisting of one hundred and fifty galleys, sixty cavalry transports, in which
a well-appointed army was embarked, attended by ten dromons
laden with provisions and engines of war, sailed for Egypt under the command of
Andronicus Koutostephanos. Ten galleys of this fleet
were fitted out by the city of Dyrrachium, and six by the island of Euboea; for
Manuel had not yet confiscated the municipal revenues of the commercial cities
in the empire to fill the central treasury at Constantinople, and be wasted on
the pageantry of the imperial court. When Amaury beheld the strength of the
Byzantine expedition, his avarice induced him to delay his own preparations,
and it was near the end of October 1170 before he joined Koutostephanos
under the walls of Damietta. The Byzantine general pushed the siege with
vigour, and conducted himself in a manner worthy of the victor of Zeugmin; but the Franks of Jerusalem afforded him little assistance,
and after remaining before the place fifty days, provisions began to fail, and Koutostephanos was compelled to conclude a truce with the
Egyptians, in order to retire with his army by land into Syria. The fleet, on
its return, was dispersed by a succession of storms, and few of the ships
reached Constantinople in safety. Amaury had thwarted, and perhaps betrayed,
the Egyptian expedition; but next year (1171) he was so alarmed at the progress
of Saladin that he visited Constantinople to solicit assistance from Manuel. He
was treated by the emperor with great magnificence; and during the three months
he remained, as much money was spent in pageants, festivals, and tournaments,
as would have raised a powerful army. Manuel seized any pretext for magnificent
display; but the disasters of the Byzantine forces before Damietta deprived him
of the wish, and weakened his power, to afford the King of Jerusalem any
effective assistance.
WAR WITH THE SULTAN OF
ICONIUM.
We must now review Manuel’s conduct and policy in his relations with the Seljouk Turks, who possessed the greater part of Asia
Minor, and counted a numerous population of Greek Christians among their
subjects. The Sultan of Iconium was the nearest and most dangerous enemy of the
Byzantine Empire. Prudence required Manuel to devote his unwearied attention to
oppose the progress of a power hostile to the civilization and the laws of the
Christians, as well as to their political government. The emperor had seen that
his father, even towards the end of his reign, after he had gained many
victories over the Turks, was compelled to struggle hard to prevent their
establishing themselves on the banks of the Rhyndacus,
and had great difficulty in driving them from the plains of Bithynia. At the
commencement of his own reign, Manuel appears, indeed, to have been fully
persuaded of the necessity of circumscribing the Turkish dominions; and after
he had arranged his differences with Raymond of Antioch, he led the
well-disciplined army he had inherited from his father against the Sultan of
Iconium. The Turkish troops were defeated whenever they could be brought to
risk an engagement; yet, in this campaign of 1145, the Byzantine army was
unable to advance beyond Philomelium, and in the
following year it only reached the shores of the lake Pasgusa,
which his father had depopulated. Manuel was, nevertheless, preparing an army
to besiege Iconium, when the expedition of Roger of Sicily against Greece, and
the movements of the leaders of the second crusade, compelled him to
concentrate his best troops for the defence of Constantinople. He therefore
concluded a treaty of peace with Massoud, the Sultan
of Iconium, a measure of common prudence, which the Crusaders regarded as an
act of signal treachery to the Christian cause. This peace endured without
interruption until the death of Sultan Massoud
Had Manuel been able to appreciate the full extent of the alarming changes
which were going on during his reign in the social condition of the various
races that peopled his empire, he must have been struck with the necessity of
making great exertions to increase the resources, the numbers, and the strength
of the Greek population in the provinces nearest to the Turks; but no measures
having this object in view are noticed by the historians of his reign. It
appears, therefore, that neither the emperor nor his ministers attached
sufficient importance to the decline which was taking place in the numbers of
the Christian population of the Byzantine provinces in Asia Minor, while, perhaps,
they neglected to contrast it with the steady increase of the Mohammedan
population in the dominions of the Sultan of Iconium. The corruption of
Byzantine society was certainly not entirely unobserved by Manuel; but his
education taught him to believe that ecclesiastical formulas and strict
orthodoxy were sufficient to cure every evil. The church, however, proved
as ineffectual to oppose the progress of Mohammedanism, under the Seljouks, as it had proved in earlier times to arrest its
advance under the Saracens; while, on the other hand, Manuel and his
contemporaries were destitute of the enlightened views and the freedom from
orthodox prejudices which had rendered Leo the Isaurian and his Iconoclast
supporters capable of infusing new vigour into society by an equitable
administration of the law. An increase of the Greek population in the Asiatic
provinces could alone have enabled the Byzantine government to resist the progress
of the Turks; but to produce this increase, a great change would have been required
both in the conduct of the administration and the condition of the people.
Manuel must have diminished the expenses of his court, lightened the weight of
taxation, improved the civil and judicial administration, enlarged the sphere
of municipal activity, and facilitated the means of intercourse by land and
sea; while the Greek people must have adopted habits of industry,
self-reliance, and truth, from which they had been long weaned by the fiscal
oppression of their masters; and they must have learned to regard the
commandments of God as more binding than the superstitions, traditions, or
canons of the church.
The Sultan Massoud, at his death, divided his
dominions among his children, and his eldest son, Kilidy-Arslan
II, succeeded to the sovereignty of Iconium. As Manuel was marching carelessly
through the Turkish territory on his return from Antioch in the early part of
the year 1157, his troops were attacked by the Turks. The war was renewed; but
the new sultan, finding himself too weak to encounter the Byzantine army in the
field, endeavoured to avert hostilities with the Christians until he had
regained possession of the territories ceded to his brothers. Manuel, having
induced many of the bands of Crusaders, who were in the habit of touching at Rhodes
on their passage to Palestine, to join his army by the high pay he offered,
collected an immense number of chariots and oxen in the Thrakesian theme to
transport his military stores, and threatened to attack Iconium. Kilidy-Arslan, however, succeeded in averting the attack by
consenting to surrender every place the Turks had occupied since the death of
John II, by engaging to maintain an auxiliary corps of Turkish cavalry in
the emperor’s service, and by promising to prevent any hostile inroads of the
nomadic Turkmans into the Byzantine territory. These conditions prove that
the Greeks had been losing ground during the reign of Manuel; and that, in
spite of the great force he had assembled for the conquest of Iconium, he felt
the difficulty of retaining possession of that city, even if he succeeded in
taking it. Shortly after the conclusion of this treaty, Kilidy-Arslan
visited Constantinople, where he was received with great pomp. This visit had a
bad effect on the fortunes of the empire. Manuel despised the sultan on account
of his mean appearance and submissive behaviour; while the astute Mussulman,
who concealed his envious and daring character, perceived many of the weak
points of the Byzantine power, and became eager to acquire a share of the wealth
which he saw so ill defended.
The peace between the emperor and the sultan was in reality only a truce,
during which both parties were ready to avail themselves of any opportunity of
renewing the war with advantage. Both sovereigns found themselves ready for
action about the same time. Kilidy-Arslan, having
subdued all his brothers, reunited all the central provinces of Asia Minor
under his dominion. Manuel, who had seen all his schemes of distant conquest,
and all his labour for the acquisition of military glory prove delusive, now,
when it was already too late, turned his attention to what ought to have been
his first military duty as Emperor of Constantinople. He resolved to devote all
his energies to driving back the tide of Turkish emigration. For this purpose
he repeopled and fortified Dorylaeum, and a place at
the most distant sources of the Maeander called Subleon.
The sultan complained of the construction of these works as an infringement of
the treaty; for both Dorylaeum and Subleon were situated in the midst of districts occupied by
Turkish settlers. Manuel, however, whose object was to stop the constant
encroachments of the Turkish nomads, persisted in completing these fortresses
as the only means of expelling the Turks from the country round.
The war recommenced in the year 1176. The sultan had obtained large
reinforcements from the Turks of Mesopotamia, who were accustomed to engage the
chivalry of Europe on the plains of Syria, where they had begun to show
themselves superior to the Franks. The emperor, besides assembling all his
veterans from the frontiers of Hungary, enrolled new corps of Franks and
Patzinaks. He collected large supplies of cattle for provisioning the army, and
prepared a train of three thousand waggons for the transport of the stores and
military engines necessary for the siege of Iconium. In the month of September,
the army advanced, under the immediate command of Manuel, by Laodicea to Chonae (then a large and populous town), the birthplace of
the historian Nicetas, who has left us a minute
account of the events that followed. The emperor advanced, occupying Lampe Celaense, to Choma, and to a
ruined fortress called Myriokephalon, which has
become memorable by the total defeat of the Byzantine army. At this place
Manuel received an embassy from Kilidy-Arslan,
offering to conclude peace on the conditions of their former treaty; but the
emperor replied that he would give an answer at Iconium, and immediately
marched forward from Myriokephalon into the pass of Tzyvritze. The Turks had already begun to hang about the
army, carrying away all the forage, and destroying the wells and springs, so
that fatigue and bad water had already spread disease among the Christians.
Everything indicated the necessity of marching with caution; and the fate
of the armies of Conrad of Germany and Louis of France ought to have served as
an additional warning to Manuel Yet Manuel pushed forward without adopting the
commonest precautions. Without sending forward his cavalry to clear the defiles
and protect his flanks, he entered the valley of Tzyvritze,
a long pass, over the southern side of which the mountains protrude in bold
precipitous rocks, while to the north the hills which bound it open into
several wide ravines. Into this dangerous defile the Byzantine army plunged
with such carelessness that its different divisions were ten miles apart,
separated by the long trains of waggons and cattle which accompanied their
march. The Turks, who watched all the movements of the Christians from their
ambuscades, began the attack as soon as the baggage reached the middle of the
pass. The front and rear of the Byzantine army were assailed at the same time;
but the advanced guard, driving back the Turkish cavalry that attempted to
dispute their passage, secured the command of the summits which overlooked the
exit, and formed a camp. In the meantime, other corps of Infidels had issued
from concealment, and manned the summits on the southern side of the valley
wherever the road compelled the Christians to approach the rocks. The right
wing of the Byzantine army, commanded by Baldwin, the brother of the empress,
was attacked in unfavourable ground, where it was cut off from the rest of the
army by the long train of baggage-waggons, and, unable either to draw out its
ranks to retreat or to receive any assistance, it was overwhelmed by the Turks,
who descended from the heights: Baldwin and the bravest officers were slain,
and the whole corps destroyed. Encouraged by this success, the victorious Turks
seized the baggage-waggons, and employed them to close up the road, while they
opened a communication with their countrymen placed in ambuscade among the
ravines on the north side of the valley. The Turks then attacked the central
division of the army, where the emperor commanded in person, surrounded by the
imperial guard. The officers in vain attempted to form their troops, for they
could find no space to charge the enemy. The narrow valley was blocked up by
the sudden stoppage of the line of march. Waggons, cattle, cavalry, and
infantry were soon crowded together in the wildest confusion. The heavy-armed
Byzantine lancers, which in an open field could have swept the Turkish hordes
before them, stood useless amidst the overturned carriages and slaughtered
oxen. The rear was now vigorously assailed, and fresh squadrons of the
Mohammedans issued from the branches of the great valley to attack the flanks.
Defence and flight were equally hopeless; the slaughter was immense, and the
emperor, perplexed by the extent of the calamity, ceased to give any farther
orders, but fought to deliver himself with his own sword like a common soldier.
Some faithful followers kept close to him, and at last, by a desperate charge,
he opened a passage through the enemy, and escaped with a few attendants. He
had been recognised by the Turks, who eagerly sought to make him prisoner, and
his armour was deeply stained with blood, and bore the mark of many a blow,
before he gained the camp of his advanced guard at the issue of the defile.
When Manuel’s bodily exertions ceased, his mental sufferings commenced. On
calling for a drink of water, he could only obtain it from the stream in the
valley, which was stained with blood: he turned away with loathing, and as he
poured it on the ground, exclaimed, “This is horrible! it is the blood of
Christians”; but an officer standing near, to whom the recent disaster seemed a
natural consequence of the emperor's inconsiderate rashness, coolly observed,
“Never mind, O emperor! you have often drained Christian blood while you were
expending the treasures extorted from your subjects”. Shortly after, a party of
mules, laden with treasure, was overtaken by the Turks within sight of the
camp; and as the Infidels deliberately cut open the money-bags, and began to
divide the spoil, Manuel called to the troops to sally out and divide the
treasure among themselves. But he was again rebuked for thus endangering the
safety of his remaining soldiers. The same officer rudely exclaimed, “Your
majesty would have done well to leave this treasure in the possession of your
subjects; but it is better the Turks should now carry it off and retire with
it, than that it should be recovered by the blood of your surviving troops,
merely to excite them to assail us with greater vigour”. The emperor felt the
justice of the rebuke, and the Turks carried off the treasure.
The rear of the army was commanded by Andronicus Koutostephanos,
and that experienced general, with a small body of men whom he had rallied
round him, succeeded, by a well-combined series of attacks on the Turks, in
forcing his way through the whole length of the valley, and reached the
camp of the advanced guard in the evening. His success afforded the
strongest proof that the terrible disaster of the army was caused by the
incapacity of Manuel as a general, rather than by the superior tactics of the
Turkish force, or the insuperable difficulties of the ground. The conduct of
Manuel, after the defeat, was as disgraceful as his military ignorance during
the battle. He proposed to save his own person by flight, leaving the generals
to conduct the retreat of the remains of his army as they should think fit. But
Koutostephanos boldly opposed this arrangement, which
had probably been suggested by some of the courtiers who would have accompanied
the emperor, and who therefore persuaded Manuel that it was his duty to
preserve the person of a Roman emperor from death or captivity at any
sacrifice. There was as much sound policy as cowardice in the advice, for as
Manuel had only an infant son, the danger of anarchy in the empire would have
been great had he fallen. But it was now too late to make such reflections, and
the remonstrances of Koutostephanos, who pointed out
that the emperor's departure would cause the immediate dissolution of the army,
and allow the Turks to advance to the shores of the Bosphorus without
opposition, induced Manuel to abandon his disgraceful project.
The condition of the Byzantine troops proved to be much better than it
appeared at the moment of the defeat. A considerable army of veterans had
reached the camp in safety, and though they were far inferior in numbers to the
Turkish squadrons that surrounded them, they felt themselves still superior to
their enemy in a fair field of battle. They were no longer encumbered with a
train of baggage to impede their movements, and they were consequently enabled
to choose their point of attack. On the other hand, the Turkish army was
disorganized by its victory, which had put the auxiliaries and nomad tribes in
possession of so much booty that they were too much occupied in securing their
own gains to pay attention to the Byzantine army. The wary sultan, who saw the
numbers of his troops rapidly decreasing, determined to treat of peace with the
emperor while his enemies were still under the influence of the panic caused by
their disaster. On the day after the battle he sent an envoy to the imperial
camp, and Manuel readily agreed to all the terms proposed by Kilidy-Arslan. He engaged to destroy the fortifications he
had recently erected at Dorylaeum and Subleon, and to cede to the Turks all the country they had
colonized during his reign. The Byzantine army then commenced its retreat, but
many independent bands of Turkomans hung on its flanks, and molested it by
desultory attacks. The first day’s march led the army over the field of
slaughter, where the extent of Manuel's folly was forced on his attention by
the most revolting aspect of heaps of unburied bodies. The surviving troops
were soon placed in good quarters at Chonae and
Philadelphia. Subleon, which was in the
neighbourhood, was immediately dismantled and abandoned; but in a short time
the emperor gained sufficient courage to act a dishonourable part and violate
the engagements he had entered into to save himself and his army. He refused to
destroy the fortifications of Dorylaeum. This caused
the renewal of the war.
The sultan opened the campaign of 1177 by sending an army of twenty-four
thousand men into the Byzantine territory, with orders to lay waste the country
as far as the sea, and bring back from the coast some salt-water, some
sea-sand, and the oars of an imperial galley. This army spread over the rich
valley of the Meander, gained possession of Tralles
and Antiocheia by capitulation, took Louma and Pentecheira by storm,
and laid waste the country to the sea-shore. But as it was returning, laden
with other booty besides the saltwater, the sea-sand, and the oars which the
sultan was so anxious to see, it was attacked on the banks of the Maeander by
John Vatatzes, and completely defeated. This victory restored the character and
courage of the Byzantine troops.
The last military exploit of Manuel was a rapid march to relieve Claudiopolis, which was closely besieged by another Turkish
army. His approach caused the enemy to raise the siege. Both the emperor and
sultan being now satisfied that they were wasting the resources of their
dominions in unprofitable hostilities, they entered into negotiations which
soon led to the conclusion of peace.
The mind of Manuel never recovered from the shock his pride had received at
the battle of Myriokephalon. The wounds and bruises
appeared to affect his body in a very trifling degree, but he became
melancholy, and his health gradually declined. His family affairs now forced
themselves on his attention, and he was surprised to find that he had allowed
his beautiful daughter Maria to attain the age of thirty without celebrating
her marriage, though she had been betrothed to Bela III king of Hungary, and
asked in marriage by the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa as a wife for his son
Henry. In the month of March 1078, her marriage was celebrated with Rayner, son
of the Marquess of Montferrat, a youth only seventeen years old; and at the
same time Alexius, the emperor’s son by Mary of Antioch, who was in his
eleventh year, was married to Agnes, daughter of Louis VII of France, who was
only seven years old. Alexius and Agnes received the imperial crown, and were
proclaimed emperor and empress.
Manuel displayed during his last illness all the deficiencies of an
ill-regulated and undisciplined mind. Though confident in his faith and
orthodoxy, he placed great dependence on the predictions of astrologers, and
while his strength was rapidly declining he allowed these impostors to persuade
him that the stars announced that he should still reign with glory for fourteen
years. But in the month of September he became suddenly aware that his end was
near: feeling his own pulse, he sighed deeply, struck his thigh with his hand,
and ordered his attendants to bring him instantly the habit of a monk. In
a few minutes he was divested of the imperial robes, and clad in a monachal
garb which proved much too short for his tall figure. He expired, on the 24th
of September 1180, at the age of fifty-eight, after a reign of thirty-seven
years, and with him the power and glory of the Byzantine Empire perished. No
sovereign of the Eastern Empire had possessed more absolute power. His reign
was undisturbed by rebellion, and the circumstances of the age allowed the
greatest latitude for social and political reforms. Men’s minds were in a state
of fermentation in Western Europe; and though Roman political self-sufficiency
and Greek ecclesiastical orthodoxy kept the population of the Eastern Empire in
a comparatively torpid state, the necessity of making some great changes to
prevent the decline of society was generally felt. Yet, while the Latin
Christians were actively advancing in their progressive improvements, the
Greeks remained stationary and conservative. In the West, the Crusades produced
a revolution in ideas as well as in property. The popes made a bold attempt to
constitute themselves the centre of all dominion in Europe, under the pretext
of restraining the tyranny of kings. Liberty, not yet trammelled by the
prejudices of Roman law nor overpowered by the authority of despotic
centralization, made a noble effort in the north of Italy to unite municipal
independence with political order. There can, therefore, be no doubt that,
if the Emperor Manuel had possessed a mind capable of understanding the events
which were passing before his eyes, without allowing his judgment to be
obscured by traditions founded on social contingencies that no longer existed,
he might have reformed the administration and laws of his empire, and laid the
foundation of social improvements sufficiently extensive to have awakened the
Greeks from the civil and ecclesiastical torpor into which their minds had
fallen. By vigorous reforms, such as Leo III had adopted at the commencement
of the eighth century, Manuel could, in all probability, have restored vital
power to the Byzantine Empire, but he clung with conservative prejudices to a
political and ecclesiastical order of things from which the life had
departed. The consequence was that the crisis during which reform was
practicable passed away, and the empire putrefied into a mass of political
corruption.
Sect.IV
Reigns of Alexius II and
Andronicus I
A.D. 1180-1185
The latter years of Manuel’s life effaced the lessons of prudence
inculcated by his father. Following the guidance of his passions instead of his
judgment, he had selected subservient courtiers to act as his ministers of
state, so that, on his deathbed, it was not in his power to place his son under
the guardianship of an independent-minded counsellor like his father’s friend Axouchos. As soon as Manuel was dead, every member of the
imperial family, which was very numerous, aspired at the office of
prime-minister; the court was thrown into a state of revolution, and the administration
became a scene of anarchy. Unfortunately, no individual, who from his rank
could pretend to the regency during the minority of Alexius II, possessed that
moral rectitude of character which commands universal respect. Everyone knew
that his rivals were as worthless as himself. All history testifies the
importance of moral character in political contests; yet, strange to say,
politicians and statesmen appear rarely to have fully appreciated its practical
value.
Alexius was only thirteen years old at his father's death. His education
was from that moment utterly neglected. His mother, Maria of Antioch, in the
first paroxysms of her grief was so alarmed at her unprotected position, amidst
an unprincipled nobility, that she retired into a monastery, and took the name
of Xene. Alexius Comnenus, a grandson of the Emperor
John II, who held the rank of protosevastos, secured
to himself the office of prime-minister; and in order to strengthen his
influence he persuaded the empress to quit her retirement and appear again
at court, where her beauty, gaiety of heart, and sweetness of manner, gave her
considerable power over the young nobility. Her steady support of the protosevastos, whose arrogance rendered him extremely
unpopular, exposed Maria to many calumnies; and in spite of his age, personal
defects, and disgusting effeminacy, it was generally believed that a criminal
attachment induced her to maintain him in office. We must call to mind the
prevalence of calumny in Byzantine history, the proneness of courtiers to
employ calumny as an efficient weapon in their party contests, the readiness of
the Greeks to hate Maria for her Latin descent, and the universal disposition
of the people in a despotic government to speak evil of their superiors, before
we admit the corruption that reigned in the court of Constantinople as a
presumption of Maria’s immorality.
Though the protosevastos held the reins of
government, he was unable to repress the seditious movements of the
aristocracy: some nobles intrigued to drive him from his post; others
threatened to oppose him unless he silenced their opposition by bestowing on
them high rank and lucrative offices. The citizens of Constantinople, being
without a political organization that entitled them to declare their opinions
in public, were a mere mob, led away by every prejudice and rumour of the
moment. The lowest of the population, consisting of men collected from every
province of the empire, and every trading city of the East, were always eager
for sedition as a means of pillage. Such a society, vibrating between
servility and rebellion, and guided by personal ambition and individual
avarice, was utterly deaf to the voice of patriotism.
For about a year and a half the young emperor was allowed to amuse himself
with hunting and gambling, while the whole court was occupied with plots and
party intrigues. At last the Princess Maria, the emperor's sister, thought the
moment favourable for driving the protosevastos from
power by a popular sedition. But Alexius had taken care to secure the support
of the numerous corps of foreign mercenaries in the capital; and Maria was
compelled to retreat, with her young husband, the Caesar, and her armed
partisans, into the precincts of St Sophia’s. Many, however, rallied to her
standard, and a bloody battle was fought in the streets of Constantinople. The protosevastos feared to pursue the sister of his sovereign
to extremity; and the Patriarch effected a compromise between the hostile
parties, leaving matters as they were before the insurrection. This state of
things could not continue long, and a darker storm was now gathering. All the
discontented turned their eyes towards Andronicus, the adventurous and
unprincipled cousin of the Emperor Manuel, whose strange personal exploits gave
him a degree of fame he little deserved, but whose vices were now forgotten in
consequence of his long absence from court. He had passed the latter years of
Manuel's life as an exile in Paphlagonia; his reputation for courage and
ability was great; time was supposed to have moderated the violence of his
passions; and his hypocritical piety imposed on the superstitious Greeks, who
thought that the saints and holy images he adored could efface, even from his
conscience, the black stains of murder and incest. All ranks concurred in
soliciting his presence at Constantinople; and he soon approached the capital,
declaring that his object was to deliver the young emperor from the hands of
the evil counsellors who surrounded him. His march met with little opposition
on the part of the government; and the protosevastos
Alexius was easily driven from power, and condemned to lose his sight. The
Latins in Constantinople, who were attached to his interests through the
support given him by the Empress Maria of Antioch, were massacred by the Greek
populace with circumstances of the greatest cruelty; nor did Andronicus make
any effort to put a stop to these murders. The property of all the Latins was
pillaged, their houses destroyed; and men, women, children, and priests, torn from
the sanctuaries to which they had fled, were barbarously slain. Many of the
Franks, nevertheless, escaped to their ships in the port, and endeavoured to
repay themselves for the losses they had sustained by plundering the coasts of
the Propontis and the islands of Greece. This bloody tumult greatly widened the
breach between the Latins and the Greeks, and inflamed the western nations of
Europe with a thirst for revenge that soon filled the Aegean Sea with Frank
pirates. It was avenged twenty years after by the Latin conquest of
Constantinople.
It is needless to give a detailed account of the crimes of Andronicus; he
used his unlimited power as all prudent persons must have foreseen that he
would use it. The Princess Maria and her husband the Caesar were poisoned. The
Empress Maria of Antioch was condemned to death for what was termed treasonable
correspondence with her brother-in-law, Bela III, king of Hungary, and
strangled. Andronicus Koutostephanos, the best
general in the empire, was deprived of sight. John Vatatzes, who defeated the
Turks at the Maeander, died shortly after raising the standard of revolt. The
Patriarch Theodosius was removed from office, and Basilios Kamateros
placed at the head of the Greek church, on his promising to do everything that
Andronicus might desire. Andronicus then ordered himself to be proclaimed
emperor, and immediately took precedence of Alexius II, who was soon after
deposed, on the pretext that a single emperor was necessary in order to
re-establish order in the empire. The unfortunate youth, who was not yet
fifteen years old, was strangled with a bowstring in the prison to which he had
been committed; and when Andronicus examined the corpse in order to be assured
of his death, he kicked it carelessly, and exclaimed, “Thy father was a
villain, thy mother a prostitute, and thou a fool”.
The corrupted state of society had brought the Byzantine Empire to the
verge of ruin; Andronicus, who was no incorrect type of the higher classes in
the nation over which he reigned, accelerated its destruction. The nobility and
the higher clergy were the partners of his guilt, and often the agents of his
crimes; while the citizens of Constantinople were generally the delighted
spectators of his greatest cruelties.
Andronicus was the grandson of the Emperor Alexius I; Isaac, the younger
brother of the Emperor John II, was his father. It has been noticed that
Isaac’s rash and unsteady temper induced him to quit his brother’s court, and
reside for a time with the Sultan of Iconium. His children were more violent
and vicious than their father. The manner in which his eldest son John joined
the Turks, and abjured the Christian religion, has also been
recounted. The vanity of the Greeks, at a later period, sought consolation
for their actual sufferings by forging a tale concerning the marriage of
this Byzantine renegade with a daughter of the Seljouk
sultan of Iconium; and from the offspring of this imaginary alliance it was
pretended that the Ottoman dynasty was descended. Andronicus was Isaac’s second
son; his expressive countenance, handsome figure, and tall robust frame were
rendered doubly attractive by a singularly sweet and powerful voice, an
easy-flowing elocution, and a graceful manner. These advantages, joined to
daring courage and great skill in military exercises, made him for some time a
favourite with his cousin the Emperor Manuel. His unprincipled conduct at last
estranged them; and his life was subsequently marked by a series of the
strangest adventures. No wandering Crusader nor nomad Turk ever lived a wilder
or more romantic life than the princely Andronicus.
Early in the reign of Manuel he was taken prisoner by the Turks, as he had
wandered from the emperor’s escort on a hunting party while crossing the
Turkish territory in Phrygia. During the time he remained a captive at the
court of Sultan Massoud he cultivated the
acquaintance of the leading Turks, into whose society he was introduced by his
Mussulman brother; and he learned the Turkish language, which was often
useful to him in his future adventures. Manuel was accused of having neglected
to pay his ransom, from jealousy of his skill in military exercises; but after
his return, he saved his life by interposing his own arm to ward off a blow
aimed at his cousin’s head. Andronicus was twice entrusted by the Emperor
Manuel with the command of the army in Cilicia; on both occasions he was
shamefully defeated by the Armenian prince Thoros.
Subsequently he was appointed governor of Belgrade and Branisova,
the two principal Byzantine fortresses on the Hungarian frontier; and either
his negligence or treachery exposed the empire to serious danger. His public
conduct at last completely alienated the affection of Manuel.
Though addicted to pleasure, and leading a life of the most shameless profligacy,
Andronicus kept aloof from the rest of the court, and always assumed a marked
superiority. Though no one was more eager in the chase, he never mixed in the
noisy revels of the nobility, and showed himself an enemy to the pleasures of
the table. He was a sober and abstemious profligate: his dinner was generally a
single dish of roast meat; and after the fatigues of the longest day his supper
frequently consisted of a crust of bread and a goblet of wine. But he indulged
his two favourite passions, love and ambition, without respect for Divine or
human laws. No principle of duty, and no bond of gratitude, restrained him when
he thought power was within his grasp; and when inflamed by lust, he knew no
ties of morality or religion. His amours were often carried on in the circle of
his nearest relatives; and in the opinion of his countrymen, he, as well as
the Emperor Manuel, was stained with the crime of incest. Eudocia, the daughter
of Manuel’s elder brother Andronicus, was the paramour of his youth, while her
sister Theodora was the mistress of her uncle the emperor. Another Theodora,
also the emperor’s niece, being the daughter of his brother Isaac, became his
mistress at a later period, when she was the widow of Baldwin III, king of
Jerusalem. Both these ladies shared his company with his lawful wife, and
divided his affections with a crowd of actresses and dancing girls. The loves
of Eudocia and Andronicus excited more anger in her family than the incestuous
intercourse of her sister with the emperor; the rank of the sinner
hid the crime of the blacker dye. After vainly endeavouring to separate
the criminals, John, the brother of Eudocia, and Cantacuzenos,
her brother-in-law, resolved to avenge their family by assassinating
Andronicus. The court was encamped at Pelagonia in
palaces of canvass, like those which may be still seen when an Oriental
sovereign takes the field in state. As Andronicus was in the habit of visiting
his cousin at unseasonable hours, a band of armed men was stationed to murder
him as he quitted Eudocia. The lady’s spies warned her of the danger; and while
her female attendants were making a noise to bring in lights, Andronicus cut a
small passage with his sword in the back of the tent, and, creeping between the
ropes and pegs, gained the canvass wall that enclosed Eudocia’s
tents. This he also cut through, and crept away unobserved.
The political conduct of Andronicus, on several occasions, excited just
suspicions. He was accused of holding treasonable intercourse with the King of
Jerusalem, with the Sultan of Iconium, and with the King of Hungary; and there
can be little doubt that he was only prevented from making an attempt to
dethrone Manuel, by the superior political ability and the systematic energy of
the emperor. Andronicus was so convinced of Manuel’s personal superiority that
he appears to have designed assassinating him. At an imperial hunting-party he
presented himself, uninvited, with the numerous train of armed followers which
the great nobles of the Byzantine Empire maintained in their palaces; the
emperor’s escort was too strong for any attempt at open violence; but during
the night Andronicus was found disguised in an Italian dress, armed with a
dagger, lurking near the tent of Manuel. His suspicious behaviour, scandalous
conduct, and bitterly satirical expressions, gave his enemies an opportunity of
bringing so many charges against him that the emperor at length committed him
to prison.
Andronicus passed nine years of his life in
confinement; his escapes from imprisonment and his captures were as singular as
his crimes, and mark the restless activity of his mind, his self-possession,
and his rashness. During his first imprisonment, chance led him to discover a
secret recess in the tower where he was confined. After laying up a store of
provisions, he withdrew into this retreat, and every search was made for him in
vain. At last his wife was arrested as privy to his escape, and confined in the
tower from which it was supposed he had escaped. On retiring into her bedchamber,
the spectre of her husband made its appearance. He soon informed her how
matters stood, and made arrangements with her for continuing his concealment,
and obtaining a supply of provisions. The two prisoners lived most
affectionately together, and their son John was the fruit of this period of
domestic felicity. The guards were careless in watching the princess, whom they
believed was their only prisoner, so that Andronicus at last found means of
escaping. He was, however, soon recognised, arrested at Melangia
in Bithynia, and again committed to prison, where he was loaded with chains. He
was fortunate enough to escape a second time, by procuring an impression of the
keys of his dungeon in wax. His son Manuel contrived to get new keys made from
these models, and to convey them to his father, with a coil of ropes, in an
amphora of wine. On a dark and rainy night Andronicus opened his prison
doors unobserved, and reached the garden of the imperial palace, from the outer
walls of which he descended at the place where John Zimiskes had mounted to
murder Nicephorus; there he found a boat waiting to receive him. He
reached Anchialus in safety, and Pupakes, whose
gallant conduct at the siege of Corfu has been already
mentioned, owing him gratitude for some personal obligations,
furnished him with the means of continuing his flight. Andronicus was again
tantalized with the fear of returning to a worse captivity than that from which
he had escaped. He was recognised by a party of Vallachians,
who resolved to deliver him up to the emperor. From their hands he escaped by
stratagem. Counterfeiting a violent diarrhoea and excessive weakness, he
persuaded his guards to make frequent halts; and when evening approached, and
he was allowed to retire for a short distance from the road, he fixed his cloak
and hat on the stick with which he had apparently supported himself with
difficulty, and plunged into a neighbouring forest, from whence he ultimately
reached the Russian principality of Halicz or
Galicia.
The share Pupakes took in aiding the flight of
his benefactor was discovered, and Manuel, forgetting the former services of
the valiant Turk, ordered him to be publicly scourged, and led through the
streets of Constantinople with a rope round his neck, preceded by a crier, who proclaimed
at intervals, “This man is disgraced and punished for having aided the enemies
of the emperor”. To which Pupakes himself always
added, “There is no dishonour in the punishment, for it was incurred in
assisting a benefactor instead of betraying him”. After this indignity Pupakes quitted the empire, and returned to the possessions
of his uncle, who was an emir in the Seljouk Empire
of Iconium, where Manuel met him once again charged with Andronicus, who could
neither command his temper nor restrain his tongue in prosperity, was
good-humoured and fair-spoken in adversity. At the court of Yaroslaf
the prince of Galicia he became a great favourite, and was soon the constant
companion of the prince. They hunted the urus together, and formed plans for invading
the Byzantine Empire. Manuel at last considered that there was so much danger
to be apprehended from the continuance of his cousin’s residence in Galicia,
that he granted him a full pardon, and induced him to return to Constantinople.
It was after this flight that Andronicus was entrusted with the chief
command in Cilicia for the second time. His conduct was that of a madman, and
he marched to attack the Armenian prince Thoros with
his army drawn up in a new and ill-judged manner. The experienced Armenian took
immediate advantage of his folly, and broke his troops in many places,
scattering the Byzantine army in utter confusion. Nicetas
pretends that when Andronicus saw the defeat of his army, he conceived the hope
of redeeming his blunders by an act of daring valour. He charged Thoros with his lance, though he was surrounded by a
numerous staff, and the Armenian had barely time to interpose his shield
between his breast and his enemy’s lance when he was hurled from his horse.
Andronicus, abandoning his lance, which he believed was quivering in the heart
of Thoros instead of being only fixed in his shield,
burst through the Armenian guards, striking every man who encountered him to
the ground with his mace. But before he could rally his own fugitive battalions,
Thoros, who had risen from the ground unhurt, resumed
the direction of the pursuit, prevented the scattered divisions of the
Byzantine army from attempting a junction, and compelled Andronicus to seek
safety in precipitate flight.
After this disgraceful defeat, it is probable that Andronicus was
immediately superseded; but as both his liberty and his eyesight were in danger
had he returned to Constantinople, he collected all the money he was able, and,
quitting Cilicia with a splendid suite before the arrival of his successor, he
presented himself at the court of Reynold of Antioch. Here he soon fell in love
with the Princess Philippa, the sister of the Empress Maria, and inspired her
with a passion so violent that she set at naught the counsels of her family,
and consented to a marriage with her debauched lover. It is not easy to say how
long Andronicus remained at Antioch, but he became at last alarmed lest he
should be arrested by order of the Emperor Manuel in that vassal principality,
and he fled to Jerusalem, where his passions soon involved him in new
difficulties. At Jerusalem he met Theodora, the daughter of his cousin Isaac,
whom he had not seen since her childhood. She was now the widow of Baldwin III
of Jerusalem, and enjoyed the admiration and esteem of all the Frank nobles on
account of her beauty, talents, and prudence. Andronicus became deeply
enamoured with his fair cousin, and she returned his passion with equal
violence. The state of society among the Latin Christians in Jerusalem was as
debauched as at the court of Constantinople, so that the lovers carried on
their amours with little affectation of secrecy. But when Manuel heard of this
new insult to his brother’s family, he sent messages to the Syrian barons,
offering great rewards to anyone who should seize Andronicus and put out his
eyes; at the same time he requested Amaury, king of Jerusalem, with whom he had
a close alliance, to arrest the fugitive. Theodora obtained information of
these communications in time to warn Andronicus of his danger, and as there was
no longer any hope of safety among the Christians, she consented to fly with
him to the Turks. After visiting Damascus, and wandering for some time in
Mesopotamia and Iberia, they settled at Koloneia,
in Chaldea, where Andronicus, assembling a band of Turkish mercenaries, of
renegades and refugees, formed a camp for making incursions into the empire,
and carrying off Christians to sell as slaves. From this brigand life he
derived a considerable revenue, and it is strange to find that the wretch who
had maintained himself for years as a slave-dealer was subsequently invited to
ascend the throne of Constantinople. In this infamous exile Theodora bore
him two sons. The Greek church, it is true, excommunicated him for living
with his cousin’s daughter, and making slaves of its flock; but Andronicus, who
despised Divine laws, had no fear of ecclesiastical censures, from which either
the possession of political power or the payment of a large sum of money could
at any time release him.
The evils he inflicted on the Byzantine territory were so great, that
Manuel repeatedly sent troops with orders to pursue him incessantly and capture
his strongholds; but these operations were attended with little result until
Nicephorus Paleologos, the governor of Trebizond, succeeded in capturing the
fortress in which Theodora had sought safety. Her captivity induced Andronicus
to negotiate his own pardon, and he received permission to present himself to
the emperor. As he was now seriously alarmed for his future safety, he adopted
every artifice his crafty mind suggested for flattering the vanity of Manuel.
At a public audience, as soon as he entered the hall of reception, he fell on
his knees, and drew from under his clothes a heavy iron chain, made fast to a
collar round his neck; then, holding up his hands, he implored pardon from the
emperor, weeping, protesting his repentance, and quoting passages from
Scripture. Though a bitter sneerer, he was a profound hypocrite and an
admirable actor; so that, in spite of his previous conduct, he more than once
in his life persuaded everyone who beheld him that he had become an altered
man. The Emperor Manuel, on seeing his cousin’s abasement, requested him to
stand, and assured him of full pardon; but Andronicus continued his
hypocritical wailings until he induced one of the courtiers to drag him by the
chain to the emperor’s footstool. Some years later, when Andronicus was dragged
through the streets of Constantinople, to perish in a frightful manner, men remembered
that Isaac Angelos, his successor, had been the
courtier who dragged him to Manuel’s feet. After receiving his pardon,
Andronicus was ordered to reside at Oenaion in
Pontus.
From this place of exile he had watched the progress of the intrigues in the
Byzantine court after Manuel’s death, and he easily found partisans among the
dissatisfied courtiers, who demanded his presence in the capital. His agents,
however, were also employed in gaining the people; for wicked and worthless as
Andronicus was, he perceived that the unprincipled behaviour of the court had
excited a deep-rooted aversion to the whole family of Comnenos,
and that, unless the people of the capital should declare boldly in his favour,
the mercenary troops of the government might defeat his attacks. He therefore
affected to pay the greatest attention to the last oath he had publicly taken
in the Byzantine court, in which he had promised never to conceal from the
emperor anything contrary to the interests of the empire, but as soon as such a
thing might come to his knowledge to oppose it with all his power. This oath
was now made a pretext for writing to the young emperor, and censuring the
measures of the protosevastos; and the letters were
of course composed rather with reference to the effect they were likely to
produce on the public than on the court. His remonstrances were of course
useless, so he resolved to save the empire by force. The treachery of
Andronicus Angelos, the general of the imperial army,
and of Andronicus Koutostephanos, the grand admiral,
rendered him master of Constantinople.
Prosperity soon revived all the evil passions which age was supposed to
have eradicated from the heart of Andronicus. The innate cruelty of his
disposition, and the unforgiving malice of his depraved feelings, soon revealed
themselves in his treatment of the most influential nobles. The aristocracy saw
its leaders put to death on account of the influence they possessed, or merely
to confiscate their wealth; while the people, whose burdens Andronicus
lightened, and whose vengeance he gratified, loudly applauded his conduct. Angelos and Koutostephanos now
saw their error, and conspired to drive Andronicus from the post of
prime-minister, to which their treachery had raised him. The plot was discovered,
and the brave Koutostephanos was arrested with his
four sons, and other conspirators, all of whom were deprived of sight. The
cowardly Angelos and his sons escaped. From that time
the servility of the Byzantine nobles became greater than ever, and it only
increased the contempt of Andronicus for their persons, while, by exciting his
distrust, it increased his cruelty. John Cantacuzenos,
in order to ingratiate himself with the tyrannical regent, ill-treated one of
the eunuchs of the young emperor, who had attempted to warn his sovereign of
the dangerous position of public affairs, and to persuade the
prince to devote some attention to serious business, instead of publicly
trifling away his time in idle, expensive, and vicious amusements, which were
sure to render him unpopular. Cantacuzenos struck the
eunuch on the face in the presence of Andronicus; but the wily old villain,
suspecting that this enthusiastic meanness covered evil intentions, ordered the
eyes of Cantacuzenos to be put out on hearing that he
held some slight communication with his brother-in-law Constantine Angelos, who was in confinement on a charge of treason.
As soon as Andronicus had put to death all those who he thought possessed
the power of resisting his schemes, and accumulated as much wealth in the
public treasury as would enable him to diminish the public burdens, he ascended
the throne, and put the young Alexius to death. He now looked forward to the
tranquil enjoyment of power, and indulged his cruelty by putting to death the wealthiest
members of the aristocracy. Yet so perverted was his character, that he could
not refrain from insulting the universal feelings of mankind by outrages which
no class could pardon. The Patriarch Theodosios was
compelled to quit his office, because he refused to sanction the marriage of
Alexius and Irene, the incestuous offspring of himself and Manuel with the two Theodoras; but the Greek church was at this time in the
same demoralized condition as the Byzantine court, and the marriage ceremony
was performed by the Archbishop or Patriarch of Bulgaria.
The nobility were not inclined to submit tamely to be decimated; some were
eager to obtain power, some were burning to revenge their relations, and some,
perhaps, were impelled by the duty of avenging the murder of their lawful
prince. Various nobles took up arms at Nicaea, Prusa,
and Lopadion before the murder of the young Alexius;
but for a time, fortune smiled on the enterprises of the tyrant, and all these
rebels were subdued and punished with unheard-of cruelty: numbers were hanged
on the largest trees, and few were dismissed without losing a hand or a foot;
even the Bishop of Prusa was deprived of his sight.
Andronicus Lapardas, one of the generals of the army
on the frontiers of Hungary who attempted to avenge the death of Alexius II,
was also taken prisoner and deprived of sight.
Andronicus appears to have formed some general plan of improving the civil
administration, and reforming the judicial system, by which he expected to
render himself popular, and secure the support of the great body of the
population. He reduced the expenditure of the court; but in rendering it less
brilliant, he did not render it less vicious. He was too old to find pleasure
in tournaments and fêtes. He had learned moderation in exile, and his habits of
self-indulgence led him to live in a retired manner, even after he obtained the
throne. This mode of life, however, made him neglect the amusements of the
populace of Constantinople; and he soon became unpopular with the mob, who
accused him of avarice in plundering the nobles for his own solitary
gratification; while, in their opinion, it was one of the principal duties of
the emperor to preside at the games of the hippodrome, and to plan a succession
of fêtes for the public gratification. Old age had rendered Andronicus
inactive, and his intense selfishness and domineering insolence of disposition
persuaded him that all mankind would bend to his opinions. His first care, as
emperor, was to prepare for lightening the public burdens by making extensive
fiscal reforms. He abolished the practice of selling official charges, a
measure which enabled him to suppress many useless offices. He selected able
and experienced lawyers to act as judges, on whom he conferred ample salaries
from the public treasury, prohibiting them, at the same time, under the
severest penalties, from extorting money from the people. Indeed, it is
possible that, if he had been able to control the malicious violence of his
temper, and if his reign had been prolonged, the cultivators of the soil
throughout the empire might have derived some permanent advantage from his
government.
(Nicetas gives Andronicus great praise for his
exertions to abolish the practice of plundering shipwrecked vessels which
prevailed among the Greeks, and which preceding emperors had vainly endeavoured
to suppress. The Emperor Manuel I, as well as his successors, had inserted a
clause in the commercial treaties with the Italian republics to put an end to
this barbarous custom. Andronicus himself would have been astonished at the
system of salvage exacted by our law in favour of the British navy)
But his personal conduct inflamed the hatred of every class at
Constantinople, where he was very soon regarded as a monster, in whose death
all would rejoice. The seclusion in which he lived concealed from him the
change that had taken place in the popular mind, and he continued to pursue his
old course of cruelty, living shut up in his palace. His strange behaviour kept
the attention of the capital fixed on his actions. The memory of the murdered
Alexius seemed to haunt every man’s mind but his own. To calm the superstitious
scruples of his instruments, he induced the Greek clergy to grant absolution to
himself and his partisans for having violated their oaths of allegiance to
Alexius II, thus allowing the church to assume the power of pardoning treason
and murder. Heretics might well say that the Greek Church was now more corrupt
and degraded than the imperial government; for the emperor committed his crimes
to gain some definite object, but the clergy gratuitously assailed the
principles of morality and religion. As an additional insult to the feelings of
mankind, Andronicus, who had reached the age of seventy, though he still
retained the appearance of a man of middle age, thought fit to marry Agnes of
France, the child-widow of his murdered sovereign. The young empress was only
eleven years old when she was led to the imperial palace by the hoary sinner,
and placed among a crowd of actresses and dancing girls to complete her
education.
REBELLION OF CYPRUS, A.D.
1184.
The vicious condition of every class of society had now undermined the
political fabric of the empire. Few acknowledged the restraints of duty and
religion, and the few who did so retired from public life. The successful
rebellion of a man, almost as depraved, and far less able than Andronicus,
revealed the facility with which the empire might be dismembered. Isaac, whose
father’s name is unknown, but who was the nephew of Theodora, queen of
Jerusalem, and who adopted the name of Comnenus, had been appointed governor of
Tarsus in the reign of Manuel; and having been taken prisoner by the Armenians
of Cilicia, was delivered from captivity by Andronicus, who authorized him to
draw sixty thousand byzants from the revenues of Cyprus in order to pay his
ransom. Reuben, the Prince of Armenian Cilicia, had made over his captive to
Bohemund III, prince of Antioch, who, on receiving payment of half the ransom,
allowed Isaac to visit Cyprus in order to expedite the collection of the
remainder. Isaac, on reaching the island, availed himself of the authority he
had received from Andronicus to dispose of the revenue, to act as governor,
and, as soon as he could collect together a body of troops, he proclaimed
himself emperor, as the only means of retaining his power. He equalled the
cruelty of Andronicus in his public administration. This rebellion filled
the heart of the tyrant with fear and rage.
A prediction declared that a man, whose name commenced with the letter I,
was destined to deprive him of his crown and his life; and this prediction now
alarmed him, for he had no fleet which he could immediately dispatch with a
force sufficient to suppress the rebellion. The island of Cyprus was completely
separated from the Byzantine Empire. It was shortly after conquered by Richard,
king of England, and its Greek inhabitants have ever since been subjected to
foreign domination.
Constantine Makrodukas and Andronikos
Dukas, two of the worst agents of the emperor’s
cruelty, had become sureties for the good conduct of Isaac when Andronicus
granted him the money necessary to pay his ransom. Undeterred by any feelings
of political prudence, the tyrant determined to gratify his revenge by a public
exhibition of his rage. On Ascension Day it was usual for the whole court to
pay their respects to the sovereign. Andronicus was residing at the palace of Philopation, and thither the two sureties of the rebel
Isaac repaired as suppliants, waiting in the inner court, lifting up their
hands as petitioners, and seeking to be judged by a tribunal in order to prove
their innocence. Even the tyrant’s most intimate friends thought the culprits
would escape severe punishment. One man alone was entrusted with the order for
their execution, and instructed how it was to be carried into effect. Stephen Aghiochristophorites, the agent of many murders, entered
the assembly, and, taking up a large stone, struck Makrodukas
with it, calling, at the same time, to all the nobles present who honoured the
emperor to take stones from a pile placed purposely in the court of the palace,
and put the enemies of their sovereign to death. The imperial guards stood by
to watch their behaviour, so that none dared to appear dilatory. In this
strange and barbarous manner the sureties of the rebel emperor of Cyprus were
murdered by the servile nobles of Constantinople. Worthless as the Byzantine
nobility had become, they could not conceal their indignation at this insult,
and Alexius, the incestuous offspring of Manuel, whom Andronicus had married to
his own illegitimate child Irene, conceived the monstrous idea of mounting the
throne. His plot was discovered—his fellow-conspirators were put to death in
the cruellest manner—his secretary was burned alive in the hippodrome—his own
eyes were put out—and Irene was banished from her father’s presence for weeping
over the misfortune of her husband.
The mad career of Andronicus was now drawing to an end. Alexius Comnenos, one of the grand-nephews of Manuel, had escaped
to the court of William II, king of Sicily, where his account of the state of
the Byzantine empire agreed so well with the reports which were daily brought
by recent fugitives, that the Sicilian monarch resolved to support Alexius’
pretensions to the throne, in the hope of making some valuable conquests for
himself A Sicilian fleet, under the command of Tancred, the cousin and successor
of William II, and the Admiral Margaritone, with an
army commanded by the Counts Richard d'Acerra and Aldoin, entered the Adriatic, and took Dyrrachium by
assault, after a siege of a few days. The troops marched thence by land to
attack Thessalonica, while the fleet circumnavigated the Peloponnesus.
Andronicus seemed to feel little alarm when he heard of this attempt to drive
him from the throne; he thought that the danger could not be great, as his
rival’s name did not begin with I. His second son, John, who had been invested
with the imperial title, was sent to assemble an army to relieve Thessalonica;
and David Comnenos, who commanded in the place, was
ordered to defend it to the last. The incapacity of David, the disorder that
reigned in the garrison, and the discontent of the inhabitants, enabled the
Norman troops to take Thessalonica on the 15th of August 1185, after a siege of
ten days.
The cruelties committed by the Sicilians after they gained possession of
Thessalonica, roused the indignation of the Byzantine population, and did more
to arrest their further progress than the troops of Andronicus. The Latins and
Greeks now regarded one another as heretics as well as political enemies; and
their hostilities were marked by horrors of which we may estimate the fearful
violence by reflecting on the cruelty of the government and populace of
Constantinople, and remembering that it affords the best type of the feelings
of society in the East. Nicetas furnishes us with a
dreadful picture of the proceedings of the Silician
army. Nineteen years after, he was himself a spectator of similar scenes acted
by a Latin army in Constantinople. Many of the inhabitants of Thessalonica were
expelled from their houses; people of rank were tortured to compel them to
deliver up the treasures they were supposed to have concealed; some were hung
up by the feet and suffocated by burning straw beneath them. Insult was added
to cruelty: the altars in the Greek churches were denied; the religious
ceremonies of the Greeks were ridiculed; and when the priests chanted their
service in the nasal melody prevalent in the East, the Norman soldiers howled
out a chorus in imitation of beaten hounds. At last, however, Eustathius, the celebrated Archbishop of Thessalonica, by
his prudent conduct succeeded in conciliating the Sicilian generals, and
inducing them to restrain the license of their troops, which they had too long
tolerated.
The Sicilian army at last quitted Thessalonica to march to Constantinople;
but all ranks were so eager for plunder that its progress was slow. Andronicus
made some dispositions for the defence of his capital; and it was reported that
he proposed to put every person to death who was imprisoned on a charge of
treason. The report filled the population of Constantinople with alarm, for
almost every family of any standing had one of its members in prison; the
nobles were rendered desperate by a sense of danger—the people were indignant
at the dismemberment of the empire, and at the conquests of the Latins. The
tyrant, having given his orders to the agents of his cruelty, considered that
the tranquillity of the capital was assured, and retired to enjoy himself with
a crowd of parasites and courtesans at the palace of Meludion,
on the shores of the Bosphorus.
INSURRECTION IN CONSTANTINOPLE
The storm that drove him from the throne, and terminated his existence,
burst suddenly on his head from a quarter whence it was least expected. Aghiochristophorites deemed it necessary to arrest Isaac Angelos, though the emperor had such a contempt for his
incapacity and cowardice that he refused to sign an order for his condemnation.
The minister was therefore obliged to make the arrest in person, on his own
responsibility. When Isaac heard that the terrible Aghiochristophorites,
who was universally known to be the agent of the emperor’s greatest cruelties,
was in the court of his palace, his very cowardice rendered him courageous, for
he derived fury from despair. Instead of submitting tamely, he mounted his
horse, and, rushing at Aghiochristophorites with his
drawn sword, slew him on the spot. But he had neither the ability nor the
courage to take any farther measures for his defence, and he sought an asylum
in St Sophia’s. The absence of the emperor and the death of the minister
allowed Isaac Angelos to remain unmolested. His
friends ventured to join him; and the people, hearing that Aghiochristophorites
was slain, rose in rebellion. The prisons were broken open, armed bands were
formed, and Isaac was proclaimed emperor. All the nobility now assembled in the
church of St Sophia, and the crown of Constantine, which stood on the high
altar, was taken down in order to perform the ceremony of coronation; but the
timidity of Isaac was so great that he sought to decline the dangerous honour.
His uncle, John Dukas, stepped forward and offered
his bald head to receive the crown his nephew feared to accept; but the people,
thinking that he bore some resemblance to Andronicus, shouted loudly, “We will
have no more old men to rule us, and no man with a forked beard shall be
emperor”. Isaac was therefore compelled to receive the crown. It is remarkable
that the coins of Andronicus distinctly portray the forked beard which excited
the antipathy of the populace.
Andronicus hastened to Constantinople as soon as he was informed of the
insurrection, and attempted to defend himself in the great palace; but his
guards refused to attack the people, even though he himself mounted one of the
towers and shot a few arrows against the crowd. The assailants, meeting with no
opposition, burst open the gate Karea; and
Andronicus, throwing off the imperial robes, and disguising himself in a
pointed Russian bonnet, embarked in the galley which had brought him from the
palace of Meludion, accompanied by his young empress
Agnes of France, a favourite concubine named Maraptika,
remarkable for her musical skill, and a few personal attendants. His object was
to escape into Russia, but contrary winds kept him on the Bithynian coast, and
he was captured by the agents of Isaac, brought back to Constantinople, and
imprisoned in the tower of Anemas, with a heavy chain
round his neck, and irons on his limbs.
We have not ventured to describe the torments Andronicus had often
inflicted on his victims when he made a public display of his worst acts of
cruelty, but the people now showed that they had been apt scholars. Isaac
allowed the old emperor to be dragged by the chain from his prison, to be
conducted through the streets of the capital, undergoing every insult, and then
to be tortured in the most inhuman manner. The populace, headed by the
relations of those whom he had put to death, among whom the women were
conspicuous, beat the old man in the cruellest way, tore his hair from his head
and his beard from his face. The Emperor Isaac insulted him when he was brought
into his presence, and ordered his right hand to be cut off and his right eye
to be put out. After this treatment he was thrust back into prison, where he
remained more than a day without food or attendance. At last he was led out,
and abandoned to the people for execution, who put out his remaining eye, and
conducted him to the place where he was to suffer, mounted on a lean camel.
Crowds followed throwing stones at him, beating him with long poles, and
pricking him with spears. Hot water was thrown from the windows on his head,
and he was compelled for hours to suffer tortures which nature recoils from
recording. At last he was taken to the hippodrome, and hung up by the feet
between two columns, near a group of ancient sculpture representing a she-wolf
and a hyaena, where his sufferings were terminated by two Latin soldiers, who
plunged their swords into his heart. Andronicus had borne all his torments with
the greatest fortitude, exclaiming only at intervals, “Lord have mercy upon me,
and bruise not a broken reed”.
(The reign of Andronicus lasted only a year, from September 1184 to
September 1185; and his administration as guardian of Alexius II commenced
about a year earlier. Nicetas gives a minute account
of this period, and he is our only authority of any value. He records many
curious anecdotes concerning Andronicus, which show that he was a man of sense
when not governed by his passions. One anecdote is worth recording, as it
relates to the historian John Cinnamus, who has so
often been our guide in the preceding pages. Andronicus overheard the Bishop of
New Patras (Hypate) and John Cinnamus
disputing concerning the words of Christ, “My Father is greater than I”,—and
though he was well reading Greek theology, his anger was so much excited by the
sophistical distinctions and quibbles of the
ecclesiastical disputants, that he threatened to throw the divine and the
historian into the river Rhyndacus, which was flowing
near, unless they ceased their cavils concerning the Divine words, which he
deemed sufficiently explicit).
CHAPTER III
THE FALL OF THE BYZANTINE
EMIRE
Sect. I
The Reign of Isaac II (Angelos), A.D. 1185-1195.
The Byzantine Empire was now hurrying rapidly to its end, and little is
left to record except the progress of its dismemberment and destruction. The
despotic power of the emperors was so firmly established, that every executive
act emanated directly from the imperial cabinet. But, in perfecting this system
of centralization, every tie of interest which had once attached the
provincials to the imperial authority had been broken. The adhesion of the
distant countries and various nations which composed the empire was destroyed;
while, at the same time, the vital energy of the Greek population, which had
grown to be the dominant race, was weakened by the immorality which, under the
house of Comnenus, had spread through every rank of society. The defensive
powers of the empire were consequently rapidly diminishing. The lavish
expenditure of the imperial court impelled the government to carry its fiscal
exactions so far, that the whole annual profits of the people’s industry were
absorbed by taxation, and only the inferior classes of the cultivators of the
soil and the day-labourers were able to retain the scanty surplus of wealth
necessary to perpetuate their existence. Indeed, it is evident that
encroachments were constantly made on the vested capital accumulated in past
ages; and the funds appropriated in preceding times to uphold the most indispensable
adjuncts of civilization were either annihilated or diverted from their
destination. Ports, bridges, roads, aqueducts, and fortifications were seen
falling to ruin in every province. Court spectacles and ecclesiastical
ceremonies at the capital absorbed the funds which had been accumulated in
distant municipalities for local improvements, hospitals, and schools.
Everything that could inspire the people with zeal to defend their national
independence had disappeared, or was rapidly disappearing, to aid in increasing
the intensity of ecclesiastical bigotry.
Political despotism, national demoralization, ecclesiastical corruption,
fiscal oppression, and habitual misgovernment, must therefore be considered
responsible for the anarchical and disorderly state of Constantinople at the
accession of Isaac Angelos; and the circumstance that
a man so incapable and worthless was raised to the throne by the popular voice,
fully testifies the degradation of the inhabitants of the capital.
After the people forced their way into the great palace, and established
Isaac there as emperor, they remained for several days in possession of the
greater part of the buildings which were enclosed within the circuit of its
fortified walls. The residence of the emperors of the East was plundered like a
sacked city; the furniture was carried away; the chapel was robbed of its
plate, ornaments, images, and relics; the casket containing the letters said to
have been written by our Saviour to Abgarus, king of
Edessa, was stolen.
The private treasury of the emperor was broken into, and eighty-six
thousand byzants in gold coin, thirty centners in silver coin,
and two hundred of copper, were carried off, besides a considerable quantity of
bullion. The new emperor did not venture to arrest the devastation going on
before his eyes while his rival was still living. He removed to the palace of Blachern before Andronicus was taken; and it was only after
the populace was gratified with the tyrant’s death, and their rapacity
exhausted with plundering the residences of his partisans, that Isaac attempted
to re-establish order.
The family of Comnenus had been distinguished for talent and courage. Isaac
I, Alexius I, John II, and Manuel, were all men of great natural ability. The
family of Angelos affords a strong contrast. The
founder of the house was Constantine Angelos, a noble
of Philadelphia, who married Theodora, the youngest daughter of Alexius I. In
consequence of his incapacity the Byzantine fleet was defeated by the Sicilians
in 1152. His son Andronicus was entrusted by Manuel with a high command in Asia
Minor after the disastrous battle of Myriokephalon,
and he conducted himself with so much cowardice during the campaign of 1178
that the emperor threatened to send him in procession through the streets of
Constantinople clad in a female dress. The Emperors Isaac II and Alexius III
were the children of this cowardly general.
Isaac Angelos may, nevertheless, be considered as
a fair specimen of the Byzantine nobility in his age; and his government may be
taken as a correct type of the society he ruled. A wise sovereign is as
rarely found in a corrupt people as a virtuous population is seen
groaning for any great length of time under a native tyrant. The vices of Isaac
II were certainly those of his subjects; he was weak and presumptuous, cowardly
and insolent, mean and rapacious, superstitious and vicious. The wonder is, not
that his administration accelerated the ruin of the empire, but that the
inhabitants of so many provinces submitted tamely to his government. No
preceding emperor had paid less attention to public business; he seemed to
consider the throne merely as a means of gratifying his passion for pompous
dresses and unbounded luxury. The court was filled with an innumerable train of
pages, mistresses, clowns, musicians, and comedians. The emperor made himself
contemptible by strutting about publicly in gorgeous robes like a peacock; and
hateful, by sharing the bribes which his courtiers and ministers openly
exacted. The Emperor Isaac II had also a taste for building. New apartments
were added to the old palaces, and new villas were constructed. Churches were
pulled down, not only to rebuild others, but even to strengthen the palace of Blachern with their materials; and new hospitals were
erected. The rapacity of Isaac was so great that it overcame his superstition.
When he was besieged in Constantinople by Branas, he
borrowed large sums of money from the churches, placing the imperial plate and
jewels in deposit as security. But as soon as he was delivered from danger he
sent for the plate, which the clergy were compelled to restore, and never
repaid the money. Yet no emperor ever did more for ornamenting churches or for
filling the public squares and street-corners with gilded pictures of the Virgin
than Isaac. When reproached with his inconsistency, he replied that all things
were permitted to the emperor, who represented the Divine Power; and to
authorize his appropriation of church property to his own use, he quoted the
example of Constantine the Great, who converted one of the nails of the holy
cross into a bit for his charger, and put another in the front of his helmet.
Authorized by this example, he plundered the richest churches in the provinces
of their paintings and mosaics; and among these he carried off from Monemvasia
a celebrated representation of our Saviour led out to be crucified, which was
considered one of the finest works of art embodying Christ’s sufferings. His
exactions and injustice might possibly have affected only some particular
classes of society; but he rendered himself universally unpopular by
adulterating the imperial coinage.
The reign of Isaac opened with victory over the Sicilian invaders. After
the conquest of Thessalonica they had divided their forces; and while the
troops were wasting their time in pillaging the villages of Thrace, the fleet
under the command of Tancred entered the Propontis and advanced within sight of
Constantinople. Weak as Isaac was, he saw that the empire was exposed to
serious danger from the operations of the Sicilians; and he exerted himself to
furnish the Byzantine army with the means of attacking the enemy. To prove the
interest he took in the welfare of the troops, he dispatched a sum of four
thousand pounds’ weight of gold to the military chest, in order to
discharge arrears and furnish a donative. The first successes of the
Sicilians had inspired their generals with unbounded presumption, and they
viewed with contempt the assembly of a Byzantine army in their vicinity. Alexis
Branas, who was an experienced officer, availed
himself of their carelessness to drive in their advanced guards, and defeat one
division of their army which had reached Mosynopolis.
The remaining Sicilians concentrated their forces at Amphipolis, where another
battle was fought on the 7th November 1185, at a place called Demerize, in which the Byzantine army was again victorious.
This victory decided the fate of the expedition. The generals of the land
forces, Counts Aldoin and Richard d'Acerra,
were both made prisoners; and the fugitives who gained Thessalonica immediately
embarked and put to sea, without any attempt to defend the place. As soon as
Tancred heard of these disasters he abandoned the Propontis, and, collecting
the shattered remains of the expedition, returned to Sicily. Dyrrachium was the
only conquest retained; but King William II, considering the expense of
guarding that fortress incommensurate with its political importance to Sicily,
soon after ordered his garrison to abandon it. About four thousand Sicilian
prisoners were sent by Branas to Constantinople.
These unfortunate men were treated with the greatest cruelty by the worthless
emperor, who ordered them to be thrown into dungeons, where they were left
destitute of every succor, so that they owed the
preservation of their lives to private charity. Isaac ought now to have
directed all his attention, and devoted the whole force of the empire, to repel
the incursions of the Turks, who were annually extending their ravages farther
into the Asiatic provinces.
Kilidy-Arslan II, though more than seventy years of age, took advantage of the
disorders that attended the death of Andronicus to send the Emir Sami into the
Thrakesian theme, where he laid waste the district of Celbiane
and the plain of the Caister, from whence he carried off an immense booty in
slaves and cattle, leaving whole villages desolate. The emperor, instead of
forming garrisons on the frontier, and establishing squadrons of light cavalry
to protect the exposed districts by vigorous opposition, considered that he
should be able to retain more money for his private pleasures by paying an
annual tribute to the sultan, and distributing presents among the chiefs of the
nomadic hordes. The reign of Isaac II is filled with a series of revolts, caused
by his incapable administration and financial rapacity. The most important of
these was the great rebellion of the Vallachian and
Bulgarian population which occupied the country between Mount Haemus and the
Danube. The immense population of this extensive country now separated itself
finally from the government of the Eastern Empire, and its political destinies
ceased to be united with those of the Greeks. A new European monarchy, called
the Vallachian, or second Bulgarian kingdom, was
formed, which for some time acted an important part in the affairs of the
Byzantine Empire, and contributed powerfully to the depression of the Greek
race. The sudden importance assumed by the Vallachian
population in tins revolution, and the great extent of country then occupied by
a people who had previously acted no prominent part in the political events of
the East, render it necessary to give some account of their previous history.
Four different countries are spoken of under the name of Vallachia
by the Byzantine writers: Great Vallachia, which was
the country round the plain of Thessaly, particularly the southern and
south-western part; White Vallachia, or the modern
Bulgaria, which formed the Vallacho-Bulgarian kingdom
that revolted from Isaac II; Black Vallachia, Mavrovallachia, or Kara-bogdon,
which is Moldavia; and Hungarovallachia, or the Vallachia of the present day, comprising a part of
Transylvania.
There is no subject connected with the decline and fall of the Roman
Empire, both in the East and West, of greater importance for tracing accurately
the political and social progress of the inhabitants of Europe, than the
history of the diminution, extinction, and modification of the population in
the various nations subjected to the Roman domination. In the preceding pages I
have pointed out that every class of society raised somewhat above the ranks of
poverty was exposed to such constant fiscal extortion, and bound with so many
local and social fetters, that in the latter days of the empire the middling
classes lost the means of perpetuating their existence; and, consequently, the
bulk of the inhabitants actually disappeared in many provinces, which were then
easily occupied and colonized by the northern nations—as happened in the case
of Serbia and Bulgaria. But it is more difficult to trace the modifications
which gradually change a nation than to note the final extinction of a numerous
class, though, in truth, we can rarely be assured that the extinction of any
race of mankind is anything more than a modification of its elements. It is
therefore necessary to distinguish accurately how far the causes which tended
to extinguish the population operated on the different classes of society,
without reference to their ethnological differences; and to inquire whether the
causes which modified the civilization and language of the races that have
survived the Roman domination had any direct connection with the increase or
decrease of their numbers. No historical facts seem more evident than these
two, that the Thracian race—which during the first century of the Christian era
formed the most numerous ethnological division of the inhabitants of the
eastern part of the Roman empire—has long ceased to exist; nor, on the other
hand, that the modern Greeks are a modification of the ancient Achaian, Dorian,
Ionian, Aeolian, and Hellenic population. And yet there are those who consider
that the Albanians and Vallachians have quite as much
right to be considered as the descendants of the ancient Thracians, who
instructed the Greeks in the first elements of civilization, as the modern
Greeks have to be regarded as the progeny of the Hellenes who were conquered by
the Romans.
The universality of the causes which operated under the iron sway of Rome,
both in diminishing the numbers of mankind, and in modifying national elements,
renders it difficult to determine the limits of their separate effects. There
is no doubt, however, that the inhabitants of the extensive plains and pastoral
mountains of Thrace were more exposed to the material oppression of the Roman
administration than the inhabitants of the narrow coasts and rocky mountains of
Greece. While fiscal extortion and military operations exterminated the
majority of the free Thracians, moral influences only modified the customs and
language of Greece. In every province of her empire Rome planted colonies in
which her usages, laws, and language were as completely national as they were
in Rome itself. In Greece, Corinth, Patras, and Nicopolis
were Latin cities; and for many ages they were almost the only flourishing
cities in the country. The provincial administration, and particularly the
fiscal, was everywhere carried on in Latin; the proconsular tribunals
acknowledged the existence of no other language, and thus even the Greeks were
bent from their original ideas, and compelled to adopt new habits, new
thoughts, and new expressions. In the West, Gaul and Spain were modified
according to a Roman type, of which they bear the impress to the present day;
in the East, the same causes produced an effect on the more civilized
inhabitants of Greece, though the change was of a modified nature. Similar
influences, bearing powerfully on the whole Greek people wherever they might be
scattered, effected the same ethnological change on the whole race. The rude
mountaineers of Laconia could not well become less civilized than they had been
before the Roman conquest, but they yielded to the same circumstances which
affected Athens and Alexandria, Syracuse and Byzantium. The moral power of the
Roman administration changed the ancient Hellenes into modern Greeks, according
to the impress of one unyarying type; and of that
change into Romaioi, or subjects of the Roman Empire,
the Greek language bears ineffaceable marks. As the institutions of the great
Transatlantic republic mould English, Irish, Celts, Dutch, Germans, French, and
Spaniards who settle under its sway into one people, so the great empire of the
ancient world moulded the Spartan, Athenian, Dorian, Ionian, and Aeolian into a
homogeneous mass. There can be no doubt that a change similar to that which
took place among the Greeks was wrought about the same time on the Thracian
race, but a dark veil covers the history of the native proprietors of the soil
in the countries between the Aegean Sea and the Danube for many centuries.
The Vallachian population of Thrace began to
acquire some degree of importance during the reign of Alexius I, though the
passages in which it is mentioned are vague. The number of the same race which
then inhabited the countries north of the Danube is also recorded to have been
considerable. We have already had occasion to notice that in the reign of
Manuel I they were the masters of a considerable part of Thessaly, which was
subsequently known by the name of Great Vallachia;
and people were so struck by the resemblance which their language bore to Latin
that they were generally pronounced to be the descendants of Italian colonists.
Like the modern Greeks, they called themselves Romans, from having, like the
Greeks, acquired the rights of Roman citizenship by the decree of Caracalla;
and the name of Vlachs, or Vallachians, appears to
have been first given them by the Sclavonians who
colonized their depopulated plains. It may be observed that the Slavonians gave
the Italians the same name, struck apparently by their general similarity, and
that the name has always been repudiated by the Vallachians.
No portion of the Roman Empire was more rapidly changed or earlier
depopulated by the severity of the government than the Thracian provinces,
though they were among the last which were subjected to fiscal oppression.
Several Roman legions were constantly quartered in these provinces, and
numerous Roman colonies were founded in them. Roman veterans settled in the
country, and young Thracians departed annually as recruits to distant legions.
The Latin language appears also to have amalgamated more readily with the
Thracian than with the Greek. We are informed by a Greek writer, who was
himself a Roman ambassador, that in the middle of the fifth century the Greek
language was unknown in the countries between the Adriatic, the Aegean, the
Black Sea, and the Danube, except in the commercial towns on the coasts of
Thrace and Illyria; but that Latin was the ordinary medium of communication
among foreign races, both for commercial and political intercourse. In the
sixth century, the Thracian dialect bore a strong resemblance to corrupt Latin,
and to the Vallachian language spoken at the present
day. This Vallachian language, too, like the modern
Greek, bears strong marks of having been formed by the operation of one
overwhelming influence, affecting every portion of the nation at the same time.
And accordingly, as in the case of the Greeks, we find every distant and
isolated tribe speaking the same language which is spoken on Mount Pindus by
the last survivors of the population of Great Vallachia,
as well as by the Romans beyond the Danube and the Carpathian Mountains,
in the Bannat, and in Transylvania. But, after all
this, the question remains undecided whether these Vallachians
are the lineal descendants of the Thracian race, who Strabo tells us extended
as far south as Thessaly, and as far north as to the borders of Pannonia; for
of the Thracian language we know nothing.
From some causes which cannot now be traced, it is certain that the Vallachian population in the Byzantine Empire increased
greatly in wealth and numbers during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
Benjamin of Tudela gives a romantic account of the
complete independence of those who inhabited Thessaly; but the general fact,
that they were governed according to their own usages by a tributary prince—as
the Sclavonians of the Peloponnesus had been in the
ninth and tenth centuries—is confirmed by Nicetas,
who informs us that they were able to defend their independence against the
Crusaders, who conquered the Byzantine empire. Though the Vallachians
of Mount Haemus had not, like their countrymen in Thessaly, aspired at
self-legislation and independence, they had been gradually thrown more and more
on their national resources by the oppressions of Manuel, by the disorders that
prevailed in the central administration after his death, and by the invasion of
the Sicilians. The immediate cause of their rebellion against the empire was
the imposition of an additional tax by the Emperor Isaac in the year 1186, to
defray the expenses of his marriage with Margaret, the daughter of Bela III,
king of Hungary.
Three brothers, Peter, Asan, and John, placed themselves at the head of the
insurrection, and claimed to be descended from the elder line of the Bulgarian
monarchs, though they were Vallachians in their
nurture and early associations. The Bulgarian and Sclavonian
population, from Mount Haemus to the Danube, suffered from the same oppression
as the Vallachian, and detested the Byzantine
government and their Greek rulers with equal hatred. The hope of throwing off
the domination of their oppressors, induced all to take up arms with
enthusiasm; and as superstition was a feeling more deeply rooted in the human
breast at this period than patriotism, it was announced, and generally
believed, that Saint Demetrius, the favourite saint of the Vallachians,
Bulgarians, and Sclavonians of these provinces, had
forsaken the city of Thessalonica, of which he had hitherto been the patron,
and had removed his sanctuary to a church lately erected to his honour by
Peter. The fanatics considered it their duty to put every Greek to death who
fell into their hands; and the people had suffered so much from the exactions
of the fiscal officers of the Byzantine government, that they were incited to
take part in these cruelties.
Peter having assembled an army in Mount Haemus, and assumed the imperial
title, marched into the districts of Thrace, which were inhabited by the
Greeks, and laid everything waste; but his first operations were unsuccessful.
He was defeated, and compelled to seek refuge in the Patzinak
territory, beyond the Danube. In the year 1187 the rebels were again defeated
by the emperor’s uncle, John the Sevastokrator; but
the jealousy of Isaac inducing him to remove his uncle from the command of the
army, he sent John Cantacuzenos, who had been
deprived of his sight, to take the command of the troops. The rebels now proved
victorious; and, to arrest their progress, the emperor was compelled to entrust
Alexis Branas with the conduct of the war. Branas drove the Vallachians
beyond Mount Haemus; but as soon as he had driven the rebels out of Thrace, he
left them to consolidate their power in Bulgaria, and marched his army to
Adrianople. Seeing that rebellion was to a certain degree successful both in
Bulgaria and Cyprus, and foreseeing that new insurrections would soon follow,
he thought that it would be easy to turn the general discontent to his own
profit. He therefore assumed the title of Emperor, and appeared before
Constantinople at the head of a well-appointed force, not expecting to meet
with any serious resistance.
But the persons connected with the general administration, and the people
within the walls of the capital, entertained the greatest aversion to receive
an emperor raised to the throne by the army. They feared that he would be
compelled to effect a financial revolution, and make numerous personal changes
in order to reward his followers. Alexis Branas,
therefore, met with a more determined opposition than he had expected. But
Isaac, in place of aiding the troops, consumed his time in prayers and
processions, so that Branas, manning a number of
fishing-boats which he had collected in the islands of the Propontis, rendered
himself master of the imperial fleet. The capital seemed on the eve of falling
into his hands, when it was saved by Conrad of Montferrat. That distinguished
Crusader, who has transmitted the vain title of King of Jerusalem to the
reigning family of Sardinia, had visited Constantinople on his way to
Palestine. Having married Theodora, the sister of the Emperor Isaac, and
received the rank of Caesar, he felt himself authorized to reproach his
brother-in-law with his misconduct, and point out to him that, unless he
exerted himself, he was likely to lose his crown. The alarming position of
Constantinople rendered the Greeks willing to submit to the superior military
skill of Conrad. His satirical observations at last roused Isaac to activity.
He told him that things were in such a state, that swords and lances were the
means Heaven would use if Isaac’s crown was to be saved, not priests and processions.
When he found the emperor occupied in planning feasts, he coolly remarked that
it would be time enough to think of the enjoyments of the table when he should
be assured of the future; but, for the moment, the defence of Constantinople
demanded all his care. Conrad fortunately found two hundred and fifty Latin
knights and five hundred veteran infantry at Constantinople, who ranged
themselves under his orders. All the Turkish and Georgian merchants
who resided in the city, and whose expeditions had accustomed them to war,
formed themselves into corps to defend their property. Isaac himself at last
enrolled all the native soldiers in the capital, and roused the spirit of the
troops by a donative, which he procured by pledging the imperial plate, and
borrowing money from the church funds.
At the head of these forces Conrad took the field, accompanied by the
emperor. Branas had encamped his army before
Constantinople without attempting to form a regular siege. The two armies spent
several hours in skirmishing; but Branas having
examined the strength of the imperial army, at last drew together his best
troops and prepared for a decisive attack. Conrad, who had closely watched his
operations, and kept his Latin knights ready for some daring exploit, boldly
anticipated the enemy’s movement. His defensive armour was a red linen
body-coat of numerous folds, soddened together into a substance impenetrable to
lance or sword; and with this light covering, and his small triangular shield,
which made him appear to the Greeks almost defenseless,
he led his cavalry to charge the center of the rebel
army. The shock bore down every opposition; and the cavalry of Branas were soon scattered in irretrievable confusion. Branas, attempting to rally them, was dashed from his
saddle by Conrad’s lance; and when he demanded quarter on the ground, Conrad
exclaimed—“You must pay your treason with your life”. His attendants
immediately decapitated the prostrate general.
This victory was celebrated by Isaac as if it had been achieved by his own
military prowess. He passed through Constantinople in triumph before the army,
with the head of Branas borne before him on the point
of a lance; and when he reached the imperial palace, he had the inhumanity to
send this bloody trophy to Maria Comnena, the widow
of Branas, whom the Emperor Manuel, her uncle, had
called, for her virtues, an honor to the imperial
family. The populace of the capital was allowed to make expeditions for the
purpose of plundering the inhabitants of the islands of the Propontis who had
declared in favour of Branas; and houses and villages
were seen in flames on every side of Constantinople. The Latins availed
themselves of the general anarchy to plunder the houses of many of the wealthy
nobles who were considered hostile to the emperor’s policy; and at last a
regular battle was fought by the Greeks and Latins in the streets, which the
imperial officers had the greatest difficulty in terminating. Much blood was
shed on both sides; and the hatred between the two races and religions became
every day more bitter. Conrad finding that the state of affairs was not
favourable to his ambition, his wife Theodora dying, and the news arriving that
his father, the Marquis William, had been taken prisoner by Saladin at the
battle of Tiberias, quitted Constantinople and arrived in Palestine, where he
immediately increased his fame by defeating Saladin under the walls of Tyre.
The Vallachian war was resumed after the death of
Branas, and Isaac took the field against the rebels;
but though Peter and Asan were unable, with their Vallachian,
Bulgarian, and Sclavonian levies, to encounter the
imperial army, they prevented the campaign from producing any decided
results. After besieging Lobitza for three
months, the Byzantine army was compelled to retire, A.D. 1188.
THIRD CRUSADE, A.D. 1189
While the Vallachians were thus gradually forming
an independent kingdom, a new crusade threatened the Byzantine Empire with
fresh dangers. Fortunately for the Greeks, the only leader of the third crusade
who passed through the dominions of Isaac was Frederic I (Barbarossa), Emperor
of Germany, an experienced and prudent monarch, who wished to avoid all
collision with the Byzantine government; and who, having passed through the
empire with his uncle Conrad during the second crusade, knew how to adopt the
most effectual measures for preserving order. He allowed no pilgrim to join his
standard who did not possess three marks of silver to defray his expenses on
the road. Never did a finer army, or a nobler and abler commander, leave Europe
for the East; yet, in spite of the valour and discipline of the troops, and the
experience of the general, fortune declared against this expedition, and it was
as fruitless as the wildest enterprises of preceding Crusaders.
Before Frederic Barbarossa quitted Germany, he dispatched an embassy to
Constantinople to ask permission to pass through the Byzantine empire, and
Isaac sent Dukas, the intendant of posts, to arrange
the articles of a treaty by which all disorders might be prevented during the
march of the Crusaders, and a sufficient supply of provisions and forage might
be furnished to them at reasonable prices. Frederic made all his dispositions
with prudence; but he had not proceeded far on his march before the inconstancy
of Isaac, who, like most of the Byzantine courtiers and the Greek clergy,
heartily detested the Franks, induced him to send orders to throw obstacles in
the way of the advance of the German army, and stop their supplies of
provisions. Nicetas the historian was then governor
of Philippopolis; and he informed us that he received from day to day the most
contradictory orders from the court. By one dispatch he was ordered to repair
the fortifications, by another to dismantle the place. Attempts were made to
render the roads impracticable; large trees were cut down to block up the
passes, and other measures were taken which only delayed and irritated the
Germans, who punished the subjects of Isaac for obeying the orders of their
emperor. Frederic reached Philippopolis on the 23d of August 1189, and entered
the city without opposition. The Armenians, who had been for ages established
in this city and its neighbourhood, and whose heretical opinions rendered them
ill-disposed towards the Greeks, who treated them often with great injustice,
welcomed the Latins, and afforded them exact information concerning the state
of the empire, and the movements of the Byzantine troops.
The insolence of Isaac at last involved the two emperors in war; but the
Greek troops were unable to resist the Germans, and were soon defeated. In
their flight they plundered the inhabitants of the country far more cruelly
than the Crusaders. The opposition he had met with, and the advanced time of
the year, induced Frederic to take up his winter-quarters in Thrace. He felt
that the proceedings of Isaac might force him to attack Constantinople; and he
therefore made arrangements for assembling a fleet of Genoese, Pisan, and
Venetian ships, which he could employ either against the Byzantine Empire, or
for transporting his army to Asia, as circumstances might require.
As Isaac persisted in his hostile conduct, Frederic marched to Adrianople
in the month of February 1190. He then took Didymoteichos
by storm, and occupied Arcadiopolis. Isaac, who had
trusted for success rather to the prophecies which the bigoted members of the
Greek clergy had repeated to him than to his military arrangements, was now
seriously alarmed, and sent to solicit peace on any terms. The conduct of the
German emperor was in accordance with his previous declarations. He asked
nothing but what Isaac had promised by their first treaty. Frederic had also
afforded a proof of his generosity which ought to have made a deep impression
even on a fool like Isaac, and on a herd of such knaves as composed the
Byzantine court. Peter and Asan had offered to join the Crusaders with an army
of forty thousand Vallachians and Bulgarians, on
condition that the German emperor would invest one of the brothers with the
crown of Bulgaria; but Frederic refused to intermeddle in the affairs of
another Christian state, further than was necessary to remove the obstacles
thrown in the way of his march to the Holy Land. The Byzantine government
renewed its promises to supply the Crusaders with provisions as long as they
remained in the imperial dominions, engaged to furnish them with vessels to
convey them from Gallipoli to Asia, and gave hostages to Frederic, who were to
be released when he reached Philadelphia. Frederic also insisted that the
Emperor Isaac and five hundred of the principal officers of the empire should
publicly take an oath to fulfil the articles of the treaty to his ambassadors
in the Church of St Sophia, and in the presence of the Patriarch; and to this
the Byzantine emperor was compelled to submit.
On the 28th of March 1190, Frederic passed over into Asia Minor with the
last division of his army, and marched by Thyatira, Philadelphia, and Laodicea
into the dominions of the Sultan of Iconium. He was generally received with as
much ill-will as the Byzantine authorities ventured to show; but at Laodicea he
found an independent Greek population accustomed to continual war with the
Turks, and who trusted to their own exertions, not to the imperial court and
the central government, for safety. These free citizens gave the Crusaders a
sincere welcome, and afforded them every assistance in their power. Frederic
was so touched by their conduct that he knelt down in the plain before his
camp, and prayed that God would recompense the people of Laodicea.
The Sultan of Iconium had promised to allow the Crusaders to pass through
his dominions without molestation, and permit them to purchase provisions; but,
like the Emperor Isaac, he endeavoured to throw obstacles in their way.
Frederic, however, used little ceremony with the Mohammedans; he defeated their
army at Philomelium, and marched direct to Iconium,
which the Emperors Alexius I, John II, and Manuel I had vainly endeavoured to
reach. The capital of the sultan was taken by storm, and ample supplies of
provisions were obtained for the army; but the sultan was allowed to remain
quietly in the citadel of his capital, as he offered no further opposition.
Frederic then pursued his march through the territories of the Armenians of
Cilicia. The delivery of the Holy Land was now supposed by the Christians to be
certain. A numerous and well-disciplined army, led by a general experienced in
all the difficulties of Eastern warfare, was about to enter Syria, when death
arrested the progress of Frederic Barbarossa. He died of a cold caught by
bathing in the limpid stream of the Calycadnus, near
Seleucia, the waters of which were chilled by the melted snow descending from
Mount Taurus. The enemies of Frederic acknowledge that he was a valiant and
noble prince.
The evils inflicted on the Greek race by the third crusade were rendered
permanent by fortuitous circumstances, and fell heaviest on the island of
Cyprus, which was already separated from the Byzantine Empire. Isaac Comnenos, who had assumed the title of Emperor in Cyprus
during the reign of Andronicus, contracted an alliance with William II, king of
Sicily. Isaac II of Constantinople, elated with his victory over the Sicilians,
expected to reconquer Cyprus without difficulty. In the year 1186 he sent a
fleet of seventy galleys with a numerous army to perform this service, but his
jealousy of his best officers induced him to entrust the command to men
incapable of performing military duty, as a security against their mounting the
throne. One was an old man, named John Koutostephanos,
and the other Alexis Comnenos, the natural son of
Manuel, whom Andronicus had deprived of sight. The expedition reached Cyprus in
safety, and the army was landed. But the King of Sicily sent a fleet to the
assistance of his ally, under the command of the Admiral Margaritone,
the ablest naval officer of the time, who surprised the Byzantine fleet, and
captured most of the transports and galleys. In the meantime the land forces
were also defeated, and the two generals, falling into the hands of the
Sicilian admiral, were carried prisoners to Palermo. Isaac of Cyprus, after
this victory, which he owed to the valour of foreigners, treated most of the
prisoners with horrid cruelty. Those whom he did not wish to enrol in his own
service were put to death with inhuman tortures. This victory secured the
throne of Cyprus to Isaac, who showed that he was a worthless and rapacious
tyrant; but as his political government favoured the trade of the Cypriots with
Sicily, Syria, and Armenia, they submitted to his sway; and had he possessed
ordinary prudence, he might have enjoyed his usurpation without danger. A
wanton display of insolence caused his ruin. In the year 1191, as the fleet of
Richard lion-hearted was proceeding from Messina to Palestine, it was assailed
by a tempest, and three ships were wrecked on the coast of Cyprus. Isaac, who
felt all the dislike to the Crusaders generally entertained by the Greeks, and
who was ignorant of the power of the King of England, seized the opportunity of
gratifying his own cruel disposition, and of proving his friendship for
Saladin, with whom he had recently formed an alliance. He took possession of
the property which was saved from the shipwrecked vessels, and imprisoned all
the English who escaped the waves. Perhaps Isaac might have escaped with
impunity had he only plundered the English, but he ventured to insult the king.
The vessel which carried Joanna of Sicily, Richard’s sister, and Berengaria of
Navarre, to whom he was betrothed, sought shelter from the storm in the port of
Amathus (Limissol), but was
refused entrance. The storm, however, had already abated, and this ship had
joined Richard at Rhodes. The King of England immediately sailed to Cyprus; and
when Isaac refused to deliver up the shipwrecked crusaders, and to restore
their property, Richard landed his army and commenced a series of operations,
which ended in his conquering the whole island, in which he abolished the
administrative institutions of the Eastern Empire, enslaving the Greek race, introducing
the feudal system, by which he riveted the chains of a foreign domination, and
then gave it as a present to Guy of Lusignan, the titular King of Jerusalem,
who became the founder of a dynasty of Frank kings in Cyprus. From that time to
the present day the Greeks of Cyprus have suffered every misery that can be
inflicted by foreign masters; and the island, which at the time of its conquest
by Richard was the richest and most populous in the Mediterranean, is now
almost uncultivated, and very thinly inhabited.
Isaac Angelos, who occupied the throne of
Constantinople, was in constant danger of being precipitated from his
elevation, like his namesake of Cyprus. When accident had placed the crown on a
head so weak and incapable, every man of ambition hoped to be able to transfer
it to his own, and rebellion succeeded rebellion. One of the most dangerous
pretenders to the throne was a young man of Constantinople, who assumed the
name of Alexius II, and whose singular resemblance to that prince and to his father
Manuel induced many to credit his assertions. He visited Iconium while Kilidy-Arslan reigned; and the old sultan, struck with his
resemblance to Manuel, allowed him to enrol troops, but he refused to break the
treaty he had concluded with Isaac, and lose the tribute he received from the
Byzantine Empire. The false Alexius assembled an army of eight thousand men,
and ravaged the vale of the Meander, storming several
cities in order to gratify his followers with plunder: among others he took the
rich city of Chonae. Isaac sent his brother Alexius
to encounter the pretender, but the imperial troops met with little success.
The career of the rebel was, however, suddenly arrested by a priest, by whom he
was assassinated, as a just vengeance for his alliance with the Infidels, by
whose assistance he had plundered the richest cities of Asia Minor, and who
under his banner had desecrated the churches in these cities. The assassin
carried his head to Alexius the sevastokrator, who
was so struck by its resemblance to the well-known features of Manuel, that he
exclaimed, “Those who followed him may indeed be innocent!” After his death
several persons assumed the name of Alexius II; one was taken in Paphlagonia,
and put to death, and another at Nicomedia, who was deprived of sight.
Theodore Mankaphas, a noble of Philadelphia, also
assumed the title of Emperor, and attempted to dethrone Isaac; but his
historical importance is derived rather from the fact that he is recorded to
have coined silver money with his effigy than from the importance of his
rebellion. In the year 1189 he rendered himself master of the country round
Philadelphia, and his progress alarmed Isaac to such a degree that he marched
against him in person. The approach of Frederic Barbarossa made the emperor
anxious to terminate the war, and he agreed to pardon Mankaphas,
on the rebel making his submission, and laying aside the imperial ensigns. The
pardoned rebel soon after fled to Iconium, where Gaiasheddin
Kaikhosrou allowed him to enrol troops among the
nomad tribes, and with these bands he ravaged the frontiers of the Byzantine Wmpire with the same barbarity as the false Alexius. At
last Isaac bribed the sultan to deliver him up, on condition that his life
should be spared, and his punishment should not exceed perpetual imprisonment.
New claimants to the throne, however, continued to take the field, and the
suspicions of Isaac induced him to punish many nobles of the highest rank for
real or imaginary conspiracies.
The Vallachian insurrection in the meantime kept
the northern provinces of the empire in a state of anarchy. In the year 1192
the emperor hoped to crush it by conducting in person a well-disciplined army
against the half-disciplined bands of Vallachians,
Bulgarians, and Sclavonians, who had taken up arms.
But he led his army into the mountain-passes without taking any precautions,
where it was attacked and its ranks broken. The valour of the imperial guard
saved the emperor by breaking through the Vallachians,
carrying with them Isaac, helpless and bareheaded. In the following year the Vallachians stormed Anchialus, Varna, Nyssa, and Stupion, and burned part of Triaditza
(Sardica). The emperor boasted of a glorious campaign when he recovered
possession of the plundered ruins of these cities. He, however, defeated the
Zupan of Servia, who had invaded the empire and plundered Skupia.
Subsequently he marched to the banks of the Save, and after an idle procession
to meet his father-in-law, the King of Hungary, he returned to Constantinople.
In 1194 the Byzantine army, under the command of the generals of the European
and Asiatic native troops, was completely defeated by the Vallachians
near Arcadiopolis; and the country round
Philippopolis, Sardica, and Adrianople was laid waste by the insurgents.
The Emperor Isaac now felt the necessity of making some extraordinary
exertions to terminate this war, which was daily approaching nearer to the
walls of the capital. New levies were made in the empire, the foreign
mercenaries were assembled from their different stations, and great numbers of
Hungarian auxiliaries were brought into the field. Fifteen hundred pounds’
weight of gold and six thousand of silver were
expended in equipping the troops and forming the necessary magazines; and in
the month of March 1195, Isaac quitted Constantinople, accompanied by his
brother Alexius, in whom he placed implicit confidence. But natural affection,
as well as honor and truth, appears to have been
banished from Byzantine society; and this brother had already formed a plot to
seize the throne, which he carried into execution when the court reached Kypsela. While the Emperor Isaac was engaged in hunting,
Alexius occupied his tent, and was proclaimed emperor by the nobles and troops
he had gained to support his usurpation. The army, who despised Isaac, readily
transferred their allegiance to Alexius, whose vices were then less known. The
dethroned emperor, when informed of the catastrophe, turned his horse’s head
from the camp and fled, he knew not whither. At Stagyra,
then called Makri, he was overtaken by his brother’s
agents, who immediately deprived him of sight. He was transported directly to
Constantinople, where he was imprisoned in a dungeon, and supplied with rations
of bread and water like a criminal.
Isaac II reigned nine years and seven months. He was
middle-sized, of a healthy constitution, with a florid complexion and red
hair. When dethroned, he was not forty years of age, (April 1195).
Sect. II
Reign of Alexius III (Angelos Comnenos)
A.D. 1196-1203.
During the reign of Andronicus, Alexius Angelos,
who was older than his brother Isaac II, fled for safety to the court of
Saladin, where he was residing when he heard of his brother’s elevation to the
throne. On his way to Constantinople he was arrested by the Prince of Antioch,
and owed his release from captivity to his brother’s affection. This, and many
other acts of kindness, he repaid with the basest treachery. Even the corrupt
society of Constantinople required that some attempt should be made to throw a
veil over the ingratitude of the new emperor. To effect this Alexius III
assumed the name of Comnenus, insinuating thereby that his adoption into that
imperial house had dissolved his connection with the humbler family of Angelos, and that duty compelled him to dethrone a
worthless sovereign like Isaac. Alexius, being tall and well made, and
possessing an agreeable and dignified manner, as well as more natural talent, a
better education, and more command over his temper, appeared very much superior
to his brother until he mounted the throne. As emperor, however, he laid aside
his hypocrisy, and was as careless of public business, as lavish in his
expenditure, as ignorant of military affairs, and as great a coward as Isaac.
The first act of Alexius III was to reward the officers and troops who had
shared his treason, by distributing among them the money his brother had
collected for carrying on the war against the Vallachians.
He then sent the army back to its usual quarters, and returned to the capital,
leaving Thrace and Macedonia exposed to the incursions of the rebels. His wife
Euphrosyne had prepared the senate and people to give him a favourable
reception by a liberal distribution of bribes and promises of promotion; and
his coronation was performed in St Sophia’s by the obsequious Patriarch. The
behaviour of his horse alone caused some to reflect on the injustice of his
conduct and the instability of his power. As he was about to mount on horseback
at the steps of the great church, after the ceremony was finished, and return
in procession to the palace, according to the immemorial usage of the Roman
empire, his horse for a long time refused to allow him to mount; and when at
last he had gained his seat, it reared and plunged until the emperor’s crown fell
from his head, and was broken by the fall. It then completed the disaster by
throwing the emperor himself on the ground. Alexius, however, escaped unhurt.
The public treasury was quickly emptied by the lavish expenditure of
Alexius and Euphrosyne; and every species of extortion, injustice, and fraud,
was then employed to collect money. When it was no longer possible to bestow
money, places, pensions, and estates belonging to the imperial domain, were
conferred on some favoured courtiers; and the right of collecting particular
branches of the revenue in the provinces was granted to others. Nicetas sarcastically observes that Alexius III would have
granted golden bulls to plough the sea or pile Athos on Olympus, had any
courtier presented himself to solicit such gifts. This conduct completed the
destruction of that wonderful financial and governmental mechanism which the
Byzantine government had inherited from the Roman Empire.
Euphrosyne, who was better acquainted with her husband’s idle disposition
than others, assumed a large share in conducting the business of the empire,
and no minister dared to take any step without her approval. Her beauty, her
talents, and her aptitude for business, gave her immense influence among the
nobility; but her pride, extravagance, and licentiousness, often produced
scandalous quarrels with Alexius. Nothing is generally supposed to mark more
strongly the degraded condition of the proudest nobles of the Byzantine empire,
at this time, than the fact that members of the celebrated families of Comnenos, Dukas, Paleologos, and Cantacuzenos contended for the honour of carrying
Euphrosyne in her litter at public ceremonies; yet British peers now contend to
be lords-in-waiting, their wives to be ladies of the bedchamber, and their daughters
to be bedchamber-women. The insolence and license of Euphrosyne at last roused
the anger and jealousy of the emperor. Alexius ordered her paramour, Vatatzes,
to be assassinated, and her female slaves and the eunuchs of her household to
be put to the torture. The beautiful and accomplished Euphrosyne herself was
expelled from the palace, clad in the dress of a menial, and immured in
the convent of Nematorea, near the entrance of the
Black Sea, with only two foreign slaves as her attendants. Six months’
absence from court, however, taught her worthless husband the value of her
talents and energy. Everything fell into disorder; even Alexius was alarmed at
the peculations of the courtiers; and Euphrosyne was reinstated in all her
former power, which she abused with all her former insolence. Her political
energy, her superstitious follies, and her magnificent hunting parties excited
the wonder of the inhabitants of Constantinople; and as she rode along with a
falcon perched on her gold-embroidered glove, and encouraged the dogs with her
voice, and the curvetings of her horse, the crowd
enjoyed the splendid spectacle, and only grave men like Nicetas
thought that she was wasting the revenues which were required to defend the
empire.
(The belief in magic and the power of incantations was so general that it
excited little surprise at Constantinople when Euphrosyne, in order to insure
the happy issue of some of her divinations, thought fit to order a bronze boar
about to engage a lion, which formed one of the finest groups of ancient
sculpture in the hippodrome, to be mutilated by cutting off its snout, and many
other works of ancient art to be broken in pieces. Thus the Greeks began to
destroy the most precious remains of Hellenic taste before the Latins entered Constantinople).
The venality and oppression of the imperial officers had caused so much
discontent, that Alexius III, on ascending the throne, deemed it necessary to
promise publicly that no official charge should be sold, but that all
employments should be bestowed according to merit. This proclamation remained
without effect. The emperor paid no attention to business, Euphrosyne cared
nothing for the people, the courtiers persisted in profiting by their
influence, and public employments continued to be an object of traffic. The
empress, however, at length perceived the danger of these proceedings, and
attempted to effect some reforms. Before her disgrace she persuaded Alexius to
appoint Constantine Mesopotamites prime-minister, and
this statesman succeeded in suppressing much venality and flagrant jobbing. But
it required purer hands to root out inveterate corruption of Byzantine society.
Mesopotamites, while calling on others to respect the
laws, violated them himself. He thought that he could render his power more
secure against the factions of the court, and at the same time extend his
influence and patronage, by entering the church. But as the ecclesiastical
canons of the Eastern Church forbade the clergy to hold civil offices, Mesopotamites, on becoming a priest, obtained a
dispensation from the Patriarch to violate the law. In order to secure an
independent position, he got himself appointed Archbishop of Thessalonica; but
by this step he lost the emperor’s favour, and his enemies induced the Patriarch
Xiphilinos to hold a synod, in which Mesopotamites was condemned for various crimes, and deposed
from the archiepiscopal dignity, without being allowed an opportunity of
refuting the charges brought against him. This contempt of justice on the part
of the ecclesiastical dignitaries nourished the aversion felt by the people to
the highest authorities both in the church and state; and though no popular cry
was heard demanding reform either in church or state, the inhabitants began to
feel as little inclined to defend the throne of their patriarch as the crown of
their emperor.
The utter neglect of the moral and religious condition of the people by the
hierarchy of the Eastern Church, during the twelfth century, proved a severe
blow to the Greek nation. The provincial Greek saw no authority to which he
could address himself in order to obtain justice against the violence and
rapacity of the imperial officers, and consequently every friendly link which
had once connected him with Constantinople was now broken. The apostasy of the
prelates from the cause of the people, and the ignorance and selfishness of the
monks, left the Greeks, as a nation, exposed to greater oppression and
injustice than any other portion of the inhabitants of the empire; for they
were less accustomed to bear arms, and their municipal institutions had been
rendered completely subservient to the central administration. There is,
perhaps, no feature in the history of the Christian church which suggests more
melancholy reflections than the prostitution of the Greek clergy to the
imperial power during this century. When we behold a priesthood which founded
the hierarchy of the church, gave laws to the Christian world, and curbed the
political presumption of the Popes of Rome, perverting an influence it had
justly gained to serve the vices of a corrupt court, we learn how small is the
measure of irresponsible power which can be entrusted to individuals, however
sanctified their occupations may appear
The anarchy that prevailed in the Byzantine administration increased daily.
Michael Stryphnos, the admiral of the fleet, being
sure of impunity, as he had married a sister of the Empress Euphrosyne, sold
the stores from the naval arsenal, and thought only of making as much profit as
possible from his office. The seas round the empire were filled with pirates,
and their profits appeared so considerable that the Emperor Alexius himself at
last turned pirate. He sent six galleys into the Euxine, under the pretext of
saving the cargo of a vessel wrecked near Kerasunt,
but he gave the admiral secret orders to make prizes of all ships bound for Amisos. This infamous expedition proved extremely
profitable to the court. Many merchants who were captured lost their whole
fortunes, and some, whose complaints it was feared might excite dangerous
inquiries, were murdered: others were put on shore, and found their way to
Constantinople, where they vainly presented themselves at the courts of law and
at the imperial palace, to demand justice. They carried their petitions to the
staircase of the palace as suppliants, with wax tapers in their hands, and
stood to receive the emperor in the vestibule of St Sophia’s: but all their
endeavours were fruitless; it was a time when justice slept. Those merchants
only who were subjects of Rokneddin, the sultan of
Iconium, obtained an indemnity. The emperor, to avoid war, threw the whole
blame of the piracies on his admiral, Constantine Francopulo,
paid an indemnity to the merchants of Iconium, and promised to pay Rokneddin an annual tribute.
The conduct of the emperor on the high seas was imitated by the nobles in
the capital. A rich banker named Kalomodios was
envied by those who often borrowed his money, and who for some time attempted
to cheat or rob him without success. A length a party of courtiers entered his
house and made him prisoner, declaring that they would not release him until he
paid them a large ransom. The merchants of Constantinople, hearing of this
insolent assault, repaired in a body to the residence of the Patriarch John Kamateros, the brother of the Empress Euphrosyne, but found
him not inclined to assist them by active interference. In the meantime,
however, the populace became aware of the conduct of their superiors, and
determined to use the same license to enforce justice. They assembled before
the Patriarch’s palace, and informed him that they would plunder his residence
and precipitate his holiness from the window, unless he obtained the
liberation of Kalomodios. These threats
opened the mind of the Patriarch to the claims of justice, and Kalomodios was released.
The foreigners in Constantinople conducted themselves in the same lawless
manner as the natives. The Venetians and Pisans engaged in bloody battles in
the streets, which the Greeks viewed with pleasure, and the imperial
authorities with indifference. Rebellions in the provinces were also as common
as seditions in the capital.
Fortunately for the Byzantine Empire, the Seljouk
Empire of Roum or Iconium had been divided among the
numerous sons of Kilidy-Arslan II, or the Turks, by
forming an alliance with the rebel Vallachian,
Bulgarian, and Sclavonian population in Europe, might
have succeeded in taking Constantinople before the arrival of the Crusaders and
Venetians. But Moeddin, the sultan of Angora, availed
himself of the disorders in the Byzantine provinces to invade Paphlagonia and
take the city of Dabyra. Alexius, after carrying on
the war feebly for a year and a-half, purchased peace (A.D. 1197) by paying Moeddin five hundred pounds’ weight of coined silver, by
presenting him with forty pieces of the rich brocaded silk which was
manufactured at Thebes for the emperor’s especial use, and by engaging to remit
to Angora an annual tribute of three hundred pounds’ weight of silver. In the
following year Alexius involved himself in war with Gaiaseddin
Kaikhosrou I, who then reigned at Iconium, in
consequence of the detention of two Arabian horses by the Turk. In one of
his thoughtless fits of passion, the emperor ordered all the Turkish
merchants at Constantinople to be imprisoned and their property to be
sequestrated. The sultan’s revenge was prompt and terrible. He broke into the vale of the Maeander, and ravaged the country to the walls
of Antioch of Phrygia. Numbers of the inhabitants were carried away into slavery,
but an agricultural colony of five thousand families was settled at Philomelium. They were furnished with good farmhouses, and
everything necessary for cultivating the land; they were exempt from all
taxation for five years, and after that period they were assured that a fixed
contribution would be required without the arbitrary additions levied in the
Byzantine Empire to cover the expense of collecting the public revenues. This
humane policy inflicted a more serious wound on the empire than the devastations
of the Turkish armies; for many Christian families, worn out by the financial
exactions of the imperial officers, emigrated into the Turkish dominions; and Nicetas informs us that whole towns were abandoned by the
Greek inhabitants. Rokneddin subsequently expelled
his brother Kaikhosrou from Iconium, and compelled
Alexius to purchase peace by the payment of a tribute. Kaikhosrou,
after wandering from the court of Aleppo to that of Leo, king of Armenian
Cilicia, reached Constantinople as a suppliant, where he was well treated, and
remained until the death of Rokneddin, in 1202,
enabled him again to mount the throne of Iconium. He had afterwards an
opportunity of repaying the obligation he had received as an exile when Alexius
III appeared as a fugitive at Iconium.
The whole Vallachian, Bulgarian, and Sclavonian population between Mount Haemus and the Danube
was now in arms to secure their independence; and as society was in very much
the same condition in these provinces as in the other parts of the Byzantine
Empire, many of the native nobles aspired to the throne, or endeavoured to
render themselves independent princes. The three Vallachian
brothers, Peter, Asan, and John, however, maintained their position as the
leaders of the rebellion, and Asan was considered the real founder of the Vallachian or second Bulgarian kingdom, though he was
assassinated in the year 1196. His murderer was Ivan, a Bulgarian noble of
great military talent, who expected to mount the throne; but both the
Bulgarians and Vallachians recognised Peter as king
and successor to his brother. Ivan was compelled to seek safety in the
Byzantine Empire. Shortly after Peter was assassinated, but his youngest
brother John, commonly called Joannice, who had
escaped from Constantinople, where he was detained as a hostage, was
acknowledged King of Bulgaria. Alexius entrusted the command of the passes of
Mount Haemus to Ivan, who for three years (1197-1200) effectually protected
Thrace and Macedonia from the incursions of the Vallachians.
During this time, a Vallachian officer in the
Byzantine army, named Chryses, who had refused to join his rebellious
countrymen, was entrusted with the command of the fortress of Strumitza. The anarchy he saw prevailing round him induced
Chryses to declare himself independent; and the Emperor Alexius III, hoping to
obtain an easy victory over so weak an enemy, took the field against him in
person. In the second campaign, A.D. 1199, the emperor besieged Chryses in the
fort of Prosakon, which was situated on high rocks
overhanging the Axios (Vardar). The Byzantine troops
stormed the outer enclosure of Prosakon, and attacked
the citadel with such vigour that their showers of missiles drove the enemy
behind the ramparts. But the emperor had no scaling-ladders, tools, or machines
for an assault ready; the plate, provisions, wine, and baggage of the imperial
household had been brought forward with the main body of the army, and the
artillery and warlike stores had been left behind until fresh means of
transport should be collected. After a vain attack, in which many of the
bravest soldiers and officers perished, the troops were repulsed. Alexius,
finding that it would require more time and labour to take Prosakon
than he had expected, concluded a treaty with Chryses, leaving him in
possession of Prosakon and Strumitza,
on condition that he acknowledged himself a subject, and held his command as an
officer named by the emperor.
The weak conduct of Alexius induced Ivan to aspire at forming an
independent principality in Thrace and Macedonia. In 1200 he threw off his
allegiance to the Byzantine Empire, defeated an army commanded by the protostrator Manuel Kamytzes,
whom he took prisoner, and, descending the valley of the Nestos,
roused all the Bulgarian and Sclavonian population to
revolt, from Mosynopolis to Xantheia,
Mount Pangaeum, and Abdera.
Alexius took the field against Ivan in person, but the campaign was almost
immediately terminated by a treaty. The emperor, after taking possession of the
fort of Stenimachos, agreed to allow Ivan to remain
as governor of the country he occupied, promised him his grand-daughter in
marriage, and allowed him to assume the ensigns of a member of the imperial
family. Ivan, deceived by these proofs of amity, visited Constantinople, where
he was thrown into prison, Alexius perverting a passage of the psalmist as an
excuse for his treachery.
As soon as Ivan began to treat with Alexius, the Bulgarian guards of Manuel
Kamytzes carried their prisoner into the dominions of
Joannice, king of Bulgaria. Chryses, however, paid
his ransom, and Kamytzes was brought to Strumitza. Alexius, with his usual rapacity and injustice,
had sequestrated the immense private fortune of Kamytzes
as soon as he heard of his defeat; and he now refused to repay Chryses 200 lb.
of gold from the treasures he had so unjustly seized. Kamytzes,
enraged at this act of injustice, formed an alliance with Chryses, and
determined to raise the ransom by plundering the empire. The two generals
invaded Pelagonia, and took Prilapos.
Kamytzes then marched into Thessaly, and extended his
ravages over all Greece, exciting considerable commotion in the Peloponnesus by
his intrigues. In the meantime, a Cypriot of low rank, who was governor of Smolena, also raised the standard of revolt; and the
Patzinaks and Komans plundered the empire. Joannice, king of Bulgaria, availed himself of the general
confusion to take possession of the important commercial cities of Constantina and Varna.
The empire seemed on the eve of dissolution; but the danger roused the
ministers to activity, and the central government still exercised great power
through the existing remains of the old Roman administrative system. A powerful
army was brought into the field. Peace was concluded with the King of Bulgaria,
by sacrificing Constantina and Varna. Order was in
some degree restored in the Peloponnesus and continental Greece. Kamytzes was driven from all his conquests. The Cypriot was
compelled to abandon Smolena, and escape into
Bulgaria; and Chryses himself surrendered Strumitza
to purchase pardon.
RELATIONS WITH
WESTERN EUROPE
The preceding review of the internal condition of the dominions of Alexius
III, and of the conduct of his government, renders it by no means surprising
that the Byzantine Empire was destroyed by the first energetic attack made on
the capital, in spite of the great resources of which the central
administration could still dispose. The insolence with which the Crusaders had
been generally treated was deeply resented by the nobility and clergy throughout
Western Europe. The Venetians had never forgotten the injustice they had
suffered when the Emperor Manuel confiscated the property of their merchants,
and they sought an opportunity for revenge; and the weakness of Alexius III now
invited every enemy of the Greeks to assail the empire.
The Emperor Henry VI of Germany, son of Frederic Barbarossa, having
effected the conquest of Sicily by means of the ransom he had extorted from
Richard, king of England, formed the project of invading the Byzantine empire.
His ambition, which knew no bounds, easily furnished him with a pretext for
war. He claimed all the country from Dyrrachium to Thessalonica as having
belonged to the Sicilian crown, and from which Isaac II had driven the troops
of William II. Alexius III, on mounting the throne, had purchased peace by
promising to pay the German emperor sixteen hundred pounds’ weight of gold. A
considerable part of this treasure was collected, when the death of Henry VI
(A.D. 1197) relieved Alexius from all further alarm on the side of Germany and
Sicily; and the money was soon wasted in idle expenditure, and in the foolish
war with the Sultan of Iconium about the two Arabian horses which has been
mentioned. Philip, who succeeded his brother Henry V, was the son-in-law of
Isaac; but he was involved in too many difficulties in Germany to attempt
anything against Alexius. The dethroned emperor and his son Alexius were
consequently guarded with little care, and at last the young Alexius escaped to
Italy in a Pisan ship.
In the meantime the Venetians—who had sought in vain, by several embassies
to Constantinople, to obtain payment of the sums which remained due to them
under the treaty of indemnity concluded with the Emperor Manuel in 1174—found
it prudent, after the death of Henry VI, to conclude a commercial treaty with
Alexius III, which was ratified by a golden bull of the emperor in 1199. Though
the emperor granted them extensive commercial privileges and immunity from many
duties paid by his Greek subjects, he treated them as vassals of the empire;
and the treaty, whether because it failed to secure payment of the indemnity,
or because its provisions were not fairly carried into execution, seems to have
increased rather than allayed the hostile feelings of the Venetians. Venice
soon found allies to join her in seeking to obtain revenge by open war.
When the leaders of the fourth crusade assembled at Venice to embark for
Palestine, they were unable to pay the stipulated sum for transport.
Thirty-four thousand marks of silver were wanting to complete their contract.
The Doge of Venice, Henry Dandolo, a blind hero of ninety years of age, then
proposed that the republic should defer the claim, and allow the fleet to
depart immediately, on condition that the Crusaders joined the Venetians in
reducing the city of Zara, which had lately rebelled, and admitted a Hungarian
garrison. In vain the greatest of the popes, Innocent III, menaced the
Crusaders with excommunication if they dared to attack a city belonging to a
monarch who, like Andrew of Hungary, had taken the cross. Dandolo, who was as
able a statesman as Innocent, and a man of a firmer mind, set the threats of
the Papal See at defiance, and persuaded the superstitious barons that the Pope
was acting from motives of policy, not religion. He succeeded in conducting the
greater part of the Crusaders to Zara, which was soon taken; and this unholy
crusade commenced by plundering a Christian city, defended by the troops of a
crusading king.
While the Crusaders were passing the winter at Zara, ambassadors from the
Emperor Philip of Germany solicited their assistance to restore his nephew, the
young Alexius Angelos, and his father, Isaac II, to
the throne of Constantinople. In spite of the opposition of many French nobles,
the Belgians, Venetians, and Lombards determined to attack the Byzantine
Empire. A treaty was signed, by which the Crusaders and Venetians engaged to
replace Isaac II and his son Alexius on the throne, and the young Alexius bound
himself to pay them the sum of two hundred thousand marks of silver, and to
furnish the whole expedition with provisions for a year. He engaged, also, to
acknowledge the papal supremacy, to accompany the Crusaders in person to Egypt,
or else to furnish a contingent of ten thousand men to their army, with pay for
a year; and he promised to maintain during his life a corps of five hundred
cavalry in Palestine for the defence of the Latin possessions. Thus, says Nicetas, Alexius, who was as young in mind as in years,
consented to change the ancient usages of the Romans.
The storm that was gathering in the Adriatic seems to have caused Alexius
III very little alarm. He wrote to Pope Innocent III, who was regarded as the
head of this crusade, requesting him to prevent the expedition from visiting
the Byzantine Empire, as such a proceeding would frustrate his plans for the
deliverance of the Holy Land. To this letter Innocent returned an evasive
answer, assuming the right of deciding to whom the Byzantine crown really
belonged.
The fleet sailed from Zara in the month of April 1203, accompanied by the
young Alexius, who joined the Crusaders with a numerous suite of German
knights. It stopped at Dyrrachium, where the governor presented the keys to
Alexius as the representative of his father, Isaac II. Corfu followed the
example; and Andros and Euboea, at which the expedition touched, changed their
allegiance with equal readiness. No one showed any disposition to defend the
rights of Alexius III. A prosperous voyage conducted the fleet within sight of
Constantinople on the 23d June, and the troops were soon landed near Chalcedon,
which they occupied, as well as Chrysopolis
(Scutari).
Constantinople was as ill prepared to receive the enemy as when it was
saved by the valour of Conrad of Montferrat, whose younger brother, Boniface,
now commanded the army that had arrived to attack it. The imperial fleet had
been so neglected that only twenty galleys could be rendered fit for service;
the discipline of the troops had been neglected; and in spite of the great
wealth and population of the city, few of the citizens were inclined to take up
arms to defend the empire. Alexius III endeavoured to negotiate, but all his
offers were rejected, and the Crusaders transported their cavalry across the
Bosphorus. The emperor had sent troops to prevent their landing; but when the
Venetian transports approached close to the shore above Galata, and let down
the bridges which opened in the sides of the vessels, the cavalry bounded on
shore, and mounted with such order and rapidity that the Greek troops were
immediately put to flight, and the imperial tent formed part of the first
spoils of the empire. Galata was protected by fortifications, of which the line
may be traced in some parts of the existing walls. Towards the sea they were
flanked by a great tower, to which one end of the immense chain that closed the
entrance of the port was secured. The other end was made fast in the citadel
within the walls of the great palace. The besiegers prepared to attack the
tower, the fleet to force the chain, when an unfortunate sortie of the Greeks
enabled the Latin troops to render themselves masters of the tower by entering
it along with the fugitives. The chain was soon after broken by one of the
heaviest of the transports, armed with an immense pair of shears, which enabled
the Venetians to bring the whole weight of the ship, impelled by a strong wind,
to press on the chain. It broke in two, and the fleet ranged itself in the port
near the present dockyard.
It now remained to storm Constantinople, which had once enjoyed the
reputation of being impregnable, and which had, on eleven great occasions,
repulsed the attacks of powerful armies. But Alexius I had destroyed the charm
of its impregnability, and its walls were in a neglected state. The Emperor
Manuel, during the second crusade, had found it prudent to strengthen the
fortifications near the palace of Blachern at the
northern angle. It was on this side that the Crusaders determined to attack the
city, while the Venetians assailed it near the center
of the port. The army, formed into six divisions, encamped on the hill above
the modern suburb of Eyoub, with the powerful engines
they had brought for the attack of Jerusalem. The young Alexius summoned the
people of Constantinople to open their gates and replace his father on the
throne; but the people, who considered him an apostate from the Orthodox
Church, treated his propositions with scorn. The Crusaders, not being in
sufficient force to occupy the whole line of the land wall from the port to the
Propontis, contented themselves with guarding the gate near the palace of Blachern, and left the others open to the Greeks to make
their sorties—convinced that, whenever they could meet the enemy in a fair
field, they were sure of victory. But the garden walls and enclosures often
enabled the besieged to harass the Crusaders with sudden attacks, in which
they lost many men. At last, on the 17th of July, the Crusaders having
effected a breach in one of the towers opposite their camp, a general attack
was simultaneously made on the city both by sea and land.
The Crusaders assaulted the breach with desperate courage, but after a long
and bloody struggle they were repulsed by the English and Danish guards, whose
battle-axes were well adapted for defending the walls. The Pisan auxiliaries
also distinguished themselves by their valour. The Emperor Alexius III viewed
the defeat of the Crusaders from a tower in the palace of Blachern,
and he was urged by the officers of his suite to put himself at the head of the
Varangian guard and attack the disordered Franks. A vigorous attack of the
Byzantine army, under the command of his son-in-law, Theodore Lascaris, who was
then at his side ready for action, might at this moment have saved
Constantinople. But Alexius was incapable of any exertion. The Byzantine army
was nevertheless drawn out in order of battle without the walls.
While the Crusaders suffered a defeat by land, the Venetians were
completely successful by sea. They had constructed high towers of woodwork in
some of their vessels, and these towers were furnished with bridges which could
be let down on the walls of the city. Many other galleys, whose tops were
filled with archers and crossbowmen, supported the attack, and swept the
defenders from the fortifications. The old doge, in complete armour on the deck
of his galley, encouraged his countrymen; and when he gave the signal for the
grand assault, he ordered the crew of his ship to press forward, in order to be
the first to touch the walls. In a few minutes many bridges were firmly fixed
on the battlements, and after a short and desperate struggle the banner of
Saint Mark was seen waving on a lofty tower overlooking the center
of the port. Twenty-five towers and the connecting line of wall were soon in
possession of the Venetians. But the narrow streets of the city, and the
vigorous defence of the Greeks, who defended their property with more valour
than they had defended the walls, arrested the progress of the Venetians. In
order to penetrate into the center of the city, and
at the same time to keep open their communications with the port, they set fire
to the houses before them. The conflagration soon extended from the foot of the
hill of Blachern to the monastery of Evergetes, and as far as the Devteron.
At this critical moment the news reached Dandolo that the attack of the
Crusaders had failed, and that the Byzantine army was issuing from
Constantinople to assail their camp. He immediately abandoned all his
conquests, and hastened with the whole Venetian force to support his allies.
But when he reached the camp the danger was already past. The Emperor Alexius,
after examining the Crusaders for some time, ordered his troops to reenter Constantinople.
During the following night he assembled a few of his confidential
creatures, and, carrying off as much of the imperial treasures and jewels as he
was able to transport, he abandoned Constantinople, and escaped to Debeltos.
Sect. III
The Conquest of Constantinople
and the Partition of the Byzantine Empire
A.D. 1203-1204.
Before any of the ambitious nobles, who were usually watching for a
revolution in order to place the imperial crown on their own heads, could take
advantage of the cowardice and flight of Alexius III, the intendant of the
imperial treasury, a eunuch named Constantine, contrived to induce the
Varangian guard to replace Isaac II on the throne, by promising them a liberal
donative. The blind emperor was immediately conducted from the monastery where
he had been latterly confined, to the palace, and proclaimed emperor, with his
son Alexius IV as his colleague. The administration underwent no change, and
only those courtiers were driven from their places who were attached to the
personal interests of the late emperor. Most of the Byzantine statesmen were
satisfied with this arrangement. It purchased peace for the moment; and it
might, in their opinion, afford the Greeks, who prided themselves on their
intellectual superiority over the Latins, an opportunity of obtaining some
diplomatic advantage over their enemies. The presumptuous vanity of Greeks made
them overlook the profound knowledge of Eastern affairs possessed by the
Venetians, who equalled their enemies in cunning, and far surpassed them in
daring. Even the Crusaders, though incapable of steady counsels, had their
suspicions fully awakened, and distrusted the intrigues of the Greeks.
As soon, therefore, as it was known in the Latin camp that Isaac II was
restored to the throne, they were prepared to meet with chicane in place of
open hostilities. Alexius IV was retained as a hostage until envoys of their
own should bring back a report of the real state of affairs within the walls of
Constantinople, and obtain from Isaac the ratification of the treaty concluded
by his son at Zara. Isaac, on hearing the concessions made by his son, frankly
informed the Crusaders that he saw no possibility of carrying the stipulations
of the treaty into effect; but with his accustomed weakness he immediately
consented to ratify it, in order to have the pleasure of embracing his son.
Alexius IV then made his solemn entry into the capital on horseback, between
Baldwin, count of Flanders, and the doge, Henry Dandolo, and on the 1st of
August he was crowned as his father's colleague. The long imprisonment of Isaac
II, and the loss of his eyesight, had weakened his feeble mind; while Alexius,
an idle and ill-educated youth, destitute of natural talent, having contracted
the habits and vices of the Franks, was incompetent to supply the deficiencies
of his father. Both emperors, however, were sensible of the insurmountable
difficulties of their position; they felt that they could not trust their own
subjects, and they perceived the danger of relying on the Latins. The blindness
of Isaac, and his constant attacks of gout, made him pay more attention to his
own sufferings than to the dangers of the empire. As human aid promised no
relief in either case, he sought consolation from monks and astrologers, who
flattered him with imaginary prophetic revelations, and the supposed results of
divination. These cursed monks, as Nicetas calls
them, dined at the imperial table, where they consumed the finest fish of the
Bosphorus, and the richest wines of the Archipelago, which they paid for by
persuading Isaac that he was destined to recover his sight and health at the
very time he was visibly sinking into the grave. The conduct of Alexius was as
foolish as that of Isaac, and he was equally inattentive to public business.
His thoughtless behavior rendered him contemptible both
to the Greeks and Latins. He spent whole days in the tents of the Crusaders,
feasting and gambling with the young nobles, who, in their revels, sometimes
took the imperial bonnet, ornamented with precious stones, from his head, and
replaced it with the woollen cap commonly worn by the Latins.
It soon became evident that the Byzantine government was unable to satisfy
the demands of the Crusaders; but the army and fleet were regularly supplied
with provisions, and from time to time their leaders were furnished with such
sums of money as the emperors were able to collect. These instalments were
obtained from the money in the imperial treasury which had escaped Alexius III
and his courtiers, from sums raised by confiscating the private wealth
accumulated by the Empress Euphrosyne and some of her relations, and by
collecting the gold and silver plate, and the jewels in the imperial palaces,
the monasteries, and even the churches. But all was inadequate to discharge the
debt, while the feelings of irritation between the Greeks and Latins were daily
increasing. To avoid a collision, the Latin army was encamped close to Galata,
and the soldiers were only allowed to visit Constantinople during the day in
small numbers.
The 29th of September, St Michael’s Day, was nevertheless fixed for the
departure of the Crusaders; and Alexius IV, in order to extend his power in the
provinces, and collect additional sums of money, left Constantinople,
accompanied by a considerable body of Latin troops under the command of the Marquis
of Montferrat, a selfish intriguer, who increased the general difficulties by
seeking to obtain clandestine profits for himself. He cheated Alexius with as
little delicacy as knavish associates usually display in their dealings with
foolish spendthrifts. Before Alexius mounted the throne, the marquis obtained a
promise of the investiture of Crete; and he now exacted an engagement for the
payment of one thousand six hundred pounds’ weight of gold before accompanying
the young emperor. The movements of the dethroned Alexius rendered it
absolutely necessary to attack him without delay; for, finding that he was not
pursued, he had collected a considerable body of troops at Debeltos,
occupied Adrianople, and secured his authority over the greater part of Thrace.
The young Alexius IV soon drove him out of Adrianople, and took possession of
Philippopolis and Kypsela; but it was found that no
money could be hastily collected in a province exhausted by continual
hostilities, beyond what was required for supplying the immediate wants of the
troops in the field. The marquis and his followers, who thought more of
securing payment of their subsidies than of assisting the empire, soon
compelled Alexius IV to return to Constantinople, though their precipitate
retreat left Alexius III in possession of Mosynopolis
and all Macedonia, and allowed Joannice, king of
Bulgaria, who had crossed Mount Haemus in order to profit by the disturbed
state of the Byzantine empire, to conquer many places in Thrace.
The relations between the Byzantine government and the Crusaders were thus
rendered every day more complicated and less friendly. The Crusaders insisted
on the immediate fulfilment of all the stipulations of the treaty; the emperors
complained that the Crusaders left the provinces from which great part of the
revenues were derived in the hands of the usurper, while they employed
themselves in plundering the property of the friendly population in the
vicinity of Constantinople. As the emperors were unable to pay the immense sums
they had promised, and the Crusaders had really only fulfilled a part of what
they had engaged to perform, nothing but mutual concessions could prevent a
quarrel. The complicated nature of the obligations between the Byzantine
government and the Crusaders and Venetians on one side, and between the feudal
barons and the Venetians on the other, rendered a peaceful termination of the
expedition almost impossible. Things were in that peculiar state, when nothing
but great talents and great moderation on the part of three different powers
could insure tranquillity. One man alone possessed the talents and the
authority capable of preserving order; and this very man, Henry Dandolo, was
eagerly watching for every event tending to hasten the collision which he
looked forward to as inevitable.
An accidental calamity tended greatly to increase the hatred of the Greeks
to the Latins. On the 19th of August, while young Alexius was absent on his
Thracian expedition, a dreadful fire destroyed a considerable part of
Constantinople, adding greatly to the sufferings of the population, and to the
embarrassments of the government. This conflagration originated in the wilful
act of a few Flemish soldiers, who had crossed the port to visit some of their
countrymen established as merchants in the empire. After drinking together
until they were nearly drunk, the Crusaders proposed attacking a Turkish mosque
in the neighbourhood, and plundering the rich warehouses of the Turkish
merchants who traded with Persia and Egypt. Their pillage was interrupted by
the Greeks, who drove them back, and pursued them so hotly towards the port,
that the Flemings, in order to save themselves, set fire to some houses in
their rear. A strong wind caused the conflagration to spread with frightful
rapidity, and it burned for the space of two days. The entire breadth of the
city, from the port to the Propontis, was laid in ashes, forming a belt of
cinders a mile and a half in extent, over which it was necessary to pass from
one part of the town to the other. The fire passed close to the Church of St
Sophia, destroying the richest quarter of the city. Splendid palaces, filled
with works of ancient art and antique classic manuscripts, as well as
warehouses stored with immense wealth, were destroyed by this conflagration,
from the calamitous effects of which Constantinople never recovered. About
fifteen thousand Latins had hitherto continued to reside in Constantinople as
traders and artisans. The fury of the populace and the ruin of their houses now
compelled them to seek refuge at Galata, under the protection of the Crusaders.
The losses caused by this fire, and the hostile disposition it caused in
the breasts of the Greeks both against the emperors and the Latins, rendered it
impossible to make the pecuniary payments required by the Crusaders. But their
threats compelled the Byzantine government to seize the golden ornaments and
immense silver candelabra that ornamented St Sophia’s and other churches in the
capital. The golden shrines that enclosed the relics of saints and martyrs, and
the silver frames of holy pictures, were melted down and handed over to the
Venetian commissaries. A new treaty was negotiated with the Crusaders, for the
prolongation of their stay until the following Easter. The emperors engaged to
defray the whole expenses of the army and fleet during the interval, though the
Venetians exacted an additional freight for their ships. The young Alexius IV
promised to oblige the Patriarch to proclaim Innocent III head of the whole
Christian church, and wrote to that ambitious pontiff an assurance that he was
labouring to reunite the Eastern Church under papal supremacy. Many of the
Crusaders were extremely unwilling to remain, and their army showed signs of
discontent. The Greeks, on the other hand, enraged at their sufferings, and the
insults offered to their Church, began to think of resistance. They remembered
that they had repulsed the attack of the land troops, and their behaviour
indicated an approaching insurrection. Alexius IV thought at times of placing
himself at the head of the national party, and formed a friendship with Alexius
Dukas Murtzuphlos, who was
the most daring leader of the war party; but his father warned him of the
danger, and convinced him that, without the assistance of the Crusaders, it
would be impossible to defend the throne.
The monks and astrologers who surrounded Isaac II persuaded him to
transport the bronze boar, which Euphrosyne had mutilated, from the hippodrome
into the palace, as an effectual means of taming the fury of the populace of
Constantinople, of which they said this boar was the type. The populace really
resembled the emperor in superstition so closely that they emulated his
astrological follies. They conceived a fancy that a splendid bronze statue of
Minerva, thirty feet high, was the genius of the Latins, whom its attitude
appeared to invite. This noble work of Hellenic art the Greeks destroyed.
Things at last reached a crisis. The Crusaders sent a formal
declaration of war to the emperors, in case they failed to fulfill
the conditions of the new treaty and pay the money due. The people of
Constantinople rose in rebellion, and declared that they would no longer submit
to be governed by emperors who had sold the empire and the church to the
Latins. On the 25th of January 1204 the people assembled in St Sophia’s, and
compelled the members of the senate, the clergy, and the principal nobles of
the capital, to attend in order to elect a new emperor.
But as every man of rank knew that the Latins would support the cause of
Alexius IV, as a pretext for attacking the city, no one was found who would
accept the proffered sovereignty. For
three days the confusion continued, until a young man named
Nikolas Kanavos was anointed emperor against his will. Isaac II died
during this period of anarchy. Alexius IV sent to the Marquis of
Montferrat, and made arrangements for introducing the Crusaders into
Constantinople; but Alexius Murtzuphlos, hearing of
this, placed himself at the head of his military partisans, and, having
obtained admittance to the Emperor Alexius late in the evening, frightened him
with dreadful accounts of the conduct of the enraged populace. The shouts
of the followers of Murtzuphlos were heard at the
palace gates. The fate of Andronicus presented itself to the imagination
of Alexius, who begged Murtzuphlos to assist him in
escaping to the Latins. The traitor, after receiving the ensigns of the
imperial rank from the hands of the confiding prince, led him by
long galleries to the dungeons of the palace. Alexius Murtzuphlos then returned to his followers, by whom he
was proclaimed emperor; and the choice was ratified by all the troops. Kanavos
was compelled to descend from the throne; and Alexius IV was strangled in the
dungeon to which he had been conducted, after a reign of six months and eight
days.
ALEXIUS V (MURTZUPHLOS), A.D.
1204.
Alexius V, who placed himself on the throne by this daring act of rebellion
and assassination, was a member of the great family of Dukas,
which had given two emperors to the East, and was closely allied with the
families of Comnenos and Angelos.
He had received the by-name of Murtzuphlos from his
school companions on account of his large overhanging eyebrows. At this time
he was generally looked up to by his countrymen as the bravest soldier among
the nobility, and he had given proofs of his valour in several skirmishes with
the Crusaders. His enemies admit that he was indefatigable in his exertions to
re-establish order, and put the fortifications in a state of defence. He
restored the discipline of the troops by appearing constantly at their
exercises. He preserved tranquillity among the populace by traversing the city
frequently on horseback, by night as well as by day, with his mace-of-arms in
his hand, fie repaired the walls, strengthened the towers, improved the
machines for throwing missiles, and formed scaffolds for new engines on the
towers most exposed to attack from the side of the port, in order that they
might command the decks of the Venetian ships.
As the military energy of the Byzantine empire, like that of modern states,
depended in a great measure on its financial resources, and the circumstances
under which Murtzuphlos mounted the throne rendered
it impossible for him to think of imposing any new tax, even though it was well
known that the treasury was empty, he took measures for raising the supplies
necessary for the preparations he was carrying on, and for the payment of the
mercenary troops, by sequestrating the fortunes of all who had acted as
intendants of finance, as collectors of the imperial revenue, or as government
contractors, whose property was generally confiscated on the ground that they
were deeply indebted to the public. This mode of raising money was popular in
the Roman Empire in every age, from the time of Augustus Caesar to that of Dukas Murtzuphlos. But it was
impossible to infuse a warlike spirit into the breasts of the Greeks of
Constantinople. Both nobles and citizens were equally disgusted with the severe
military discipline introduced by the new emperor, who compelled every Greek
who was unfit to perform the duties of an officer, or to serve in the cavalry,
to range himself in the infantry and do duty on the walls. The merchants and
shopkeepers were averse to serve in person, because they paid exorbitant taxes
in order that government might find mercenary troops for their defence; and
they were ashamed of the ridicule to which they exposed themselves by their
awkwardness in military array beside the English, Danes, and Pisans of the
imperial guard, who moved in complete armour as easily as the citizens in their
holiday garments. Many Greeks, too, of every class, detested the imperial
government, and had lost their attachment to the hierarchy of the church. Some
looked forward to their destruction as a necessary reform; many viewed it with
indifference, and some with pleasure.
For two months the new emperor and the Crusaders prepared themselves with
all their energy for the struggle which was to decide the fate of the Byzantine
Empire. Murtzuphlos, by repeated skirmishes, ably
conducted, succeeded in circumscribing the foraging parties of the Crusaders in
the immediate vicinity of the capital, and Henry of Flanders was obliged to
march with a large body of cavalry as far as Philea
on the Black Sea, in order to collect a supply of provisions. The emperor
attempted to surprise this division on its return; but the Belgian soldiers of
Henry, though suddenly attacked, closed their ranks without confusion, and
completely defeated the Greeks. Twenty of the bravest horsemen of the imperial
guard were slain in the first charge; and the grand standard of the Virgin,
which always accompanied the emperor when he took the field in person, and
which was regarded by the people as the talisman of the empire, was taken by
Henry. The Byzantine troops suffered so severely in this encounter that Murtzuphlos did not again venture to lead them without the
walls.
The Crusaders and Venetians had prepared everything for a new assault by
the end of March 1204. A council was then held to arrange the manner in which
the plunder of Constantinople was to be divided, and to settle the partition of
the Byzantine Empire. The treaty then signed put an end to the Eastern Roman
Empire; for neither the Latin empire of Romania, established by the conquerors,
nor the Greek empires of Nicaea and of Constantinople which succeeded, have a
just claim to be considered the legitimate representatives either of the policy
or of the dignity of the Byzantine government.
This treaty was concluded by the Doge Henry Dandolo on the part of the
Venetians, and by Boniface, marquis of Montferrat, Baldwin, count of Flanders,
Louis, count of Blois, and Henry, count of St Pol, on the part of the
Crusaders, in order to avoid all disputes, should it please God, for His honour
and glory, to grant them the victory over their enemies. The Venetians very
naturally considered that the freight of the expedition was the first debt
which it was the duty of the Crusaders to discharge. But to prevent the whole
booty from being absorbed by this claim, it was provided that the Venetians
were to receive three quarters of the plunder, and the Crusaders one, until the
whole sum due to Venice was discharged. In every case the rations necessary for
the whole expedition were to be issued from the common stock according to the
established rule. The Venetians were to enjoy all the privileges in the
conquered territory which they possessed in their own country, and were to be
governed by their own laws. Twelve electors were to be chosen as soon as
Constantinople was taken, who were to elect an emperor; and they were to choose
the man best able to govern the new conquests for the glory of God and the
advantage of the Holy Roman Church: six of these electors were to be named by
the barons, and six by the Venetians. The emperor was to possess as his
immediate domain the palaces of Blachern and Bucoleon, with one quarter of the Byzantine empire; the
remaining three quarters were to be equally divided between the Crusaders and
the Venetians. The clergy of the party to which the emperor did not belong were
to elect the patriarch of the Eastern Church, and the ecclesiastics of the two
parties were to occupy the benefices in the territories assigned to their
respective nations. The two parties bound themselves to remain united for
another year—that is, until the 31st of March 1205; and all who then
established themselves in the empire were to take an oath of fealty, and do
homage to the emperor. Twelve commissioners were to be chosen by each party, in
order to divide the conquered territory into fiefs, and determine the service
due by the crown vassals to the emperor. No person belonging to any nation at
war with the parties to the treaty was to be received in the empire as long as
hostilities lasted. This stipulation was evidently inserted by the Venetians,
and directed against their great commercial and political rivals, the Genoese.
Both parties were to exert all their influence to induce the Pope to ratify and
confirm the treaty, and excommunicate any who should refuse to execute its
stipulations. The emperor was to swear to observe the treaty; and in case it
should be found necessary to make any modifications in it before his election,
the Doge of Venice and the Marquis of Montferrat, with the twelve electors,
were empowered to make the change required, The doge, Henry Dandolo, as a
personal honour, was dispensed from taking an oath of fealty to the future
emperor for any fief or office he might hold.
It appears that an act of partition, describing the territories comprised
in the quarter of the empire assigned to the emperor, in the quarter and half
quarter assigned to the Venetians, and in the quarter and half quarter assigned
to the Crusaders, was drawn up at the same time as the treaty. But the
imperfect copies of this act which have been preserved, the manner in which the
geographical names are disfigured, and the modifications to which it was
immediately subjected, in consequence of disputes, exchanges, and sales of the
various lots, render the fragments we possess a doubtful authority for
determining the original partition of the empire.
On the 9th of April everything was ready for the assault, and at daybreak
the whole force of the expedition moved forward to attack the towers on the
side of the port, for it seemed doubtful whether the diminished numbers of the
land forces would be able to make any impression on the numerous mercenaries
who manned the land wall under the eye of a leader like Murtzuphlos.
On the other hand, the long line of wall towards the port offered no flank
defences beyond the slight projection and elevation of its towers; while the
assailants could take advantage of the quays for landing merchandise in making
their attack with ordinary scaling-ladders, and concentrate an overwhelming
flight of missiles on any given point from three hundred engines planted on the
decks of their ships. Murtzuphlos had, however, done
much to strengthen this part of the fortifications, and it was found well
prepared to offer a desperate resistance. The assault was commenced with the
greatest fury, and persisted in with the fiercest perseverance. Many Crusaders
landed on the quays, and planted their ladders against the walls, but every
assailant who reached their summit was hurled down headlong. The machines of
the defenders broke the yards of those ships that approached the towers, and
swept the men from their decks. At length, after a contest of hours, and the
loss of some of their bravest soldiers, the Crusaders were obliged to retire.
But the assailants were not men to be easily discouraged by danger, and
they determined to renew the attack on the 12th of April. The interval was
employed in preparing more powerful means of escalade. The largest ships of the
fleet were bound together in pairs, their decks were protected by stronger
bulwarks, and their tops were enlarged. The fleet, ranged in successive lines,
was enabled to bring an overwhelming force against the defenders of any single
tower. The attack commenced by an unremitted volley of missiles against the
points which it was proposed to storm. When the defenders were compelled to
conceal themselves from this volley, the ships destined for the assault were
impelled rapidly to the wall, aided by a strong north wind, which carried the
heaviest double ships with rapidity alongside the towers. The Pilgrim and
the Paradise were the first to plant their platform on a
Byzantine tower, and a band of Venetians and Crusaders sprang in eager
emulation at the same instant on the hostile ramparts. The shout of victory
spread instantaneously through the host, and four towers were immediately
stormed. In a few minutes, three of the city gates were thrown open, and the
knights began to land their horses from the ships in the rear. Murtzuphlos had pitched his tents and encamped the imperial
guard at the monastery of Pantepoptes, in the open
space left by the first conflagration. He saw the victory gained before it was
in his power to send succours to the defenders; and when the hostile banners were
already floating from the towers, his guards refused to march against the
victorious enemy, and fled with their emperor to the palace of Bucoleon. The conquerors immediately occupied his
encampment, and took possession of the neighbouring palace of Blachern; but the day was too far spent to do more than
establish themselves firmly in the positions they had seized. The leaders
deemed it imprudent to allow any part of their troops to advance into the
streets of a city which had not yet capitulated, and to which the imperial
palace formed a strong citadel, garrisoned by a numerous body of
well-disciplined mercenaries. To increase the confusion among the Greeks, and
prevent their attacking the camp during the night, the Crusaders set fire to
the houses on their flank. This third conflagration destroyed the eastern part
of the city beyond the monastery of Evergetes, and
extended near the sea as far as the Drungarion. Villehardoin says that the three fires lighted by the
Crusaders destroyed more houses than were contained in the three largest cities
in France.
The Emperor Alexius V, finding no one disposed to defend his throne,
embarked in a galley with the Empress Euphrosyne and her daughter Eudocia, whom
he had married, and fled from the capital.
(The imperial families of Comnenos and Angeloe present us scenes as tragical as anything in the
ancient drama “presenting Thebes and Pelops’ line”. Alexius II and his sister,
the beautiful Maria, were murdered by Andronicus LI, whose horrid death was
accompanied by the murder of his sons. Isaac, the tyrant of Cyprus, the blind
Isaac II, the fugitive Alexius III, the murdered Alexius IV, and Eudocia, the
daughter of Alexius III, all bore a part in fearful tragedies. Eudocia was
married to Simeon, king of Servia, who retired into a monastery on Mount Papykes. His son Stephen, struck with the beauty of his
young stepmother, married her, and had children by the marriage. A scandalous
quarrel, however, arose; he divorced her, and expelled her from the palace,
almost naked. As nobody dared to assist her, she would probably have perished,
had not Fulk, the king’s brother, sent her to Constantinople. Murtzuphlos, who had already divorced two wives, married
her; and after the execution of Murtzuphlos, she
married Leo Sguros, the chief of Argos, Nauplia, and Corinth).
In the meantime, the people of every rank crowded to St Sophia’s, and
exhibited a strange example of the political weakness and demoralization caused
by the complete centralization of all executive action. No one thought of
taking advantage of the numerous means of defence which were still available.
The election of a new emperor was necessary to secure obedience to any order,
and even in this scene of anarchy two claimants presented themselves as
pretenders to the throne. Fortune determined the election in favour of Theodore
Lascaris; but after a vain attempt to rally the imperial guard, and excite the
Greeks to active resistance, he found it necessary to escape to Asia as soon as
morning dawned; adding a third to the fugitive emperors who were wandering the
Byzantine provinces in search of their empire.
The Crusaders and Venetians met with no further resistance. The Marquess of
Montferrat occupied the palace of Bucoleon, and Henry
of Flanders that of Blachern. The Byzantine troops
laid down their arms on receiving assurance of personal safety. Guards were
then placed over the imperial treasury and the arsenal, but the troops and
sailors were allowed to plunder the city without restraint. The insolence of
victory was never more haughtily displayed; every crime was perpetrated without
shame. The houses of the peaceful citizens were plundered, their wives
dishonoured, and their children enslaved. Churches and monasteries were rifled;
monuments of religious zeal were defaced; horses and mules were stabled in
temples whose architectural magnificence was unequalled in the rest of Europe.
The ceremonies of the Greeks were ridiculed; the priests were insulted; the
sacred plate, the precious shrines in which the relics of martyrs and saints
were preserved, the rich altar-cloths, and the jewelled ornaments, were carried
off. The soldiers and their female companions made the Church of St Sophia the
scene of licentious orgies; and Nicetas recounts with
grief and indignation that “one of the priestesses of Satan” who accompanied
the Crusaders seated herself on the Patriarch’s throne, sang ribald songs
before the high altar, and danced in the sacred edifice, to the delight of the
infuriated soldiery. It is not necessary to detail all the miseries suffered by
the unfortunate Greeks; Pope Innocent III has left a description of the scene
so horrible that it will hardly bear a literal translation. The age was one of
fierce wars and dreadful calamities; but the sack of Constantinople so far
exceeded everything else that happened, both in its glory and shame, as to
become the favourite theme of popular song and dramatic representation
throughout the known world. Villehardoin says that
every Crusader occupied the house that pleased his fancy; and men who the day
before were in absolute poverty, suddenly found themselves possessed of wealth,
and living in luxury.
Some of the Latin clergy vainly endeavoured to moderate the fury which
their own bigoted precepts had instilled into the troops; but many thought only
of collecting a rich booty of relics, and showed themselves as little
scrupulous as the Venetians and soldiers in robbing churches and monasteries.
Well might the Greeks contrast the conduct of this army of the soldiers of
Christ under the especial care of its holy father the Pope, with the
behaviour of the Mussulman troops under the command of Saladin, who conquered
Jerusalem. The Christians had bound themselves by an oath not to shed the blood
of Christians; they had made vows of abstinence and chastity. What attention
they paid to these vows when they turned their arms against a Christian state,
which for many centuries had formed the bulwark of Europe against the invasion
of the Saracens, is recorded by the Pope himself.
The chiefs of the expedition at last determined to re-establish order; but
before it was possible to restore the salutary restraint of military
discipline, they were obliged to put several of their mutinous followers to
death, and the Count of St Pol hung a French knight with his shield round his
neck. This severe punishment was inflicted, not for an abuse of the rights of
conquest towards the defenceless Greeks, but as an act of public vengeance
against a traitor who had defrauded his companions by concealing a portion of
the plunder. Thanks were then offered up to God with the greatest solemnity for
the glorious conquest of a city containing half a million of inhabitants by an
army composed of twenty thousand men; and “God wills it” was fervently shouted
by the pious brigands.
A proclamation was published, ordering all the booty to be collected in
three of the principal churches of the city, and promising personal protection
to the inhabitants. Most of the Byzantine nobility availed themselves of this
opportunity to escape from the city. Nicetas the
historian, who for the last century has been our best guide in the Byzantine
annals, has left us an account of his own adventures during the catastrophe of
his country. The palace he occupied before the calamities commenced was
situated in the quarter Sphoralrion, near St
Sophia’s, and was enriched with many treasures of ancient art and literature.
It was destroyed in the second conflagration, and the historian then retired to
a smaller dwelling in a narrow street. In this house many of his friends sought
refuge; and a Venetian whom he had protected in the days of his official power
now armed himself as a Crusader, and guarded the entrance as if it was his own
quarters. This succeeded for some days; but as soon as the proclamation was
known, Nicetas and his friends resolved to quit
Constantinople, and abandon their property in order to escape from insult. On
Saturday, the fifth day after the capture of the city, while a cold wind from
the Black Sea gave the morning a wintry aspect, Nicetas,
accompanied by his pregnant wife, and surrounded by his children and friends,
walked through the streets of the capital to gain the Golden Gate, where some
wretched conveyance might be obtained, by means of which they could reach Selymbria. Several of the party carried infants in their
arms, for their servants and slaves had deserted them. The young women of rank
and beauty were placed in the midst of the band of exiles, their faces
disfigured with dust, and their figures concealed in unsightly dresses. In this
way the fugitives passed many bands of soldiers without interruption, but when
they reached the Church of St Mokios a soldier seized
a beautiful girl, and carried her off by force. The father, feeble from
sickness, was unable to pursue the ravisher, and he implored Nicetas to save his daughter. The historian followed the
soldier, imploring all the Latins he met to protect the honour of an innocent
family, and save a noble lady from insult and slavery. He appealed to the
proclamation which it was their duty to respect, until his eloquent and
pathetic gestures, rather than his words, awakened compassion. A party of
Crusaders accompanied Nicetas to the house into which
the maiden had been carried, where they found the robber standing at the door.
He denied all knowledge of the transaction; but when the house was searched,
the young lady was found, and conducted back to her father. The sad procession
soon after reached the Golden Gate, and gained the road to Selymbria.
It was joined by the Patriarch, now travelling forth, like a true apostle,
without attendants and sumpter-mules, and as destitute as the rest of his
companions. The exiles reached Selymbria in safety;
but the people generally treated their sufferings with derision, by which they
were more galled than by the insolence of the Franks.
The financial oppression of the Byzantine government, the vices of the
court, and the crimes of the recent emperors, were attributed by the people to
the meanness and rapacity of the nobility and dignified clergy, who were
supposed to have upheld the vicious fabric of the imperial administration for
their own profit. The people, therefore, expressed their satisfaction in rude
terms when they saw princes, patriarchs, and senators, reduced to the state of
poverty in which they were themselves living. The calamity appeared to them an
equitable dispensation of Divine justice. Nor was this judgment confined to the
lower classes; on the contrary, it was the deliberate opinion of many Greeks
throughout the provinces that the ruin of the Byzantine empire was caused by
the base complicity of the senate and the clergy in all the abuses and rapacity
which has disgraced the public administration since the death of Manuel
I. Nicetas complains bitterly of the injustice
of this opinion, and endeavours to throw the blame of the taking of
Constantinople on the cowardice of the troops and the worthlessness of their
officers; but it is certain that the civil government was more to blame than
the troops for the fall of the empire.
The first care of the victors was to divide the plunder accumulated in the
three churches they had selected for magazines. Sacred plate, golden crowns,
images of saints, shrines of relics, candelabra of precious metals, statues of
ancient gods, precious ornaments of Hellenic art and of Byzantine jewellery,
were heaped up with coined money from the imperial treasury, and with silk,
velvet, embroidered tissues, and jewels, collected from the warehouses of
merchants, from the shops of goldsmiths, and by domestic spoliation. The booty,
in spite of fraud, concealment, waste, and conflagration, amounted to three
hundred thousand marks of silver, besides ten thousand horses and mules which
had belonged to the cavalry or the imperial stables. Baldwin of Flanders, the
future emperor, declares that the riches of Constantinople equalled the
accumulated wealth of all Western Europe. The spoil was first divided into two
equal parts, and the Crusaders then paid the Venetians from their portion the
sum of fifty thousand marks, according to the original convention concluded at
Venice. The remaining one hundred thousand marks were divided in the following
proportion: each horseman received double the share of a foot-soldier, and each
knight double the share of a horseman. The small difference between the shares
of a common soldier and a knight proves that the feudal militia of this
expedition, which was a fair type of the military force of the age in Western
Europe, consisted of men in a higher social rank than those who form our modern
armies. It was necessary to be born a gentleman in order to be a soldier in the
twelfth century; and as great physical powers and long practice alone could
enable a man to move with activity under the weight of the armour then worn,
the power of raising recruits was restricted to a much smaller proportion of
the population than it is in our days, when scientific manoeuvres and distant
artillery do much of the work formerly achieved by the personal courage and the
strong arm of the combatants.
On the 9th of May, Baldwin, count of Flanders, was elected Emperor of the
East, and the sceptre passed into the hands of the Belgians. The personal
character of Baldwin, his military accomplishments, his youth, power, and
virtue, all pointed him out as the leader most likely to enjoy a long and
prosperous reign. His piety and the purity of his private life commanded the
respect of the Greeks, who vainly hoped to enjoy peace under his government. He
was one of the few Crusaders who paid strict attention to his vows of
abstinence; and a singular proclamation, which he thought it necessary to
repeat twice a-week, forbidding all who were guilty of incontinency to sleep
within the walls of his palace, shows that he knew the majority of his
countrymen easily forgot their vows. The connection of the Belgians with the
French, and the little jealousy entertained by the Venetians of a sovereign
whose hereditary dominions were so far distant from the possessions of the
republic, contributed to the preference of Baldwin.
The two fugitive Byzantine emperors, Alexius III and Alexius Murtzuphlos, wandered about in Macedonia, with little hope
of finding partisans disposed to join their cause. Murtzuphlos
joined his father-in-law, hoping by their united influence to assemble an army
capable of preventing the Crusaders from reaching Thessalonica. But Alexius III
feared his son-in-law on account of his military talents, and contrived to
seize him, and have his eyes put out. The unfortunate Murtzuphlos
was soon taken prisoner by the Crusaders, who carried him to Constantinople,
where they tried him for the murder of Alexius IV. Murtzuphlos
pleaded that the young Alexius had been deposed and condemned as a traitor by a
lawful assembly; but the Crusaders found him guilty, and ordered him to be
executed in a singular manner. The last of the Byzantine emperors was
precipitated from the top of a column in the Tauros,
one of the principal squares in the capital, and was dashed to pieces on the
pavement of the city. Alexius III fled as the Crusaders advanced. To gain a new
ally, he bestowed the accommodating Eudocia in marriage on Leo Sguros, who had occupied a great part of Greece; but when
that chief was defeated by the Marquess of Montferrat, Alexius submitted to the
conqueror, and received a pension. He soon fled to Michael, despot of Epirus;
thence he repaired as a suppliant to the court of Gaiaseddin
Kaikhosrou II sultan of Iconium, whom he had received
with kindness when an exile. The power which
Theodore Lascaris had acquired at Nicaea excited the envy of Alexius,
though Theodore was the husband of his daughter Anna, and, with the aid of the
Turks, he endeavoured to seize his throne. Theodore Lascaris defeated the
sultan, and took Alexius prisoner. The dethroned and restless monarch was shut
up in a monastery, where he passed the remainder of his life, universally
despised as a worthless and cowardly emperor, and detested as an envious and
cruel man, utterly void of every feeling of natural affection, honour, or
gratitude.
CONCLUSION
End of the Byzantine Empire
Such was the termination of the Byzantine phase of the Eastern Roman
Empire. Many new states were formed from its disjointed members, as had
formerly happened at the fall of the Empire of the West. Three of these assumed
the rank of empires, and the Belgian Emperor of Constantinople found himself
compelled to dispute for the honour of representing the Roman Empire of the
East with two Greek sovereigns, who assumed the imperial title at Nicaea and at
Trebizond. Most of the European provinces were subjected to a new code of laws,
and were forced to adopt new habits and manners. The feudal system was imposed
on Greece by its conquerors, and a considerable portion of the Hellenic race
never again recovered its independence; but when the power of its feudal
princes and of its other masters, the Venetians, the Genoese, and the Knights
of St John, declined, it passed under the dominion of the Ottoman Turks. The
Greek emperor of Nicaea, even after he had expelled the Belgian emperor from
Constantinople, never extended his power over more than a moiety of the Greek
nation. The Greek empire of Constantinople was only a counterfeit
representation of its Byzantine predecessor, in the same manner as the empire
of Charlemagne formed a mere nominal revival of that of Rome. But more
instruction would be derived by making the difference in the state of society
at the fall of the empires of the East and West, than in tracing analogies
which naturally occurred at the dissolution of two states long governed by the
same principles of policy and jurisprudence.
The task here assumed is confined to a more restricted field. It will be
enough to recapitulate the principal causes which produced the ruin of the
Byzantine empire, and to indicate the various influences that operated in
transforming the spirit of universality, which characterised the government of
the Iconoclast emperors, into the confined Greek nationality that displayed
itself under the houses of Comnenos and Angelos. A great modification in the official establishment
of the empire took place by the consolidation of arbitrary power in the hands
of the Basilian dynasty. The arbitrary nature of the executive power, as then
exercised, circumscribed the class from which the higher officials in the
administration were selected, and robbed intellectual cultivation, scientific
knowledge, and long experience, of the guarantees they previously possessed for
attaining high rank in the public service. Courtly privileges, political
ignorance, decreased communications, restricted ideas, the decay of internal
trade, and a stationary condition of the people, soon proclaimed the decline of
society. We are apt to feel surprised that ancient nations submitted tamely to
the severe oppression under which they are recorded to have bowed for many
successive generations. A careful consideration of the constitution of society,
that arose out of the existence of slavery, explains the difficulty. The
slaves at Constantinople, as in ancient Rome, were
very numerous; many were as well educated as their masters, and mingled
habitually with the highest ranks of society. To a large body of these slaves,
therefore, the feelings of every class, the extent of popular grievances, the
strength of rival factions, and the resources of the central executive power,
were as well-known as to the greater part of the free population. The mass of
slaves lived in perpetual hostility to the existing order of things, ready to
seize any opportunity that might present itself for effecting a social
revolution; nor would leaders have been wanting among the slaves themselves,
had a favourable moment been found. The free citizens knew the danger in which
they lived, and hence their political conduct was fettered by perpetual bonds:
they feared an insurrection of their slaves more than the arbitrary power of
their emperors.
It may be asserted without hesitation, that the first irremediable injury
inflicted on the Byzantine government was the corruption of the administration
of justice by ignorant and venal courtiers, whom the Basilian emperors
intrusted with the exercise of arbitrary power. The immense influence of the
Byzantine judicial system, in maintaining order and activity throughout all
ranks of society, is apt to be overlooked, because it was never fully
appreciated by contemporary historians. Its social power may be justly
estimated by reflecting that the Byzantine law approached much nearer to the
principles of equity than the Eastern Church did to the principles of
Christianity. As soon as judicial functions were ill performed, general
civilization declined. The people, finding that justice was prostituted, and
that there was no hope of reforming the administration, ceased to respect the
central authority. The great moral tie which had attached the inhabitants of
the provinces to the emperors was then broken. A practical separation of the
interests of different nations and territories ensued; and a marked change in
the relations of those provinces which possessed a national character to the
central government was the first manifest sign of the weakness of the empire.
The operation of fiscal oppression in accelerating the revolution, and in
separating every subject race except the Greek from the government, has been
fully treated in the preceding pages. The Armenians, Cappadocians, Cilicians, Bulgarians, Sclavonians,
Vallachians, and Albanians were, one after the other,
driven to assert their independence; and the supremacy of the Hellenic race in
the Byzantine empire, which may be dated from the extinction of the Basilian
dynasty, prepared the way for internal revolutions and foreign conquest. The
other nations struggled to preserve their independence; the Greeks bartered
theirs for official and ecclesiastical power.
The decline of the Byzantine Empire must also be considered as closely
connected with the identification of the Greek Church with the Roman
administration. This union of the ecclesiastical with the civil government may
be also dated from the last years of the Basilian dynasty. It was consummated
after the complete schism of the Greek and Latin churches in 1053, which was
unfortunately effected by the Patriarch Michael Keroularios,
with a degree of violence that implanted a deep hatred in the breasts of the
priesthood of the rival sects. By this union of the ecclesiastical with the
political administration, the power and influence of the Greek aristocracy was
greatly extended and strengthened, but the spirit of the government was
rendered more exclusive and bigoted. The Byzantine emperors, as they identified
the ecclesiastical with the civil administration, always held the Eastern
clergy in a state of abject dependence on the imperial power. They used the
church as a ministerial department of government for the religious affairs and
the education of the people. So that, when the loss of Sicily and Italy and the
hostility of Armenia had excluded men of education belonging to these countries
from the higher ecclesiastical charges at Constantinople, the general ignorance
of the other subject-races threw every ecclesiastical office into the hands of
the Greeks, who converted the oriental church into a national monopoly. From
that period the administration of public affairs displayed an excess of bigotry
from which it had been generally free in preceding ages. The union of the
church and state grew constantly more intimate, and the Greeks, having no
rivals in official power, became more blindly prepossessed in favour of their
own national prejudices and ecclesiastical practices. This exclusive national
spirit, combining religion with politics, has ever since proved a misfortune to
the Greek race. During the latter years of the Byzantine Empire it prevented
the people from learning those new social and religious ideas which were then
beginning to enlarge the intelligence and the energies of the people in Western
Europe. The religious hatred with which the Greeks regarded every nation that
acknowledged the papal supremacy led them to reject many social, political, and
ecclesiastical reforms that originated in Catholic countries. The twelfth
century did much to improve the condition of the Western nations, but nothing
to improve that of the Greeks. The consequence was that the arbitrary power of
the Byzantine emperors was exercised without any civil or ecclesiastical
restraint; for the Greeks repudiated every principle of civil liberty, and
every ecclesiastical declaration in favour of the rights of humanity, as
heretical and revolutionary innovations introduced by the popes to further
their own ambitious projects. It must be remembered that the papal church was
at this time often actively engaged in defending freedom, in establishing a
machinery for the systematic administration of justice to the people, and in
impressing men with the full value of fixed laws for the purpose of restraining
the abuses of the temporal power of princes. In short, the papal church was
then the great teacher of social and political reform, and those who scorned to
listen to its words and study its policy could hardly perceive the changes
which time was producing in the Christian world. The Byzantine Greeks
immediately rejected the idea of progress; the papal church would have fain
arrested the progressive impulse it had given to society a century or two
later. The Greeks prided themselves on their conservative, or, as they called
it, their Roman spirit. By clinging superstitiously to antiquated formulas,
they rejected the means of alleviating the evils of a ruinous political fabric,
and refused to better their condition by entering on paths of reform indicated
by the Western nations, who were already emerging from their social
degradation. While the rest of Europe was actively striving to attain a happier
future, the Greeks were gazing backward on what they considered a more glorious
past. This habit of appropriating to themselves the vanished glories of the
Roman empire, or of ancient Greece, created a feeling of self-sufficiency which
repudiated reform in the latter days of the Byzantine empire, and which has
ever since retarded the progress of the modern Greeks in the career of European
civilization.
BOOK FOURTH
GREEK EMPIRE OF NICAEA AND
CONSTANTINPLE
A.D.1204-145
CHAPTER I
EMPIRE OF NICAEA,
AD. 1204-1261
Sect. I
REIGN OF THEODORE I.
(LASCARIS), A.D. 1204-1222.
The taking of Constantinople filled the Greek population in all the
provinces of the Byzantine Empire with wonder and alarm. The national existence
was bound up with the central government, so that a vacancy on the throne
seemed to imply the ruin of all the institutions under which they had hitherto
lived. The future threatened them with individual ruin as well as political
anarchy, even if they escaped foreign conquest. Yet even at this crisis of the
national fate the people made no exertions to reform the vices which degraded
their character and paralysed their exertions. No attempt was made to
circumscribe the arbitrary conduct of the court, and restore vigour to the old
scheme of systematic administration; nothing was done to correct ecclesiastical
abuses in the church, to improve the courts of law, to abolish the monopolies
that ruined native industry, or to invigorate the municipal institutions which could
alone give energy to the mass of the population. The news that a Belgian
emperor ruled in Constantinople spread from Dyrrachium to Trebizond without
rousing a single Greek citizen to step forward as the defender of the rights of
the nation. Much political disorder was caused by the avarice and ambition of
the Greek nobles, but no anarchy occurred from the populace endeavouring to
deprive the official agents of the central government of any of the powers
which for several generations these agents had grossly abused. So completely
had the court, the administration, the clergy, and the lawyers perverted the
judgment and feelings of the whole Greek population, that the fabric of the
imperial government continued to stand though its foundations were destroyed,
its vitality decayed, and its judicial efficacy corrupted. The civil and
military governors of provinces, the judges, intendants, and collectors of
taxes in cities, continued to pursue their ordinary course of action, in
alliance with the bishops and clergy, until they were driven from their posts
by the conquering Latins, or summoned to yield their places to the
representatives of a new emperor. Never was the national imbecility which
arises from the want of municipal institutions and executive activity in local
spheres more apparent. Had the towns, cities, corporations, districts, and
provinces, inhabited by a Greek population, possessed magistrates responsible
both to the people and the emperor, but accustomed to independent action, there
can be no doubt that thousands of Greek citizens would have rushed forward to
defend their country against the Crusaders and the Venetians; and that they
would have soon reformed the abuses which rendered the empires of
Constantinople and Trebizond fearful examples of the degraded condition into
which a civilized Christian society may sink. A sense of national independence
and spirit of liberty might have infused themselves into the hearts of the
Greek people, and the empire of Constantinople might then have shared with the
Western nations the task of advancing the progress of Christian civilization.
But the Greeks at this critical conjuncture proved incapable of making any
intellectual exertion; their municipal institutions had been rendered so
subservient to the central power that they had long ceased to reason on
politics; national feeling and political intelligence were dormant in
their souls, and they submitted blindly to any sovereign who seized the reins
of government, whether a foreigner or a native.
The great catastrophe, which had fallen alike on every class of society,
ought certainly to have suggested to the Greek statesmen of the period the
importance of identifying the feelings and interests of the whole free
population with the cause of the government. We know that these men were in the
habit of reading Thucydides and Plato. In the works they have left us, we find
them so often aping the style of the ancients that we feel disgusted when we
discover they paid little attention to their thoughts. The value of the study
of the classics to form or even to improve the mind was then, as it is now,
very much overrated. Experience shows that it is almost as likely to produce
learned pedants as accomplished scholars; for unless there be a basis of mental
education very different from that which is acquired through books, learning
cannot produce statesmen. The Greeks are not the only people among whom the
study of classical literature has produced no practical improvement in
political knowledge. Yet everyone must admit that the study of the republican
literature of the ancients bears that deep impression of truth which cannot
fail to enlarge the intellectual vision and purify the taste of those who
examine its records with minds already familiar with the principles of civil
liberty and political order. Men who might have distinguished themselves in
official life only as useful labourers at the task of the hour, attain to
higher views by classical studies. New combinations of free principles of
government in various conditions of society, differing from everything around
them, are presented to their view, and give them a profounder experience of
human nature. England certainly ought never to forget that many of her best
patriots and greatest statesmen have been indebted to the study of classic
literature for those liberal and philanthropic ideas which enabled them to
improve the prospects of the human race while they served their country's
cause; and their names, whether they belong to the seventeenth or the
nineteenth century, will go down to future ages with as pure and as great a
fame as the greatest in the annals of Greece and Rome. But the minds of these
men were formed by their domestic education and native institutions; they were
only improved and matured by classic studies.
Unfortunately for the Greek race, their teachers and their rulers never
felt that the people had an inalienable right to the impartial administration
of justice. The government of the Byzantine Empire considered that the very
basis of its existence was the absolute submission of the people; it regarded
all popular rights and municipal authority as incompatible with a strong
central power.
There was also a material obstacle to any general action of the Greek
nation at the time of the conquest of Constantinople. Civilization had already
declined to such a degree that communications between distant portions of the
nation were becoming rare. Monopolies and privileges had thrown commerce into
the hands of strangers. No ties of common interests or feelings bound distant
localities together, unless with 1the fetters of political despotism and
ecclesiastical bigotry. Little was to be gained or hoped for by the people
beyond the narrow sphere in which they lived, so that local prejudices and
individual interests outweighed national patriotism. The emperors were prompt
to avail themselves of this state of things, and easily attached the wealthiest
members of the aristocracy in each separate district to their service. The
profits of imperial oppression were shared with these provincial nobles and
archons, while the clergy gave to every patriotic aspiration the form of
orthodox bigotry. Such was the state of society when the foundations of the
empire of Nicaea were laid; and they explain in some degree how the weakest
despotism the world ever saw could succeed in expanding itself into the Greek
empire of Constantinople.
The rebellion of powerful nobles was a chronic disease of the Byzantine
empire. It is not surprising, therefore, that the members of the aristocracy, even
amidst the calamities of their country, thought more of their own habitual
projects of ambition than of their duties to their country. The provinces were
consequently soon filled with pretenders to the empire. The two fugitive
emperors, whose fates have been recorded at the close of the preceding book,
Alexius III and Alexius V, attempted to preserve some power in Macedonia.
Theodore Lascaris, who had been acknowledged emperor after the flight of
Alexius V, escaped to Bithynia, where he assumed the direction of the central
government, contenting himself for the moment with the title of Despot, and
appearing as the representative or colleague of his worthless father-in-law
Alexius III. As the news of the taking of Constantinople spread, fresh
pretenders to the throne appeared, and many nobles who had been preparing to
render themselves independent from the first appearance of the Crusaders,
assumed the rank of sovereign princes without claiming the title of Emperor. In
Europe, Leo Sguros, the governor of Nauplia and Argos, endeavoured to render himself master of
all Greece; but his career of ambition was soon terminated by the conquests of
the Crusaders. On the other hand, Michael Angelos Comnenos laid the foundations of an independent
principality in Epirus, which successfully resisted the Crusaders, and defended
its independence against the Greek emperors of Nicaea and Constantinople for
several generations. In Asia Minor, Theodore Mankaphas,
who had assumed the title of Emperor during the reign of Isaac II, again
claimed the empire at Philadelphia, and Manuel Maurozomes
rendered himself master of the upper valley of the Meander. But the great rival
who disputed the empire of the East with Theodore Lascaris was Alexios Comnenos, the founder of
the empire of Trebizond. He claimed the throne as the legal heir of the house
of Comnenos. The tyranny of his grandfather,
Andronicus I., was perhaps forgotten in the provinces. His father’s life had
been sacrificed to confer the throne on the worthless family of Angelos, and the memory of Manuel’s moderation and
orthodoxy had doubtless been loudly celebrated by the partisans of his son. The
calamities of the empire afforded the young Alexios a
fair opportunity for stepping forward in its defence, as no one could advance a
more legitimate claim to the vacant throne. With the assistance of a corps of
Iberian mercenaries he occupied Trebizond, and all the coast of Pontus and
Paphlagonia soon acknowledged his authority.
Future events could alone determine to whom the empire would ultimately
fall. The good fortune of Theodore I, joined to his prudence and valour,
contributed much more than his election in the Church of St Sophia to fix the
crown on his head. When he fled from Constantinople, he presented himself at
the gates of Nicaea, into which he demanded admittance as the representative of
his father-in-law, the dethroned Emperor Alexius III. The inhabitants, who
hated Alexius, refused to admit Theodore within their walls, but allowed his
wife Anna to seek shelter in their city. They were perhaps doubtful whether it
would not be more for their advantage to submit to the Crusaders than to
acknowledge a cowardly and rapacious emperor like Alexius III. Theodore retired
to the fastnesses of Mount Olympus, where he assembled a considerable body of
troops, and rallied many of the fugitives who had fled from Constantinople.
Several fortified towns in Bithynia submitted to his authority; and when the
extent of the confiscations of Greek property by the Latins became known, the
inhabitants of Asia Minor willingly placed themselves under his protection.
Theodore I fought his way to the crown by his indefatigable exertions in
opposing the progress of the Latins in Asia Minor. Before the end of the year
1204, Louis, count of Blois, who had been created Duke of Nicaea, and received
Bithynia as his share in the partition of the empire, sent an army, headed by
one hundred knights, to take possession of his duchy. This force landed at Peges, occupied Panormus, and
marched into the interior until it encountered the troops of Theodore at Poimanenos. The Greeks, however, were still incapable of
sustaining the charge of the Western cavalry, and the Crusaders gained a
complete victory. Poimanenos and Lopadion
were taken, and Prusa was besieged. The position
of Prusa (of which the walls may still be seen on a
rocky ridge overlooking the romantic Turkish city of Brusa)
was then strong; and as it was defended with constancy, the assailants were
compelled to retire with loss. But another division of the Crusaders occupied
the strong, rich, and important city of Nicomedia, which the Greeks did not
attempt to defend, but of which their active enemies immediately repaired the
ruined and dismantled fortifications.
During the same autumn, Henry of Flanders, the Emperor Baldwin’s brother,
landed with his Belgian knights at Abydos, and occupied all the Troad. In this operation he was assisted by a colony of
Armenians, established in this district by the Byzantine emperors. These
Armenians were treated by the Greek civil and military authorities with that
spirit of bigotry and oppression which had driven most of the subjects of the
Byzantine Empire, not of the Greek race, into open rebellion. They now
submitted to the Crusaders, in the hope of escaping from the sufferings under
which they had long groaned. From Abydos, Henry marched to Adramyttum,
where he met with no resistance, and the conquest of the Troad
and the whole of the rich province between the Hellespont and the Adramyttum gulf was completed without loss. Theodore Mankaphas, who had assumed the imperial title at
Philadelphia, however, deemed it his duty to oppose the progress of the Belgian
chiefs. He led a body of Asiatic troops to encounter the lances of the
Crusaders, but he was easily defeated by Henry of Flanders.
Henry’s career of conquest was suddenly cut short by an order to join his
brother, the Emperor Baldwin, at Adrianople, with all his disposable force, in
order to encounter Joannice, king of
Bulgaria. The Armenians of the Troad,
fearing the vengeance of the Greeks after the departure of the Belgian troops,
emigrated, under the protection of Henry's army, with the intention of settling
among their countrymen who were established at Philippopolis. A colony of
twenty thousand souls crossed the Hellespont; but Henry, receiving the news of
his brother's defeat and captivity, hastened forward with his cavalry to
assemble and protect the fugitives who had escaped from the battle of
Adrianople. A body of Armenian infantry remained to escort the long train of
waggons, loaded with the families and goods of the emigrants. The Greek troops
and the armed bands of countrymen, who were kept in constant agitation by the
disturbed condition of the district on the line of march, soon found themselves
sufficiently numerous to form a plan for plundering the property of the
Armenians. A general attack was made on the colonists; the escort was separated
from the baggage, and the waggons were pillaged. The women and children were
reduced to slavery, the unarmed emigrants were slaughtered, and this
industrious colony was utterly exterminated, sharing the fate of everything
practically useful in the Eastern Empire. Thus the Greeks and Crusaders
emulated one another in exterminating the inhabitants of the country they aspired
to rule; and the numbers of mankind in all the provinces they governed
diminished as rapidly as the wealth and civilization of the people declined.
The valour and prudence displayed by Theodore Lascaris induced the
authorities of Nicaea to acknowledge him as their sovereign, and that city
became the point where all the most eminent of the Greek aristocracy and clergy
assembled to oppose the progress of the Latin domination. The primary step
towards re-establishing the unity of the imperial administration was to ratify
the election of Theodore in the most solemn manner, and thus give him a decided
pre-eminence over all his rivals. To do this, it was necessary that he should
be the first to receive the imperial crown from the hands of the Patriarch. Alexius
V had been slain by the Crusaders; Alexius III was a prisoner in the kingdom of
Thessalonica. The Patriarch John Kamateros, who
retired with Nicetas to Selymbria,
had settled at Didymoteichos; and when he was now
requested to visit Nicaea, in order to resume his patriarchal functions, and
place the crown on the head of Theodore Lascaris, he preferred resigning his
office to quitting his retirement. A new patriarch, Michael Autorianos,
was elected his successor about two years after the taking of Constantinople,
and one of his first public acts was to place the imperial crown on the head of
Theodore I with as much pomp and ceremony as if the scene had been acted in St
Sophia’s, (A.D. 1206).
The enemies of Theodore continued to attack his little empire with vigour,
though the victory of the King of Bulgaria over the Emperor of Constantinople
had relieved him for a time from his greatest danger. David Comnenos,
the brother of Alexius, emperor of Trebizond, invaded Bithynia, captured Heracleia, and was so elated with his success that he sent
forward his army under Synadenos to occupy Nicaea and
drive Theodore from the throne. Lascaris encountered Synadenos
on the banks of the Sangarius, and completely
defeated the Iberians of Comnenos. He was equally
successful in the south-west. Gaiaseddin Kaikhosrou, who was under great obligations
to Alexius III, had recovered possession of the throne of Iconium; and
while Lascaris acted only as despot in the name of his father-in-law, the
sultan favoured his progress. The power of the Seljouks,
indeed, appeared to be threatened both by the conquests of the Crusaders and
the rapid progress of the young Emperor of Trebizond. But as soon as Theodore
was firmly established on the throne, Kaikhosrou
sought for a weaker ally among the Greeks. He gave his daughter in marriage to
Manuel Maurozomes, and supplied him with Turkish
auxiliaries to attack Lascaris. The Turks of Maurozomes
were defeated as well as the Iberians of Comnenos.
Theodore Mankaphas was also compelled to lay aside the
imperial title for the second time, and Sabas, the
governor of Amisos, who had defended his independence
against the Emperor of Trebizond, acknowledged the nominal supremacy of the
Emperor of Nicaea. Theodore I was consequently enabled to re-establish the
administration of the whole country, from the mouth of the Sangarius
to the sources of the Rhyndacus and the Maeander, on
the old imperial system.
The difficulties in which the empire of Nicaea was placed by its
geographical position were very great. It was open to the invasion of all its
enemies; hostile princes occupied all its frontiers, and its friends and allies
were far distant. David Comnenos, after the defeat of
his army on the banks of the Sangarius, concluded a
treaty of alliance with Henry, the Latin Emperor of Constantinople, from whom
he received a body of knights and men-at-arms. For this succour he engaged to
become a vassal of the Latin empire for a part of the territory he had
previously governed in the name of his brother Alexios,
the Emperor of Trebizond. No step could have proved more advantageous to
Theodore than this close alliance of his principal rival with the detested
Latins. Nicaea was now the residence of the Greek Patriarch, and all the most
distinguished members of the Greek Church had already attached themselves to
the cause of Theodore I. The whole of the clergy in the western part of Asia
Minor were driven, from fear of the extension of the Latin power through the
desertion of David Comnenos, to rally round their
Patriarch; and the authority of the bishops, which was not inconsiderable in
civil affairs, was universally employed to maintain a political connection with
the empire of Nicaea as the centre of orthodoxy. The auxiliary force sent to
the aid of David enabled him to take the offensive; but Theodore proved again
victorious. A chosen body of three hundred Latin cavalry, with all its
followers, was cut to pieces in the forests near the Sangarius,
and David was compelled to shut himself up in Heracleia.
Theodore even hoped to revenge himself on the Latins, for the assistance they
had granted to Comnenos, by conquering Peges. He gained possession of that fortress; but it was
recovered by the Latins, who then invaded Bithynia at several points, in order
to complete the subjugation of the fiefs which had been assigned to them in
that province at the partition of the Byzantine empire. Their forces were led
by one hundred and forty knights, each of whom expected to gain a barony. One
division occupied Cyzicus, and, by repairing its ruined walls, converted it
into a citadel for storing provisions and plunder. Another division fortified
the Church of St Sophia, built by Constantine the Great near Nicomedia, in
order that it might serve as a fort to command the rich adjacent plain; from
which we may infer that the citadel and town could not be rendered
defensible on account of their extent. A third division seized the castle of Charax, on the southern coast of the Gulf of Nicomedia,
from which there was a direct road to Nicaea; while the remainder of the
expedition established itself at Kivotos, a port
which afforded easy communications both with Nicaea and Prusa.
(Kivotos, the ancient Kios
or Cius, is called Givitot
by the Latin historians of the Crusaders. Its modern name is Ghiumlek. It was repaired by Alexius I, who established in
it a colony of Anglo-Danes, driven from England by the Normans). Theodore,
alarmed at these preparations for assailing his power at its centre
simultaneously from various points of attack, concluded an alliance with the
King of Bulgaria, who, as soon as he was informed that the greater part of the
Latin troops had passed over into Asia, laid siege to Adrianople, while his
allies, the Romans, ravaged the open country to the neighbourhood of
Constantinople.
This invasion compelled Henry to recall a strong body of troops from Asia,
and Theodore availed himself of the weakness of the garrisons of Cyzicus and Kivotos to attack both places at the same time. He already
possessed a fleet of sixty vessels, so that he was able to press the attack on Kivotos with vigour both by sea and land. The place was
defended by forty knights, with their followers, but its walls were in a
ruinous condition, and it was ill supplied with provisions. The Emperor Henry
was sitting at dinner in the great hall of the palace of Blachern,
when a courier suddenly entered, and exclaimed—“Sire, unless the knights at Kivotos receive immediate assistance, the place will be
taken, and they will all be slain!” The Belgian emperor, with that promptitude
which enabled him to sustain with glory the ill-constructed fabric of the Latin
empire of Constantinople, rose from table and instantly embarked with all the
troops who were ready, and put to sea. Heralds were left to proclaim that Kivotos required immediate succour, and that every vassal
of the empire must follow the emperor’s banner. When the sun rose, Henry was
sailing up the gulf to Kivotos, attended by the
Marshal Villehardoin, Miles of Brabant, and seventeen
Venetian and Pisan galleys. The Greek fleet was more numerous, but the Latins
advanced to attack it; and the Greeks manoeuvred so long, in order to gain an
advantage of wind which would enable them to prevent their enemy reaching Kivotos, that fresh ships joined the emperor, and they at
last declined an engagement. Henry, however, found the fortifications of Kivotos in such a dilapidated condition that he thought it
prudent to dismantle the place entirely, and carry off the garrison.
Theodore, having thus driven the Latins from Kivotos,
distracted their attention by attacking Cyzicus and Nicomedia. Thierry de Los,
a knight of high reputation, was defeated and taken prisoner near Nicomedia by
Constantine Lascaris, the emperor's brother; and Henry was again compelled to
appear in person in the field, though his presence was equally necessary in the
north in order to save Adrianople from the Bulgarians. Four times he had been
on the eve of his departure for that city, and four times his march had been
adjourned by disasters of the Latin arms in different quarters.
Theodore, well informed of all his enemy’s difficulties, proposed to
conclude a truce for two years, on condition that the fortifications of Cyzicus
and St Sophia’s of Nicomedia should be destroyed, and in return he offered to
release all his prisoners, among whom were some knights of high rank. The
necessity of hastening with all his troops to save Adrianople compelled Henry
and his barons to accept these terms, and Theodore was put in possession of
Cyzicus and Nicomedia, (A.D. 1207)
Theodore had still much to complain of and much to fear from the valour and
restlessness of the Western nations. It was therefore for his interest to
obtain a treaty of peace of a permanent and general character, and such a
treaty could only be obtained by the influence of the Pope. Theodore addressed
a letter to Pope Innocent III for this purpose, and it contains as strong a
proof of the power enjoyed by that celebrated pontiff as any of the acts of
arbitration he exercised in the West. Many Latin adventurers paid no attention
to the truce concluded with the Emperor Henry. They arrogated to themselves the
right of private war, and plundered the Greek territories wherever the country
offered a defenceless prey to their avarice. The Latin emperor had no power to restrain
these disorders, for all the Greeks who adhered to their national church had
been declared to be in a state of perpetual vassalage by papal authority, so
that every adventurer was entitled to constitute himself their immediate
superior under the Pope as lord paramount. In this state of things, Theodore
invited the Pope to conclude a permanent peace, on the basis that the Latins
should possess all the European provinces of the Byzantine Empire, and
recognise the right of the Greeks to the undisturbed dominion over those in
Asia.
The Emperor Henry refused to conclude a permanent treaty on this basis, as
it would have given the Emperor of Nicaea a decided superiority over all his
Greek rivals; and there could be no doubt that, as soon as he had consolidated
a strong power, no stipulations would have any effect in preventing the Greeks
from attempting to regain possession of all the country conquered by the
Crusaders. Henry considered, likewise, that it was a duty he owed to the
Catholic faith, to the Pope as the spiritual suzerain of the Christian world,
to his own fame, and to his position as Emperor of Constantinople, to complete
the conquest of the Eastern Empire. Theodore must, consequently, have been well
aware of the small chance of deriving any assistance from the Pope, as the
conclusion of a permanent treaty could not fail to oppose a barrier against the
extension of the papal power in the East. The reply of Innocent informed
Theodore that the Pope was more hostile than he had supposed. The letter was
addressed to the honourable Theodore Lascaris, and thus commenced with a denial
of his claim to the title of Emperor. It is a curious document, inasmuch as it
proves how little influence pure morality and true religion exercised on the
political views of this celebrated Pope. Innocent does not pretend to deny the
atrocities committed by his Crusaders at Constantinople; and as he felt it was
his duty to establish peace, he promised to send a legate into the East for
that purpose; but he requires Theodore to take the cross and join the Crusaders
in Palestine, while he insults him with the demand that he should acknowledge
himself the vassal of the Latin empire of Romania. The great Pope continues, in
a style of bigotry which it is the fashion to ridicule when employed by more
vulgar fanatics: “The Greeks having rent asunder the garment of Christ, God has
doubtless made use of the Latins as an instrument to punish them for their
crime. The judgments of God are always just, and he frequently punishes evil by
the agency of wicked men”. The solicitations of the Greek emperor to obtain
peace through the mediation of the high priest of the Western Christians
produced no result but a recommendation to become the vassal of a Belgian
count.
Theodore employed the leisure afforded him by the truce more profitably in
extending his dominions in Asia, where his prudence gave his subjects a degree
of security which induced many voluntarily to acknowledge his authority, and
enabled him to extend his empire from Paphlagonia to Caria. His prosperity
excited the jealousy of Kaikhosrou, the sultan of
Iconium, whose court was visited by Alexius III, as has been already noticed;
and that envious and restless prince was as eager to dethrone his son-in-law as
the sultan was to gain possession of the Greek dominions. The truce with the
Latin empire had expired; and the sultan, who feared the energy and activity of
Theodore, strengthened himself by an alliance with the Catholic Emperor of
Constantinople. Though the Latins made it a standing reproach to the Greeks,
that the Eastern Christians were ever ready to become the allies of the Turks,
they showed no aversion to the practice themselves whenever it served their
interest. We owe our knowledge of the present treaty between the Crusaders and
the Mohammedans to the Emperor Henry, who, in a public manifesto addressed to
the Christian world, speaks of his alliance with the Turkish sultan against the
Christian Emperor of Nicaea as an act honourable to a good Catholic.
The sultan, before declaring war, sent an embassy to require Theodore to
yield the empire to his father-in-law, threatening, in case of refusal, to
place Alexius III on the throne by force of arms. The threat was despised, and
the sultan invaded the Greek territory, accompanied by his friend and tool
Alexius. Theodore was prepared to meet his enemy. He had engaged a chosen corps
of eight hundred Latin cavalry in his service; and after placing a garrison in
Philadelphia, he crossed the Gaister on the eleventh
day of his march. He pushed rapidly forward into the valley of the Meander,
hoping to surprise the Turkish army while it was occupied in besieging the city
of Antiocheia. The rashness of the Latin cavalry
favoured his plan, though it nearly caused his defeat. They hurried forward and
attacked the Turks without counting the numbers of their enemy; but in spite of
the fury of their charge and the weight of their armour, they were overpowered
and broken by the squadrons that assailed them on the flanks and in the rear.
The greater part were slain, and their defeat spread terror through the ranks
of the Greeks. Theodore was compelled in this crisis to cover the retreat of
his army at the head of his best soldiers. He was attacked by the sultan in
person; and if we can credit the romantic description of the Byzantine
historians, a single combat took place between the two sovereigns. Kaikhosrou galloped up to Theodore, and gave him a blow
with his sabre on the helmet, which struck him from his saddle to the earth,
though it failed to wound him. The sultan shouted to his followers to secure
the prisoner; but the emperor, springing up, cut the legs of the sultan's horse
so severely that it fell, and threw its master at Theodore’s feet, who
instantly stabbed him to the heart. The Greek officers who rushed forward
to save their sovereign cut off the sultan's head, and exposed it to the view
of the Turkish army, while the retreat of the sultan’s guard at the same time
spread the news of his death through its ranks. The Turks abandoned the
contest, and the emperor entered Antiocheia in
triumph, A.D. 1210. Alexius, who fell into the hands of his son-in-law, was
confined for the remainder of his life in a monastery, as we have already
mentioned. The Empress Euphrosyne, whom he had left behind in Epirus, died
shortly after at Arta.
Fortunately for Theodore, the Latin empire of Constantinople was disturbed
by the violent conduct of the papal legate Pelagius, who commenced a
persecution of all the Greeks who refused to acknowledge the papal supremacy.
The Emperor Henry interfered to protect those who had entered his service; but
many of the clergy and some men of rank fled to Nicaea, where they were kindly
received by the Greek emperor, and the animosity of the two churches was greatly
increased.
In the year 1214, the war between Henry and Theodore was renewed. Henry
crossed the Hellespont at the head of a numerous army, and occupied Poimanenos without resistance; but he was compelled to
besiege Lentianes with his whole force, which was
courageously defended by the inhabitants, as well as by a regular garrison. The
defence was conducted by one of the emperor's brothers, by his son-in-law Andronicos Paleologos, and by Dermokaites,
the commander of the garrison. The place was closely invested for forty days,
and repeated assaults were made under the eye of Henry. It was not until the
water was cut off and a breach effected in the walls that the besiegers were
able to force their entrance into the town. Henry was so enraged at the delay
he had met with, and the loss he had suffered before this insignificant
fortress, that he disgraced himself by an act of infamous cruelty. After taking
Lentianes, he ordered its brave defenders, Lascaris,
Paleologos, and Dermokaites to be put to death. He
persuaded the garrison to enter his service, and united it with the corps of
George Theophilopoulos, a Greek general who had
joined the Latins. Henry then advanced as far as Nymphaeum; but Theodore, who
was sensible of the inferiority of the Greeks in a regular battle, carefully
declined an engagement and confined his operations to the defensive. The
campaign ended without any great success on the part of the Latins; and the
Greek emperor, hearing that the Despot of Epirus was assailing the European possessions
of the Crusaders with great vigour, sent an embassy to Henry to propose a
treaty of peace. As the Latin emperor considered his presence necessary in
Europe, the terms were easily arranged. The peninsula opposite Constantinople,
bounded by a line drawn from the head of the gulf of Nicomedia to the Black
Sea, and all the country from the Hellespont as far as the district of Kamina, were to remain in possession of the Latins. The
town of Kalamos, which lay between the territory of
the Crusaders and the theme of Neokastron, was to
remain uninhabited, to mark the frontier of the two empires. The boundaries of
the empire of Nicaea now extended from Heracleia on
the Black Sea to the head of the Gulf of Nicomedia; from thence it embraced the
coast of the Opsikian theme as far as Cyzicus; and
then descending to the south, included Pergamus, and
joined the coast of the Aegean. Theodore had already extended his power over
the valleys of the Hermus, the Caister, and the
Meander.
The bad success of all attempts to force the Greeks to conform to the
Latin church induced Innocent III to change his policy. The fourth Lateran
council was held in the year 1215, and by it the Latin bishops in the East were
authorized to appoint Greek priests to celebrate Divine service and administer
the sacraments in the Greek language; but these priests were to teach the
doctrines of the Church of Rome, and to inculcate the papal supremacy. This
concession produced more effect than the previous persecution. Many Greeks, who
probably considered both the Patriarch and the Pope as having arrogated to
themselves a degree of power in ecclesiastical affairs to which they had no
valid title, conformed to the Latin rites when they heard the liturgy in Greek;
but, on the other hand, the opposition and hatred of the Greek clergy were
greatly increased by this insidious attack on their authority. Whenever they
regained possession of a church in which a Latin priest had performed mass,
they washed the altar and purified the building; and before they would admit a
Latin Christian into their church, they required that he should be baptized a
second time. There is an act of the fourth council of the Lateran which reveals
the ruinous effect of the feudal government introduced by the Crusaders into a
society so differently organized as that in the Byzantine empire. When Richard
I of England conquered the rich island of Cyprus, and converted it into a
feudal kingdom, it contained fourteen cities, which were bishops' sees; but so
many of these had already fallen into decay during the short space of
four-and-twenty years, and the position of a Latin bishop was so much more
aristocratic than that of a Greek, that the number was now reduced to four.
The peace between the Greek and Latin empires lasted several years. After
the death of Henry in 1216, the Empress Yolande, wife of Peter of Courtenay,
acting as regent, gave her third daughter Maria in marriage to the Emperor
Theodore, hoping to secure a permanent peace by this close alliance. But when
the death of Peter of Courtenay, followed by that of Yolande, threw the affairs
of Constantinople into disorder, Theodore laid claim to a portion of the Latin
empire as the heritage of his wife. This pretension served as a pretext for
attacking the Latin possessions in Asia, but the arrival of Robert with fresh
forces caused the peace to be renewed. Theodore offered his daughter Eudocia to
the Emperor Robert in marriage, though they were already brothers-in-law. In
vain the Greek Patriarch and the majority of the Greeks reprobated the
marriage, both on religious and political ground; the emperors seemed
determined to celebrate it, when a sudden illness put an end to the life of
Theodore, in the year 1222, after he had reigned eighteen years. All thoughts
of the marriage were then laid aside.
Theodore Lascaris, the saviour of the Greek empire, though not a man of
enlarged political views or of great capacity, seems to have far exceeded in
activity and courage the rest of the Byzantine aristocracy. He was passionate,
and addicted to gallantry, but he had many qualities which suited him for a
popular leader in difficult circumstances. Though of small stature, he was
skilful in the use of arms, and he was rash, generous, and lavish of money even
to imprudence. We must recollect that it required no ordinary valour and
perseverance to arrest the progress of so accomplished a warrior as Henry of
Flanders at the head of his redoubted Belgian cavalry, and that the
overthrow of Theodore would, in all probability, have enabled the Crusaders to
complete the subjugation of the whole Greek race.
Sect. II
REIGN OF
JOHN III (DUKAS VATATZES)
A.D. 1222-1254.
Theodore I left no son. It was, therefore, necessary to elect a new
emperor; for though the feeling in favour of hereditary succession was gaining
ground among the Greeks, still the constitution of the empire recognized no
rule of succession which would create a positive title to the crown without
some form of election. The eminent qualities of John Dukas
Vatatzes, who married Irene, the eldest daughter of Theodore I, after her first
husband, Andronicus Paleologos, had been put to death by the Emperor Henry,
united the suffrages of the civil and military authorities as well as the
clergy in his favour; and though the late emperor left four brothers who had
served with distinction in the army, John III was saluted emperor without any
opposition. But his coronation excited the jealousy of Alexis and Isaac
Lascaris to such a degree that they not only retired from Nicaea, but even
attempted to carry off their niece Eudocia, who had been promised to the Latin
emperor Robert. Failing in this attempt, they deserted to the Latins, and
distinguished themselves at the court of Constantinople by their eagerness to
commence hostilities against their countrymen.
The military power of the Latin empire was constantly declining. The army
which effected its conquest was soon dispersed over its surface with the feudal
chiefs among whom it had been partitioned, or its warriors proceeded to
Palestine to complete their vows, in order to return to their hereditary
possessions in their native lands. No Latin army of equal strength could ever
again be assembled under the walls of Constantinople. Nevertheless, for a short
time, the reports which spread through Western Europe of the immense plunder
and rich fiefs which the conquerors of the Byzantine Empire had acquired,
attracted an ample supply of fresh recruits to the East. But in a few years,
defeats and misfortunes on one side, and the improving condition of European
society on the other, arrested emigration. The prudence and valour of the
Emperor Henry could with difficulty efface the impression produced by the
terrible and romantic tales that were circulated concerning the murder of
Baldwin by the King of Bulgaria; and before the melancholy end of the first
Belgian emperor was forgotten, men were appalled by the news that his
brother-in-law, Peter of Courtenay, the third emperor, had perished by a
similar untimely end. In attempting to march from Dyrrachium to Constantinople,
Peter of Courtenay was defeated and taken prisoner by Theodore, the despot of
Epirus, and for some time his fate was shrouded in the same mystery as that of
Baldwin. The world was long unwilling to believe that both the imperial brothers-in-law
had perished in prison. Yolande, the wife of Peter, who had
administered the government of Constantinople as regent with great prudence,
did not long survive her husband; and Robert, the second son of Peter, who
succeeded to the throne of the Latin empire, was a weak and incapable prince.
The kingdom of Saloniki was governed by an Italian
regency, acting in the name of Demetrius, the second son of the king, Marquess
Boniface of Montferrat. It was soon evident that neither the empire nor the
kingdom could resist the attacks of the Greeks, Epirots,
and Bulgarians, without assistance from Western Europe. The solicitations for
aid were generally addressed to the popes, who possessed the power of rendering
the contest a holy war, by granting indulgences to every Catholic who attacked
the Greek heretics. The popes consequently became the arbiters of the Latin
empire, and supported its cause with fervour. As a matter of course, they
regarded the Greeks as more dangerous enemies of papal influence than the Mohammedans.
Pope Honorius III was so eager to establish the predominance of the Latins in
the East (as it appeared to him the only means of placing the supremacy of the
popes on a firm foundation), that he invited the princes of Europe to undertake
a crusade, for the purpose of delivering Peter of Courtenay from captivity. The
threat of a crusade was then no idle menace, and Theodore, the despot of
Epirus, employed every art to pacify Honorius, and turn aside the storm. He
released the papal legate, who had fallen into his hands with the Emperor
Peter, with the most solemn assurances that he was willing to acknowledge the
supremacy of the Pope, and to labour to convert his subjects. The legate, who
informed the Pope that Peter of Courtenay was really dead, appears to have
convinced the Court of Rome that there was little chance of compelling the
Greeks and Albanians to change their religion by force. The wily despot
persuaded both the legate and the Pope of his sincere desire to join the
Catholic Church; and Honorius, hoping to gain a new and powerful vassal, began
to forbid the crusade he had lately preached. He prohibited the Venetians from
attacking the territories of Theodore under pain of excommunication. The fate
of Peter of Courtenay, who died of grief and ill-usage in the prisons of the
despot, was no longer mentioned. The republic of Venice concluded a truce for
five years with Theodore. Goffrey, prince of Achaia,
and Otho, sovereign of Athens, quarrelled with the Pope, and incurred
excommunication by appropriating to their own use a portion of the estates of
the Greek Church which were claimed by the papal clergy, and the confederacy
against the Greeks was completely broken up.
This change in the affairs of the Latins rendered it unnecessary for
Theodore to persevere in his hypocritical negotiations. He invaded the kingdom
of Saloniki, and soon conquered it, for the officers
of the young King Demetrius possessed no army capable of resisting his attack.
The Pope, enraged at finding he had been used as a political tool by the
cunning Greek, fulminated his excommunications against Theodore; but as
Honorius had himself dissolved the confederation of the Latin powers, the
despot laughed at the thunders of the Vatican. The success of Theodore now
opened to him a more extensive field of ambition. He aspired at the honour of
restoring the Greek empire in Europe, and declared himself the rival of the
Emperor of Nicaea by assuming the imperial crown at Thessalonica, which was
placed on his head by the Patriarch of Bulgaria, who, as he possessed
an independent ecclesiastical jurisdiction, had the power of anointing
sovereigns, (A.D. 1222.)
Fortunately for the Greeks, the temporal policy of the Court of Rome often
placed the popes in direct opposition to the interests of the Latin princes,
nobles, and proprietors, who had settled in the Eastern Empire, and thus all
its endeavours to gain the same degree of power in the East which it enjoyed in
the West proved vain. At this time, however, the hope of compelling the Greeks
to acknowledge the papal supremacy by force of arms was strong; and Honorius
III exerted himself with so much vigour to furnish the emperor, Robert of
Courtenay, with troops and money, that a considerable army accompanied the
young emperor to Constantinople. Theodore I was still emperor of Nicaea when
Robert arrived in the East; but, as has been already mentioned, the Latin and
Greek emperors concluded a treaty of peace, which enabled Robert to employ all
his forces against Theodore of Epirus, whose rapid progress alarmed the Latins.
The armies of Constantinople and Epirus met before the walls of Serres. The Latins were defeated in their attempt to take
the city; their generals, Valincourt, and Mainvaut, the marshal of Romania, were both taken prisoners
during their retreat; and the Emperor of Thessalonica was enabled to pursue his
conquests and organize his new dominions without opposition.
Such was the state of affairs at the commencement of the reign of John
III. The warlike Latins soon reassembled a force which they considered
sufficient to protect the immediate domain of the Emperor of Constantinople
from any encroachment on the part of Theodore of Thessalonica; and as they were
eager to increase their territories and gain new fiefs, the Emperor of Nicaea
felt that his dominions offered too many assailable points for the peace
concluded by his predecessor to be of long duration. John III, therefore,
devoted his attention to preparing for war without imposing any additional
burdens on his subjects. All the Greeks felt that, unless the Latins were
expelled from Constantinople, there could be no permanent peace; and it was now
evident that if any other orthodox prince gained possession of the imperial
city, the Emperor of Nicaea would be unable to maintain his position as the
political head of the Greek nation. While John III increased the numbers and
improved the discipline of his army, he attached his subjects to his government
by the economy he introduced into the financial administration, and by his
strict attention to the administration of justice.
The Emperor Robert at last declared war; and the Latins invaded the
territory of Nicaea, where they found John III prepared to receive them. Their
army debarked at Lampsacus. It was commanded by St Menehould, who was assisted by the two Lascaris. A decisive
battle was fought near Poimanenos, in which the
victory was well contested. St Menehould was one of
the first conquerors of Constantinople, and the Latin knights had hitherto
proved victorious wherever they could manfully assert the prowess of the lance.
But the Greek emperor was a skillful general as well
as a valiant soldier; and when his cavalry yielded to the shock of the Frank
chivalry, he rallied them, and renewed the combat by a series of well-combined
attacks, which at length broke the line of his enemies. The cavalry, once
broken, was in destroying the rest of the army. St Menehould,
and many noble knights, perished on the field; the two Lascaris were taken
prisoners, and lost their sight as a punishment for their treason. John III
followed up his victory with indefatigable energy. During the winter of 1224 he
captured Poimanenos, Lentianes,
Charioros, Veerveniakon,
and every other fortress the Latins possessed on the Asiatic side of the
Hellespont, except Peges. He sent a part of his army
into Europe to lay waste the country round Madytos
and Callipolis, while his fleet expelled the Latins
from the island of Lesbos.
These successes roused the Greeks of Adrianople to attempt delivering themselves
from the Latin domination. They solicited aid from John III; and as soon as a
body of Greek troops approached their neighbourhood they flew to arms and
expelled the Frank garrison. But Theodore, emperor of Thessalonica, advancing
shortly after to Didymoteichos, placed himself
between Adrianople and the empire of Nicaea, and effectually cut off the troops
of John III from receiving any reinforcements. Theodore was eager to gain
possession of Adrianople, as an important step to the conquest of Constantinople,
and to securing his ultimate supremacy as orthodox Emperor of the East. By
means of bribes and promises he persuaded the leading men in Adrianople to
espouse his cause, for he really seemed better able to defend them against the
Bulgarians on one side, and the Latins on the other, than the Emperor of
Nicaea, whose resources were far distant. The general of John III, unable to
resist the army of Theodore and the wishes of the inhabitants, agreed to
evacuate the place on being allowed to march out with the honours of
war. The Emperor of Thessalonica attempted to take advantage of the
retreat of the troops of Nicaea to arrogate a superiority to which he was not
entitled. He ordered the garrison, in marching out of Adrianople, to defile
before him, and placed himself, with the imperial ensigns, to receive their
salute. But John Kamytzes, the Nicaean general, was a
man of sense and firmness, and when he rode past the rival of his sovereign he
affected to watch the proceedings of his own troops, and never turned his head
to regard Theodore. The Epirot emperor was furious at the slight, and lost all
command of his temper. At first he was with difficulty withheld from arresting,
and even from striking Kamytzes, but he afterwards
allowed him to continue his march. The Emperor John rewarded the cool
intrepidity of his general by appointing Kamytzes
Grand Heteriarch. Though the possession of Adrianople
enabled Theodore to lay waste the Latin territory as far as Bizya,
he was unable to make any attempt on Constantinople. In the year 1230 his
restless ambition involved him in war with John Asan, king of Bulgaria, by whom
he was defeated and taken prisoner. Engaging in a conspiracy, he was punished
by his conqueror with the loss of sight. In the meantime, the King of Bulgaria
had conquered a considerable number of the cities which Theodore had governed.
He gained possession of Didymoteichos, Boleros, Serres, Pelagonia, and Prilapos, and extended his conquests as far as Albanopolis to the west, and to the frontier of Great Vlachia to the south.
The Franks, finding that their possessions in the vicinity of
Constantinople were ravaged by the troops of Theodore, became anxious to
conclude peace with the Emperor of Nicaea, in order to concentrate all their
forces for their defence; and John III, displeased at the insolent and hostile
disposition which the Emperor 1of Thessalonica had displayed in the affair of
Adrianople, was willing that the Latins and Theodore should exhaust their
strength, while he remained a calm spectator of their contest. The terms of
peace were soon arranged; the Latins withdrew their garrison from Peges, which they surrendered to the Greek emperor, and
they retained possession of no spot on the Asiatic coast, except the peninsula
opposite Constantinople as far as Nicomedia, (A.D. 1225). This peace was
observed by both parties for several years—1225 to 1233.
The aristocratic element of Greek society was as little inclined to respect
political order and established law, while living in exile in the petty empire
of Nicaea, as the proud Byzantine nobles, who boasted a Roman or Armenian
origin, had ever been to weigh the interests of the people against their own
schemes of personal ambition during the period of their greatest power and
splendour at Constantinople. The throne of John III, and all his schemes for
the improvement of the Greek empire, were at this time placed in considerable
danger by a conspiracy of his own cousin, Andronicus Nestongos,
who engaged many men of rank in a plot to place the crown on his own head. The
conspiracy was fortunately discovered, and the traitors were punished. Nestongos escaped from confinement, and passed the
remainder of his life among the Seljouk Turks. The
emperor, having established order and insured submission at court, pursued his
plans for improving the condition of his subjects and augmenting the efficiency
of his military establishments with steady perseverance for several years. In
his civil government, and especially in strengthening the moral influence of the
imperial authority over every rank of society, he was assisted by the great
talents and singular prudence of his wife, the Empress Irene, whose authority
was the greater in consequence of her never laying aside her modest domestic
manner of life, or appearing eager to exert political influence.
In the year 1233, John III was engaged in hostilities with a rebellious
subject, in order to secure his dominion over Rhodes. The government of that
rich island was held by Leo Gavalas, whom John III
had honoured with the rank of Caesar. Gavalas raised
the standard of revolt, and a number of the emperor’s bravest troops were slain
in civil war before the rebel could be compelled even to acknowledge the
imperial supremacy; and peace was not re-established until John consented to
confirm Gavalas in the government of the island, a
command he retained until his death. The authority of the central
administration of the Greek empire being no longer systematically exerted to
protect and advance the material interests of the population at a distance from
the capital, a general tendency towards local independence began to be formed
in the outlying provincial communities in the empires of Nicaea, Thessalonica,
and Trebizond, which was in some degree strengthened by the principles of
feudal society, which the great vassals of the Latin empire of Romania
introduced among their Greek subjects. The decline in the numbers, wealth, and
intelligence of the middle classes, which followed the ruin of
intercommunications and the decay of commerce, enabled the aristocracy to turn
this tendency of society to their own exclusive profit. Examples of
aristocratic rapacity become gradually more and more prominent as one of the
evils that demoralized Greek society. The history of Rhodes illustrates these
observations. The brother of Gavalas succeeded to his
power as if it had been a family inheritance; and though he only pretended to
act as the emperor’s representative, John was compelled to confirm him
in his vice-royalty to avoid recommencing a civil war.
The Emperor Robert of Courtenay died in the Peloponnesus in the year 1228,
as he was returning from Rome, which he had visited to solicit succours from
the Pope. His brother, Baldwin II, who was only eleven years of age, was
recognized as his successor; but the exigencies of the administration required
a chief capable of directing the counsels and leading the armies of the empire.
John de Brienne, titular king of Jerusalem, and commander-in-chief of the papal
army, was supposed by all having an interest in the prosperity of the Latin
empire to be a man capable of restoring its glory and re-establishing its
power. He was elected the guardian and colleague of Baldwin II, and crowned
emperor for life. A treaty was concluded between John de Brienne and the
ambassadors of Romania, in which it was stipulated that the young emperor,
Baldwin II, was to marry Agnes, the daughter of his guardian; and that, on his
attaining the age of twenty, he was to be invested with the sovereignty of
Nicaea, and the Latin possessions in Asia beyond Nicomedia as an independent
kingdom. After the death of John de Brienne, the empire reverted to Baldwin as
his hereditary dominion. This treaty was confirmed by the Pope, Gregory IX, at
Perugia in 1229; but John de Brienne was detained in Italy for two years before
he could collect a sufficient force to visit his empire. During this time the
regency was directed by Narjot de Toucy.
The treaty of Perugia, which disposed of the empire Nicaea as a Latin
possession, was an insult which policy induced the Emperor John III to
overlook; but he feared that a vigorous attack on the Latin empire might enable
Theodore, emperor of Thessalonica, or John Asan, king of Bulgaria, to gain
possession of Constantinople before he could prevent them. The war which broke
out between these two princes in the following year, 1230, delivered him from
this danger, yet he was still willing to gain time; and when John de Brienne
arrived at Constantinople in 1231, he entered into negotiations for a union of
the Greek and Latin Churches, which was conducted with wisdom and moderation on
the part of the Greek Patriarch, Germanos Nauplios, but was rendered abortive by the servile
submission required by the Papal Court. In the month of April 1233 the Emperor
of Nicaea assembled a council of the Greek church at Nymphaeum, in which, as
usual, nothing could be determined. The negotiations were broken off, and the
Latin emperor invaded the Greek territory, expecting to profit by the rebellion
of Gavalas in Rhodes. A powerful army landed at Lampsacus; and the Greek emperor, having formed a fortified
camp at Sigrenes, watched the operations of his
enemy, and circumscribed his movements. John de Brienne was now upwards of
eighty years of age, his military reputation stood high, and his force was
superior to that of his opponent; but age rendered him inactive. All his plans
of conquest were foiled by the superior tactics of the Greek emperor; and a
four months’ campaign was terminated by the Latins gaining possession of Keramidi, a fort near Cyzicus, and by their recovering Peges.
Alarm at the number of the recruits who about this time arrived at
Constantinople from western Europe, induced the Emperor of Nicaea and the King
of Bulgaria to form a close alliance. Theodore, the son of John III, who was
only eleven years of age, was betrothed to Helen, the daughter of John Asan,
who was in her ninth year; and the young princess was committed to the charge
of the Empress Irene to be educated. The two sovereigns prosecuted the war in
concert. The emperor took Lampsacus, crossed the
Hellespont, and captured Gallipolis, and all the cities of the Thracian Chersonesus. He then extended his conquests to the westward
as far as the Hebrus, and to the north as far as Tzurulos, which he secured by a strong garrison. The king
pushed his incursions almost to the very walls of Constantinople, and ravaged
the possessions of the Latin seigneurs. The united
armies even approached the imperial city; and if we believe the Latin writers, they
suffered severely from a well-arranged sortie led by John de Brienne in person.
About the same time the Greeks sustained a defeat at sea, A.D. 1235. In the
following year, Constantinople was relieved from all danger by the succours it
received from the Venetians and from Goffrey, prince
of Achaia. But the death of John de Brienne in 1237, and the absence of
the young Emperor Baldwin II, who was wandering about to solicit aid from the
Catholic princes, placed Constantinople suddenly in such danger of falling into
the hands of the Emperor of Nicaea, that the King of Bulgaria resolved to
prolong the existence of an empire from which he had now nothing to fear. He
suddenly concluded a separate peace, and formed an alliance with the Latins.
Sound policy certainly required John Asan at this moment to keep all his forces
ready for action on his northern frontier. The conquests of Genghis Khan and
his sons alarmed all the princes of the East with reasonable apprehension of
calamity, though the ignorance of the Latins prevented the nations of Western
Europe from perceiving the greatness of the danger which then threatened the
whole civilized world. From the shores of the Atlantic to the Chinese seas,
every country seemed on the eve of being reduced to serve as pasture-grounds
for tribes of nomads, and hunting-fields for Mogul princes.
About the time John Asan abandoned the Greek alliance, the Romans were
driven over the Danube by the Moguls who had invaded Russia. The King of
Bulgaria allowed these fugitives to pass through his dominions in order to
enter the service of the Latin empire, and joined them in attacking the Greek
possessions in Thrace. John III had now to defend his recent conquests against
an overwhelming force composed of the heavy cavalry of the Franks, the light
horse of the Romans, and the organized infantry of the Bulgarians. The united
army besieged Tzurulos, which was bravely defended by
Nicephorus Tarchaniotes. It was saved by John Asan
receiving the news of the sudden death of his wife and son. This double
misfortune presented itself to his mind as a judgment of Heaven for violating
his faith with the Greek emperor. He withdrew his army, hastened back to
Bulgaria, a. d. broke off his alliance with the Latins, and renewed his treaty
with John III.
AFFAIRS OF THESSALONICA.
The death of Asan’s wife produced important changes in the government of
the Greeks in Macedonia. John Asan married Irene, the daughter of his prisoner
Theodore, emperor of Thessalonica, whom he had deprived of sight for his plots.
He now released her father. Theodore repaired secretly to Thessalonica, from
which he soon contrived to expel his brother Manuel, who had usurped the
imperial title; and he then caused his own son John to be elected emperor, for
the loss of his sight rendered it impossible for him to direct the details of
the administration. Manuel escaped to Attalia, and
visited the court of Nicaea. The Emperor John III furnished him with a naval
force of six galleys, and money to enrol troops; for he feared the restless
ambition of Theodore, and was anxious to find employment for him at home.
Manuel landed at Demetrias, and rendered himself
master of the country from Pharsalus and Larissa to Platamona.
A third brother, named Constantine, had already gained possession of that part
of Thessaly called Great Vlachia. The blind Theodore,
who guided the counsels of his son John, the Emperor of Thessalonica,
immediately entered into communications with his brothers, and convinced them
of the necessity of forming a close family alliance, in order to preserve their
independence. Manuel abandoned the cause of John III, and the three brothers,
with the Emperor of Thessalonica, concluded a treaty for mutual defence and
offence with the Latin princes of Athens, Euboea, and Achaia. John III was too
much occupied with other affairs to bestow particular attention on these
hostile demonstrations at the time, (A.D. 1238).
The wealth, resources, and population of the Latin empire of Constantinople
were now rapidly declining. No taxes could be levied, for the Greeks, who had
cultivated the fields and acted as traders in the towns, finding their pursuits
interrupted by hostile invasions, had emigrated into the empire of Nicaea,
which enjoyed uninterrupted internal tranquillity. The Latin government was
reduced to such financial difficulties that it was obliged to strip the copper
roofs from the public buildings, and melt down every ornament of bronze that
remained in Constantinople, in order to coin money. The precious metals were
borrowed from the churches, and the relics of the saints were pledged or sold.
Still the supplies of warriors, whom the influence of the Pope diverted from
the legitimate object of the Crusades, which was to recover possession of the
Holy Sepulchre, in order to war against the Greek heretics, often rendered the
armies of the Latins for a time superior to any force the Emperor of Nicaea
could bring into the field. The zeal of Pope Gregory IX, and the pecuniary
assistance furnished by Louis IX of France, enabled Baldwin II to return to
Constantinople in the year 1239 at the head of a considerable army, which the
Greeks magnified to sixty thousand men. This force he increased by engaging in
his service the whole military population of the Roman tribes who had settled
within the limits of the Latin territory.
Baldwin II opened the campaign of 1240 by besieging Tzurulos,
which was compelled to surrender at discretion. The governor Petraliphas and the garrison were carried to
Constantinople, in order to raise money by the ransom of those who had wealth
or wealthy friends. The Greek emperor, unable to relieve Tzurulos,
attacked the Latin possessions between Nicomedia and the Bosphorus, and took Charax and Dakibyza; so that
nothing was left them in Asia except Chalcedon, Skutarion,
the shores of the Bosphorus, and Daskyllium. After
the end of this campaign the Latin auxiliaries, being left without regular pay,
soon retired from Constantinople; and John Asan, king of Bulgaria, dying in the
following year (1241), the Emperor of Nicaea considered it most advantageous
for his political interests to establish his supremacy over Thessalonica.
John, emperor of Thessalonica, was a pious and just prince, not destitute
of ability, but submitting entirely to the guidance of his father, the unquiet
and ambitious Theodore. Manuel was already dead, and his dominions were
occupied by Michael, son of Michael, the elder brother of Theodore, and founder
of the despotat of Epirus. The Emperor of Nicaea felt
that his title to the sovereignty of the Eastern Empire would not be recognized
by the European Greeks until he gained possession of Thessalonica, and he knew
that this would prove a difficult task as long as the various princes of the
house of Angelos Comnenos
maintained a strict alliance. His first step, in preparing for war, was to gain
over the Roman light cavalry, as, by commanding a considerable extent of
country round his army, they secured him from surprise, and enabled him to
conceal his movements. He found the Roman cavalry so useful in Europe that he
transported colonies of this people into Asia Minor, where he settled them in
Phrygia, and in the valley of the Meander; but the similarity of their nomadic
habits and of their language probably induced them very soon to form
connections with the Seljouk Turks. To insure still
further the success of his plans, John III committed one of those acts of the
basest treachery which Byzantine political morality considered as a venial
display of diplomatic ability. He invited the blind Theodore to visit his court
for the purpose of consulting him on a common plan of action among the Greek
princes against the Franks and Bulgarians; but when Theodore visited the
imperial camp, he was detained as a prisoner, and the Emperor of Nicaea marched
forward with his army from the shores of the Hellespont to form the siege of
Thessalonica. His treachery was apparently useless, for while he was pressing
the siege with every prospect of a speedy surrender, a courier arrived from his
son, Theodore Lascaris, informing him that the Moguls had gained a great
victory over Gaiaseddin, sultan of Iconium, and were
overrunning all Asia Minor. The immediate return of the emperor with the whole
army was therefore necessary to protect the Greek dominions. John III had
treated his prisoner Theodore with all the honour due to his high rank, and had
carefully sought to gain his goodwill. He now proposed to him the office of
mediating a treaty of peace with his son. John III engaged to restore Theodore
to liberty, and to raise the siege of Thessalonica, on condition that John, the
son of Theodore, should lay aside the title of Emperor, but that he should
retain the sovereignty of Thessalonica, with the title of Despot, on
acknowledging the imperial supremacy of the throne of Nicaea as the true
representative of the empire of Constantinople. These terms were accepted; for
old Theodore had seen that the power of the Emperor of Nicaea was based on a
well-filled treasury, a prosperous country, and a well-disciplined army, so
that resistance was hopeless; while his own power was likely to remain equally
great, whether his son was styled despot or emperor. As soon as the treaty was
concluded, John III hastened back to Asia, where he found all the Greeks in the
greatest alarm. The Moguls seemed on the eve of completing the conquest of the
world. One division of their mighty army had subdued Russia and laid waste
Poland and Hungary; another had now destroyed the Seljouk
Empire in Asia. As soon as the emperor returned to Nymphaeum, he sent to the Sultan
of Iconium, who had collected some troops from the relics of his army, and the
terms of an offensive and defensive alliance were arranged between the Greek
and Turkish empires. John III then devoted all his energies to make the
preparations necessary for resisting the overwhelming armies of the Moguls;
but, fortunately for the Christians, the attention of these conquerors was at
this time diverted to other enterprises.
When no further danger was to be apprehended in Asia, the Emperor of Nicaea
again recommenced his conquests in Europe. The young Caloman,
king of Bulgaria, died or was poisoned in the year 1245, leaving an infant
brother, Michael, as his successor. John III availed himself of the opportunity
to reconquer the ancient dominions of the Byzantine emperors in Thrace. Serres soon fell into his hands; the fortress of Melenikon was betrayed to him by the Greek inhabitants, and
he then subdued in succession Skupes, Prosakon, and Pelagonia. About
this time an opportunity presented itself of gaining possession of
Thessalonica. The Despot John died in 1244, and was succeeded by his brother
Demetrius, a debauched youth. His own folly, and the treachery of his
counsellors, involved him in war with the emperor, who, in the year 1246, took
possession of Thessalonica, and sent Demetrius a prisoner to Lentianes. In the same year while Baldwin II, the Latin
emperor of Constantinople, was begging aid from the courts of France and
England to enable him to attack the Greeks, John III weakened the resources of
the Franks by capturing their frontier fortresses of Tzurulos
and Bizya.
This career of success was interrupted by the danger of losing the valuable
island of Rhodes. While John Gavalas was absent from
the city on some temporary business, a Genoese fleet which happened to be
cruising in the Archipelago treacherously surprised the place, though the
republic of Genoa was then an ally of the Emperor of Nicaea, and enjoyed some
commercial privileges in his dominions. Soon after the Genoese gained
possession of Rhodes, it was visited by William, prince of Achaia, and the Duke
of Burgundy, who were on their way to join the crusade of St Louis in Cyprus.
These princes left one hundred knights with their followers to assist in
defending the place against the Greek emperor, on condition that they were to
share in the profits to be obtained by the piracy of the Genoese.
The Emperor John III invested Rhodes without delay; and three hundred
Asiatic cavalry having defeated the Frank knights before the walls of the city,
the Genoese were compelled to surrender the place on being allowed to quit the
island. The dissatisfaction of the Genoese, which led to this act of hostility,
was caused by some regulations of the Emperor John III, which circumscribed the
privileges conceded to the Genoese merchants by Theodore I. Though the
existence of these privileges was found to be injurious to the trade of his
Greek subjects, the emperor was compelled to cancel his new regulations in
order to avoid the danger of being involved at the same time in war with both
Genoa and Venice.
WAR WITH MICHAEL II OF EPIRUS,
A.D. 1251.
The active career of John III was drawing to a close. His last military
expedition was against Michael II, despot of Epirus. This prince had
concluded a treaty with the empire, and his eldest son, Nicephorus, was engaged
to marry Maria, the emperor’s grand-daughter. The intrigues of Michael's uncle,
the blind Theodore, disturbed this arrangement. After the death of his son
John, the emperor of Thessalonica, Theodore resided at Vodhena,
which he had made the capital of a small semi-independent principality. He
now induced Michael to break off his connection with John III, and attack the
possessions of the Greek emperor in Macedonia. The emperor hastened to
Thessalonica, and Theodore flying at his approach, the imperial army occupied Vodhena, and advanced to the lake of Astrovos. The
army was put into winter-quarters in the plain of Sarighioli. Its
supplies were drawn in great part from Berroea, and
long trains of mules and camels were incessantly employed to fill the magazines
formed to facilitate its future movements. In the meantime, Petraliphas, who commanded the troops of Epirus at Kastoria, deserted to the emperor, and placed him in
possession of the upper valley of the Haliacmon, now
called Anaselitzas, by which he was able to render
himself master of the passes over Mount Pindus at Deabolis,
and secure an entry into Epirus by the valley of the Apsus.
The Despot Michael, seeing the heart of his dominions laid open to invasion,
purchased peace by ceding to the emperor the fortress of Prilapos,
which he still held, as well as Velesos and Albanopolis (Croia), with all the
country he possessed north of the road between Dyrrachium and
Thessalonica. Nicephorus, the despot’s eldest son, was also delivered up
as a hostage, but was honoured with the title of Despot. The blind
Theodore, whose restless intrigues had caused the ruin of his family and
relations, was confined to a monastery for the rest of his life.
A man destined to occupy an important place in the history 0f the decline
of the Greek race now makes his first appearance in the annals of the empire.
The Emperor John, after passing the winter at Vodhena,
spent the following summer moving about in order to establish regularity in the
administration of his new conquests. While in the camp at Astrovos,
Michael Paleologos, a young and distinguished officer, high in the emperor’s
favour, and connected with several of the great Byzantine families, was accused
of treason by Nikolas Manglabites, a noble of Melenikon. The emperor remitted the investigation of the
affair until he reached Philippi. A court of inquiry, composed of the ablest
judges in the senate and the courts of law, was then formed to examine the
evidence produced by the accuser. Two officers of the imperial army were
examined as witnesses: one declared that the other had made treasonable
overtures to him on the part of Paleologos; the other admitted that he had held
some conversation on the subject with the first witness, but declared that he
had never communicated with Paleologos. As no further evidence could be
procured, a duel was ordered. The first witness was victorious, but the
vanquished persisted in denying all communication with Paleologos, even at the
block where he was decapitated. The court now called on Paleologos to prove his
innocence by the ordeal, and receive in his hands a red-hot globe of iron. To
this proposal he replied that he was willing to meet his accuser in battle, but
as he could not expect Heaven to work a miracle for a sinner like himself, he
had no doubt hot iron would burn his hands. The Bishop of Philadelphia reproved
his levity, and preached confidence in faith and innocence. Paleologos listened
with great deference to his sermon, and meekly observed, at its conclusion,
“Holy father, as you know so well the power of faith and innocence in a holy
trial, I pray you to take the glowing iron from the furnace, and will
receive it in my hands with faith and submission”. This judicious rebuke produced
a favourable impression both on the judges and the emperor. Paleologos was
restored to favour, and John endeavoured to attach him sincerely to the throne
by marrying him in the following year to his niece Theodora. Michael Paleologos
may have been innocent on this occasion, but when we consider that he was
already twenty-seven years old, and that unbounded ambition and profound
hypocrisy were the prominent features of his character, it is enough to praise
his ability when accused, while the honourable conduct of the emperor excites a
feeling of respect.
The personal character of John Vatatzes is so intimately connected with the
prosperity of his reign that every trait of his private life has a historical
interest. He had a noble simplicity of mind, and a degree of candour
rarely found in union with great talents among the Byzantine Greeks. He was
attentive to every branch of the public administration, and viewed with deep
regret the neglected state of agriculture throughout his dominions. He felt
that to increase the productions of the earth was the surest basis of national
prosperity; and though his attainments in political science were too limited to
enable him to see that increased production can only be sustained by increased
facilities of transport and more extended markets, he nevertheless did much to
encourage agriculture. Instead of wasting the public money on theoretical
lectures and model farms, he devoted his private revenues to the improvement of
his estates, and thus set an example to the large landed proprietors in the
empire. He fought bravely as a soldier in the field of battle; but in times of
peace, instead of amusing himself with tournaments and festivities, he
overlooked his farms, examined his flocks and herds, improved the cultivation
of his fields and the dwellings of his farmers. His example soon brought
agriculture into fashion, for it was seen that it was not only a way to gain
the emperor's approbation, but also to augment the value of property. The
economy of John III was entirely free from avarice, for when he was able to
restrict the expenditure of the imperial household to the sum yielded by his
private property, he relieved the public treasure from the burden, without in
any degree diminishing the splendour of his establishments. His liberality was
further attested by the foundation of hospitals and alms-houses, and his piety
by the endowment of monasteries and the decoration of churches.
A popular story, current during his lifetime, deserves to be recorded. He
ordered the money collected exclusively by the sale of eggs on his property to
be employed in purchasing a coronet, ornamented with jewels, which he presented
to the empress, as a testimony of the effects produced by prudent economy in
trifling matters. The general attention which the Greeks paid to agriculture in
consequence of the emperor's exhortations and example proved extremely
profitable, from the extensive demand for cattle and provisions which prevailed
for several years in the territories of the Seljouk
Turks—the empire of Nicaea being almost the only portion of Asia Minor that
escaped all injury from the invasions of the Moguls.
Some of the emperor’s commercial laws, though at variance with the true
principles of political science, may have been of temporary advantage when all
commercial intercourse was misdirected by restrictions, protections, and
monopolies. A government which cannot venture to force its nobles to abandon a
life of idleness and luxury may nevertheless turn a considerable portion of
their expenditure into the public treasury, when it is possible, from the
aristocratic constitution of society, to tax those articles of luxury which are
only consumed by the wealthy. But when the luxuries of the rich are consumed
even in a small quantity by the poorer classes, then both financial science and
political prudence command nations to make the truths of economical science the
guide of their commercial legislation, and to adopt free trade as far as it is
practicable. From these considerations it is possible that the sumptuary laws
of John III were productive of more good in restraining the extravagance of the
nobility, and in filling the treasury, than they produced evil by diminishing
trade. He promulgated a law prohibiting his subjects from wearing Persian,
Syrian, and Italian silks and brocades, compelling them to use only the produce
of Greek industry, under the pain of being dismissed from all honourable
employments, excluded from court, and deprived of every social distinction. It
must be observed that various treaties regulated the import duties on foreign
silk, which the emperor could not increase, while taxation fell heavy on the
mulberry trees and on the raw silk of the Greek manufacturers. The anxiety of
John to banish extravagance from his court is attested by a severe rebuke which
he gave his son Theodore, forgoing out hunting in a magnificent dress. He told
him that the expenditure of a prince was too closely connected with the blood
of his subjects to allow him to waste his wealth in idle pomp.
The popularity of John III was greatly increased by the amiable character,
domestic virtues, and great talents of the Empress Irene. John Asan, king of
Bulgaria, sent his daughter Helena, who was betrothed to her son Theodore, to
be educated under her care; but when he determined to break off his alliance
with the empire, he sent for his daughter. The king’s object was evident,
but the emperor scorned to retain his son's bride as a hostage; and the
Princess Helena, who was only ten years old, was sent back to her father. As
soon as all the Greeks who escorted her to her father's camp departed, and she
understood that she was not to return to her dear mother, the empress, she was
inconsolable. Her tears, lamentations, and praises at last excited her father's
displeasure. As the court was crossing Mount Haemus on horseback, the king lost
his usual good temper, and, taking his daughter in his arms, seated her on his
riding-cloak in front of his saddle, and threatened her with punishment if she
did not cease to weep and praise her Greek mother. But the love of Irene was
stronger than the fear of punishment; the little Helena continued her
lamentations, and it was remarked with amaze that her affectionate father
became so angry as to give the child a slap on the cheek.
The Empress Irene died in 1241, and, two years after her death, the emperor
married Anna, the natural daughter of the Emperor Frederic II of Germany. Anna
was extremely young; and an Italian lady, called Marchesina,
accompanied her as directress of her court and mistress of the robes, according
to our English phraseology. The Emperor John fell passionately in love with
this lady, who soon received the honours conferred in courts on the mistress of
the sovereign, and was allowed to wear the dress reserved for members of the
imperial family. The emperor was severely blamed for his conduct; and the force
of public opinion supporting the religious authority of the Greek clergy,
enabled Nicephorus Blemmidas to give Marchesina a severe rebuke. Blemmidas
had decorated the church of the monastery of which he was abbot so richly that
it was generally visited by the courtiers. One day, while the abbot was
performing divine service, the imperial mistress passed with her attendants and
resolved to view the church; but Blemmidas, informed
of her approach, ordered the doors to be closed, declaring that with his
permission an adulteress should never enter the church. Marchesina,
enraged at so severe a rebuke, inflicted so publicly, hastened to the palace,
threw herself at her lover’s feet, and begged him to avenge the insult. John’s
love had not obscured his reason, and he felt the reproof was deserved: his
only reply was, “The abbot would have respected me had I respected myself”. Blemmidas was the tutor of Theodore, the emperor’s son; and
to the unfortunate connection with Marchesina we may
perhaps attribute the circumstance that Theodore, contrary to the usual custom
in the Eastern Empire, did not receive the imperial title during his father’s
life.
The character of John, and his political administration, deserve much
praise; but his public administration was marked with some defects as well as
his conduct. The gold coinage of the Byzantine empire, as we have had occasion
to observe, presents the longest series of coins, possessing the same weight
and purity, which the world has yet beheld; and the degradation of the
political institutions of the empire, the corruption of society, and
adulteration of the coinage, are contemporary events. John III, had fallen on a
debased age, in which the faith due by the sovereign to the public was neither
understood nor appreciated He found the standard of the imperial mint already
debased, and he carried the adulteration of the coin still further, issuing
money of which only two parts were of pure gold, and the remaining third of
alloy. His son persevered in the same standard; but Michael VIII, after the
reconquest of Constantinople, coined money of which fifteen parts only were
gold and nine alloy. At last, Andronicus II, after issuing a coinage of
fourteen parts of gold and ten of alloy, carried the depreciation of the
standard so far as to make the gold byzant consist of equal parts of gold
and alloy.
John III died at Nymphaeum on the 30th October 1254, after a reign of
thirty-three years.
Sect. III
FROM THE DEATH OF JOHN III TO
THE RECOVERY OF CONSTANTINOPLE BY THE GREEKS. A.D. 1254-1261.
Theodore Lascaris II, the only son of John III and Irene, was thirty-three
years old at his father’s death. His first care was to hasten the election of a
patriarch; and when Nicephorus Blemmidas declined the
honour, the dignity was conferred on Arsenios, who,
at the time of his election, was a lay brother in a monastery near the lake Apolloniades. In a single week he was consecrated deacon,
priest, and patriarch. The coronation of Theodore was performed in the city of
Nicaea, the new Patriarch placing the imperial crown on his head.
Theodore II was a man of considerable talent, and of a cultivated mind; but
his health was ruined, and his intellect affected, by repeated attacks of
epilepsy. Participating in the common opinions of his age, the emperor
sometimes believed that his malady was a Divine judgment, and at others
considered that it was the effect of the incantations of his enemies. At times
he sunk into profound melancholy; at times he broke out in uncontrollable fits
of anger. But his public conduct was generally marked by judgment and
determination. He commanded his armies with ability; and he filled the
administration with men of talent, in defiance of the nobility, who pretended
an exclusive tittle to all offices which conferred profit and patronage.
The historian George Acropolita, who held the
high charge of grand logothet or chancellor, has been
induced, by wounded pride and affection, to record an anecdote which offers a
truer and more graphic picture of the Emperor Theodore II than is usually found
in the pedantic pages of the Byzantine writers. The conditions of a treaty with
Bulgaria had been arranged by the intermediation of Ouros,
a Russian prince, father-in-law of Michael, king of Bulgaria. Theodore had
bestowed on the Russian presents to the value of twenty thousand byzants.
Before the ratification of the treaty was exchanged, a report prevailed that it
would not be ratified; and the emperor was induced to distrust the Russian by
the insinuations of some intriguing courtiers, who said that the negotiations
had been entered into to gain time, and would of course be disavowed.
On the Feast of the Transfiguration (6th August 1256), after the short
sleep which invariably follows dinner during the summer heats throughout the
East, the emperor mounted his horse to ride round his camp, which embraced a
circumference of five miles. Theodore prided himself on the discipline of his
army, and called his camp the movable city, which was the guardian of all the
immovable cities of the empire. As he galloped off at a rapid pace, attended by
his military staff, the chancellor, spurring his mule, attempted to keep his
post of honour at his master's side; but neither his own flowing robes, nor the
amble of his well-fed mule, were suited to the rapid movements of the emperor,
and Theodore turned to the panting Acropolita and
said, “Moderate your pace, and join us at your leisure”.
The inspection of the camp terminated at a level eminence, to which Acropolita hastened by a direct road, in order to take his
place in the circle round the emperor. The malicious suggestions of the
discontented courtiers dwelt on the mind of Theodore; and he soon asked several
of the great officers of his court if they had received information that the
Russian was a deceiver, and that the treaty would not be ratified. The
ministers of state replied that no such news had reached them, and it seemed to
them impossible, for no Christian prince could be guilty of such baseness. But
to this the emperor observed, that Christian princes had often been found
capable of performing strange actions to obtain large presents. He then turned
to Acropolita, and asked him what he had to say.
The chancellor replied, “I agree with my colleagues in thinking the
report destitute of all foundation; but if Ouros has
deceived us, and perjured himself, then Heaven will avenge the just cause by
giving us the victory”.
This reply satisfied the emperor, who shortly after mounted his horse and
returned towards his tent. The moon had already risen, and as Theodore rode
slowly on, he renewed the conversation. Observing that Acropolita
kept silence, he called to him. “Well, grand logothet!
tell us your opinion; the business concerns you especially”.
To this the chancellor, with some display of dissatisfaction,
answered, “How does it concern me particularly? If I had neglected to see
the treaty properly drawn up, or omitted any requisite formality in receiving
the oath of the Russian, it would be a criminal neglect; but as this was done
in due form, I cannot see how the business concerns me especially”.
The emperor was falling into one of his fits of ill-humour. The demure
aspect of the chancellor on his sleek mule contrasting with the parade of armed
nobles and prancing war-horses, and perhaps the pedantic manner and dogmatic
tone of his reply, exercised more influence on his master's uncertain temper
than the historian suspected. The emperor repeated, “Tell us what you
think about the matter”.
The chancellor replied, “I believe there is more falsehood than truth
in the report that the treaty will not be ratified; but I cannot pretend to
form a decided opinion on a matter that is uncertain”.
Theodore angrily exclaimed, “It is precisely in uncertain matters that
a correct judgment is wanted; every ass can give a decided opinion about what
is evident”.
To this Acropolita testily replied, “So I
have lived to be ranked as an ass”.
Theodore then added, “Yes, you were always a fool, and now you are
doating”.
The luckless chancellor, not yet sensible of his danger in bandying words
with a passionate despot, or recollecting only his habits of intercourse with
his youthful playfellow, again replied, “Then it is better for a fool to be
silent : let the wise speak”.
Here the emperor lost all command over his temper. Acropolita
says he put his hand to his sword; at all events, he turned to Andronicus Muzalon, the grand domestikos,
and said, “Dismount him”. Muzalon approached Acropolita, who immediately dismounted, and was seized by
two of the club-bearers of the guard, and bastinadoed with the rods they
carried in their hands for the punishment of meaner offenders. The chancellor
endured the blows for some time in silence, while the emperor and the great
officers of state sat on their horses round; but at last, moved by the pain and
the disgrace, he said aloud, “Lord Christ, why hast thou preserved my life in
the hour of sickness to suffer this misery?”. The tones of a voice so long
endeared to him by friendship restored the emperor’s judgment. Acropolita had been one of the few friends who displayed a
sincere attachment to Theodore, when the influence of Marchesina
had brought him into trouble with his father. The emperor now turned away,
saying to one of his officers, “Take him with you”.
This officer asked the chancellor where he wished to go; but considering
himself a prisoner, he recommended the officer to carry him to the tents of the
Vardariot guards. When it appeared that the primikerios of the Vardariots
received no orders to retain him prisoner, Acropolita
retired to his own tent, where he shut himself up in the closest seclusion. He
pretends that the emperor placed a guard to watch his movements, privately fearing
that he might desert to Bulgaria, or fly to the Despot of Epirus. He remained
in his tent a month, resisting the suggestions of his friends, and of many
prelates and dignitaries of the court, that he should ask a private audience of
the emperor. He had determined not to serve a prince who could treat his most
devoted servants in such an unworthy manner. In the meantime, the treaty was
ratified by the King of Bulgaria, the imperial camp was removed to
Thessalonica, and negotiations were opened with the Despot of Epirus. Manuel
Lascaris, the emperor's grand-uncle, and George Muzalon,
the protovestiarios, now visited Acropolita,
and carried him, by the emperor’s order, to a council of ministers. When the
emperor arrived to take his place on the throne, Acropolita
saluted him in the usual form, but stood behind the members of the council. The
emperor, observing this, said to him, “Take your place as usual”; and as Acropolita had neither resigned the office of chancellor,
nor been removed from it, he placed himself by the emperor’s side. Theodore
then stated the relations of the empire with the Despot of Epirus, and gave his
official orders to the chancellor as if nothing had occurred. Both shut up
their feelings in their own breasts, and our interest in the personal relations
of Theodore Lascaris and George Acropolita is lost in
the stream of history.
The military administration of Theodore II was able and successful. His
wars with Bulgaria and Epirus extended the power of the empire, and prepared
the Greeks for the recovery of Constantinople. He was hardly seated on the
throne when Michael, king of Bulgaria, thinking that his seclusion from public
business during the latter years of his father's reign would paralyse his
activity, invaded Thrace, and overran all the country inhabited by a Bulgarian,
Sclavonian, and Vallachian
population. The colonists were all willing to throw off the Greek yoke, and
unite with their independent countrymen. The fortresses of Stenimachos,
Prestitza, Krytzimos, and Tzepaina, with all the forts in the province called Achridos, on Mount Rhodope, were captured almost without
resistance.
At the commencement of the year 1255, in the middle of winter, when the
Bulgarians thought no Greek army would take the field, the Emperor Theodore II
marched to Adrianople, and after remaining a single night pushed forward to
attack the Bulgarian camp on the banks of the Hebrus.
The enemy, apprised of his approach, abandoned their entrenchments, and left
all their stores to the Greeks. A heavy fall of snow, rendering the passage of
Mount Haemus impracticable, compelled the emperor to lead his army back to
Adrianople. From thence he detached a considerable force to clear the province
of Achridos of the enemy’s troops. This corps was
ordered to join another body advancing from Serres,
and then to effect a junction with the main army at Tzepaina.
The body of troops which had been sent to Serres,
under the command of Alexius Strategopoulos, suffered
a disgraceful defeat from a small body of Bulgarians; and the news of this
disaster caused Dragotas, who had previously betrayed
Melenikon to the Greeks, to surrender that important
fortress to the Bulgarians. But the emperor had in the meantime, with wonderful
rapidity, retaken Pristitza, Stenimachos,
Krytzimos, and the towns on the northern slopes of
Rhodope, between the valleys of the Hebrus and the Mestos; so that, on hearing of the defeat at Serres, he was able, without a moment’s delay, to march on
that place. He continued his advance to the pass of Roupelion,
where the Strymon forces its way between precipitous rocks. The Bulgarians had
fortified this strong position, but as soon as they were assailed by a corps of
light troops, which occupied the summits overlooking the pass, they retreated.
Their main body was overtaken and defeated. Dragotas
was slain, and the emperor entered Melenikon in
triumph on the following day. From Melenikon,
Theodore removed his headquarters to Thessalonica, and subsequently to Vodhena, where he was detained some time by illness. On his
recovery, he again placed himself at the head of the army, and took Prilapos and Velesos, after which
he returned by Nevstapolis through an arid and rocky
district, in which the horses of the cavalry passed two days without water, to Strumitza, Melenikon, and Serres, where he encamped. All the conquests of the
Bulgarians had been recovered in this long campaign, except the small fort of Patmon, in Achridos, and the
frontier fortress of Tzepaina. Patmon
was taken by one of the imperial generals; but at Makrolivada,
about four days' march from Adrianople, the emperor, who proposed to besiege Tzepaina in person, was overtaken by a snow-storm, and
compelled to put his army into winter-quarters.
Theodore returned to Asia, and passed the winter at Nymphaion,
directing the civil administration of the empire with the same activity he had
displayed in the conduct of its military affairs. The headquarters of the army
was at Didymoteichos, and the chief command was
intrusted to Manuel Lascaris and Constantinos Margarites.
These generals, in the spring of 1256, allowed themselves to be drawn into an
engagement by the Bulgarians, who had enrolled in their service a strong body
of Romans, and the Greeks were defeated. Margarites was taken prisoner, but
Lascaris escaped to Adrianople. Theodore immediately hastened to Europe, and
his presence soon restored discipline and confidence among the troops. The
Romans were defeated with great loss, and the Bulgarian king, astonished at the
ease with which the emperor converted his defeated soldiers into an attacking
army, sent his father-in-law, the Russian prince Ouros,
to treat for peace, as has been already mentioned. The treaty was concluded on
the condition that the king of Bulgaria should withdraw all his troops to the
north of Mount Haemus, and cede to the emperor the fortress of Tzepaina.
As soon as the affairs of Bulgaria were settled, the Emperor Theodore
directed his attention to Epirus. The Despot Michael II, who had violated the
treaty by which his son Nicephorus had engaged to marry the emperor’s daughter
Maria, now sent his wife and son Nicephorus to sue for peace on such terms as
Theodore might think fit to dictate. The marriage of Nicephorus and Maria was
celebrated at Thessalonica; but the emperor insisted on the cession of the city
of Servia on the Haliacmon, and of Dyrrachium, before
he would conclude a treaty of peace. Michael, finding that his wife and son
were retained as hostages at the imperial court, consented to the cession of
these valuable frontier fortresses.
The emperor returned to Asia with his army, leaving only small garrisons in
a few fortresses in Europe. The inspection of the civil and military
administration in the country between Berrhoea and
Dyrrachium was intrusted to George Acropolita who, the
emperor observed, had laid aside the frankness of their former intercourse. He
hoped that a short absence would efface entirely the memory of the chancellor’s
punishment; but Acropolita and Theodore never met
again. Acropolita left Berrhoea
on his tour of inspection in the month of December 1256. When he reached Prilapos, he found that the Albanian chiefs had revolted in
the neighbouring mountains, and he was soon closely besieged, for the troops of
the Despot Michael joined the insurgents; and the despot, having declared war
with the empire, took Berrhoea and Vodhena, and shut up Michael Lascaris in Thessalonica.
Michael Paleologos, a restless intriguer, but an able officer, was now sent
to take the command at Dyrrachium. He had been governor of Nicaea during the
Bulgarian war; but, hearing that his uncle had been arrested on a charge of
treason, he abandoned his high office, and fled to the Turks. This conduct
might have been considered a proof that he had been connected with treasonable
intrigues by a sovereign less suspicious than Theodore; but Paleologos
contrived to produce a feeling in his favour, by despatching a circular before
his flight to all the officers under his orders, ordering them to pay the
strictest attention to their duty, for he had only withdrawn himself to gain
time, and he hoped to be able to prove to the emperor the injustice of the
accusations which had been brought against him by his enemies. These letters,
and the good offices of the Bishop of Iconium, obtained his pardon. On returning
to court, he took a solemn oath, confirmed by terrible imprecations, that he
would preserve inviolable fidelity to the emperor and his infant son. He was
then sent to command the troops at Dyrrachium.
The arrival of Paleologos at Thessalonica revived the courage of the
Greeks. He led the troops out to meet the enemy; and in a skirmish near Vodhena dismounted Theodore, the natural son of the Despot
Michael, who commanded the Epirots. The young
Theodore was slain by a Turk in the imperial service before he was recognised.
This success opened the road to Dyrrachium, to which Paleologos marched with
the greatest haste, visiting Prilapos, and affording Acropolita some temporary relief on his way. But as soon as
he quitted the neighbourhood, the Despot Michael again occupied the passes; and
the inhabitants of Prilapos, cut off from all
communication with Thessalonica and Dyrrachium, became tired of a war in which
they had no direct interest, and opened their gates to the Epirot troops. Acropolita, unable to defend the citadel, capitulated on
condition that he should be allowed to retire with the garrison to
Thessalonica; but the despot, in violation of this capitulation, detained him a
prisoner, and even confined him for some time chained in a dungeon. The campaign
of 1257 proved extremely unfavourable to the Greeks; and the illness of the
emperor prevented his taking the field in person, in the year 1258, to recover
the ground lost by his generals.
The latter days of Theodore were afflicted by fearful attacks of epilepsy,
which produced such an effect on his temper that he appeared at times to be
affected with temporary insanity. Participating in the prejudices of his age,
he suspected that his malady was increased by the sortileges
of his enemies; and this suspicion opened a door for many intrigues at his
court, and for the most iniquitous accusations. The only way to escape
condemnation, when a charge of this nature was made, consisted in undergoing
the ordeal of holding red-hot iron in the hand; and the historian Pachymeres
declares that he saw this trial undergone without injury. At this time, Michael
Paleologos was the most popular man among the nobility. The failing health of
the emperor, and the youth of the emperor’s son, prepared men for a revolution in
the order of succession; and many already spoke of the title of Paleologos to
the imperial crown as better founded than that of the reigning family, for
Michael was descended from the eldest daughter of Alexius III. It was fortunate
for Michael Paleologos that he was absent from the court. He was an
accomplished hypocrite, and his apparent frankness of manner seemed so
incompatible with the falsehood and dissimulation which formed the basis of his
character, that he deceived the prudence of John III, and concealed his
unprincipled ambition even from the suspicious Theodore. But had Michael
Paleologos been near the court, he would in all probability have lost his
eyesight during one of the emperor’s fits of passion. As it was, the emperor
committed an unpardonable outrage on his family. Martha, the sister of Michael,
had a beautiful daughter, whom the emperor ordered the family to bestow in
marriage on one of his pages, named Valanidiotes. The
young man gained the affections of the high-born damsel, when the emperor,
changing his mind, forced her to marry a man of her own rank. A report that
this marriage was not consummated, induced Theodore to suspect that both this
event and a violent attack of his disease was caused by some charm the mother
had used. He became furious, and ordered Martha, though she was allied to the
imperial family, to be enclosed in a sack with a number of cats, which were
pricked with javelins, that they might torture the unfortunate lady. She was
brought into court with the sack fastened at her neck, and examined concerning
her supposed incantations, but nothing could be extracted from her by this
infamous tyranny. The emperor, however, fearing that Michael Paleologos, on
hearing how his sister had been treated, might join the Despot of Epirus, or
raise the standard of revolt, sent an officer to arrest him before the news
could reach Dyrrachium. Michael was brought to Magnesia as a prisoner; but he
contrived, by his insinuating manners, again to allay the suspicions of
Theodore, who, finding that his end was fast approaching, was anxious to secure
the services of Michael for his infant son. The emperor believed that he had
destroyed the most dangerous enemies of his house by depriving Constantine Strategopoulos and Theodore Philes
of sight, and cutting out the tongue of Nicephorus Alyattes.
Theodore Lascaris II died at Magnesia in the month of August 1258, in the
thirty-seventh year of his age, and was buried in the monastery of Sosander by the side of his father. With all his faults,
Theodore II had many generous feelings, and he was a liberal prince to his
people. Though he accumulated a considerable treasure in the fort of Astyza on the Scamander, as his father had done in the
citadel of Magnesia, his government was nevertheless more free from financial
oppression than that of the Greek emperors generally. His military arrangements
for the protection of his dominions were extremely judicious. The mountain
fortresses that covered the plains of Asia from the incursions of the Turks and
Turkmans were carefully garrisoned, and the highland population that furnished
the local guards for the mountain passes was freed from the payment of the
land-tax. Theodore also displayed a sincere love of learning, though his
attention was exclusively directed to theology and legendary history. He was
unpopular among the Greek nobility, because he conferred official appointments
with reference to the merits of the candidates, making small account of the
aristocratic pretensions of the Byzantine families, who would fain have
reserved every place of honour and emolument in the court and public
administration to themselves and their connections. This pretension of the
Constantinopolitan nobles naturally became more offensive to the other Greeks
when the capital was removed from Byzantium. The piety of Theodore was
irreproachable, but he steadily excluded the patriarch and clergy from all
interference in politics; and this circumstance generally marks a period of
prosperity in the administration of the Eastern Empire.
John IV was eight years old at his father’s death. George Muzalon, his father’s prime-minister, was appointed tutor
to the young emperor, and regent during his minority. The Patriarch Arsenios was joined with him as a colleague. Muzalon, knowing that a powerful party among the nobility
was hostile to his administration, feared an insurrection; he therefore
assembled a council of all the officers of state and leading nobles, and
offered to resign the regency, proposing that the assembly should immediately elect
his successor. Muzalon appears not to have fathomed
the ambition or suspected the hypocrisy of Michael Paleologos, who was his
wife’s uncle; but Michael had already determined to make the unpopularity of Muzalon the means for usurping the throne; and he perceived
that if another regent should be named, and Muzalon
remain tutor to the young emperor, all immediate hope of effecting a revolution
would be annihilated for the time. He therefore used all his influence to
induce the council to ratify the choice of the late emperor, and Muzalon was easily persuaded to assume the office of regent
when he saw his authority thus confirmed.
In the meantime, a powerful party was plotting the ruin of the regent, whom
the nobles regarded as the principal author of the cruelties of Theodore. The
immense wealth and numerous households of a few families enabled them to make
the people of Magnesia their partisans. The troops alone were exempt from their
influence, but the military were in general attached to Michael Paleologos, and
hostile to Muzalon. Numerous predictions were
circulated, which foretold that Michael Paleologos was destined to reign. As
grand constable he commanded the foreign auxiliaries, and these troops
displayed a seditious spirit, on the ground that they were deprived of a
donative which the late emperor was about to confer on them. The conspirators
also spread a report that Muzalon had caused the
death of Theodore II by his sortileges, in order to
act as regent. The memory of Theodore was popular both among the soldiers and
the citizens, and it was therefore necessary to separate the cause of the
regent from that of the young emperor in order to secure success. The plan of a
revolution was soon organized, and the regent was assassinated by the nobles, under
the cover of a popular tumult. While the clergy, the officers of state, and the
ladies of the court were performing the funeral ceremonies appropriated to
the ninth day after Theodore’s death, at the monastery of Sosander,
a band of soldiers burst into the church and murdered Muzalon,
his two brothers, his son-in-law, and his secretary. The regent was stabbed at
the altar; the dead bodies were hewed in pieces by the mob; the palace of the Muzalons was burned, and their property plundered; yet no
civil or military authority attempted to check the disorders of the mob until
its fury was satiated.
Michael Paleologos was only one of the conspirators who had plotted the
murder of Muzalon, but he resolved to be the
principal gainer by the crime. The pretensions that might have been advanced to
the regency by the families of Lascaris, Vatatzes, Nestongos,
Tornikes, Strategopoulos, Philes, Kavallarios, Philanthropenos, Cantacuzenos, Aprenos, and Livadarios, were
withdrawn. The popularity of Paleologos with the military, and his superior
talents, pointed him out as the fittest man to conduct the government; but he
declined the office until he had secured the approbation of the Patriarch Arsenios, the surviving tutor of the young emperor, and the
Patriarch was then absent at Nicaea. In the meantime, Paleologos was named
Grand-duke, an office which gave him no direct control over the finances. The
treasury was under the guard of a special body of Varangians and could only be
opened by certain officers on the presentation of warrants duly countersigned
by the heads of the various departments in the imperial administration.
Paleologos, nevertheless, contrived by his intrigues and frauds to obtain the
issue of money, unauthorized by the strict rules and immediate exigencies of
the public service; and this money was employed in gaining the nobility, the
military, and the clergy to support his party. His liberality to others, and
his personal indifference to money, greatly increased his popularity. While
others were enriched by his favour, his own fortune remained small, and his
household was conducted with the greatest simplicity, and its expense was
limited to three byzants a-day. When the Patriarch returned to Magnesia,
Michael Paleologos was, by universal consent, and at the particular suggestion
of the clergy, invested with the office of tutor to the Emperor John IV. He was
soon after honoured with the rank of Despot, second only to that of Basileus,
and became invested with absolute control over every branch of the administration.
But the throne was always considered the only safe resting-place for
political intriguers of the highest rank in the Eastern Empire, and Paleologos
was determined to keep the power he had obtained. His partisans were therefore
instructed to declaim in favour of an elective monarchy, and of the necessity
of giving the young emperor an able colleague, as the only chance of avoiding,
or, at all events, of crushing rebellion. The plans of Paleologos were also
furthered by the news of a coalition, formed by the Despot of Epirus, the King
of Sicily, and the Prince of Achaia, for the conquest of Thessalonica and the
European provinces of the empire. The military and the partisans of Paleologos
loudly demanded the election of an emperor capable of averting the danger, and
succeeded in obtaining the proclamation of Michael VIII on the 1st January
1259. The election was conducted with unusual formalities. Michael was publicly
raised on a shield, supported on one side by bishops, and on the other by
nobles; while the people, the native legions, and the Latin and Sclavonian mercenaries, hailed him with acclamations.
Before the ceremony he had signed a written certificate of his having sworn, in
presence of the Patriarch, to restore the full sovereignty to the young
emperor, John IV, on his attaining his majority, and not to advance any claim
to the imperial dignity in favour of his heirs. In consequence of this oath,
the prelates of the Greek Church, who were generally servile instruments of the
court, pronounced a sentence declaring that Michael Paleologos did not violate
the oaths he had taken to John III and Theodore II by accepting the crown on
these conditions. The Patriarch Arsenios disapproved
of this evasion, and refused to take any part in the election; but his
suspicions and distrust were allayed by the hypocritical assurances and modest
demeanour of Michael.
At the coronation the usurper dropped his mask, and yet the Patriarch was
weak enough to betray the trust imposed on him as tutor to the Emperor John IV.
It was understood that the ceremony of the coronation of the two emperors was
to take place at the same time in the cathedral of Nicaea. The coronation of
the young emperor must in that case have preceded that of his colleague. To
avoid this, Michael concerted with a number of bishops that the coronation of
John IV should be deferred, but without allowing the Patriarch to hear anything
of their plan. When the moment arrived to receive the crown, Michael stepped
forward alone. The Patriarch called for John IV, and refused to proceed with
the ceremony: but neither law, honour, morality, nor religion were then
predominant in the Greek mind; and the majority of the bishops present having
been previously gained, the Patriarch, finding himself unsupported by the
clergy, was so compliant as to perform the ceremony. The only prelate who made
a long resistance was the Archbishop of Thessalonica. He refused to sign the
coronation act, though he was reproached with having predicted that Michael was
destined to reign, and he only yielded when the tumultuous cries of the
populace and the threats of the Varangian guards backed the instances of the
senators, and made him fear that little respect would be shown for his
episcopal sanctity by an assembly engaged in violating the law and constitution
of the empire.
The first orders given by Michael VIII, after his coronation, were intended
to allay all suspicions concerning his ulterior intentions. A clause was
inserted in the oath of allegiance which was administered to all the subjects
of the empire, binding them to take up arms against either of the emperors who
should attempt any enterprise against the other. This measure was probably
forced on Michael by the Patriarch's opposition. But he purchased supporters of
his usurpation by lavishing the public money. To gain new friends and reward
his partisans, the pay of the senators was increased, large donations were
bestowed on the troops, great promotions were made among the officers, the
state debtors were released, and many new pensions were granted. The mob was
bribed by largesses, the people were flattered by
public harangues, and the nobles were entertained by festivals. In short,
Michael Paleologos commenced his reign by wasting the public wealth, corrupting
the people, and weakening both the national character and the national
resources; by acting the part of an unprincipled demagogue, he became a
successful usurper. He lived to reap the bitter fruits of his criminal conduct.
The lavish expenditure by which he had gained the nobles, the clergy, and the
populace, became a permanent burden on the finances; to defend his crown he was
compelled to oppress his subjects with new exactions, and the powerful armies
which the popularity of John III and Theodore II had enabled them to bring
into the field against foreign enemies, were, during the latter years of the
reign of Michael, dispersed to repress the rebellious disposition of the
Greeks.
The position of the empire at the period of Michael's election was
extremely favourable to the extension of the power of the Greeks; and had the
new emperor been able to diminish the weight of the public burdens, and pursue
the domestic policy traced out by his two predecessors, a great increase in the
population and resources of the Greeks in Asia Minor must have followed. The
imperial armies were numerous and well organized, the inhabitants of the
mountainous districts of Phrygia and Bithynia formed a bold and active militia,
which not only garrisoned a line of forts that commanded all the roads,
bridges, and mountain passes, but also furnished an efficient body of infantry
for foreign service. The bowmen from the country round Nicaea occupied at this
time a prominent place in the Greek armies, and in general the courage and
quality of the native troops showed great improvement. This arose in part from
the advance which had taken place in the social position of the Greek peasantry
after the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders. The cultivators of the
soil were now the proprietors of the lands they tilled, and they fought like
men who possessed rights and privileges which they would sacrifice
their lives to defend.
While the Greek empire had been gradually recovering strength, the
neighbouring states had rapidly declined. The empires of the Seljouk Turks of Iconium, and of the Belgians at
Constantinople, which had successively threatened the Greek nation with
extinction, were both humbled. The Turkish Empire was rent into fragments by
civil wars, in which fathers, sons, and brothers of the line of Seljouk were arrayed in arms against one another. Tyranny
ruined its resources, and the invasions of the Moguls completed its ruin. Gsuaseddin Kaikhosrou II, who
died in 1247, was a weak and luxurious prince. His son, Azeddin
Kaikous II, after sustaining several defeats from the
Tartar armies, was driven from his dominions by his brother, Rokneddin Kilidy-Arslan IV, and
sought safety from the fraternal discord which seemed the inheritance of his
race, by retiring into the Greek empire.
Baldwin II, emperor of Constantinople, after begging succours over all
Europe, and wasting the supplies he received from the ambition of the Pope and
the generosity of St Louis in maintaining an imperial court, lived by tearing
the copper from the domes of the public buildings erected by the Byzantine
emperors, which he coined into money, and by borrowing gold from Venetian
bankers, in whose hands he placed his eldest son Philip as a pledge. To such a
miserable condition was the empire of the Crusaders now reduced, and so great
was the diminution of the military class in the Latin population, that the only
efficient guard at Constantinople was maintained by Venetian merchants, and the
existence of the empire was dependent on foreign succours.
BULGARIA
The kingdom of Bulgaria was a principal object of attention in conducting
the foreign affairs of the Greek empire, both on account of its power and the
contiguity of its frontier. A considerable part of the imperial territory in
Europe was, moreover, inhabited by Bulgarians and Sclavonians,
who were now almost amalgamated into one people. While John Asan reigned in
Bulgaria, he had maintained the balance between the Latin and Greek empires;
but his death, the youth of his sons, the independent position of the great Bulgarian
nobles, and the low state of civilization in the country, combined to render
the kingdom a scene of anarchy, and to destroy its influence abroad.
Constantine Tech at length rendered himself master of the throne, by expelling Mytzes, the last sovereign of the family of Asan.
Constantine had allied himself with Theodore II, and espoused his daughter
Irene, but he was not in condition to engage in war with Michael VIII. But as
Michael was anxious to secure peace on the northern frontier in order to direct
his forces against the Latins, he sent Acropolita,
who had been released from his captivity in Epirus, as ambassador to the court
of Constantine, king of Bulgaria, in 1260.
The only frontier power that possessed the internal strength and energy
necessary for disputing the progress of the Greek empire, at this time, was
Epirus. But the territories ruled by the Despot Michael were inhabited by a
population consisting of various races, which showed no disposition to
amalgamate into one nation. Sclavonians, Vallachians, Albanians, and Greeks occupied considerable
territories, in which they were separately governed by their respective usages,
institutions, and laws, and each defended its local administration both against
its neighbours and the prince. The power of the Despot of Epirus was
consequently less despotic than that of most contemporary princes; but the
warlike disposition of a great portion of his subjects rendered him a dangerous
neighbour.
Michael VIII, as soon as he acquired the direction of the government, had
endeavoured to conclude peace with the Despot of Epirus, who had already
extended his conquests to the banks of the Vardar. The emperor offered to
allow him to retain his conquests, on condition that he released his two
prisoners, Acropolita and Chavaron;
but the despot, having formed an alliance with Manfred, king of Sicily, and
William, prince of Achaia, expected by their assistance to become master of
Thessalonica, and indulged in the hope of expelling the emperor’s troops from
Europe. When Michael Paleologos found that war was inevitable, he sent his
brother John with a considerable army to oppose the despot, (A.D. 1259). The
Epirot camp was established at Kastoria; but John
Paleologos, penetrating suddenly into upper Macedonia by the pass of Vodhena, compelled the despot to abandon his position in
great haste. The Greeks regained possession of Achrida, Deavolis,
Prespa, Pelagonia, and Soskos, while the despot, retiring behind the chain of
Pindus, waited for the arrival of four hundred knights, who had been sent to
his aid by Manfred, king of Sicily, and of a considerable body of Latin troops
under the command of William, prince of Achaia. When he was joined by these
auxiliaries, his army was much stronger than that of the Greeks, and he resumed
the offensive. Advancing by the pass of Vorilas, he
recovered possession of Stanou, Soskos,
and Molykos, and pressed forward to relieve Prilapos, which the Greeks had invested. The best troops in
the army of John Paleologos consisted of light cavalry from the Turkish tribes
at the mouth of the Danube, and from the nomad hordes in Asia Minor. This
cavalry was supported by a body of the famous archers of Bithynia, and both
were under the command of experienced officers, trained under the firm discipline
of the Emperors John III and Theodore II. This force retired before the Despot
Michael in perfect order, cutting off the foraging parties, and harassing the
advance of the Latin heavy-armed cavalry, until an opportunity presented itself
of attacking the main body of the Epirot army in the plain of Pelagonia. The attack was said to have been favoured by
secret communications with John Dukas, the natural
son of the Despot Michael, who, in right of his wife, was Prince of the Vallachians of Thessaly. John Dukas
is said to have been grossly insulted by some French knights. It is certain
that, whether there was treachery or not, the Epirot army was completely
defeated, and William, prince of Achaia, with many Latin nobles, was taken
prisoner. John Paleologos, with one division of the victorious army, advanced
into Greece and plundered Livadea; the other, under
Alexius Strategopoulos, took Joannina
and Arta, and delivered Acropolita.
The Despot of Epirus fled to Leucadia, where he assembled new forces. The
imperial generals hastened to pass the winter at the court of Michael VIII, in
order to secure their portion of the rewards which were there distributed with
a lavish hand. In the following year (1260) Alexis Strategopoulos,
who remained in Epirus to conduct the war, was defeated and taken prisoner at Tricorythos by Nicephorus, the eldest son of the Despot
Michael. The best part of the Bithynian archers perished in this battle; but Strategopoulos was fortunate enough to be soon released
from captivity, and he was immediately intrusted with the command of the army
in Thrace, where accident gave him the glory of being the conqueror of
Constantinople. The war continued in Epirus, sustained by the national aversion
of the Albanians and Vallachians to the imperial
government, but without being productive of any important results.
The successful campaign of 1259, and the captivity of the Prince of Achaia,
deprived the Latin empire of its most useful allies. Michael VIII resolved to
avail himself of the moment to make an attempt for the reconquest of
Constantinople. The Emperor Baldwin II was too weak to defend his capital, if
left to his own resources; and the Venetians no longer possessed that command
of the sea which insured their being able to introduce succours into the place
during a siege, for the republics of Venice and Genoa were then engaged in a
war remarkable for the fierce animosity of the combatants, and distinguished by
a succession of well-contested and bloody naval battles. The Emperor Michael,
in the year 1260, took the command of the Greek army in Thrace, and, after
storming Selymbria, advanced to the walls of
Constantinople. As he advanced without a sufficiency of military stores for
forming a permanent camp, and without engines for commencing a regular siege,
there seems no doubt that he counted on aid from secret friends within the
walls. The traitor was said to be a French noble named Anseau;
but he proved apparently unable or unwilling to complete his treason; and
Michael, after waiting in vain for the concerted aid, made several attempts to
carry the suburb of Galata by storm. These attacks being repulsed, he concluded
a truce for a year with the Emperor Baldwin.
Michael determined to renew his attack on Constantinople as soon as the
truce expired. He felt that the conquest of the imperial city could alone throw
a veil over his usurpation; and that, as the restorer of the Byzantine Empire,
he might pretend a new claim to the homage of the Greeks. In the spring of 1261
he signed a treaty with the republic of Genoa, by which he granted the Genoese
various commercial privileges, and renewed all the concessions made to them by
the Emperor Manuel. Both parties bound themselves to carry on war with Venice,
and not to conclude either truce or peace, unless by mutual consent. The
emperor, in the event of his conquering Constantinople, promised to put the
Genoese in possession of the palace, castle, church, and domain, held by the
Venetians; and the Genoese promised to furnish the emperor with a fleet to aid
his conquest. By this treaty the convention—concluded under the auspices of
Pope Gregory IX in 1238, binding the republics of Genoa and Venice not to ally
themselves with the Greek emperor, except by mutual consent—was annulled, and
the foundation was laid of the great commercial ascendancy which the Genoese
acquired in the Black Sea.
While the Emperor Michael was waiting for the expiry of the truce and the
arrival of the Genoese fleet, he sent Alexis Strategopoulos,
who had just returned from his captivity in Epirus, to take the command of the
troops in Thrace, ordering him to collect a force on the Latin frontier, and
enter their territory as soon as the truce expired, in order that no time might
be lost in forming the siege of Constantinople on the arrival of the Genoese
fleet, when Michael proposed assuming the command of his army in person.
The Latin seigneurs had found their property,
even in the immediate vicinity of Constantinople, so insecure, that they had
sold it to the Greek cultivators of the soil. The Greeks had also established
themselves as farmers of the imperial possessions confiscated at the foundation
of the Latin empire. They were thus the only inhabitants of the district
protected by the vicinity of Constantinople from the ravages of the Greek and
Bulgarian armies; and their position had enabled them, during the increasing
weakness of the Latin government, to acquire a certain independence in their
communal organization. In a feudal empire, they lived exempt from feudal ties;
and in order to defend their property, they formed themselves into an armed
militia, called Voluntaries, which pretended to maintain a kind of neutrality
in the war between the Latins and the Greeks. Strategopoulos
opened communications with the chiefs of the voluntaries, whose national
feelings induced them to favour the Greek cause, and he found them willing to
aid in gaining immediate possession of Constantinople. Their daily
communications with the city enabled them to give him accurate information of
all that passed among the Latins.
As soon as the truce expired, Strategopoulos led
the troops under his command into the neighbourhood of Constantinople; but the
Latins took no immediate precautions for defence, knowing that the force under
his command was inadequate to besiege the city. Elated by their successful
resistance during the preceding year, and by the arrival of Marc Gradenigo, a new Venetian podestat,
with a few galleys, they determined to mark the expiry of the trace by striking
the first blow; and their object was to recover possession of Daphnusia or Sozopolis on the
Black Sea. Marc Gradenigo was anxious to secure a
port of refuge for the Venetian vessels when pursued by the Genoese, and cut
off by adverse winds from entering the Bosphorus. He persuaded the Emperor
Baldwin to allow him to embark the best part of the garrison in the fleet,
which consisted of thirty galleys and a Sicilian galleon of great size; so that
the force embarked may have exceeded six thousand men. The moment was now
considered favourable for executing the plan which had been formed by the
Greeks for surprising Constantinople. A leader of the voluntaries, named Koutritzakes, had secured the assistance of some Greeks
within the walls; Strategopoulos gradually brought
his army close to the city, and everything was prepared for the execution of
the enterprise. As soon as it was midnight, Strategopoulos
and Koutritzakes, with a chosen body of soldiers,
approached the walls at a spot concerted with their friends in the city. The
scaling-ladders were planted, and the enemy entered Constantinople without
opposition. The guard at the Gate of the Fountain was surprised, and the gate,
which had been built up for greater security, was broken open before any alarm
could be given. The imperial troops then marched into the city, and took
possession of the land wall. In this position things remained until the dawn of
day enabled the Greek general to advance. The troops who attempted to dispute
his passage to the imperial palace were defeated; and the Emperor Baldwin,
finding that the enemy was rapidly approaching, instead of seizing some post
near the port, which he could have defended until the expedition returned from Daphnusia, basely abandoned his empire, embarked in a
vessel at anchor in the port, and fled to Euboea. His crown, sceptre, and
sword, all equally useless to such a mean-spirited coward, were found by the
Greek soldiers who entered his deserted palace, and carried in triumph through
the streets.
The Frank and Venetian inhabitants were numerous and brave. They soon
formed a force capable of defending that portion of the city in which their
ware-houses were situated, and of preserving the command of the port. Strategopoulos saw their preparations for defence with some
anxiety, for the sudden return of the fleet from Daphnusia
might have exposed him to be driven from his conquest, or have entailed on him
the necessity of destroying the city. By the advice of a Greek, named Phylax, who had served in the household of Baldwin, he now
set fire to the houses in the Frank and Venetian quarters, leaving their
communications with their ships unmolested. By this manoeuvre they were
compelled to turn all their attention to embarking their wives and children,
with their jewels and money, leaving the Greeks to occupy the whole line of the
fortifications, and secure every post of strength.
When the news that the Greeks had entered Constantinople reached the troops
at Daphnusia, they returned with all speed to the
capital; but they found the ramparts manned by the Greek army, with the
exception of a small portion towards the port, which was separated from the
city by a mass of burning houses or impassable ruins. Only a small part of the
Latin families had embarked, so that both sides were ready to conclude a truce.
Under the guarantee of this cessation of hostilities, the Latins carried their
families and much of their wealth on board the ships in the ships in the port;
but the crowd was so great that, before they could reach Euboea or the islands
in the Archipelago, many perished from want of food and water.
CHAPTER II.
GREEK EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE
UNDER THE DYNASTY OF PALEOLOGOS, A.D. 1261-1453.
Sect. I
MICHAEL VIII, A.D. 1261-1282.
The conquest of Constantinople restored the Greeks to a dominant
position in the East; but the national character of the people, the political
constitution of the imperial government, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy of
the Orthodox Church, were all equally destitute of the enlightened theory and
energetic practice necessary for advancing in a career of improvement. The
Greek nation made no use of this favourable crisis in its history for
developing its material resources, augmenting its moral influence, and
increasing its wealth and population. The first idea of the emperor, of the
people, of the government, and of the clergy, was to constitute the New Greek
Empire of Constantinople on the old standard of that Roman legislation and
political orthodoxy which had perished when the Crusaders destroyed the
Byzantine Empire. This vain attempt to inspire dead forms with life, impressed
on the Greek empire of Constantinople the marks of premature decrepitude. The
Emperor Michael, the imperial court, the Orthodox Church, and the Greek nation,
suddenly assume the characteristics of a torpid and stubborn old age; and the
history of the empire takes the monotonous type which it retained for nearly
two centuries, until the Ottoman Turks put an end to its existence. There is
little interest, but there is much instruction, in the records of this torpid
society, which, while it was visibly declining to the eyes of others, boasted
that its wisdom and experience had brought its political government, its civil
laws, and its ecclesiastical dogmas, to a state of perfection. Conservatism is
constantly deluding the minds of political philosophers with the hope of giving
a permanent duration to some cherished virtue in society. It becomes frequently
a disease of statesmen in long-established despotisms. The condition of mankind
in China and Hindostan has been influenced for many
centuries by this delusion of the human mind; and in the first page of this
work it was observed that the institutions of imperial Rome displayed the same
tendency to fix society in immutable forms and classes by legislative
enactments. The same idea now pervaded not only the government and the church
of the Greek empire, but was also transfused into the national mind. History
offers no other example of a people possessing a rich and noble literature, imbued
with sentiments of liberty and truth, turning a deaf ear to the voice of
reason, sacrificing all independence of thought, and all desire of improvement,
to the maintenance of national pride. The causes of this strange phenomenon
appear to have been partly religious bigotry, and partly a wish to maintain
political union among the Greek race. The Greeks hated the Catholics with a
fervour which obscured their intellectual vision; and they were justly alarmed
at the danger which their nation incurred, both from its geographical location
and from the power of its enemies, of being broken up into a number of
dependent and insignificant states. The opinion that this evil could be averted
by the principle of conservatism was generally embraced; and every existing
relic of a state of things which had long passed away was carefully preserved.
The Greeks gloried in the name of Romans; they clung to the forms of the
imperial government without its military power; they retained the Roman code
without the systematic administration of justice, and prided themselves on the
orthodoxy of a church in which the clergy were deprived of all ecclesiastical
independence, and lived in a state of vassalage to the imperial court. Such a
society could only wither, though it might wither slowly.
On the other hand, it may perhaps be doubtful whether the state of society
would have enabled the Greek nation to revive its national energy, and secure
to itself a dominant position in the East, by reforming its central
administration according to the actual exigencies of the present, instead of
modelling it on theories of the past. The progress of the people required that
the system of municipal institutions should be ameliorated and extended, in
order to avert the tendency of local interests to produce political separation.
But, above all things, it was necessary that the Greeks should voluntarily
concede to their own countrymen that religious liberty which the Genoese and
the Turks were compelled, by the force of circumstances, to grant to strangers,
and allow the Greek Catholics to worship according to their own forms, and to
build churches for themselves. To increase the national wealth, it was
necessary that commercial freedom should be secured to native merchants, and
that the imperial government and the city of Constantinople should be deprived
of the power of selling monopolies, or granting exclusive privileges of trade
to the Italian republics, in order to purchase political and military
assistance. To do all this would have been extremely difficult, for many
interests and prejudices would have opposed the necessary reforms.
Michael Paleologos was encamped at Meteorion with
the troops he had assembled to form the siege of Constantinople, when a report
reached him in the dead of night that the city was taken. At daybreak a courier
arrived from Strategopoulos, bringing the ensigns of
the imperial dignity, which Baldwin had abandoned in his precipitate retreat.
Michael now felt that he was really emperor of the Greeks, and he marched to
take possession of the ancient capital of the Christian world with no ordinary
hopes; but Byzantine formalism and Greek vanity required so much preparation
for every court ceremony that the emperor’s entrance into Constantinople did
not take place until the 15th of August. The Archbishop of Cyzicus, bearing one
of the pictures of the Virgin said to have been painted by St Luke, of which
the orthodox pretend to possess several originals, passed first through the
Golden Gate. The emperor followed, clad in a simple dress, and followed by a
long procession on foot. After visiting the monastery of Studium,
the train proceeded to the palace of Bukoleon, for
that of Blachern had been left by the Franks in such
a state of filth and dilapidation as to be scarcely habitable. At the great
palace the emperor mounted his horse and rode in the usual state to the Church
of St Sophia, to perform his devotions in that venerated temple of the Greeks.
Alexis Strategopoulos was subsequently permitted to
make a triumphal procession through the city, like a Roman conqueror of old;
and Michael determined to repeat the ceremony of his own coronation in the
capital of what was still called the Roman Empire, at the central shrine of
orthodox piety. The Patriarch Arsenics had been removed from office for
opposing his usurpation. His successor soon died, and he was now replaced at
the head of the church, for his deposition was generally regarded as illegal,
and Michael VIII feared to commence his reign in Constantinople by creating a
schism in the Greek Church. The well-intentioned but weak-minded Arsenios was persuaded to repeat the ceremony of Michaels
coronation in the Church of St Sophia, while the lawful emperor, John IV, was
left forgotten and neglected at Nicaea.
Constantinople had fallen greatly in wealth and splendour under the
feudal government of the Latins; and it was not destined to recover its former
population and rank as the empress of Christian cities under the sway of the
family of Paleologos. The capital of the Greek empire was a very different city
from the capital of the Byzantine empire. The Crusaders and Venetians had
destroyed as well as plundered the ancient Constantinople and the Greek city of
the Paleologoi declined so much that it could hardly
bear comparison with Genoa and Venice. Before its conquest by the Crusaders,
Constantinople had astonished strangers by the splendour of its numerous
palaces, monasteries, churches, and hospitals, which had been constructed and
adorned during nine centuries of inviolable supremacy. But now, on regaining
its liberty, instead of displaying at every step proofs that it concentrated
within its walls the wealth of many provinces—instead of containing the richest
commercial port and the most industrious population on the globe—it was everywhere
encumbered with the rubbish of repeated conflagrations, disfigured by
dilapidated palaces, abandoned monasteries, and ruined churches, and inhabited
by a diminished, idle, and impoverished people. The blackened ashes of the last
fire, by which the Greeks had expelled the Venetians, had not yet been washed
from the walls by a winter’s rain. In all directions the squares and porticoes,
which had once been the ornaments of the city, were encumbered with filth; for
the Franks were ignorant of the police regulations which the Byzantine
government had inherited from the earlier Roman emperors, and which it had not
allowed to remain entirely without improvement. The state of the city attested
the barbarism of the Western nobles, and the insufficiency of the feudal
organization to direct the complicated machine of civil administration in
accordance with the exigencies of a civilized and motley population.
Michael VIII was eager to efface the marks of foreign domination from
the capital of the empire, and to repair the injuries of time; but his plans
were injudicious, and his success extremely limited. He aspired to be the
second founder of the city of Constantinople, as well as of the Eastern Roman
Empire. The nobility of his dominions were invited to inhabit the capital by
the gift of places and pensions; traders were attracted by monopolies and
privileges. The wealth that ought to have been expended in restoring
communications between the dispersed and dissevered portions of the Greek
nation, in repairing roads and bridges, was wasted in building palaces and
adorning churches in the capital, where they were no longer required for a
diminished and impoverished population. Crowds of imperial princes and
princesses, Despots and Caesars, officers of state and courtiers, consumed the
revenues which ought to have covered the frontier with impregnable fortresses,
and maintained a disciplined standing army and a well-exercised fleet. Yet,
while lavishing the public revenues to gratify his pride and acquire popularity,
he sacrificed the general interests of the middle classes to a selfish and
rapacious fiscal policy. All the property within the walls of Constantinople,
whether it belonged to Greeks or Latins, was adjudged to the imperial
government by the right of conquest; but their ancient possessions were
restored to the great families whose power he feared, and to those individuals
whose services he wished to secure. Sites for building were then leased to the
citizens for a fixed rent; yet the Greek government was so despotic, and
Michael was so arbitrary in his administration, that twelve years later he
pretended that the concessions he had granted to private individuals were
merely acts of personal favour, and he demanded the payment of the rent for the
past twelve years, the collection of which he enforced with much severity.
Michael used other frauds to bring the property of his subjects into the public
treasury, or to deprive them of a portion of the money justly due to them by
the state. Under the pretext of changing the type of the gold coinage, and
commemorating the recovery of Constantinople by impressing an image of its
walls on the byzants, he debased the standard of the mint, and issued coins
containing only fifteen parts of gold and nine of alloy. While on one hand he
rendered property insecure and impoverished his subjects, he was striving by
other arrangements to increase the Greek population of the capital, in order to
counterbalance the wealth and influence of foreign traders. Numbers were drawn
from the islands of the Archipelago, and a colony of Tzakonians
or Lakonians from Monemvasia and the neighbouring
districts was settled in the capital, which supplied the imperial fleet with
its best sailors. But war, not commerce, was the object of Michael’s care; and
while he was endeavouring to increase the means of recruiting his army and
navy, he allowed the Genoese to profit by his political errors, and render
themselves masters of the commerce of the Black Sea, and of great part of the
carrying trade of the Greek empire. In the meantime, the fortifications of
Constantinople were repaired; and when Charles of Anjou threatened to invade
the East, a second line of wall was added to the fortifications on the land
side, and the defences already existing towards the sea were strengthened. The
port of Vlanka, anciently called the Theodosian port,
was improved by the addition of two new moles, constructed with immense blocks
of stone, and it was deepened with great art.
But it was no longer in the power of Michael, nor in the spirit of Greek
society, to restore the vigour of the Roman legal administration, which had
long been the bulwark of Byzantine society. Foreign conquest and internal
revolutions had broken up the central government. Provincial dislocation and individual
independence had in many districts proceeded so far that imperial fiscality was
more feared than imperial protection was sought. The Greeks of Trebizond and
Epirus, and even of Naxos, Athens, and Achaia enjoyed as great a degree of
prosperity, and as much security of property, under their local usages or
foreign laws, as the Greeks of Constantinople, who pretended to preserve the
judicial system of Rome and the code of the Basilika.
Michael VIII fulfilled all the stipulations of the treaty he had concluded
with the Genoese. The public property of the republic of Venice was
confiscated, and the Genoese were put in possession of the palace previously
occupied by the Bailly of the Venetians. This building was immediately pulled
down, and the marble of which it was composed was transported to Genoa, in
order to be employed in the construction of the Church of St George, where it
formed a lasting memorial of this triumph of the republic. In the meantime, the
war between Venice and Genoa continued to rage with extreme violence, and in
this contest Michael’s interests were deeply involved. When he regained
possession of Constantinople, he found that a considerable part of the trading
population consisted of Venetians established in the East as permanent colonists.
These traders readily transferred their allegiance from the Latin to the Greek
emperor; and Michael, who knew the value of such subjects, granted them all
legal protection in the pursuit of their commercial occupations, as he did also
to the Pisans. But the Genoese, who had hastened to the East in great numbers
in order to profit by the overthrow of the domination of the Crusaders and
Venetians, considered that the emperor ought to expel every Venetian from his
dominions. The democratic state of the Genoese republic at this period
increased the insolence of individuals. The merchants who owned and the
officers who commanded the Genoese galleys that visited the Greek empire,
attacked the Venetians who had taken the oath of allegiance to the Emperor Michael,
and plundered their property as if they were enemies. The neutrality of the
Greek territory was violated, and the streets of the capital were often a scene
of bloodshed by the contests of the hostile republicans. The turbulent conduct
of his allies had already created dissatisfaction on the mind of Michael, when
their defeat by the Venetians before Monemvasia, and the fall of Baccanegra, who had concluded the treaty of Nymphaeum in
1261 by placing a party adverse to the Greek alliance in power, induced him to
doubt the fidelity of their services, and he dismissed sixty Genoese galleys
which he had taken into his pay. Charles of Anjou soon after effected the
conquest of the kingdom of Naples, and the Genoese government became more
anxious to cultivate his friendship than that of the Greek emperor.
The character and conduct of Michael VIII typifies the spirit of Greek
society from the recovery of Constantinople to the fall of the empire. It
displays a strange ignorance of the value of frankness and honesty in public
business, a constant suspicion of every friend, restless intrigues to deceive
every ally, and a wavering policy to conciliate every powerful enemy. The
consequence of this suspicion, plotting, and weakness was that very soon no one
trusted either the emperor or the Greeks. The invasion of Italy by Charles of
Anjou, and the pretensions of the Pope to dispose of crowns, alarmed both
Venice and Michael, and induced them to forget all former grounds of hostility,
and conclude a closer alliance than the Greek emperor had concluded with Genoa,
with which he now declared war. This treaty is dated in June 1265, about a
month before Charles of Anjou received the crown of the Two Sicilies from the
Pope in the Lateran. The stipulations are remarkable both in a political and
commercial light. The emperor engaged to expel the Genoese from Constantinople,
and not to conclude peace with them except in concert with the republic. The
Venetians engaged to hire their galleys to the emperor to serve even against
the Pope, the King of France, and Charles of Anjou, as well as against the
republics of Genoa, Pisa, and Ancona, and any prince or community that might
attack the Greek empire. It is worthy of observation that when the Genoese
concluded their alliance with the Greeks, in 1261, they had so far yielded to
the public opinion of the West as to insert a clause in the treaty exempting
their galleys in the imperial pay from serving against the Pope, the Emperor of
Germany, the kings of France, Castile, England, and Sicily, the Prince of
Achaia, and several other kings and princes, and yet they had incurred
excommunication. The Venetians now engaged to serve even against the Pope, and
his vassal, Charles of Anjou; but his Holiness did not venture to excommunicate
Venice as lightly as he excommunicated Genoa, its power on the continent of
Italy was so much greater. The republic also bound itself to exact an oath from
all Crusaders who embarked in Venetian transports, that they would not invade
the dominions of Michael VIII.
The articles of the treaty which relate to commerce prove that Roman
prejudices and Byzantine pride still induced the diplomatists of Constantinople
to view trade as a matter beneath the attention of monarchs. The change already
visible in European society, which began to place a larger share of wealth,
knowledge, and power in the hands of traders, and which had rendered the
merchant-nobles of Venice and the trading citizens of Lombardy a match for the
chosen mercenaries of Constantinople and the German chivalry of the house of Hohenstauffen, escaped the notice of Michael and his
counsellors. The emperor consequently neglected the commercial interests of the
Greeks; and while he made great concessions to foreigners, he only stipulated
that his own subjects should have free intercourse with Venice on paying the
usual duties, and that they might import and export whatever merchandise they
pleased. On the other hand, the Venetians obtained a long series of concessions
in their favour, and as these concessions formed the basis of all the
commercial treaties concluded by the emperors of Constantinople until the
Turkish conquest, and exercised some influence in diminishing the trade of the
Greeks and weakening the empire, it is important to notice their extent. The
Venetians were exempted from the ordinary control of the revenue officers, and
allowed to carry on their commerce under especial privileges, for which, as
well as to guard against frauds on the imperial revenue, a separate quarter or
a single warehouse, as the exigency require, was granted to them, according to
the extent of their trade, in most of the principal ports in his dominions.
Within these factories the Venetians were governed by the laws of Venice and
their own magistrates. They had full liberty to transport their goods by land
as well as by sea to any part of the Greek empire without paying any duty,
being only required to furnish the imperial collectors of customs with exact
statements of the amount, in order that the duty might be levied from the
purchaser. They were also allowed to export grain from the empire until the
price at Constantinople rose to fifty byzants for one hundred measures. They
had, of course, the right to erect Catholic churches within the precincts of
their factories.
The close political alliance which this treaty established between the
empire and the republic was not of long duration. The intrigues of Charles of
Anjou in Tuscany, where he arrayed Florence and Lucca against Sienna and Pisa,
affected the interests of Genoa, and enabled the opposition to gain strength,
while the victories of the Venetians, and the overtures of peace which were
made to them by Pope Clement IV, appear to have awakened some distrust of his
new allies in the suspicious mind of Michael VIII. These circumstances induced
the emperor and the republic to conclude a new treaty in 1268, which modified
the offensive and defensive stipulations of the earlier treaty with regard to
Genoa, the island of Euboea, the principality of Achaia and the duchy of the Archipelago.
In the year 1270, a change in the government of Genoa placed the administration
in the hands of the families of Doria and Spinola,
who were opposed to Charles of Anjou, and a truce was subsequently concluded by
the Genoese both with the Byzantine empire and with Venice, while the Greeks
and Venetians became engaged in war. Hostilities were nevertheless renewed,
until at length, in the year 1275, the Emperor Michael formed a new alliance
with the Genoese; but, in order to prevent their making the streets of
Constantinople again the scene of their disorders, he obliged them to establish
their factory at Heracleia, on the Propontis. Some
years later, they were allowed to transfer their settlement to Galata, where
they laid the foundation of a colony which soon deprived the Greeks of the
greater part of their trade in the Black Sea.
The morbid ambition of Michael Paleologos was not satisfied until he was
sole emperor. In defiance, therefore, of the repeated oaths by which he had
sworn to respect the rights of his ward, his colleague and his sovereign, he
availed himself of the first favourable moment to dethrone the unfortunate boy,
who had been left neglected at Nicaea. On Christmas-day, 1261, the agents of
Michael deprived John IV of his sight, though he had not attained the age of
ten, and he was declared to have forfeited the throne. The cruel and perjured
emperor then ordered him to be immured in the fort of Dakybiza,
where he remained neglected, and almost forgotten, for eight-and-twenty years,
when his solitude was broken in upon by Andronicus, the bigoted son of the
hypocritical Michael. The conscience of the bigot was uneasy on account of his
father’s crimes, of which he was enjoying the fruit; so by a few kind words he
easily induced his imprisoned victim to make what was falsely termed a
voluntary cession of all his rights to the imperial crown. The evil
consequences of this crime were deeply felt in the empire; for the clergy, the
nobility, and the people, had all participated in the system of corruption and
peculation by which Michael VIII had smoothed the way for his usurpation. The
violation of every sentiment of honour, patriotism, and virtue, was so
iniquitous, that the public character of the Greek nation was degraded by its
obsequiousness on this occasion; and the feelings of the people in the
provinces of the east, as well as in Western Europe, avenged the misfortunes of
John. Michael Paleologos had hitherto been regarded as a bold, frank, and
generous prince; he henceforward showed himself a timid, hypocritical, and
cruel tyrant.
The Patriarch Arsenios, who was one of the
guardians of the dethroned emperor, considered himself bound to protest against
the injustice and perjury of Michael. He convoked an assembly of the prelates
resident in Constantinople, and proposed that the reigning emperor
should be excommunicated by the synod; but too many of the clergy had been
participators in the intrigues of Michael, and were enjoying the rewards of
their subserviency, for such a measure to meet with any support. Arsenios, therefore, on his own authority as Patriarch,
interdicted Michael from all religious rites; but he did not venture to
pronounce the usual form of words, which deprived him of the prayers of the
orthodox. The Greek Church, under the Paleologoi, was
tainted with the same spirit of half-measures and base tergiversation which
marks the imperial administration. The emperor accepted the modified censure of
the church as just, and hypocritically requested that his penance might be
assigned. By obtaining his dispensation in this manner, he expected that public
opinion would render the church an accessary after the fact, while he secured
to himself an additional guarantee for the enjoyment of the fruits of his
crime. Confident in his power, he punished with cruelty all who ventured to
express publicly their compassion for their dethroned emperor.
Though the family of Vatatzes had been unpopular among the nobility,
it was beloved by the Asiatic Greeks, and especially by the mountaineers of Bithynia.
The people in the vicinity of Nicaea took up arms to avenge John IV, and their
insurrection was suppressed with great difficulty. A blind boy, who was found
wandering in the neighbourhood, was supposed to be their legitimate sovereign,
the victim of Michael’s treachery. The warlike peasantry flew to arms, and
rendered themselves masters of the forts and mountain passes. The advance of
the imperial troops sent to suppress the revolt was impeded by those famous
archers who had previously formed one of the most effective bodies in the
emperor’s army. Every ravine was contested, and every advantage dearly
purchased. The imperial troops at last subdued the country by adopting the
policy by which the Turks extended their conquests. The habitations were destroyed,
and the forests were burned down, so that the native population had no means of
obtaining subsistence, while the soldiers of Michael became masters of the
country, under the cover of their widespread conflagrations. The province was
pacified by gaining over the chiefs, pardoning the people, and proving that
John IV was a prisoner in Dakybiza. The poor blind
boy was then conveyed into the Turkish territory, and no cause of war
existed. Many of the mountaineers, whose property was destroyed, still resisted,
and, when taken, they were treated with the greatest cruelty. The municipal
organization and the privileges of the mountaineers of Bithynia were abolished,
and mercenary troops were quartered on the inhabitants. The resources of this
flourishing province were ruined, and its population was so diminished that,
when the Ottoman Turks attacked the empire, the renowned archers of Bithynia
and the mountain militia had ceased to exist.
The change which is visible in the condition of the Asiatic provinces of
the empire towards the end of the reign of Michael VIII must be attentively
observed. When he mounted the throne, the power of the Seljouk
Empire was so broken by the conquests of the Moguls, and the energy of the
Greek population was so great, in consequence of the wise government of John
III and Theodore II, that the Greeks under the Turkish dominion seemed on the
eve of regaining their independence. Azeddin Kaikous II, sultan of Iconium, was an exile; his brother Rokneddin ruled only a small part of the Seljouk Empire of Roum; for Houlagon, the brother of the great khans Mangou and Kublai, possessed the greater part of Asia
Minor, and many Turkish tribes lived in a state of independence. The cruelty
and rapacity of Michael’s government, and the venality and extortion which he
tolerated among the imperial officers and administrators, arrested the progress
of the Greek nation, and prepared the way for its rapid decline. The jealousy
which Michael showed of all marks of national independence, and the fear he
entertained of opposition, are strong characteristics of his policy. His
governors in Asia Minor were instructed to weaken the power of the local
chiefs, while the fiscal officers were ordered to find pretexts for
confiscating the estates of the wealthy. Indeed, all the proprietors of wealth
in the mountain districts of Bithynia were deprived of their possessions, and
pensioned by the grant of a sum of forty byzants to each, as an annual
allowance for subsistence. Both rich and poor, finding that they were plundered
with impunity, and that it was vain to seek redress from the emperor, often
emigrated with the remains of their property into the Turkish territories. So
rapacious was the imperial treasury that the historian Pachymeres, though a
courtier, believed that the Emperor Michael systematically weakened the power
of the Greek population from his fear of rebellion. The consequence was that
the whole country beyond the Sangarius, and the
mountains which give rise to the Rhyrdakos and Makestos, was occupied by the Turks, who were often invited
by the inhabitants to take possession of the small towns. The communications
between Nicaea and Heracleia on the Euxine were
interrupted by land; and the cities of Kromna, Amastris, and Tios relapsed into
the position of Greek colonies surrounded by a foreign population. Even the
valley of the Meander, one of the richest portions of the Greek empire, was
invaded; and unfortunately the great possessions of the monasteries and nobles
in this fertile district placed it in a similar social condition to that which
had facilitated the ravages of the Normans in France under the Carolingians,
and in England under the Saxons. Immense wealth invited the invasions of the
Turkish nomads, while the population consisted only of monks, or the agents of
absent proprietors, and unarmed peasants. When John Paleologos, the emperor’s
brother, attempted to expel the Turks from their conquests, he found them
already so well fortified in the monasteries of Strobilos
and Stradiotrachia that he could not attempt to
dislodge them, (A.D. 1266-1268). Perhaps the violent opposition of the monks to
Michael’s schemes for uniting the Greek and Latin churches may at last have
rendered the emperor indifferent to the fate of the monasteries.
As the reign of Michael VIII advanced, the encroachments of the nomad Turks
became more daring. John Paleologos, who had for some time restrained their
incursions, was by his brother’s jealousy deprived of all military command; and
Andronicus, the emperor’s eldest son, was sent to the frontier as
commander-in-chief. In the year 1280 the incapacity of the young prince threw
all the imperial provinces open to invasion. Nestongos,
who commanded in the city of Nyssa, was defeated and taken prisoner. Nyssa was
taken, and the Turks then laid siege to Tralles,
which had been recently rebuilt and repeopled. This city contained a population
of thirty-six thousand inhabitants, but it was ill supplied both with
provisions and water. Yet its inhabitants made a brave defence, and had Andronicus
possessed either military talents, activity, or courage, Tralles
might have been saved. The Turks at last formed a breach in the walls by
sapping, and then carried the city by storm. The inhabitants who escaped the
massacre were reduced to slavery.
ADVANCE OF THE TURKS
About the time Michael VIII usurped his place on the throne of the
Greek empire, a small Turkish tribe made its first appearance in the Seljouk Empire. Othman, who gave his name to this new band
of immigrants, is said to have been born in the year 1258, and his father Ertogrul entered the Seljouk
Empire as the chief of only four hundred famiilies;
yet Orkhan the son of Othman laid the foundations of
the institutions and power of the Ottoman Empire. No nation ever increased so
rapidly from such small beginnings, and no government ever constituted itself
with greater sagacity than the Ottoman; but no force or prudence could have
enabled this small tribe of nomads to rise with such rapidity to power, had it
not been that the Emperor Michael and the Greek nation were paralysed by
political and moral corruption, and both left behind them descendants equally
weak and worthless. When history records that Michael Paleologos recovered
possession of Constantinople by accident, it ought also to proclaim that, by
his deliberate policy, he prepared the way for the ruin of the Greek race and
the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks. There is no other instance
in history of a nation so numerous, so wealthy, and so civilized, as the Greeks
were in the fourteenth century, having been permanently subdued by an enemy so
inferior in political and military resources. The circumstance becomes the more
disgraceful, as its explanation must be sought in social and moral causes.
The rebellion of his subjects in Asia made Michael anxious to secure peace
in Europe. In order to counterbalance the successes of the Despot of
Epirus, and dispose him to conclude a treaty, Michael resolved to release the
Prince of Achaia, who had been taken prisoner at the battle of Pelagonia in 1259. William Villehardoin,
prince of Achaia, was freed, by the destruction of the Latin empire of Romania,
from those feudal ties which connected him with the throne of Baldwin II. To
obtain his liberty, he consented to become a vassal of the Greek empire, and he
re-established the imperial power in the Peloponnesus, by delivering up to
Michael the fortresses of Monemvasia, Misithra, and Maina. On swearing fidelity to Michael VIII he was released
from captivity, after having remained a prisoner for three years. The Pope,
however, was so much alarmed at this example of a Catholic prince becoming a
vassal of the Greek emperor, that as soon as the Prince of Achaia was firmly
settled in his principality, his Holiness absolved him from all his oaths and
obligations to the Greek emperor. Pope Urban IV even went so far as to proclaim
a crusade against Michael, and to invite St Louis to take the command; but the
King of France, who was much more deeply imbued with the Christian spirit than
the Pope, declined the office. The crusade ended in a partisan warfare between
the Prince of Achaia and the governors Michael had placed in the fortresses of
which he had gained possession in the Peloponnesus.
The conquest of Naples by Charles of Anjou threatened the Greek empire with
a new invasion. Under the auspices of Clement IV a treaty was concluded between
the dethroned emperor Baldwin, Charles of Anjou, and William, prince of Achaia,
by which Baldwin ceded to Charles the suzerainty of Achaia, and the prince
agreed to transfer his allegiance from the titular Emperor to the King of
Naples, who had already obtained the absolute sovereignty of Corfu, and of the
cities of Epirus, given by the Despot Michael II as dowry to his daughter, who
married Manfred, king of Sicily. In return, Charles of Anjou engaged to furnish
Baldwin with a force of two thousand knights and their followers, to enable him
to invade the Greek empire. This treaty was concluded at Viterbo
on the 27th of May 1267. Its stipulations alarmed Michael Paleologos, who had
already involved himself in ecclesiastical quarrels with his subjects; and in
order to delay an attack on Constantinople, he sent an embassy to Pope Clement
IV, proposing measures for effecting a union of the Greek and Latin churches.
On this occasion Michael was relieved from fear by Conradin’s
invasion of the kingdom of Naples, which enabled him to conclude a truce with
the Prince of Achaia. He then neglected his overtures to the Pope, and turned
all his attention to fitting out a fleet, which he manned with Gasmouls, Tzakonians, and Greeks
of the Archipelago. The insincere negotiations of Michael for a union with the
Roman church were often renewed under the pressure of fear of invasion from
abroad, and dread of insurrection at home. The weakness caused by the
opposition of the Greek clergy and people to his authority, encouraged the
enterprises of his foreign enemies, while the entangled web of his diplomacy,
taking a new form at every change of his personal interests, at last involved
him so inextricably in its meshes that he had no means of concealing his bad
faith, cruelty, and hypocrisy.
In the year 1271 the treachery of Andronikos Tarchaniotes, the emperor’s nephew, reanimated the war in
Thessaly. Having invited the Tartars to invade the empire from the north, he
abandoned Mount Haemus, of which he was governor, to their ravages, and fled to
John Dukas, prince of Vlakia,
his father-in-law, whom he persuaded to invade Thessaly. The emperor sent his
brother, John Paleologos, with an army of forty thousand men and a fleet of
sixty-three galleys, to re-establish the imperial supremacy. John Dukas was besieged in his capital, Neopatras,
and the place was reduced to the last extremity, when the prince passed through
the hostile camp in the disguise of a groom, to seek assistance from his Latin
allies. Leading a horse by the bridle he walked along, crying out that his
master had lost another horse, and would reward the finder. When he reached the
plain of the Sperchius he mounted his horse, and
gained the territory of the Frank Marquess of Boudonitza.
The Duke of Athens furnished him with a band of three hundred knights, and he
returned to Neopatras with such celerity that he
surprised the imperial camp, and completely dispersed the army. John Paleologos
escaped to Demetriades (Volo), where his fleet was
stationed. A squadron composed of Venetian ships, and galleys of the Duke of
Naxos and of the Barons of Negropont, was watching the imperial fleet. On
hearing of the total defeat of the army they attacked the admiral Alexios Philanthropenos in the
port, and were on the point of carrying the whole Greek fleet by boarding, when
John Paleologos reached the scene of action with a part of the fugitive troops.
He immediately conveyed a large body of soldiers to the ships, and reanimated
the sailors. The Latins were compelled to retire with the loss of some of their
own ships, but they succeeded in carrying off* several of the Greek galleys.
In the following year the imperial fleet, under the command of Zacharia,
the Genoese signeur of Thasos, defeated the Franks
near Oreos in Euboea, and took John de la Roche, duke of Athens, prisoner. But,
on the other hand, John Dukas again routed the army
in Thessaly, and by his activity and military skill rendered himself the most
redoubted enemy of Michael; so that, when the majority of the Greek population
declared openly against the emperor’s project for a union with the Latin
church, the Prince of Vallachian Thessaly became the
champion of the orthodox church, and assembled a synod which excommunicated
Michael VIII. (A.D. 1277).
In the year 1278 Charles of Anjou would in all probability have besieged
Constantinople, had he not been prevented by the express commands of his
suzerain. Pope Nicholas III, who was gained over by Michael’s submission to
expect the immediate union of the Greek with the Papal church,. But the
elevation of Martin IV to the See of Rome changed its policy. The Emperor
Michael was excommunicated, and, to render the excommunication more insulting,
he was reproached with persecuting the Greeks who consistently abstained from
his own delusive compliances. Michael revenged himself by ceasing to pray for
the Pope in the Eastern churches. A league was now formed between the Pope, the
King of Naples, and the republic of Venice, for the conquest of the Greek
empire, and a treaty was signed at Orvietto on the 3d
July 1281. The danger was serious. Charles of Anjou promised to furnish eight
thousand cavalry, and the Venetians engaged to arm forty galleys, in order to
commence operations in the spring of 1283. In the meantime a body of troops,
under the command of Solimon Rossi, was despatched to
occupy Dyrrachium and assist the Albanians, who had recently revolted against
Michael. This expedition proved unsuccessful; Rossi was taken prisoner while
besieging Belgrade (Berat), and the Neapolitans and
Albanians were completely defeated. But the Greek emperor could only intrigue
to avert the great storm with which he was threatened by the treaty of Orvietto, and in the end he was saved by the deeds of
others. The Sicilian Vespers delivered the Greeks from all further fear of
Charles of Anjou and of a French invasion, and Michael was able to smile at the
impotent rage of Martin IV, and despise his excommunications.
AFFAIRS OF BULGARIA
The vicinity of the Bulgarians, joined to their national power and
influence over the numbers of their countrymen settled in the Greek empire,
gave Michael some uneasiness at the commencement of his reign. Constantine,
king of Bulgaria, had married a sister of the dethroned Emperor John IV, and he
was induced, by the feelings of his wife, by the intrigues of the fugitive
Sultan of Iconium, and by the hopes of assistance from the Mogul emperor, Houlagon, to attack the Greek empire. Michael took the
field against the Bulgarians, and in the year 1265 drove them beyond Mount
Haemus; but as he was returning to Constantinople he had nearly fallen into the
hands of a body of Bulgarian and Tartar cavalry, through the treachery of Kaikous, the fugitive Sultan of Iconium, who had informed
the enemy of his movements. Constantine, king of Bulgaria, having lost his wife
Irene Lascaris, married Maria, the second daughter of Michael’s sister Eulogia,
and the emperor promised to cede Mesembria and Anchialos
to Bulgaria as the dowry of his niece. But this promise was given in the year
1272, when the danger of Charles of Anjou invading the empire appeared
imminent. As soon, therefore, as the influence of the Pope and the crusade of
St Louis to Tunis had secured Michael from all fear, with his usual treachery
he found a pretext for declining to fulfill his
promise. A treaty which the emperor concluded with a powerful Tartar chief
named Nogay, and civil dissension among the Bulgarians,
relieved Michael from all serious danger on his northern frontier during the
remainder of his reign.
The affairs of Servia, also, gave the emperor very little trouble.
The period of Greek history embraced in the present chapter of this work,
extending through the century and a-half during which the empire of
Constantinople was ruled with despotic sway by the dynasty of Paleologos, is
the most degrading portion of the national annals. Literary taste, political
honesty, patriotic feeling, military honour, civil liberty, and judicial
purity, seem all to have abandoned the Greek race, and public opinion would, in
all probability, have had no existence—it would certainly have found no mode of
expression—had not the Greek church placed itself in opposition to the imperial
government, and awakened in the breasts of the Greek people a spirit of
partisanship on ecclesiastical questions, which prepared the way for the open
expression of the popular will, if not for the actual formation of public
opinion. The church was converted into an arena where political and social
discontent of every kind arrayed their forces under the banners of orthodoxy,
heresy, or schism, as accident or passion might determine. In spite of the
mental torpidity of the Greeks, during this period, the church is full of
heresy and schism. Yet, strange to say, no political, moral, or religious
improvements resulted from the innumerable discussions and disputes which
formed the principal occupation of the Constantinopolitan Greeks for a hundred
and fifty years. The cause of this is evident; the right of exercising private
judgment, both in political and ecclesiastical affairs, was denied to the
Greeks: they might range them as partisans of Barlaam or Palamas;
they might believe that the mind perceived a divine light when the eyes
remained long fixed on the stomach; and they might dispute concerning the
essence and the active energy of the Divinity, but they dared not introduce
common sense and truth to influence the decision of the point at issue. Public
discussion being prohibited, no real public opinion could be formed in the
nation. Each different section of the people only heard the opinions of its own
leaders, and formed its ideas of the doctrines of its opponents from their
misrepresentations. Instead of some general convictions, which ought to have
been impressed on the mind of every Greek, what appeared to be public opinion
was nothing but the temporary expression of the popular will, uttered in
moments of excitement and passion.
Such was the mental condition of the Greeks from the recovery of
Constantinople until its conquest by the Ottomans. Justice was dormant in the
state; Christianity was torpid in the church. Orthodoxy performed the duties
of civil liberty, and the priesthood became the focus of political
opposition. Financial oppression was often local; judicial iniquities affected
a small number, and national feelings were unconnected with material interests.
Ecclesiastical formulas and religious doctrines were the only facts with which
the Greek people were generally acquainted, and on which every man felt called
upon to pronounce an opinion. The mob of Constantinople had once made the
colours of the jockey-clubs of the hippodrome a bond of party union; the Greek
nation now made theology a medium for expressing its defiance of the emperor,
and its hatred of the imperial administration. This fact sufficiently explains
how matters in themselves not very intelligible to ordinary intellects acquired
a real political importance, and questions apparently little calculated to
excite popular interest drew forth the liveliest expressions of sympathy. We
understand why the Greeks, who showed little national energy in defending their
political independence against the Crusaders and the Turks, displayed the
greatest enthusiasm in defending their church against their own emperors and
patriarchs, as well as against the Pope. The social organization of the Greeks
has its seat at the family hearth, and the nation has only moved in a body when
some individual impulse has animated every rank of society.
The anxiety of the Emperor Michael VIII to be relieved from the
ecclesiastical censures pronounced by the Patriarch Arsenios
against him, for his treachery to his pupil and sovereign John IV, was the
commencement of his disputes with the Greek Church, and of his negotiations
with the Popes. Michael solicited the Patriarch to impose some penance on him
which might expiate his crime, but Arsenios could
suggest nothing but reparation. The emperor considered this tantamount to a
sentence of dethronement, and he determined to depose Arsenios.
The Patriarch was accused before a synod of having omitted a prayer for the
emperor in performing the church service, of having allowed the exiled Sultan
of Iconium, Kaikous, to join in the celebration of
divine service on Easter Sunday, and of allowing the sultan’s children to
receive the holy communion from the hands of his chaplain without any proof
that they were Christians. To these accusations Arsenios
replied, that he only omitted one prayer for the emperor and used another, and
that he had treated the sultan and his children as Christians, because he had
been assured by the Bishop of Pisidia that they had received baptism. While
this synod was pursuing its inquiry, the Emperor Michael attempted to gain his
object by one of the diplomatic tricks to which he was strangely attached; but
his subterfuge was detected, and he received a rebuke from the Patriarch which
inflamed his animosity. When the Patriarch was proceeding to the Church of St
Sophia the Emperor joined him, having previously sent forward an order to the
clergy to commence high mass the moment the Patriarch should enter. On
approaching the door of the cathedral the Emperor laid hold of the Patriarch’s
robe, in order to enter the church as if he had received absolution; but
Arsenics hastily withdrew his robe from Michael’s hand, and exclaimed, “It was
an unbecoming trick; could you expect to deceive God, and obtain pardon by
fraud?”. This scene, acted in public, in the vestibule of St Sophia’s, left no
further hope of reconciliation. Arsenios was deposed,
and exiled to Proconnesus. Germanos,
the bishop of Adrianople, a mild and learned prelate, was named his successor.
Even in his banishment Arsenios was considered to
be the lawful Patriarch by the majority of the orthodox, and he was visited by
thousands who were anxious to hear his words and receive his blessing. The
emperor was eager to punish him, but his popularity rendered it dangerous to
attempt doing so in an arbitrary way. A conspiracy was discovered against the
emperor’s life, and some of the accused, when put to the torture, declared that
Arsenios was implicated in the plot. The examination
of the affair was remitted to a synod, which gratified the emperor by
excommunicating Arsenios without waiting for his
conviction. Four deputies were despatched to Proconnesus,
to communicate this sentence to the deposed Patriarch, and to examine him on
the accusation. Of these the historian Pachymeres, then an ecclesiastical
official in the patriarchate, was one. As soon as the deputation entered on
business, Arsenios interrupted the speaker with great
warmth, saying, “What have I done to the emperor to be thus persecuted? I found
him in a private station; I crowned him emperor, and he has rewarded me by
driving me from the patriarchal palace to a rock where I live on common
charity!” He then spoke of the new Patriarch as a “phratriarc”
and glanced at his blessing (eulogia) as being rather temporal than spiritual
This was an allusion to the emperor’s sister Eulogia, the protectress of Germanos, to whose influence over her brother Arsenios attributed the cruel treatment of John IV. The
deputies then began to read the sentence of excommunication, but Arsenios rose from his seat, covered his ears with his
hands, and walked about the room mumbling what we must suppose
to have been prayers. The deputies followed, raising their voices as
they walked. Arsenios then interrupted them in a
passion, calling Heaven to witness that he was treated with injustice; but when
the deputies threatened him with the Divine vengeance for despising the
deputies of the church, he grew calmer, and said, with more moderation, “It
seems I am accused of having made my patriarchal duties the means of conspiring
against the emperor's life. The accusation is false. He has left me to die of
hunger, but I have never ceased to pray for him.” But his whole discourse was
filled with bitterness against Michael, and he made no scruple of condemning
his usurpation.
The deputies, having executed their commission, sailed for Constantinople,
but a storm overtook them, and they were in danger of shipwreck. They
attributed their danger to the circumstance of their having sailed from Proconnesus without asking the blessing of Arsenios, whom all appear to have considered as the true
Patriarch. Pachymeres relates that each of the deputies owned afterwards that
he was anxious at parting to obtain the blessing of Arsenios,
but was afraid of rendering himself an object of suspicion and persecution at
court. The report of the deputies induced Germanos to
intercede for his predecessor. Arsenios was absolved
from the accusation, and a pension of three hundred byzants was allowed him for
his subsistence, granted from the privy purse of the empress—for it was
believed that Arsenios would accept nothing from the
excommunicated emperor.
The courtiers of Michael were as active in their intrigues as the emperor.
A party in the church declared that the election of Germanos
was invalid, for he had been removed from the See of Adrianople in violation of
the canon which prohibits the translation of a bishop from one see to another.
The emperor’s confessor, Joseph, pronounced that the new Patriarch could not
grant a legal absolution to the emperor, in consequence of this defect in his
title to the patriarchal throne. Germanos soon
perceived that both Michael and Joseph were encouraging opposition to his
authority. He immediately resigned, and Joseph was named his successor. The
emperor received his absolution as a matter of course. The ceremony was
performed at the gates of St Sophia’s. Michael, kneeling at the Patriarch’s
feet, made his confession, and implored pardon. The Patriarch read the form of
absolution. This form was repeated by every bishop in succession, and the
emperor knelt before each in turn and received his pardon. He was then admitted
into the church, and partook of the Holy Communion. By this idle and pompous
ceremony the Greeks believed that their church could pardon perjury and legitimatize
usurpation.
About this time the treaty of Viterbo drew the
attention of Michael from the schism of the Arsenites
to foreign policy, and his grand object being to detach the Pope from the
alliance with Charles of Anjou, he began to form intrigues, by means of which
he hoped to delude the Pope into the persuasion that he was anxious and able to
establish papal supremacy in the Greek Church; while, on the other hand, he
expected to cheat the Eastern clergy into making those concessions which he considered
necessary for the success of his plans, on the ground that their compliance was
a mere matter of diplomacy. Gregory X knew that it would be easier to effect
the union of the Greek and Latin Churches by the instrumentality of a Greek
emperor than of a foreign conqueror. He therefore prohibited Charles of Anjou,
who held the crown of Naples as his vassal, from invading the empire; but he
forced Michael, by fear of invasion, to assemble a synod at Constantinople, in
which, by cruelty and violence, the emperor succeeded in obtaining an
acknowledgment of the papal supremacy. The severest persecution was necessary
to compel the Greeks to sign the articles of union, and many families emigrated
to Vallachian Thessaly and to the empire of
Trebizond.
The union of the Greek and Latin Churches was completed in the year 1274 at
the Council of Lyons. On the 6th of July, at the fourth session of the Council,
Germanos, who had resigned the patriarchal throne,
George Acropolita the historian, and some other Greek
clergy and nobles, presented themselves and repeated the creed in the Latin
form, with the addition of the words, “proceeding from the father and the son”.
They then swore to conform to the faith of the Roman Church, to pay obedience
to its orders, and to recognize the supremacy of the Pope,—Acropolita,
as grand logothetes, repeating the oaths in the name of the Emperor Michael.
When the news of this submission reached Constantinople there was a general
expression of indignation. The Patriarch Joseph, who opposed the union, was
deposed, and Vekkos, an ecclesiastic of eminence, who
had recently become a convert to the Latin creed, was named in his place. The
schisms in the Greek Church were now multiplied, for Joseph, became the head of
a new party. Vekkos, however, assembled a synod, and
excommunicated those members of the Greek clergy who refused to recognize the
Pope as the head of the Church of Christ. Nicephorus, despot of Epirus, and his
brother, John Dukas, the prince of Vlakia, protected the orthodox. Both were excommunicated;
and the emperor sent an army against John Dukas,
whose position in Thessaly threatened the tranquillity of Macedonia; but the
imperial officers and troops showed no activity in a cause which they
considered treason to their religion, and many of the emperor’s own relations
deserted.
By a series of intrigues, tergiversation, meanness, and cruelty, Michael
succeeded in gaining his immediate object. Nicholas III, who ascended the papal
throne in 1277, formally refused Charles of Anjou permission to invade the
Greek empire, and sent four nuncios to Constantinople to complete the union of
the churches. The papal instructions are curious as an exposition of the
political views of the Court of Rome, and display astute diplomacy, acting at
the suggestions of grasping ambition, but blinded by ecclesiastical bigotry.
The first object was to induce all the dignitaries of the Greek Church to sign
the Roman formulary of doctrine, and to persuade them to accept absolution for
having lived separate from the Roman communion; the second, to prevail on the
emperor to receive a cardinal legate at Constantinople. Before the arrival of
the Pope’s ambassadors, the arbitrary conduct of Michael had involved him in a
quarrel with his new patriarch, Vekkos, whom he was
on the point of deposing. All Michael’s talents for intrigue were called into
requisition, to prevent the Greek clergy from breaking out into open rebellion
during the stay of the Pope’s ambassadors, and conceal the state of his
relations with Vekkos, who stood high at the Court of
Rome. Bribes, cajolery, and meanness on his part, and selfishness and
subserviency on the part of the Eastern clergy, enabled him to succeed. But the
death of Nicholas III in 1280 rendered his intrigues unavailing. Martin IV, a
Frenchman, devoted to the interests of Charles of Anjou, became Pope. He openly
displayed his hatred of the Greeks, and excommunicated Michael as a hypocrite,
who concealed his heresy. While Martin IV openly negotiated the treaty of Orvietto, Michael secretly aided the conspiracy of Procida. The condition of the Greek emperor was almost
desperate. He was universally detested for his exactions and persecutions, and
a numerous and bigoted party was ready to make any foreign attack the signal
for a domestic revolution. The storm was about to burst on Michael’s head, when
the fearful tragedy of the Sicilian Vespers broke the power of Charles of
Anjou.
Michael then quitted his capital to punish John Dukas,
whom he considered almost as a rival; but death arrested his progress at Pachomion, near Lysimachia in
Thrace, on the 11th December 1282, after a reign of twenty-four years. He was a
type of the Constantinopolitan Greek nobles and officials in the empire he
re-established and transmitted to his descendants. He was selfish,
hypocritical, able and accomplished, an in-born liar, vain, meddling,
ambitious, cruel, and rapacious. He is renowned in history as the restorer of
the Eastern Empire; he ought to be execrated as the corrupter of the Greek
race, for his reign affords a signal example of the extent to which a nation
may be degraded by the misconduct of its sovereign, when it intrusts him with
despotic power.
Sect. II
REIGN OF ANDRONICUS
II, A.D. 1282-1828.
Andronicus the Second ascended the throne at the age of twenty-four, having
been born about the time his father received the imperial crown at Nicaea. He
had most of the defects of his father’s character, without his personal dignity
and military talents. In youth he was destitute of vigour, in old age of
prudence. His administration was marked by the same habits of cunning and
falsehood which had distinguished his father’s conduct; and the consequence
was, that, towards the end of his long reign, he was as generally despised as
his father had been hated. In his private character he was arbitrary, peevish,
and religious; in his public administration despotic, fond of meddling
industrious and inconsequent. Every evil that had taken root during Michael’s
reign extended itself through his incapacity, for, though always engaged with
public affairs, he could neither transact business himself with due
promptitude, nor would he allow his ministers to perform the duties he
neglected. He was personally frugal, but he ruined the Greek empire by increasing
the expenditure of the court, and rendering offices and pensions the only
objects of Greek ambition.
The ecclesiastical policy of Andronicus was as arbitrary and tyrannical as
Michael’s, but his religious opinions were sincerely and strictly orthodox. To
him the addition to the creed and the use of unleavened bread in the communion
were matters touching man’s salvation; he was therefore eager to destroy his
father’s work. The court, headed by the emperor’s aunt Eulogia, instead of
weeping for the death of Michael, wept only that his soul was in danger of
eternal perdition; and the clergy attacked his memory before his remains were
committed to the earth. Andronicus, eager to efface the stain of his own sinful
compliance with the union of the churches, allowed the body of his father to be
deprived of the usual funeral honours and public prayers. The Empress Michael’s
widow was compelled to abjure the union, and to approve of the indignities to
his memory, before her own name was inserted in the public prayers for the
imperial family. The Patriarch Vekkos was forced to
resign, and his predecessor Joseph was reinstated on the patriarchal throne.
It is necessary to give some account of the ecclesiastical disputes and
clerical intrigues in the Greek Church at this period, as they were for many
years the principal object of the emperor’s attention and the central
pivot of his policy. The restoration of Joseph introduced additional troubles
and abuses into the Greek Church, which was already distracted by schisms. Yet
even in its confused and corrupted state, the Greeks looked up to their
ecclesiastical establishment as their guiding institution through the
misconduct of the civil government and the defects of the judicial
administration. It has been already noticed that the administrative and
judicial authority of the bishops increased greatly after the conquest of
Constantinople by the Crusaders. Theodore II had viewed the increase of their
authority with distrust, but Michael VIII had favoured their assumption of administrative
power, as he found he could easily fill the church with prelates subservient to
his will; while the nobles and local magistrates began in every distant
province to display feelings of feudal independence which they had imbibed from
their intercourse with the Western nations. Andronicus II found the prelates in
possession of great judicial power: they were the judges as well as the priests
of the Greek nation. We need therefore feel no surprise at finding the clergy
commanding the people and synods assuming the characteristics of national
assemblies. The vice of the system was that the clergy was an irresponsible
body as far as their civil duties were concerned, and the bishops had interests
different from the people even in matters of law and justice. Their power
consequently followed the usual course of all irresponsible institutions. As it
was founded on what was deemed an indisputable and sacred right, it admitted of
no improvement, nor of any reform, so that, according to an invariable law of
man’s corrupt nature, its immutability soon filled it with abuses. Of these,
simony was the most prominent. The political condition which society assumed in
the Greek empire of Constantinople, under this exorbitant influence of the
church, was one of corruption and decline. It deserves to be contrasted with
the vigorous impulse which popular action displayed in the Byzantine Empire
under the Iconoclast emperors, when the civil power and the legal
administration disputed for their independence against the efforts of the
Orthodox Church to enslave society. The uncontested supremacy of the clergy has
ever been a political evil of fearful magnitude.
The bigotry of Andronicus induced him to sanction the establishment of a
tribunal, consisting chiefly of monks, which was empowered to fix the penance
to be performed by those who desired to obtain absolution from a general
sentence of excommunication, launched against all who had communicated with the
Latin Church. As nearly the whole population of the empire had fallen under
this sentence of excommunication, the power of the tribunal was unlimited. The
rich were mulcted according to the sensibility of their consciences and
the malice of their enemies, while ecclesiastics obnoxious to the bigots were
suspended from the exercise of their functions. The facility with which Michael
VIII had persuaded the majority of the Orthodox Church to adopt the heterodox
doctrines of union and charity, persuaded the hyperorthodox
that violent measures were required to guard against any future reaction. It
was determined to make the deposed Patriarch Vekkos
the scapegoat of the church. A synod was assembled, in which he was condemned;
but this synod was so notoriously under the influence of fanatical monks, that
Theoktistos, the bishop of Adrianople, sarcastically observed,” It seems the
bishops are to be used as wooden spits to roast Vekkos;
and when the dish is served they will be thrown into the fire to make a blaze”.
Vekkos, however, was not more inclined to seek the
crown of martyrdom than his contemporaries in the Greek Church. He signed a
written renunciation of the patriarchate and an orthodox profession of faith.
The Patriarch Joseph had a short period of triumph; he died in 1283. The
partisans of Arsenios, who had never recognized any
subsequent election, now claimed the church as being alone orthodox. The
emperor so far acknowledged their pretensions as to put them in possession of
the great church of All-Saints, which, having remained closed ever since the
reconquest of Constantinople, on account of the diminished numbers of the Greek
population, had escaped profanation by the Josephites and the Unionists. The
Emperor Andronicus selected a layman of considerable learning, George of
Cyprus, to be the new Patriarch, who received his consecration from the Bishop
of Debron, a prelate who had taken no part in the
ecclesiastical disputes which followed the deposition of Arsenios.
George of Cyprus assumed the name of Gregorios as
Patriarch. The bigoted party now gained the ascendancy. A council was held in
the church of Blachern; all the bishops who had
advocated papal supremacy were expelled from their sees, and many were
imprisoned. The partisans of Arsenios and Joseph were
then left alone to contend for absolute power in the church, and an immediate
collision ensued. The violence of the Arsenites
alarmed both the emperor and the patriarch; they were led on by Andronikos, the Bishop of Sardes,
and supported by the monks and the people.
The emperor was unable to decide between the disputants; and in order to
settle his own opinions, as well as those of his subjects, he ordered a council
of the Greek Church to assemble at Adramyttum. The
whole attention of the imperial administration was directed to the business of
this assembly. An army of monks marched to attend its meetings; for, in the
Greek empire at that period, monks were almost as numerous an element of the
population as the military now are in the empires of France, Austria, and
Russia. To preserve order, the government found it necessary to issue regular
rations to these ecclesiastical troops, among whom were crowds of blind and
mutilated victims of the persecutions of the late emperor. Incidental disputes
soon rendered all agreement among the members of the assembly impossible; and
at last both parties consented to remit the decision to the judgment of God.
They expected Heaven to pronounce whether the Arsenites
or Josephites were most worthy to rule the Greek Church, and to reveal its
sentence by a miracle. Two scrolls, inscribed with the adverse opinions, were
cast into the flames in presence of the assembled clergy, and both were
instantly reduced to ashes. The emperor and the people were satisfied; and the Arsenites, feeling themselves condemned, consented to
receive the communion from the hands of the Patriarch Gregorios.
Next day, however, their murmurs revived, and they recommenced their intrigues.
The emperor summoned their leaders to his presence, and asked them if they
recognized Gregorios as lawful Patriarch; which they
were compelled to admit that they did, as they had communicated with him the
day before. Gregorios, who was concealed to overhear
their admission, then entered the room, and, after upbraiding them for their
intrigues, pronounced an excommunication against all who should venture to
disobey his orders. This trick awakened new passions. The Divine condemnation
of their disputes was forgotten by both parties, and the ecclesiastical warfare
recommenced with redoubled violence.
Andronikos, bishop of Sardes, the emperor’s confessor,
though the leader of the Arsenites, had contrived to
remain at Constantinople, where he awaited the deposition of Gregorios, whose place he expected to occupy. He had
quitted the cloister to intrigue at court. He was now accused of treasonable
discourse, and degraded from the episcopal rank. When he was brought up to
receive his sentence, one of the bishops, expelled from his see by the council
of Blachern, dropped a monk’s cowl on his head. The
deposed bishop seized it with such vivacity that, in throwing it away, he
pulled off his skull-cap, and left his head bare. The people, who were in the
habit of attending every ecclesiastical assembly as a species of public
amusement, enjoyed the comic scene, and shouted, in allusion to his intrigues,
that Andronikos had now his head ready for the
patriarchal crown.
The emperor, who could never follow any line of conduct steadily, again
revived the spirit of the Arsenites, by allowing them
to transport the body of Arsenios from Cyzicus to
Constantinople, while, at the same time, he determined to allow Vekkos an impartial hearing. A new council was assembled at
Blachern, A. D. 1284. Vekkos
could neither moderate his presumption nor conceal his envy, and his defence
degenerated into a virulent attack on the Patriarch Gregorios,
which disgusted everybody; and he was sent back to his exile at Brusa.
The Patriarch Gregorios, who was as fond of
polemics as Vekkos, and as proud of his eloquence,
indulged his taste, until one of his tracts was condemned as heterodox, which
compelled him to resign in 1289.
Athanasios, a hermit of the most rigid principles, was raised to the
patriarchal throne that he might reform the church, and he retained at court
all the inflexibility of the ascete. The bishops who
resided at Constantinople, immersed in political intrigues, were ordered to
retire to their sees. The monks, who acted as confessors and political agents
for the nobles, and who might be seen, at all hours of the day and night,
ambling on their sleek and richly-caparisoned mules from palace to palace, were
sent back to their monasteries. Bishops and nobles, monks and court ladies,
soon rose in rebellion against the reforms of Athanasios; and the Emperor
Andronicus, who wished a patriarch to act as a minister of his own intrigues,
to govern the church, not as an ecclesiastical reformer, to augment its power,
joining the opposition, Athanasios was forced to resign, after he governed the
church four years.
Some curious proceedings are connected with the resignation of Athanasios.
Christian charity was not a virtue prevalent in the Greek Church at any time,
and Athanasios had even less than other priests. Before resigning the
patriarchate, he prepared a writing, justifying his conduct, and anathematizing
all his calumniators, and all who had assisted in procuring his resignation. To
this document he affixed the leaden seal of the patriarchate, and having
deposited it in an earthen jar, he concealed it in the ornamental work above
the galleries of St Sophia’s. Four years after his resignation, it was found by
some boys who were seeking for young pigeons, which were then as numerous about
the churches of Constantinople as they now are about the mosques. The paper was
carried to the reigning Patriarch, Joannes, and the
whole body of the orthodox was thrown into a state of consternation by the
discovery; for the empire appeared to be placed under an interdict, from which
there was no possibility of obtaining canonical relief. Many of the sincere
bigots began to fancy that they were already suffering the pains of the damned.
Tranquillity was at last restored by the Emperor Andronicus, who obtained from
Athanasios a written declaration that he had revoked the anathema before his
resignation, on his mind becoming more tranquil, and that it was only from
inadvertency that he had forgotten to destroy the writing.
The next patriarch was Joannes, a monk of Sozopolis, (A.D. 1294-1303). Like all his predecessors, he
became involved in differences with the emperor, who was incessantly meddling
in ecclesiastical affairs. Joannes signed an act of
abdication; but a question arose concerning its validity, and his name
continued to be mentioned as patriarch in the public prayers. The emperor was
eager to terminate the business, in order to reinstate Athanasios in the
government of the church; the Patriarch Joannes was
as eager to retain his place. While matters stood thus, Andronicus paid Joannes a visit, at which the Patriarch made a bold attempt
to intimidate the ecclesiastical conscience of the scrupulous emperor. As
Andronicus entered the hall, he asked a benediction. Joannes
replied, “God will grant you his blessing; but do you recognize me as
Patriarch?” The unsuspicious emperor answered, “Certainly”. “Then”, exclaimed
the ambitious pontiff, “as Patriarch I excommunicate all who endeavour to
reinstate Athanasios on the patriarchal throne”. The emperor was so confounded
at this bold reception that he retired without uttering a word on the subject.
But Joannes was, nevertheless compelled to sign a
formal act of abdication, and make way for the restoration of Athanasios.
Athanasios resumed his schemes of reform, which he pursued with
undiminished energy and little effect for eight years. His headstrong temper
and violent disposition are said to have caused his second resignation. A
caricature, representing the Emperor Andronicus with a bridle in his mouth,
while Athanasios, in his usual state of excitement, with violent gestures, was
goading him forward to an image of Christ, appeared painted on the patriarchal
footstool. Some persons, who observed the painting, accused Athanasios of
impiety; but the emperor, suspecting that they were the real authors of the
caricature, ordered them to be arrested, and they were condemned to perpetual
imprisonment for calumniating the Patriarch. Athanasios, however, demanded a
more signal satisfaction, and, being unable to obtain it, resigned the
patriarchate.
Niphon, bishop of Cyzicus, a man of talents, versed in public business, but not
remarkable for theological learning, was the next Patriarch. He succeeded to
the throne after a vacancy of more than two years, and ruled the church little
more than a year, (a.C. 1313-1314). He had displayed
judgment and energy in defending his see against the incursions of the Seljouk Turks; and by repairing the ancient fortifications
on the isthmus of Cyzicus, he had rendered the whole peninsula a safe place of
refuge for the inhabitants of the neighbouring continent. As Patriarch he
distinguished himself by his magnificence, luxury, and cupidity. His table and
his stud were superior to those of the emperor; but as he affected
extraordinary eagerness to accomplish the emperor’s favourite scheme of uniting
the schismatic Arsenites with the orthodox, his
faults were overlooked. Accusations of simony at last caused his deposition.
His successor was John Glykys, a layman of high
character, whom bad health caused to abdicate after he had governed the church
four years.
The Emperor Andronicus then determined to govern the church himself, and,
in order to meet with no opposition, he placed an old deaf and ignorant
monk named Gerasimos, on the patriarchal throne. Of
the eight patriarchs who ruled the church during the reign of Andronicus, he
was the first who was not compelled to resign, unless we add Joseph, who died
as Patriarch in the reign of Andronicus, after having been compelled to resign
his throne to Vekkos during the reign of Michael
VIII. Gerasimos occupied the patriarchal throne about
a year, (1320-1321).
The last Patriarch named by Andronicus XI was Isaiah, a monk of Mount
Athos, whom he had expected to find as docile as Gerasimos.
He was disappointed; but the quarrel which ensued requires to be noticed in
connection with the civil wars that ended in the dethronement of Andronicus.
This short abstract of the ecclesiastical events that occurred in the
Greek empire during the reign of Andronicus II, is sufficient to give the
reader some idea of the occupations for which the emperor neglected the civil
administration and military defence of his empire.
The state of the Seljuks Empire invited Andronicus to regain possession of
those districts in Asia Minor which were still inhabited by a majority of
Greeks. Theodore Lascaris I, even while pressed on one side by the Crusaders,
had, nevertheless, defeated the whole forces of the Seljouks
when united under a warlike sultan. Andronicus II was now unable to resist the
attacks of the petty chiefs, who acted as independent princes under the nominal
sovereignty of Alaeddin III, the last of the Seljouk sultans of Iconium. The provincial governors who
dismembered this Turkish Empire are usually said to have founded ten
principalities or emirats; for some of the
independent chiefs who ruled only a few cities were not ranked in the list of
emirs. These emirats are known in history by the
names of their founders; but their boundaries can only be approximately
determined, as they undergoing continual change. Their extent corresponded
neither with that of the Byzantine themes into which the country had been
divided when it was conquered by the Seljouk Turks,
nor with the ancient geographical divisions of which the Greek writers make use
in describing the relations of the emirs with the empire of Constantinople.
During the earlier years of the reign of Andronicus, the power of the Turks
excited no alarm. The garrisons in the frontier fortresses were reduced, the
number of the legions was diminished, and many of the ships kept ready for
service by Michael VIII were laid up in the arsenal. Andronicus required all
the money he could divert from the military and naval services for the court
and the church. The officers could only gain advancement by becoming courtiers;
the soldiers could only avoid neglect by becoming monks. The system adopted for
maintaining the troops in garrison and in winter-quarters reveals the full
extent to which disorder and peculation might proceed. The imperial authorities
announced to the municipal magistrates the number of troops to be quartered in
the town, and the reparation was then made to each house according to the
census of the proprietor. The householder was then obliged to furnish the
soldier with a daily ration of provisions and wine at a price fixed by a
commission, and for these he was only paid at distant intervals when the
soldiers received their pay. As the troops were always in arrears, they were
generally deeply indebted to their landlords. A door was thus opened for every
species of fraud on the part of the officers, who granted leave of absence to
the soldiers to pocket their pay; and on the part of the soldiers, who indulged
in recklessness and pillage. The local authorities participated in the frauds
committed by the officers, so that neither the proprietors nor the soldiers
could ever obtain redress from the central government. The emperor preferred
foreign troops, as they were generally found more willing to defraud their
landlords and march out of their winter-quarters before receiving the full
amount of their pay. The native troops were also more inclined to take part
with the people in seditions caused by financial oppression. The army of
Andronicus consisted principally of Alans, Gasmuls,
Turks, Turkopuls, and refugee Cretans. The Alans
received double the pay of the best native troops. The armies with which the
Emperors of Nicaea had defeated the Turkish sultans, the Latin emperors, the
kings of Bulgaria, and the French knights of Achaia and Athens, were now
disbanded and neglected. The state maxim of imperial Rome, that no man who paid
the land-tax should be allowed to bear arms, was again revived, and mercenaries
and Turks plundered the Greek empire as the Goths and Huns had plundered the
Roman.
The Greek empire of Constantinople, at the accession of Andronicus II,
embraced the whole coast of Asia Minor, from the mouth of the Sangarius to the Rhodian Peraia;
but the nomad tribes who lived under the Seljouk
dominion were daily pushing their incursions farther and farther into the Greek
territories. In the year 1296, the regular army of the empire continued to maintain
a decided superiority in the field over any force the Turks could bring into
action; but the carelessness of the emperor, who left the troops in Asia
without pay, caused this neglected army to break out into rebellion. The
Turkish mercenaries in its ranks plundered the Greek landlords; the Cretans
sold their services to the highest bidder. Alexios Philanthropenos, who had successfully resisted the Seljouk tribes, was proclaimed emperor by his rebellious
troops, but allowed himself to be taken prisoner, and was deprived of sight.
His successor, John Tarchaniotes, vainly attempted to
reform the abuses, which rendered the army more oppressive to the emperor’s
subjects than dangerous to his enemies. The anarchy that prevailed in the
civil, military, and ecclesiastical administration, rendered him powers less,
and he was compelled to abandon the undertaking.
In the year 1301, Michael, the eldest son of Andronicus, who had received
the imperial title from his father in 1295, took the command of the army in
Asia, and about the same time a body of veteran warriors entered the imperial
service, who, under an able general, would have secured victory to the Greeks.
Andronicus allowed a colony of Alans to settle in his dominions, and about
eight thousand who had served in the Tartar wars beyond the Danube were
enrolled in the Byzantine service. To furnish these foreigners with well-broken
horses, Andronicus dismounted the best cohorts of his native cavalry. It was
already known that the emperor distrusted his Greek troops. Henceforth it was
evident that no confidence could be placed in men whom he had so openly insulted
by his preference for foreign mercenaries. The Alans, though brave and
experienced soldiers, united many of the wild habits of their original nomadic
life with the worst vices of mercenaries. They required to be kept constantly
under the strictest discipline, and to be ruled with a strong hand. Michael,
who had no military talent, could neither employ their valour with effect
against the Turks, nor restrain their disorders. After a short term of service,
they mutinied, deserted the camp, and marched to the Hellespont, plundering the
Greek inhabitants of the country they passed through. The young emperor then
broke up his own camp, and, abandoning his headquarters at Magnesia on the Hermus, retired to Pergamus,
leaving the Turkish tribes to extend their plundering expeditions as far as Adramyttum, Lampsacus, and
Cyzicus.
About the same time the Venetians and Genoese, who were carrying on war,
were so emboldened by the weakness of the Greek empire and the neglected state
of its marine that they pursued their hostilities in the port of
Constantinople, while private vessels plundered the islands of the Propontis
within sight of the palace of Andronicus, and compelled him to ransom the
captive inhabitants by parading them before the walls of the capital, suspended
from the rigging of their ships.
Rapid conquests were now made by the Seljouk
emirs, and a destructive warfare against the Greek race was carried on by the
nomad tribes, who were more anxious to exterminate the agricultural population
than to subdue them. The valley of the Meander was overrun by Mentshé and Aïdin; Philadelphia
and Magnesia were threatened by Kermian and Saroukhan. The citadel of Sardes
was divided into two forts, and the troops of Sultan Alaeddin
III, the last of the Seljouk emperors of Roum, were put in possession of one, as it was hoped that
the emirs and nomads would respect a city that paid tribute to their sultan.
Michael, distracted by the number rather than by the force of his enemies,
abandoned his headquarters at Pergamus, where he
found himself straitened for provisions by the ravages of Karasi,
and retired to the maritime fortress of Peges. The
Greeks were everywhere in despair. In the empire of Trebizond, matters were not
much better than in the empire of Constantinople. But it was in the provinces
between Nicomedia and Smyrna, along the Propontis and the Aegean, that the
greatest confusion reigned. The roads to the coast were covered with fugitives
from the interior, endeavouring to save their property and families. Thousands were
left to perish from want, and thousands died from suffering. Whole provinces
were deserted by their inhabitants, and became pasture-lands for hordes of
Turkmans. In the course of a single generation, the Greek race and language
disappeared from countries in which it had been spoken for two thousand years,
and Turkish colonies took possession of Aeolis and Ionia. Andronicus II
witnessed these dreadful calamities with feelings benumbed by piety: even the
extermination of the orthodox failed to animate his energy.
The Byzantine and Seljouk empires, and the Greek
and Turkish people, displayed unequivocal signs of a state of society in which
the ties of interest, and the common feelings that had once connected the
various ranks of the population with the central government, were broken or
dissolved. The conquests of the Crusaders and Moguls had weakened the imperial
authority both at Constantinople and Iconium, and it had been replaced by no
bond of union between the sovereign and the people. In this state of civil and
political disorder in Christian and Mohammedan society throughout western Asia
and eastern Europe, a tribe of nomad Turks, who had recently entered the Seljouk dominions and whose education and feelings were not
yet corrupted by artificial moral relations, began to lay the foundations of an
empire which advanced to greatness more rapidly than that of Rome, and whose
power has proved more durable than the empire of Alexander. Othman, whose tribe
consisted of only four hundred tents, was invested with the government of Karadjahissar (Melangeia) in the
year 1289, by the Sultan Alaeddin III. The education
of Othman had taught him that the impartial administration of justice is a
powerful instrument of ambition, and he adopted systematic arrangements for
securing it both to Christians and Mohammedans in his territory. The market
held on Friday at Karadjahissar was celebrated for
its security. A judge sate constantly to decide every difference that might
arise on the spot, and Othman frequently occupied the judgment-seat. It
happened that, as he was presiding, a dispute arose between a Christian of Belokoma (Biledjik), in the Greek
empire, and a Turk of Kermian. The decision was in
favour of the Christian, and the justice of the sentence raised the fame of Othman
and the commercial importance of Karadjahissar. Yet
Othman is represented as just only when justice aided his ambition; when
injustice was profitable, he acknowledged no law. He plundered the Greek
territories when he could do so with impunity; and he is said to have murdered
his uncle, Dundar, who was ninety years of age,
because he advised him to remain at peace with the Byzantine empire. The city
of Tarakli (Yenidje-Tarakdji),
from the manufactories of which the Greeks supplied all western Asia and the
east of Europe with combs and spoons, and the town of Modreni,
the great seat of the manufactory of knives and needles, were both plundered.
After twelve years of preparation, Othman ventured to attack the regular
army of the Greek empire, in the year 1301. The action took place at Baphaeon, near Nicomedia. Pachymeres estimates the number
of the imperial troops commanded by Muzalon at only
two thousand, while the forces of Othman consisted of five thousand. The Greek
infantry fled, and their misconduct was attributed to the dissatisfaction
caused by the manner in which they had been deprived of their horses. The Alans
fought bravely, and covered the retreat to Nicomedia. Othman now laid waste the
whole of Bithynia, from Nicomedia to Lopadion. The Greeks
could hardly venture out of the gates of Nicaea; and the communications of that
city with Constantinople were kept up by means of boats on the lake Askanios. Even the road from the end of the lake to Kios was usually travelled in the night. The suburbs of the
towns on the Asiatic shores of the Bosphorus were burned by the Ottomans, whose
foraging parties were sometimes visible from the towers of the imperial palace
in Constantinople.
The disgraceful retreat of his son Michael to Peges,
induced Andronicus to change the military governors in Asia, instead of
teaching him the necessity of reforming the military system. The command of
Nicomedia was intrusted to a Tartar chief who had recently embraced
Christianity; and by the marriage of this Tartar’s daughter with Suleiman, a
Turkish emir, peace was restored to a small district, and a barrier was formed
against the incursions of Othman. But the unemployed Turkish troops transferred
their services to other leaders, and carried on their incursions in more distant
provinces. This preference of a Tartar general indicates a deep-rooted distrust
of the courage and fidelity of the Greek nobles, as well as contempt for their
military skill; and, indeed, a factious spirit, directed to personal interest,
could alone have caused the insensibility to national honour which made the
nobles and the troops submit tamely to the insults they received from their
emperor. Well might the brave old Spaniard Muntaner declare that God had
stricken the Greek race with His curse, for every one could trample them down.
A new crisis in the fate of the Byzantine Empire suddenly presented itself
by the arrival of an army of Spaniards, composed chiefly of Catalans and men of
Aragon; but this race of strangers, hitherto unknown in the East, soon
disappeared from the scene. They came and departed as if they were under the
guidance of the destroying angel. In daring courage, steady discipline, and
military skill, they were not surpassed by any Greek or Roman army. Their
warlike deeds entitle them to rank as a host of heroes; their individual acts
made them appear a band of demons. They had proved invincible on every field of
battle. They had broken the lances of the chivalry of France in many a
well-fought action; and they were firmly convinced that no troops on earth
could encounter their shock. Guided by a sovereign like Leo III, or like Basil
II, they might have conquered the Seljouk Turks,
strangled the Ottoman power in its cradle, and carried the double-headed eagle
of Byzantium victorious to the foot of Mount Taurus, and to the banks of the
Danube; but Andronicus could neither make use of their valour, nor secure their
obedience. His own senseless intrigues roused their hostile feelings; and after
they had made every tribe in the Seljouk empire
tremble for a moment, they turned on the Greek empire, where they carried on
their inhuman ravages with a degree of cruelty and rapacity which history
cannot attempt to portray. They laid both the empire and the Greek nation
prostrate in the dust, bleeding with wounds from which they never recovered.
The Catalan Grand Company—for that is the name by which this Spanish army
is known in Eastern history—consisted of troops formed in the twenty years’ war
that followed the Sicilian Vespers. The kings of Aragon for some time supported
the people of Sicily in their courageous defence of their independence against
the French kings of Naples; but at last Jayme II of Aragon abandoned their
cause. The Sicilians then conferred their crown on Frederic, the brother of
Jayme XI, and carried on the war gallantly against the combined forces of
Naples, Aragon, and France, supported by the temporal and spiritual power of
the popes. In this war the Spanish leaders saw the necessity of forming a
mercenary army, of which every individual soldier should be a match in military
exercises for the best knights of France. Spain was filled with a poor and
proud nobility. High pay and great license drew the best sinews in Catalonia
and Aragon into the mercenary battalions of Sicily, and induced them to submit
to the severest discipline. The spirit which long after astonished the world in
the followers of Cortes and Pizarro, then animated every Spanish soldier with
an enthusiastic desire to encounter the most renowned knight in France; and the
great admiral, Roger de Lauria, well expressed their
feelings when he said to the Count de Foix, “Let the King of France arm three
hundred galleys; I will sweep the sea with one hundred, and no ship shall sail
without a pass from the king of Aragon”.
In the year 1302, peace was at last concluded between the kings of
Naples and Sicily. The marriage of Charles of Valois with Catherine of
Courtenay, made the kings of France and Naples eager to enforce their claims on
the empire of Constantinople. The kings of Aragon and Sicily, on the other
hand, had much to fear from any increase of French influence in the
Mediterranean; but Frederic of Sicily had bound himself by treaty not to
conclude any alliance with the Greek emperor. It was known at Constantinople
that Pope Boniface VIII eagerly supported the pretensions of Charles of Valois
to the Eastern Empire; yet the bigoted Andronicus took no measures to avert the
storm, by creating a diversion against the French princes in the West. Frederic
was anxious to free Sicily from the presence of the Spanish troops who had
carried on the war in Calabria. He had no longer the means of paying them, and
he feared lest they should plunder the island. The important service of
inducing them to seek a new career of action in the East, was performed for
Frederic by Roger de Flor.
This adventurer was a type of a new race of generals, who were rapidly
diminishing the importance of the nobles in military affairs. He was the second
son of a German falconer in the service of the Emperor Frederic II, named
Robert Blum, who adopted the Italian name of Flor,
and married an heiress of Brindisi. The commander of a galley belonging to the
order of the Temple, pleased with his intelligence as a child, took him to sea
when only eight years old. In due time he entered the order, distinguished
himself by his attention to naval tactics and military discipline, and received
the command of a galley. But when Acre was taken by the Mohammedans in 1291,
brother Roger was accused of employing his galley only to save those who paid
him large sums of money. Certain it is, he neglected to join the rest of the
templars, who, even after the Grand-master, Guichard
de Beaujeu, was slain, prolonged the defence of their quarter under his
successor Gaudini. For absenting himself from this
desperate struggle, Roger was degraded from his rank, and compelled to seek
refuge at Genoa, in order to escape imprisonment. He soon fitted out a private
galley, and sought his fortune as a mercenary or a pirate. He first offered his
services to the French in Naples, but the Duke of Calabria treated him with
neglect; he then sought Frederic, whose affairs seemed desperate, and entered
the Sicilian service. The King of Sicily perceived his talents, and honoured
him with the rank of Vice-admiral of Sicily. Roger extended the sphere of his
naval expeditions along the coasts of Italy, France, and Spain. In hostile
countries he carried off everything he could embark in his ships; in friendly
districts he levied contributions, and gave receipts for the amount, payable by
the Sicilian treasury at the end of the war. In this way he not only enriched
himself and his followers, but brought large sums into the exhausted treasury
of Frederic. But when peace was concluded, the Grand-master of the Temple urged
the Pope to insist that Frederic should surrender the recreant templar. The
danger was serious and before the demand was made, Roger offered his service to
the Emperor of Constantinople, promising to bring with him a body of Spanish troops
to serve against the Turks. His enterprise had the air of a crusade; he was
known at Constantinople from having rendered assistance to several Greek
vessels, when he commanded the galley of the Temple; and in addition to his
military qualities, he spoke Greek fluently. Andronicus accepted his offer;
but, with the perverseness which marks every administrative act of his life, he
made no arrangements for fixing the number of mercenaries he was about to hire.
No quarters were prepared for them; no magazines were formed to insure their
immediate employment against the enemy; and no care was taken that their pay
should be issued with regularity.
In the month of September 1303, Roger de Flor
arrived at Constantinople with a fleet of thirty-six sail, and an army of six
thousand men. Seven galleys, one thousand cavalry, and one thousand infantry,
carried his own private standard. There were several generals in this army,
equal in rank and superior in birth to Roger, who submitted voluntarily to his
command, without being bound to serve under his orders. The supreme authority
in the Grand Company was supposed to reside in the army itself; Roger was only
its elected chief. The first idea that struck the Greeks, always more ready to
intrigue against their allies than to act energetically with them, was, that it
would be possible to separate the interests of the generals of the Grand
Company from the interests of their men, and thus render both dependent.
Andronicus adopted this policy, without reflecting that it was likely to end in
an appeal to the sword. As a means of securing the unbounded gratitude of Roger
de Flor, he was adopted into the imperial family, and
married to Maria, daughter of Asan, the exiled King of Bulgaria, and
granddaughter of the Emperor Andronicus II. He was invested also with the rank
of Grand-duke, and was named commander-in-chief of the army and fleet in Asia
Minor and on the Asiatic coast. In the meantime, Andronicus lavished immense
sums on fêtes, and in presents to the Catalan leaders, whom he wished to gain.
To the troops he issued four months’ pay before he had taught them to obey his
orders. During these amusements and intrigues the Turks continued to ravage
Asia Minor, and the Spaniards lounged idly through the streets of Constantinople.
The sailors of Barcelona were soon involved in bloody quarrels with the Genoese
of Galata. Both parties despised the imperial police, and the grand drungary was slain at the head of the Greek troops while he
was attempting to separate the combatants in one of their battles. The
Spaniards were at last transferred to Asia, where they employed the last months
of 1303 in clearing the immediate neighbourhood of Cyzicus and Peges of the troops of Karasi and
Othman.
The Catalans were placed in winter-quarters at Cyzicus. According to the
usage of the Byzantine Empire, the soldiers were dispersed in the houses of the
citizens, who were obliged to famish them with rations of bread, wine, cheese,
salt meat, vegetables, and provender for their horses. Fresh meat and any
condiments they might require, were to be paid for. The money due to the
citizens for rations and extra supplies was to be paid in March, when
government was to liquidate all accounts before the troops took the field. A
commission, consisting of six Spanish officers and six Greek privates, fixed
the price of provisions. Roger brought the grand-duchess to Cyzicus; and
Muntaner, the historian of the army, and one of its leaders, says that the
winter was passed in joyfulness and pleasance. The natural insolence of the
Spaniards, increased by the republican organization of the Grand Company, the
weakness of the Greek army, and the corruption and inefficiency of the
Byzantine administration, exposed the defenceless population of Cyzicus to
every species of extortion. When the time arrived for paying the army, it was
found that many Spaniards had incurred debts far exceeding the pay due to them.
Muntaner pretends that these debts were discharged by the grand-duke; but
Pachymeres, with more probability, asserts that the citizens of Cyzicus were
plundered of great part of their property. The inhabitants of Cyzicus were the
victims of foreign mercenaries, but those of Peges
suffered equal injustice at the hands of the cowardly young emperor, Michael.
When Roger de Flor assumed the command in Asia Minor,
Michael quitted Peges full of hatred against the
Catalans, leaving an order which proclaimed his hostility, and sowed the seeds
of distrust in the breasts of Roger and his followers. This order commanded
that the Catalans were not to be admitted into Peges,
though he knew that the inhabitants would be guilty of high treason if they
resisted the authority of the grand-duke; and when they opened their gates to a
Catalan garrison, he compelled them to pay a fine of several thousand byzants.
Such was the treachery, avarice, and meanness of the heir-apparent of the Greek
empire.
The military operations of the Catalans were delayed in the spring of 1304
by a quarrel with the Alans, and the streets of Cyzicus became the scene of a
bloodier battle than had been fought with the Genoese in the streets of
Constantinople. The son of George, the general of the Alans, was slain, and a
deep debt of vengeance incurred. It was the middle of May before Roger took the
field. The Turks in the meantime, despising the renown of warriors who were so
slow in their movements, had surprised Tripolis and
closely invested Philadelphia, then the largest city in Asia Minor, which was
reduced to such extremities by famine that the blood of a sheep or a pig was
sold for a byzant; and it must be remembered that the Greeks, in ordinary
circumstances, have always observed the apostolic command to restrain from
things strangled and blood. The Catalans at last arrived. One division of the
Turkish army stationed at Germe was routed, its camp
stormed, and its baggage plundered. The grand army, under the command of Alishir Kermian, still attempted
to cover the siege. Roger advanced by Chliara, and an
engagement took place at Avlaka; but Kermian retired as soon as he could draw off the troops
occupied in the siege, and Roger entered Philadelphia in triumph. The
grand-duke occupied himself more with the measures necessary to advance his own
ambitious projects than with carrying on the war actively for the interests of
the empire. The Turks were allowed to retain possession of Tripolis
and Tralles, though without these cities the rich
valley of the Meander could not be secured against their incursions, Roger even
neglected the offers of the Greeks of Tripolis to
cooperate with the Catalans if he would advance to their walls, and moved in
the opposite direction to regulate the pecuniary contributions and supplies of
provisions which he could levy from the cities which still belonged to the
emperor. The Catalans advanced no farther east than Kula. They then visited
Nymphaeum, Magnesia on the Hermus, Tyrria on the Caister, Ephesus and the seaport of Anaia, whence they marched as far south as the Iron Gates
on the frontiers of Lycia, defeating successively the troops of Saroukhan and Aïdin. They boasted
that the scene of their last victory over Aïdin was
in the mountains between Anatolia and the kingdom of Cilician Armenia. Roger
placed his army in winter-quarters at Anaia, Ephesus,
Pyrgion, and Philadelphia, while his fleet occupied
Chios, Lesbos, and Lemnos. In all these places the insolence of the Catalans
and the rapacity of the grand-duke knew no bounds.
Roger de Flor saw clearly that neither the
Emperor Andronicus nor the Greek nation possessed the vigour necessary for defending
Asia Minor against the Turks. This circumstance suggested to him the project of
forming an independent principality for himself in the East, for which he was
ready to do homage to the Emperor of Constantinople. His first step was to
increase the strength of his own corps of personal followers. After the hostile
display of feeling on the part of the Emperor Michael, he felt that wealth and
power could alone protect him against the intrigues of the court at
Constantinople. He therefore used his power as grand-duke entirely to serve his
own ends. The Byzantine troops who were attached to the government were
severely punished for the slightest breach of discipline. The officers who had
abandoned their posts while the Catalans and Roger were amusing themselves at
Cyzicus, were hung without mercy. Governors of towns were condemned to pay
exorbitant fines and some who were unable or unwilling to collect the sums
demanded from them were put to death. Immense contributions were levied in
Philadelphia, Pyrgos, and Ephesus, and in the islands
on the Asiatic coast.
Several cities in Asia, when they found themselves abandoned by the Emperor
Michael, had assumed a certain degree of independence, and repulsed both the
Turks and the imperial tax-collectors from their walls. Of these cities,
Magnesia on the Hermus was the most important. Attaleiotes, an equerry of the emperor, was elected the
local governor, and he refused to allow a Byzantine prefect to enter the place.
He repulsed the Turks, and by a timely submission to Roger de Flor conciliated his goodwill, and prevented him from
sending Catalan troops to form the garrison. When the grand-duke began to
prepare for asserting his independence, he fixed on Magnesia as the fortress in
which he resolved to secure his treasures and the stores of the army. They were
accordingly sent to Magnesia under the guard of a small body of Catalans who
were ordered to remain, in order to strengthen the garrison. Attaleiotes saw that a Greek would have little chance of
rising to power if the plans of Roger proved successful. Instigated by his
councils, the inhabitants of Magnesia flew to arms, put the Catalans in the
city to the sword, seized the treasures of Roger and the stores of the Grand
Company and prepared to resist the fiercest assaults of the Spaniards. The
grand-duke marched with his whole army to avenge an injury which touched the
honour of his arms, and struck a dangerous blow at his military power. The
siege of Magnesia was formed, but the Grand Company was as weak in siege-artillery
and engineers as the army of Hannibal. Attaleiotes
made a brave defence, and repulsed all the attacks of Roger. An attempt of the
Catalans to destroy the aqueduct that supplied the city with water was defeated
by a vigorous sortie.
In order to put an end to these disorders in Asia Minor, Andronicus ordered
the grand-duke to join the army under the command of his son Michael at
Adrianople; but Roger, hoping to recover his treasures, delayed his march. The
Alans, who were mindful of the injuries they had received at Cyzicus, made the
order a pretence for quitting the grand-duke’s standard. Many small bands
wandered about plundering the inhabitants or living at free quarters.
Constantinople was filled with alarm, Asia Minor with misery, and the camp at
Adrianople with indignation. The Greek army now demanded to be led against the
Catalans; disorder spread through its ranks, and Michael, to gain popularity,
issued a golden bull restricting the time of service of the native troops, and
declaring that they should never be called upon to serve in company with the
Catalans. Such was the military condition of the empire. The Greeks would only
serve as long as suited their convenience; the Alans and the Catalans disobeyed
the orders of the government with impunity. Roger, finding that he could not
take Magnesia, at last raised the siege, in obedience, as he pretended, to the
emperor’s orders. He had now to provide pay for the Grand Company, as no money
was sent to him by the imperial government, and he resolved to replace the
treasures he had lost as rapidly as possible. For this purpose he led his army
to the Hellespont, crossed into Europe, occupied the whole Thracian Chersonesus, and put his troops into winter- quarters in
the towns of Gallipoli, Potamos, Sestos, and Madytos, at the end of 1305. Roger de Flor
then visited Constantinople, to demand pay for the Grand Company. His claim
amounted to the sum of three hundred thousand byzants, but his extortions had
forestalled a large part of the imperial revenues, and the treasury was reduced
so low that the Emperor Michael had sent his plate to the mint, and sold his
wife’s jewels, to raise the army with which he carried on war against the
Bulgarians. Roger was only able to procure a small sum, consisting of an adulterated
gold coinage. His return, under these circumstances, spread discontent among
the Catalans, who commenced plundering the country in the vicinity of their
quarters.
About this time Beranger d'Entenza, a
Spanish noble-man of high rank and military renown, joined his countrymen
with a fleet of nine ships, three hundred cavalry, and one thousand infantry;
and it may be here mentioned that, during the preceding winter, another leader,
Beranger de Rocafort, had brought them a reinforcement of two hundred cavalry
and one thousand infantry. Andronicus, who hoped by his intrigues to be able to
divide the Spaniards into two parties, and thus reduce them to subserviency,
invited d'Entenza to Constantinople, and treated him
with great honour. Roger de Flor, who feared his
rivalry with the Grand Company much more than his favour with Andronicus,
resigned the office of grand-duke, in order that the emperor might confer it on
d'Entenza. The winter was passed in intrigues. Roger,
to secure the attachment of the Grand Company, publicly advocated all their
pretensions, while at the same time he secretly professed devotion to the
emperor’s service. No experience could teach the Greek statesmen of
Constantinople the danger of too much artifice with men of the sword. Roger
enjoyed intriguing as much as the Greeks. He was their equal in ability, and
their superior in courage. Every day increased the difficulties of the imperial
government. A new tax called sitokrithon was
imposed on grain, and set apart for the payment of the Catalans. One-third of
the pay of every Byzantine official was deducted, and every exertion was made
to collect money, but all was insufficient to supply the demands of the
Spaniards. The Emperor Andronicus, in order to show d'Entenza
the injustice of his countrymen, produced accounts that proved they had exacted
a million of byzants from the country, and bags of despatches filled with
petitions against their enormities. D'Entenza saw the
impossibility of appeasing the quarrel between the Greek government and the
Grand Company, and immediately returned to Gallipoli.
The spring of 1306 was now far advanced. The Turks had again overrun great
part of Asia Minor, and reinvested Philadelphia. The Catalans were fortifying
themselves at Gallipoli, and the Genoese reported at Constantinople that
Fernand, infant of Majorca, was about to place himself at the head of the
Spaniards, in order to conquer a kingdom for himself in the Greek empire. The
Emperor Andronicus and Roger de Flor were both
alarmed by the knowledge they appear to have obtained of the treaty which was
then negotiating between Frederic of Sicily and Fernand of Majorca, and which
was signed before the end of March. By this treaty Fernand was appointed
commander-in-chief of the Spanish army in Romania, as lieutenant-general of the
King of Sicily; he engaged to obey the orders of the king, and neither to
conclude a treaty nor to marry without his consent. Every exertion was now made
by the Greek emperor to gain over Roger de Flor to
his interests. Roger was created Caesar, an honour which, though often
degraded, was now, for the first time, conferred on a mercenary adventurer. He
was offered twenty thousand byzants, three hundred thousand measures of corn,
and the command over all Asia Minor, exclusive of the cities, if he would march
to the relief of Philadelphia with his own corps. But Roger, who knew he could
place no reliance on the promises of the Greeks, only urged the Catalans the
more to prosecute their demands for payment. A deputation of the leaders of the
Grand Company waited on the emperor, and were received by Andronicus with a
long harangue, in which he rebuked the Catalans for their conduct, boasted of
his own power, depreciated their services, and threatened to punish them if
they disobeyed his orders. The discourse is so absurd from its bombast, and so
ridiculous from its vanity, that it is more surprising to find it recorded by a
historian than it is difficult to believe that it was uttered by an emperor. If
the Catalans had really arrived at Constantinople half-starved and in rags, as
the emperor told them was the case, he ought to have reflected that the change
in their circumstances proved the worthlessness of the imperial government, and
the cowardice of the Greek army. The emperor attempted to gain time by paying
the Spaniards four months’ arrears in his depreciated coinage. This money the
Spaniards compelled the Greeks to receive at its nominal value. It was also
arranged that Roger should immediately march to the relief of Philadelphia at
the head of three thousand men, who were alone to remain permanently in
Byzantine pay. But the whole Spanish army resolved to accompany Roger, being
persuaded that he was about to take possession of Asia Minor as Caesar, in
order to hold it as an imperial fief, and they expected to share it as the
Crusader had partitioned Europe after the conquest of Constantinople.
Before quitting Europe, Roger visited Adrianople to pay his respects to the
emperor Michael. As he entered the apartment of the empress, he was
assassinated by George, the general of the Alans, whose son was slain in the
tumult at Cyzicus. At the same time three hundred Catalan cavalry, who formed
the escort of the Caesar, were massacred by the Alan troops. Three Spaniards
alone escaped to carry the news to Gallipoli. The Emperor Michael acted as if
he considered that George had taken a just revenge for the death of his son,
and the Greeks who had participated in the assassination remained unpunished.
It was evident that things were now at a crisis, where half measures were no
longer possible, yet Michael had not the courage to attack the Grand Company
before it had time to prepare for action and replace its leader. The news of
the assassination of Roger de Flor filled the
Catalans with rage, and they resolved to be signally revenged. Everything they
did was undertaken with the solemn etiquette that marked unalterable
determination. A deputation waited on the Emperor Andronicus, and announced to
him that the treacherous assassination of Roger de Flor
had broken the ties of their allegiance to the Greek empire. These merciless
adventurers knew better how to guard the honour of Spain than the imperial
court could guard the honour of the emperor. The Catalan envoys, after boldly
performing their mission, and declaring war according to the forms of chivalry,
quitted Constantinople with a safe-conduct of Andronicus, and were waylaid and
murdered by the Greeks at Redestos. The people of the
capital also massacred Fernand d'Aones, the admiral,
and all the Spaniards in the capital. The cavalry of Michael swept the country
round Gallipoli, and slew many Catalans before they could reach the camps of
their countrymen.
The Grand Company immediately commenced war with the Greek empire, which it
carried on as a war of extermination against the Greek race. Beranger d'Entenza, finding that Gallipoli was in no immediate
danger, sailed with a division of the army to collect supplies of money and
provisions. The city of Perinthos was stormed, and
the cruelty with which the Greeks were everywhere treated exceeds belief, and
cannot be recorded in detail; men were burned alive, women were violated and
stabbed, and even children were impaled. On his return to Gallipoli, d'Entenza met a Genoese fleet on its way to Trebizond. With
these ships he held some communication; but a Genoese fleet, hired by
Andronicus to attack the Catalans, arriving soon after from Constantinople, the
whole Genoese forces fell on d'Entenza, destroyed his
squadron, and carried him prisoner to the emperor. But Andronicus not being
able to pay the Genoese the sum they demanded as his ransom, he was taken to
Trebizond, and thence to Genoa.
The loss of their fleet was a serious blow to the Catalans. Some proposed
to abandon Gallipoli and establish themselves in Mitylene,
until the arrival of the Infant Fernand of Majorca. This plan was nevertheless
abandoned as dishonourable, and it was resolved to keep possession of
Gallipoli, and defend it against the whole force of the Byzantine Empire. The
death of Roger de Flor, and the captivity of Beranger
d'Entenza, made it necessary to reorganize the
government of the army. Rocafert was elected
commander-in-chief, with a standing council of twelve officers. The seal of the
army bore the inscription, “Seal of the Frank army in Macedonia”. Four
standards were borne before its ranks. One in honour of St Peter, which was
planted on the ramparts of Gallipoli, others bearing the arms of the King of
Sicily, the arms of Aragon, and the figure of St George, accompanied the troops
in their expeditions to collect plunder. The few ships that remained were sunk
off the entrance of the port, to obstruct an attack by sea, and a corps of
Turkish light cavalry was hired to assist in foraging. The Emperor Michael had
sent forward a body of troops to observe Gallipoli, until he arrived in person
to besiege the Catalans. The first exploit of the Grand Company was to march
out and attack this army of observation. But the Catalans, on account of their
inferiority in numbers, abandoned the usual tactics of the age, and instead of
dividing their army into an advanced guard, centre, and reserve, drew up their
force in two bodies, placing the cavalry on the left wing, and the infantry on
the right. The cavalry charged the Byzantine horse, and were met by the Greeks
and Alans with a bold front; but they sustained the shock of the Spaniards only
for a moment, and then fled in complete confusion, leaving their infantry
exposed. The Catalan infantry then rushed forward to attack the main body of the
Greeks, as they were drawn up on the slope of a hill, making a gallant
appearance with their well-dressed lines and glittering armour. Each Spanish
soldier seemed to fear that his companion might be intimidated by the immense
number of the enemy, though he felt no fear himself. A simultaneous cry of
“Aragon! Aragon! St George! St George!” rose from the whole line as it
quickened its step to close in combat. The Greeks made a feeble resistance; the
Catalans took a bloody vengeance on their flying battalions until nightfall,
when they returned and pillaged the Byzantine camp.
When the Turkish mercenaries were perfectly drilled into obeying the
Catalan signals, the Grand Company marched to attack the imperial army under
the command of the Emperor Michael. Three days’ march brought them to Imeri, near Apros. The Catalans
were rejoiced to hear that Apros was a strong
fortress, for they said the battle would be short, since the Greeks would soon
think of seeking safety within its walls. The Byzantine army consisted of Alan
and Turkopul cavalry, of Macedonian and Thracian
infantry, of Asiatic troops, of Vallachians, and
mercenaries of other nations. It was drawn up in five divisions, and Michael
placed himself at the head of the reserve. The Grand Company was formed in four
divisions; the heavy cavalry occupied the centre, the Almogavars composed the
main body and the reserve, while the auxiliary Turks were placed on the wings.
The battle was commenced by the Alans and Turkopuls,
who formed the left wing of the imperial army. The terrible array of the
chivalry of Aragon and Catalonia palsied the courage of these veteran
mercenaries, and they retreated before its charge. Their retreat was ascribed
by the Greeks to treachery, and was a pretext for every coward to think of his
own safety. The fact is, that order and discipline did not, in the army of
Michael, replace the want of a sense of honour and of the feelings of
patriotism, while none had any confidence in the military talents of the
emperor. The native legions could not be expected to fight better than the
mercenaries, who had been honoured as the flower of the army. Squadron after
squadron yielded to the Spanish lance, and battalion after battalion fled
before the long swords of the Almogavars, until the battle was irretrievably
lost. The Emperor Michael made a spirited attempt to stop the confusion. He led
the reserve up bravely to meet the victorious Spaniards, and charged with his
lance into the thickest ranks of the assailants. He was soon struck down by the
pike of a powerful Catalan sailor, who had gained a splendid suit of armour and
a superb charger in the preceding victory. Beranger, the Catalan, was himself
nearly slain by the lance of Michael, whose attendants were thereby enabled to
close round the emperor, carry him off the field, and transport him to Didymoteichos, where the native troops rallied round their
prince. The Catalans, after their victory, made an attempt on Apros, but that fortress repulsed their attack, and they
retired to Gallipoli, in order to place the immense plunder they had collected
in the Byzantine camp in security.
The victory of Apros rendered the Catalans
masters of all the open country on the Thracian shore of the Propontis. They
inflicted a dreadful punishment on Redestos, because
it had been the scene of the murder of their envoys. Muntaner confesses that
they put to the sword men, women, and children, in indiscriminate massacre. The
situation of Redestos being more central for the
foraging operations of the Grand Company than Gallipoli, it was converted into
their headquarters, while Gallipoli was held as their citadel. Muntaner, who
acted as secretary-at-war, was appointed its commandant, and intrusted with the
care of the treasures, magazines, and arsenal of the army. Rocafert
now increased the number of Turks in his army, by obtaining a reinforcement of
two thousand men from the tribes under Aïdin. He was
subsequently joined by eight hundred cavalry and two thousand infantry, under
Isaac Melek, a descendant of the Seljouk
sultans, who was slain soon after; but his Turks remained the faithful allies
of the Catalans in all the vicissitudes of their fortunes. The Byzantine
government was now so unpopular among the Christians in Asia that many Greeks
joined the Turks, and shaved their heads, in order to enter into the Catalan
service as Turkopuls.
The Catalans burned with an inextinguishable desire to avenge the
assassination of Roger de Flor. They learned with
satisfaction that the Alans had separated themselves from the Greek army, and
were plundering on their own account; but a rumour soon arrived that the troops
of George had resolved to transfer their services to the King of Bulgaria. No
time was therefore to be lost. A body of Catalan cavalry, under the guidance of
a corps of Turkopuls, set out to hunt down the Alans,
whom they overtook near the Bulgarian frontier. A bloody battle ensued; George,
the assassin of Roger de Flor, was slain, with the
best part of his followers, and their wives and children were captured in their
camp. This bold enterprise increased the reputation of the Catalan arms; for
these Alans had long been regarded as the best soldiers in the East, and the
two parties had met on equal terms.
The Grand Company plundered Thrace for two years without meeting any
opposition in the field. The Emperor Michael occupied Didymoteichos,
Tzurulos, and Adrianople, with strong garrisons, but
made no attempt to defend the country near the Propontis. City after city was
taken, plundered, and burned to the ground; the fruit-trees were cut down, and
the vineyards destroyed; men, women, and children, were carried off to
Gallipoli, which became one of the great slave-marts for Asia Minor. In one of
these expeditions they massacred about five thousand cultivators of the soil in
the immediate vicinity of Constantinople. For two years the Catalan host lived
at free quarters, in the midst of wealth and plenty. They built no houses, they
cultivated no private estates; what they wanted they seized where it was to be
found, careless if they reduced the richest districts to the condition of a
desert. They lived by the sword alone; and no volume could record all their
valiant deeds, their devastating forays, or their infamous cruelties.
The Emperor Andronicus vainly attempted to negotiate the retreat of the
Catalans; his untimely pretensions, and the penury of his treasury, rendered
his negotiations abortive. The Grand Company insisted on payment of arrears, on
the release of all prisoners without ransom, on the restoration of the ships captured
with d'Entenza, and that the emperor should pay them
for the booty which they were unable to carry away. Andronicus, finding his own
negotiations and the military operations of his subjects equally unsuccessful,
again hired a Genoese fleet to attack the Spaniards by sea; but the naval
warfare produced no result, and the Genoese concluded a separate peace.
The fame of the Catalans resounded through all Europe. Frederic of Sicily
became eager to revive the connection with them which he had been so anxious to
dissolve some years before. Fernand, the Infant of Majorca, arrived at
Gallipoli to take the command of the Grand Company as Lieutenant-general of the
King of Sicily. The Spaniards were now divided into three parties, who formed
separate bands. Rocafert, who had been elected
commander-in-chief, was at the head of the most numerous division, including
the Almogavars and the Turkish auxiliaries. D'Entenza,
who had been released by the Genoese at the request of the King of Aragon, had
returned to the army, and was now the leader of the Aragonese nobles; while a
third body followed the standard of Ximenes d'Arenos.
The Emperor Andronicus had laid waste the country between Selymbria
and Constantinople. No man could venture to till the ground within range of the
Catalan forays, so that it became necessary for the Grand Company to seek new
quarters. The arrival of the Infant Fernand enabled the army to move without
the three parties coining to open hostilities.
It was resolved to march into Macedonia and establish themselves in some
rich district which the evils of war had not yet reached. The army, which
consisted of about six thousand Spaniards and three thousand Turks, moved in
two divisions. The main body, under Rocafert, marched
a day’s journey in advance of the second division under d'Entenza
and Ximenes. The Infant Fernand placed himself in the second division. The
march was pursued with order for several days, but one day the main body
delayed moving from its quarters until noon; and the second division, having
passed the night in a spot where nothing was to be found, reached the quarters
of the main body before they were completely evacuated. A dispute took place
between the rear-guard of Rocafert and the advanced
guard of the second division; and d'Entenza, who
hastened to the front to arrest the disorder, was attacked and slain by the
brother of Rocafert. Ximenes d'Arenos
was compelled to fly for safety to a Greek fortress in the neighbourhood. Rocafert then persuaded the army to refuse acknowledging Fernand
as lieutenant-general of the King of Sicily, but it offered to elect him
commander-in-chief. Muntaner joined the army a short time after this
revolution. He had embarked the stores of the army, with two thousand women, in
the ships which had been collected for the expedition. Muntaner now resigned
his command, and attached himself to the Infant Fernand, who refused to violate
his engagements to the King of Sicily, and therefore quitted the Grand Company.
Rocafert continued his march, but being unable to
take the town of Christopolis, where the army had
proposed to pass the winter, he was compelled to proceed and occupy the
peninsula of Cassandria.
The operations of the Catalans in the year 1309 were not very successful.
The fortifications of Thessalonica were found in good order, and manned by a
strong garrison. They were repulsed in an attempt to storm the city, and when
they would fain have retraced their steps in order to regain their old quarters
in Thrace, they were unable to force the pass between the plain of Philippi and
Christopolis, through which they had penetrated with
considerable loss the preceding year. The position of the Grand Company was
growing difficult; and Rocafert, who was a mere
mercenary, began to open negotiations with the French admiral, Thibaut de Sipoys, in order to induce the Spaniards to recognize
Charles of Valois, the hereditary enemy of their nation, as their chief. But
the French admiral was meaner and more faithless than the treacherous
mercenary. He seized Rocafert, sailed away to Italy,
and delivered his prisoner to Robert, king of Naples, whom he had often
defeated in the field. The house of Anjou was a revengeful race; Rocafert was cast into a dungeon and starved to death. When
the perfidy of the French was known, and the Spaniards found they had lost
their leader, they massacred all their colonels for having connived at the
treachery of Sipoys. They elected new leaders, and,
marching forward, passed the winter in Thessaly. In the year 1310 they quitted
the Byzantine territory, and entered the service of the Duke of Athens. They
found the Vallachians of Thessaly a very different
race of men from the peasants of Thrace, and even the Byzantine officers in the
mountain districts of Macedonia offered a firmer resistance than the Catalans
had previously encountered.
Walter de Brienne, duke of Athens, quarrelled with the Catalans, and
perished in the battle of the Cephissus on the 15th
of March 1311. The conquest of Attica followed, which has been narrated in
another volume. The Turkish auxiliaries returned home after the battle of Cephissus, in order to enjoy the wealth they had amassed in
the expedition. The Emperor Andronicus allowed them to pass through the empire
unmolested, on condition that they refrained from every act of pillage, and
they reached the shore of the Hellespont, escorted by a corps of three thousand
Greek cavalry. The imperial government could never act either with honesty or
boldness. A plot was framed to disarm the Turks as they were waiting for vessels
to transport them over to Asia; but the Greeks were now so universally
distrusted that their plots had little chance of succeeding, for everybody
suspected their treachery and watched their proceedings. The Turks learned
their danger, surprised a neighbouring fort, and commenced plundering the
country. The Emperor Michael attacked them with the Greek army, but defeat was
his invariable companion. Khalil, the Turkish general, was a soldier formed in
the severe discipline of the Catalan camp; his superior generalship
and the perfect tactics of his troops gained a complete victory. The camp,
baggage, and imperial crown of Michael became the spoil of the conquerors.
Khalil gleaned the remains of the Catalan ravages.
Philes Paleologos, a man remarkable for his virtue, afflicted by the
sufferings of his fellow-countrymen, solicited the emperor for permission to
serve against the Turks. Andronicus, though he placed more confidence in his
piety than in the military operations he proposed, conferred on him the office
of Protostrator, and authorized him to levy an army.
The success of Philes proves that the ruin of the
empire was caused by the folly of Andronicus and the corruption of the
government. Philes enrolled only veteran Greek
soldiers, and selected officers of experience to birth and court favour.
The most important conquest of the time, however, was that of Rhodes, by
the Knights Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem, both from its durability and
from the renown of the conquerors. The knights had settled in Cyprus after they
had been expelled from Acre, but they were soon discontented to remain as
vassals of the King of Cyprus. They aspired to form a sovereign state, but it
was not easy to make any conquests from the Infidels in a position which they
could hope to maintain for any length of time. They therefore solicited
permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the Greeks. His Holiness
applauded their Christian zeal, and bestowed on them innumerable blessings and
indulgences, besides nine thousand ducats to aid their enterprise. Under the
pretext of a crusade for the recovery of Christ’s tomb, the knights collected a
force with which they besieged Rhodes. So great was their contempt for the
Greek emperor that they sent an embassy to Constantinople, requiring Andronicus
to withdraw his garrisons, and cede the island and its dependencies to them as
feudatories, offering to supply him with a subsidiary force of three hundred
cavalry. Andronicus dismissed the ambassadors, and sent an army to raise the
siege; but his troops were defeated, and the knights took the city of Rhodes on
the 15th August 1310. As sovereigns of this beautiful island, they were long
the bulwark of Christian Europe against the Turkish power; and the memory of the
chivalrous youth who for successive ages found an early tomb at this verge of
the Christian world, will long shed a romantic colouring on the history of
Rhodes. They sustained the declining glory of a state of society that was
hastening to become a vision of the past; they were the heroes of a class of
which the Norse sea-kings had been the demigods. The little realm they governed
as an independent state consisted of Rhodes, with the neighbouring islands of
Kos, Kalymnos, Syme, Leros, Nisyros,
Telos, and Chalke; on the opposite continent they possessed the classic city of
Halicarnassus, and several strong forts, of which the picturesque ruins still
overhang the sea.
The Emperor Andronicus II displayed the same want of sound judgment
and right feeling in his private that he did in his public conduct, and his
latter days were embittered by family disputes caused by his own folly and
injustice. His second wife, Irene of Montferrat, persecuted him with demands to
dismember the empire, in order to form appanages for her children. Andronicus
resisted her solicitations at the expense of a quarrel, and Irene long lived
separated from him at Thessalonica. The Emperor Michael allowed his father to
control the arrangements of his family and regulate his private actions. Michael’s
eldest son was named Andronicus. He was the third emperor of the name who
occupied the Byzantine throne, but he is known in history generally as
Andronicus the Younger. When a child, he was an especial favourite with his
grandfather, who directed his education. That education was undoubtedly a
mixture of unwise indulgence and capricious restraint. The young Andronicus
grew up a dissipated youth, and his debauched habits produced a terrible
tragedy in his family. He was informed that his favourite mistress admitted
another lover, and he employed bravos to waylay his rival. It happened that on
that very night his own brother Manuel hastened quickly to the lady’s house,
where he expected to find Andronicus. The assassins mistook the despot for the
lover, and Manuel was murdered on the spot. The dreadful news reached their
father Michael at Thessalonica, where he was residing in a declining state of
health. Anguish soon terminated his life.
The young Andronicus was now heir-apparent to the empire, if the
expression be admissible in a state without a fixed order of hereditary
succession; but the murder of Manuel changed the affection of the old emperor
into implacable hatred, and it was generally thought that the reigning
sovereign had the power of naming his successor. The Emperor Michael VIII had
introduced the custom, that a new oath of allegiance should be taken whenever a
change occurred in the order of succession. When Michael, the son of Andronicus
II, died, the new oath was administered in the name of Andronicus II alone, and
did not contain that of Andronicus III, who was the direct heir.
It also contained a clause promising implicit obedience to whomsoever he might
declare emperor. These circumstances indicated that he intended to exclude his
grand-son from the throne; nor was he long in selecting a favourite on whom it
was supposed he intended to confer the imperial title. The choice was marked by
the singular perverseness which characterized many of his most important acts.
He had compelled his second son Constantine to marry the daughter of his
favourite minister, Muzalon. The incidents of this
union were both ridiculous and disgraceful. The lady had been destined to be
the bride of Theodore, the emperor’s brother, when it was discovered that she
had already indulged in illicit intercourse with one of her relations, and
would have presented the imperial family very prematurely with an intruder.
Theodore broke off the match; but the emperor, moved by his attachment to the
father, and by the penitence of the fair sinner, subsequently compelled his own
son Constantine to marry her. The young prince thought himself entitled to have
a bastard as well as his wife. The youth was named Michael Katharos,
and became so great a favourite with his grandfather, the Emperor Andronicus,
that he showed a disposition to adopt him as the heir to the empire, but the
representations of his ministers prevented this act of folly.
The government of the old emperor was now generally unpopular; and as he
was suspected of being anxious to prevent his grandson Andronicus from
succeeding to the throne, the cause of the prince was made the rallying-point
of the discontented. The younger Andronicus was a lover of pleasure,
extravagant in his expenses, careless in his disposition, but possessing a fund
of good-humour that rendered him personally extremely popular. Nor was he by
any means destitute of ability and courage. A party formed itself round the
young prince, who was treated by his grandfather with unjust severity. He was prohibited
from wearing the dress of the heir-apparent, and not allowed to visit the
palace. The most distinguished partisans of Andronicus the younger were Cantacuzenos the historian, a man of the highest rank, of
extensive connections among the Byzantine aristocracy, of great wealth,
ability, and military as well as literary accomplishments, but devoured by
ambition, and overflowing with cunning and self-conceit; Synadenos,
a man of equal rank and talent; and Sir Janni, a man
of superior boldness and ability, but with want of fixed principles and steady
conduct that gave him the character of a political adventurer. With these it is
necessary to mention Apokaukos, who was the ablest
administrator and financier of the party. The intrigues of the partisans of the
young prince did not escape the attention of the emperor’s ministers, who
would, doubtless, have maintained order by arresting the most dangerous, had
not Andronicus been more anxious to punish his grandson, by depriving him of
all chance of succeeding to the empire, than to prevent a rebellion. He now
resolved to bring the prince to a public trial; and on Palm Sunday, 1321, the
young Andronicus was unexpectedly summoned to the palace of Blachern.
His partisans comprehended that the crisis of their own fate, as well as that
of the prince, must be decided before sunset. Cantacuzenos
and Synadenos accordingly assembled their followers,
and filled the palace with a force that so completely intimidated both the
judges and the emperor that the prince was pardoned, and a feigned
reconciliation took place between the grandfather and the grandson. Andronicus
II resolved to remove Cantacuzenos and Synadenos from his grandson’s society, for he justly
considered them as the authors of the plots against his government. Cantacuzenos was named governor of Thessaly, and Synadenos was sent to Prilapos.
These officers collected as many troops as they were able, under the pretence
of repairing to their posts; and when their levies were completed, they marched
to Adrianople, where the young Andronicus joined them, and raised the standard
of rebellion.
The prince was popular; he gained the people by proclaiming that the
province of Thrace was exempt from some of the most onerous taxes, and his
mercenaries enabled him to advance against Constantinople. But his soldiers,
who cared little for political questions, pillaged the inhabitants wherever
they passed; bands of robbers began to lay waste the villages which had escaped
destruction from the Catalans and the Turks, and the collectors of the public
revenue, availing themselves of these disorders, embezzled the money in their
hands. Cantacuzenos says that the young Andronicus
was averse to march against his grandfather, fearing lest his army should storm
Constantinople. In order, therefore, to prevent his grandfather from being
dethroned, he wrote secretly to the old emperor, to advise that measures might
be concerted to turn aside the first ardour of his own troops. The double-
dealing and treachery of the leaders of both parties render the circumstance
not improbable, and nothing can be a better apology for the apathy of the
Greeks concerning the fate of their government. But their cowardice in failing
to assert their inalienable rights as citizens to a just administration of their
civil and ecclesiastical affairs is not so easily explained, for it proceeded
from the complication of causes which had produced national degradation as well
as weakness. The Emperor Andronicus II, seeing that it was not in his power to
resist the military force his grandson had brought into the field, resolved to
yield to the principal demands of the rebels, and recommence the contest by a
war of intrigue. A treaty was concluded at Rhegion,
where the prince had established his head-quarters, by which the rights of
Andronicus the younger to the succession of the empire were recognized, and he
was invested with the government of Thrace from Selymbria
to Christopolis as his appanage.
This peace was of very short duration. The prince carried on his debaucheries
at Adrianople, unrestrained either by prudence or decency. He was soon in want
of money to supply his extravagance and reward his mercenaries, for he had
freed the people in his appanage from the most profitable taxes to gain their
support to his rebellion, and he did not now venture to annul his concession.
An attempt which he made to seduce the wife of Sir Janni
caused that able and daring leader to return to the service of the emperor, and
point out to the revengeful grandfather the advantages he could derive from the
immediate renewal of the war. The exactions of the prince s troops, and the
intrigues of Sir Janni and the emperor, induced
several cities of Thrace to desert the party of the young Andronicus. Heracleia received an imperial garrison, and the prince,
finding that his cause was losing ground, assembled his army and laid siege to
the city in November 1321. His troops had clamoured for the renewal of the war
during the summer; they were averse to keep the field in winter, so that, when
the attack on Heracleia was defeated, the prince
marched up to the walls of Constantinople. He had now few partisans in the
capital, and he was soon compelled to retire into winter-quarters at Didymoteichos. In the meantime Sir Janni
re-established the emperor’s authority in Apros, Garellas, Redestos, Bizya, and Sergentzion, and laid
siege to Selymbria. The unpopularity and avarice of
Andronicus did more for the rebels than the military talents of Cantacuzenos and Synadenos, or
the courage of the prince. In the campaign of 1322 they recovered all they had
lost during the winter, chiefly by the desertion of the emperor’s troops.
Thessalonica declared in favour of young Andronicus, and his uncle Constantine,
whom the emperor was supposed to be on the point of declaring heir to the
empire, and of investing with the imperial title, was made prisoner. The young
Andronicus on this occasion showed that, with all his easy good-humour, there
was some leaven of the malignant nature of the house of Paleologos in his
heart. The Despot Constantine was treated with great cruelty. After submitting
to many insults, he was let down into a cistern at Didymoteichos,
and allowed to remain in this damp chamber, cut in the rock, for some time,
before his nephew would order him to be transferred to a suitable place of
confinement. Neither the emperor nor young Andronicus possessed the talents
necessary for conducting the civil war; and while the ministers of the emperor
were afraid of treason, the counsellors of the prince were embarrassed by the
indiscipline of the rebel troops : both were more attentive to their own
private interests than to those of their masters or of the empire. A new treaty
of peace was concluded at Epibates in July 1322,
which removed some of the causes of dissatisfaction to both parties. The troops
of young Andronicus were provided for by a donative, and by the ratification of
the grants of land they had received in Thrace. The prince was guaranteed an
annual pension from the imperial treasury of thirty-six thousand byzants, and
the emperor resumed the whole civil and fiscal administration of the appanage
conceded to his grandson by the treaty of Rhegion.
This second peace existed for five years. It would have been
difficult, even for prudent friends and honourable counsellors, to have
established a sincere reconciliation between the elder and younger Andronicus,
but both were in reality surrounded by selfish intriguers, and guided by bad
passions. The apparent calm at court was marked by two events, which indicate
the operation of different causes. On the 2d of February 1325, Andronicus the
younger received the imperial crown. This may be considered a proof that the
ministers of the old emperor had persuaded him to stifle all his resentment,
and lay aside his schemes for excluding his grandson from the throne. But in
the following year the two emperors allowed the city of Prusa
to be taken by the Ottoman Turks, without either making an effort to relieve
it. This fact seems to prove that neither could allow his best officers and
troops to succour this important city, lest his colleague should take advantage
of their absence. Intrigues followed intrigues. The old emperor was ready to
avail himself of the assistance either of the Servians
or the Bulgarians against his grandson, though he made no exertions to defend
the empire against the Turks. The young emperor, while he pretended to be eager
to attack the Mohammedans, was really forming an alliance with the King of
Bulgaria to oppose his grandfather.
The malignant old Andronicus could not learn that the coronation of his
grandson had put an end to all chance of depriving him of the succession. The
young man continued his extravagance and debauchery. After many acts of
violence on both sides, the old emperor named a commission, consisting of
eighteen ecclesiastics and six senators, who proceeded to Rhegion,
where the younger Andronicus had taken up his temporary residence, to state
articles of accusation against him, and hear his defence. These charges were,
that he had unlawfully appropriated to his private use large sums of money
belonging to the public treasury; that the expenses of his household were
extravagant; that he had driven several governors named by the emperor from
their posts, and replaced them by officers of his own nomination, in violation
of all law; and that his debauchery and vicious conduct threatened society with
dissolution, for he had assailed the honour of his aunt Simonida,
the widow of the Krall of Servia, who had taken the veil. Cantacuzenos
says much concerning the calumnies and perjuries, which owed their existence to
the instigations of the elder Andronicus, but not a syllable concerning the
accusation of incest that was officially brought forward against the younger.
He omits entirely the charges which were made against his patron, though he
mentions that they were read in the assembly at Rhegion;
and he endeavours to confuse the judgment of his readers by recording the vague
declamation of Andronicus the younger in praise of his own virtues. The
violence and indecency with which the old emperor attacked his grandson threw
discredit on his cause. The majority of the commissioners were anxious to avoid
a civil war, which any attempt to change the order of succession was sure to
produce, at a time when the Turks, Servians, and
Bulgarians, were all ready to take advantage of any opportunity to dismember
the empire. As the report of the commissioners was favourable to the younger
Andronicus, the emperor refused to receive it. He ordered his grand-son’s name
to be omitted in the public prayers, and when the Patriarch Isaiah refused to
transmit this order to the clergy, he was confined as a prisoner in the
monastery of Mangana.
The young emperor could no longer avoid an appeal to arms. The civil war
was renewed under circumstances extremely unfavourable to the old emperor,
whose conduct rendered it inevitable. The people were universally
disgusted with his despotism and injustice, and the young Andronicus seems to
have expected that they would have immediately admitted him into
Constantinople. Finding that this could not be effected, he hastened into
Macedonia in the midst of winter, leaving the Protostrator
Synadenos to blockade the capital. Liberal promises
of reduced taxation, and the assurance that all arrears due to the imperial
treasury should be cancelled, insured his entry into most of the towns, and
rendered his march a triumph. Thessalonica, Edessa, Kastoria,
Beroea, Pelagonia, Achrida,
and Deabolis, opened their gates. The Krall of
Servia, who consulted his own interest, refused to assist the officers of the
reigning emperor, and took advantage of the confusion to gain possession of the
frontier fortress of Prosakon. Strumbitza
and Melenikon were the only strong places that
remained in the possession of the partisans of Andronicus II.
While these events happened, Synadenos gained a
complete victory over the garrison of Constantinople, on its making an attempt
to raise the blockade. When the news of this victory reached young Andronicus,
he hastened to the army before the walls of the capital. Treasonable assistance
was soon secured, and on the night of Monday, 23d of May 1328, a party of
soldiers scaled the walls; the garrison joined in proclaiming Andronicus III;
the gates were thrown open, and the young emperor marched directly to the
imperial palace to assure his grandfather, that though he had ceased to govern,
he would be treated with all the honour due to a sovereign prince. The young
emperor then performed his devotions in the Church of St Sophia, and reinstated
his friend, the Patriarch Isaiah, in the government of the church.
This conquest of Constantinople was attended with few disorders; the palace
of the grand logothetes Metochites, the favourite
minister of the dethroned emperor, was the only house that was pillaged. The
old emperor continued to reside in the palace with a pension of twenty-four
thousand byzants; but he was forsaken by all his flatterers, and few pitied him
or regretted his fall. Two years after the taking of Constantinople, Andronicus
III was attacked by a serious illness, and his ministers feared lest his
grand-father might again recover the throne. To prevent the possibility of this
event, Synadenos compelled the old man to become a
monk, and to sign a declaration that he would never again mount the throne, nor
pretend to dispose of the empire, in case of his grandson’s death. Andronicus
II had already lost the use of his eyes, and this, his last public act, was
signed with two crosses, one in red ink as emperor, and another in black as a
humble monk. The Patriarch Isaiah sent to congratulate him on his change of
life : the petulant old man regarded the message as an insult, and sent back
some violent and probably not unjust reproaches to the head of the church. His
name continued to be mentioned in the public prayers as the most religious and
most Christian basileus, the monk Antony. One evening, after a literary party
at which his daughter Simonida was present, he was
suddenly seized with an illness which soon terminated his life. He expired on
the 13th of February 1332, in the seventy-fourth year of his age.
Andronicus II was a man who, with few personal vices, possessed many
of the worst qualities of a sovereign. He had capacity enough to direct the
whole civil and ecclesiastical business of the empire, but was destitute of the
judgment necessary to direct it well. He rarely took a right step, and never at
the proper time; so that his petulant pride and pedantic despotism proved more
ruinous to the emperor than the worst vices of many of his predecessors. His
ecclesiastical bigotry especially served as an instrument of Providence for
effecting the ruin and degradation of the orthodox Eastern Church, and of the
Greek race. That the Greeks allowed themselves to be so long misled and
oppressed by so worthless and weak a sovereign, may perhaps be accepted as a
proof that the nation was sunk in selfishness and bigotry like the emperor.
Sect. III
REIGN OF ANDRONCUS III THE
YOUNGER
A.D.1328-1341.
The private character of Andronicus III had some singular features, which
excite our curiosity to learn more than history has preserved concerning his
personal opinions. His health was weak, but he displayed a restless activity in
his amusements; his talents were considerable, but he was indolent and careless
in transacting public business; his thoughtless disposition and easy temper
enabled him to banish from his mind the memory of the crimes with which his
youthful passions had tortured his own family, and the misery they had
inflicted on the whole empire. Instead of tormenting him with remorse, the
fearful events of his life appeared to be the work of destiny, and he consoled
himself alike for his crimes and his misfortunes by a faith that diminished his
own personal responsibility. His indolence induced him to confide the direction
of public business to his ministers; but his cynicism prevented his placing
implicit trust even in his favourites, and his abilities enabled him to see
through the selfish motives of his most obsequious partisans. The condition of
Greek society, sinking into a state of political weakness, moral degradation,
and military incapacity, and daily suffering every evil from all the
neighbouring nations, might have persuaded men, more virtuous and pious than
Andronicus III, that the rapid diminution of the Greek race, which was taking
place before his eyes, was to be directly attributed to a judgment of God.
The opinions as well as the indolence of Andronicus gave him a
contempt for the ceremonials that formed an important part of the emperor’s
duty. He abolished many courtly pageants, and absented himself even from some
ecclesiastical ceremonies that had been regarded by his predecessors as
necessary exhibitions of imperial dignity. At the same time, he astonished the
courtiers by mingling with the people, and by admitting every subject, without
distinction, to his audience-chamber. In the opinion of the staunch
conservatives of Constantinople, the changes he allowed in ceremonials, and the
alterations he tolerated in dress, foreshadowed the ruin of the empire more
surely than the lavish expenditure of the revenue, the incessant devastations
of the Bulgarians, Servians, Moguls, Turks, and
Albanians, and the corruption in the administration of justice. The only
violent passion Andronicus appears to have retained on the throne was his love
of hunting; the expense of his establishment was immense; and every suitor who
had a boon to ask knew that the surest way of gaining his end was to present
the emperor with a well-trained falcon, a noble hound, or an Arabian horse. His
love of active exertion, and his eagerness for personal excitement, joined to
his contempt for Byzantine etiquette, induced him to take part in the jousts
and tournaments which the nobles of Savoy, who accompanied his second wife, the
Empress Anne, had introduced at the court of Constantinople. To the amazement
of the long-robed senators and courtiers, he rushed into the mêlée without a
crown on his helmet, and exposed himself to his opponents without a sign to
indicate that, if they respected the emperor, they must spare their blows. With
his ministers of state he held little private intercourse. John Cantacuzenos became his prime-minister, and continued to be
his personal friend; he alone enjoyed unreserved communication with his master;
but Andronicus had discernment enough to perceive that a character so
intriguing and false as that of Cantacuzenos could
not be thoroughly honest, and he balanced his authority by the power he
conferred on Synadenos, Apokaukos,
and the Patriarch John of Apri.
The accession of Andronicus III put an end to the civil war; but it brought
little relief to the inhabitants of the empire, nor did it arrest the decline
of the Greek nation. The emperor was indolent, his prime-minister was vain and
incapable, so that no systematic plan was adopted either for reforming the
abuses of the internal government or for defending the frontiers. The whole
Greek nation, civilians and ecclesiastics, must share the responsibility of the
decay of the empire with Andronicus, who really made one great attempt to
eradicate the worst social evil of his age. His judgment revealed to him more
clearly than to his prime-minister, that the corruption in the administration
of justice was the worm which secretly consumed all the national energy; and
knowing that, until justice was equitably administered, it would be impossible
to reform the public administration, he determined to put an end to the
prevailing judicial iniquities. To effect this, he appointed four chief
justices, of whom one was a bishop, and these judges were ordered to sit in
open court in the Church of St Sophia, and decide all civil suits. The result
of this measure affords a fearful picture of the incorrigible degradation of
Greek society at this unhappy period. These judges were intrusted with great
authority; they were rendered independent by large salaries, and they were
compelled to give an oath that they would administer justice impartially, under
the sanction of those fearful imprecations which the Greek Church makes use of
in order to strengthen the moral feelings by ecclesiastical forms and terrors.
Yet Andronicus was soon overwhelmed with proofs that three of his chief
justices, including the bishop, made a shameless traffic of their judicial
decisions. They were tried and convicted in a solemn tribunal which sate in the
Church of St Sophia, from whence their corrupt sentences had issued. The bishop
was degraded and incarcerated; and the real cause of the victories of the barbarians,
and of the commercial superiority of the Italians, was thus rendered apparent
to every reflecting man.
The intrigues of the court fill many pages of the works of Cantacuzenos and Gregoras, but
they produced so little change in the troubled current of events, that it is
only necessary to notice that the reign of Andronicus was not free from those
court conspiracies for seizing the throne which were an incurable intermittent
disease of the Byzantine despotism. Sir Janni ended
his many plots by a rebellion, which so alarmed the emperor and his
prime-minister that they sent a courtier to assassinate him. The Despot
Demetrius formed a plot to seize his nephew’s throne, which proved abortive;
and Phrantzes Paleologos, the assassin of Sir Janni, hatched another conspiracy, but he had not inherited
the great talents and indefatigable activity of the man he had murdered. As
Andronicus lived among a small circle, the ladies of his court exercised a
degree of influence which might have proved highly injurious, as it certainly
increased the number of party intrigues. But the chief ladies of the court seem
to have possessed more virtue and quite as much talent as the men. Indeed,
Theodore, the mother of Cantacuzenos, whose
connections, rank, and wealth gave her great influence, was evidently superior
in ability to her son.
Andronicus had little intercourse with the courts of Western Europe; but at
the commencement of his reign an embassy from Louis of Bavaria, the Emperor of
Germany, visited Constantinople to demand a sum of money which it would seem
had been promised for some military operations against the house of Anjou. The
greediness of the Bavarians astonished even the Greek courtiers, who were
themselves insatiable; but the want of money in the imperial treasury was
great, and the services of Louis the Bavarian were no longer wanted, so his
ambassadors were dismissed with diplomatic evasions. Cantacuzenos
boasts that he frustrated the demands of the Germans by offering to furnish
their sovereign with a corps of auxiliary troops.
The first campaign of Andronicus was against his brother-in-law, Michael,
king of Bulgaria, who invaded the empire and advanced as far as Didymoteichos, but was compelled to retire when the emperor
took the field. The war was distinguished by no important action, and at the
end of the following year hostilities were suspended and peace
concluded under the mediation of Xenia, the mother of Andronicus, and of
the Queen of Bulgaria. The war which took place after the death of Michael, and
the hostilities which Andronicus carried on with Stephen Dushan
and the Servians, do not require to be detailed.
The political importance of the reign of Andronicus III in European
history can be more correctly appreciated by comparing it with that of Orkhan, the sovereign of the Ottoman Turks, than by
reviewing all the events of his desultory wars. To his contemporaries
Andronicus appeared as the powerful and wealthy emperor of an extensive but
ill-organised state, and of a numerous but degenerated people; while Orkhan seemed nothing more than the able and active leader
of a confederacy of nomad tribes, and the receiver of the tribute of a few
recently-conquered Greek cities. To us Andronicus has dwindled into a mere name
in Byzantine chronology, while Orkhan stands forward
in the world’s history as one of the few lawgivers who created a nation and
founded an empire by his own legislative enactments. The legislation of Orkhan belongs to a later period of his reign; but the
Ottoman Turks already displayed more systematic habits and a higher sense of
the value of order as well as justice, than the Seljouk
tribes.
The manner employed by the Ottomans to gain possession of the large,
populous, and well-fortified cities, inhabited by wealthy but unwarlike Greeks,
was not unlike that employed by the Dorians in the early ages of Greece.
Indeed, it is almost the only way by which the courage and perseverance of a
small force can conquer art and numbers. Instead of attempting to form a
regular blockade of the city against which they directed their operations, and
thereby compelling the inhabitants to exert all their unbroken power to deliver
themselves from the attack, the Ottoman Turks established some strong posts in
the vicinity of the city, ravaged the fields, carried off the cattle and
slaves, and interrupted the commercial communications of the inhabitants. The
devastation of the country and the insecurity of the roads gradually raised the
price of provisions, and caused emigration and famine. In this way, Nicaea, the
cradle of the Greek church, and which had been for two generations the capital
of the Greek empire, was closely blockaded; and in order to prevent its
surrender, Andronicus must not only have thrown large supplies of provisions into
the city, but have undertaken a military expedition to drive the besiegers from
their fortified posts. This would not have been a very difficult operation, for
it was easy to open communications between Constantinople and Nicaea by Kios and the lake Askanias, and
in that way concentrate an overwhelming force at Nicaea. To prevent any
military operation of this kind, Orkhan resolved to
transfer the seat of war to the neighbourhood of Constantinople.
In the spring of 1329 the Ottomans had passed Nicomedia, and
threatened to lay waste all the open country as far as the Asiatic suburbs of
the capital. The people of Constantinople were alarmed for their property; the
danger of Nicaea was forgotten, and the emperor was compelled to take the field
in person, with some precipitation. Two thousand veteran troops could alone be
spared from the garrison of the capital; the rest of the army was hastily
collected from the militia in the Thracian cities, whose discipline had been
relaxed during the civil wars, and who were now brigaded together without much
skill. A numerous fleet of boats transported the troops over to Skutari, and attended their march as if to secure an easy
mode of retreat. The emperor led his army by short marches along the gulf of
Nicomedia, and on the morning of the third day he reached Pelekanon,
where he found Orkhan encamped with about eight
thousand men in a secure position on the hills. A council of war decided that
it would be imprudent to advance farther, but advised the emperor to offer
battle to the Turks next day.
Orkhan, who felt no desire to risk the success of his operations
against Nicaea in a pitched battle, kept his station on the slopes of the
Bithynian hills, where ravines and broken ground enabled his light cavalry to
avoid the charge of the Byzantine men-at-arms, but from whence they could
descend and skirmish with the Greeks. The position of Orkhan
might have been turned without difficulty, and the emperor might have crossed
the gulf with his fleet, and taken the shortest road to Nicaea, which he could
have reached long before the Turks; but neither Andronicus nor his
prime-minister Cantacuzenos were capable of planning
or executing a combined series of military movements. After a day spent in
desultory engagements, the emperor resolved to withdraw his army into the camp
at Pelekanon; and Cantacuzenos
recommended that, as there was no danger of the Turks advancing any farther, it
would be as well to lead the army back to Constantinople. As the Greeks were
retiring into their camp, the Turks pressed on their rear-guard, and the
emperor, in repulsing their attack, received a wound in the thigh. Both armies
then retired into their camps. Unfortunately there was no general capable of
taking the emperor’s place in the Greek camp. The soldiers had no confidence in
Cantacuzenos, on whom the chief command devolved, and
he was unable to preserve order during the night. A report was spread among the
soldiers that the emperor’s wound was dangerous, perhaps mortal; the recent
levies attempted to escape on board the fleet; a body of Turks, stationed to
watch the Greek army, perceived the confusion, and attacked the fugitives; a
panic spread through the camp; the emperor was embarked in a small boat, and
escaped to Philokrene, a maritime fort on the road to
Constantinople. It was necessary to commence an immediate retreat, and the army
was separated into four divisions, which marched towards the neighbouring forts
of Niketiates, Dakybiza, Ritzion, and Philokrene. Morning
showed the Turkish army the camp at Pelekanon
completely deserted, and the time they spent in plundering it enabled three of
the divisions of the flying army to effect their retreat in safety. A body of
Ottoman cavalry, however, hung on the rear of the division that marched to Philokrene, which must have sufFered
severely in this disgraceful retreat, for two officers of high rank were slain.
The Emperor Andronicus sailed to Constantinople without making an effort to
repair the honour of his arms. He consoled himself for his disgrace by reflecting
that the real loss of the imperial army in killed and wounded was
inconsiderable, and that he would gain credit for having saved the property of
the Constantinopolitans, as summer was now so far advanced that the nomad Turks
would retire with their plunder to their pastoral encampments on the Bithynian
Olympus, leaving Orkhan to watch the siege of Nicaea.
The battle of Pelekanon was the first engagement
in which the Emperor of the Greeks had encountered the ottoman sultan.
Insignificant as it really was, its moral effect was incalculable; the
heavy-armed and disciplined Greeks had fled before the light-armed and
irregular Turks; and the spirit of the Greek emperor and of the Greek nation
was broken. The capitulation of Nicaea, which Cantacuzenos
passes over in silence, took place in the following year (1330). Its conditions
were remarkable. Every person who desired to quit the city was allowed to
retire with all his movable property. Orkhan
consented to allow the Greeks to transport their ecclesiastical archives and
sacred relics to Constantinople, and adopted effectual means for insuring the
execution of every article of the capitulation. The Greeks acquired confidence
in the justice as well as the power of his administration, and few of the inhabitants
of Nicaea availed themselves of the permission to emigrate. The municipal
constitution of the city was again called into active operation as a principle
of government, and the inhabitants were relieved from the oppressive
centralisation of the Byzantine system which treated the empire as a fiscal
domain, and every magistrate as little more than a fiscal agent. The Ottoman
Turks were still few in number, simple in their habits, and restrained in their
power by their rivality with the neighbouring Seljouk princes; so that the condition of the Greeks under
the government of Orkhan was better than under the
imperial sway; their taxes were lighter, and they were secure from the ravages
of hostile invaders.
After the taking of Nicaea, Orkhan besieged
and captured Kios (Ghiumlek),
which served as its port Nicomedia was closely watched, and the harvest of its
inhabitants destroyed; but Andronicus in person supplied the city with
provisions, and a treaty of peace, which he concluded with the sultan, delayed
its fall. The principal object of this treaty appears to have been to secure
the property of the citizens of Constantinople on the Asiatic side of the
Bosphorus from devastation. Cantacuzenos mentions
that Orkhan engaged not to molest the few Greeks who
were still subjects of the emperor in Asia Minor, but he omits to notice the
concessions by which this boon was purchased. At all events, the peace was not
of long duration, and Nicomedia surrendered to Orkhan
about the commencement of the year 1338. Orkhan also
made an attempt to commence his system of blockade by seizing forts in the
vicinity of Constantinople, both in Europe and Asia, but he was not yet able to
succeed in so great an enterprise.
The danger to which his capital was exposed induced Andronicus to pay
some attention to his fleet; but the measures he adopted only increased the
disorder in the imperial administration. Apokaukos
was appointed grand-duke or high admiral, on condition that he expended one
hundred thousand byzants in fitting out the fleet. That wily financier not only
fulfilled his engagement, but also fortified Epibates,
one of the fortresses in the vicinity of Constantinople best adapted to baffle
the operations of the Ottomans, which he held as his own private castle.
During the whole reign of Andronicus, even the European provinces of his
empire were infested by incessant invasions of the Turks. The neglect
of the Greek navy by Andronicus II allowed the Turks to make piracy a
profitable occupation. Andronicus III attempted to diminish the evil by forming
alliances with the Seljouk emirs of Karasi, Saroukhan, and Aïdin, but he was unable to prevent the islands of the
Aegean Sea and all the continent, from the walls of Constantinople to the rocks
of Maina, from being plundered, and the inhabitants
carried off into slavery. These unceasing devastations, and the constant demand
for men, women, and children, in the slave-markets of the Turkish cities of
Asia, caused a sensible diminution of the Greek race during a single
generation. In the year 1329 or 1330, a fleet of seventy ships landed an army
that ravaged the valley of the Hebrus as far as Trajanopolis. Fortunately the emperor was at Didymoteichos, and the force he was able to assemble
arrested their devastations, and repulsed them with some loss. In the following
year a body of Turkish cavalry crossed the Hellespont, but of these plunderers
about fifteen hundred were cut in pieces by the imperial troops. In 1331,
another army landed in Europe, and laid waste the country round Redestos, Kissos, Polyvoton, and Akonites, and the
emperor again took the field to drive them back to their ships. In 1332, an
army landed in the gulf of Thessalonica, while the emperor was marching from Rhendina to Thessalonica. He overtook and defeated this
expedition, and captured all the Turkish ships but two. In 1334, the Turkish
corsairs committed terrible depredations in the Greek islands, and captured
many merchant ships. As a proof of the naval power of the Seljouk
emirs at this time, it may be mentioned that when Andronicus formed an alliance
with the emirs of Saroukhan and Aïdin
against the Genoese of Phocaea, he obtained a reinforcement of twenty-four
vessels from Saroukhan, and of thirty from Amour, the
son of Aïdin. Amour had previously invaded the empire
with a fleet of seventy-five ships. In the year 1337, another enemy laid waste
a great part of Thrace. A horde of Moguls crossed the Danube, and plundered the
territory of the empire for upwards of six weeks. During this expedition they
fell in with a band of Turks who crossed the sea from Asia, and were also
engaged in plundering the country. The Moguls attacked and defeated the Turks,
whom they carried off into slavery, mingled with the Greeks. Nicephorus Gregoras asserts that the Moguls carried away three hundred
thousand captives from Thrace in this expedition. In the same year the troops
of Orkhan were repulsed in an attack on Rhegion, after they had landed and set fire to the houses.
The sudden arrival of the Byzantine fleet gave the Greeks a superiority, and a
large part of the ottoman naval force was captured. Other expeditions are
mentioned by Gregoras, who recounts that, in the year
1340, an army of eight thousand Turks, attended by a long train of pack-horses
for transporting their plunder, overran all Thrace as far as the foot of Mount
Haemus, and, after leisurely transporting their booty to their ships, returned
to Asia without encountering any opposition.
Several Genoese nobles had acquired considerable possessions in the empire
as vassals, but they really governed them as independent princes. Andronicus
III resolved to reestablish the imperial authority.
In the year 1329 he regained possession of Chios, which had been occupied by
the family of Zaccaria, in the reign of Andronicus II, under the pretext that
the island had been granted to them by Michael VIII. The recovery of Chios was
effected by the treachery of Benedetto Zaccaria, the brother of the ruling
noble, and by the assistance of the Greek inhabitants. As Chios then yielded an
annual revenue of one hundred and twenty thousand byzants to the public
treasury, it was a valuable if not a glorious conquest. Phocaea was held by the
Genoese family of Cattaneo: and it was also reduced
to obedience with the assistance of the Seljouk emirs
of Saroukhan and Aïdin, but
soon rebelled under Domenico Cattaneo, who formed an
alliance with Nicholas, duke of the Archipelago, and the knights of Rhodes. A
naval station was formed by the knights of Rhodes at Delos to protect the
Archipelago from the piratical expeditions of the Turks. Domenico Cattaneo made an attempt to conquer Lesbos, but the Emperor
Andronicus arriving with a fleet, and the allies of Domenico abandoning his
cause, both Lesbos and Phocaea received Byzantine garrisons.
Andronicus sought to acquire glory by distant and desultory wars, in which
victory was hardly doubtful, and temporary conquests were easily acquired. The
defence of his own subjects, the permanent interests of his people, and the
most necessary arrangements in the administration of the empire, were neglected
to gratify the idle military vanity which was the fashionable vice of the age.
In these expeditions the prime-minister Cantacuzenos
had generally some private object of ambition to gain. He increased his
influence, extended his party connections, and prepared to
maintain himself in power after the death of Andronicus, whose health was
rapidly declining.
While the Turks were continually ravaging Thrace and Macedonia,
Andronicus made three expeditions into Epirus. The first expedition took place
in the year 1334. Stephen Gabrielopoulos governed
Thessaly for some time as an independent prince, but with the title of despot.
On his death, Monomachos, the governor of
Thessalonica, recovered possession of the towns of Golos,
Kastri, and Lykostoma. At
the same time John Dukas, despot of Epirus, and Count
of Cephallenia, seized Stagos,
Trikala, Phanari, Damasis,
and Elasson. Andronicus, thinking the moment
favourable for annexing the whole of Thessaly to the empire, took the field in
person, and Recovered all the towns occupied by the Despot of Epirus. Three
Albanian tribes, the Malakasians, Bouians,
and Mesarits, who could muster a force of twelve
thousand men, made their submission, and tranquillity was established for some
time.
In the year 1337, the news that the Turks and Moguls were ravaging Thrace
appears to have induced the Albanians in the neighbourhood of the fortresses of
Valagrita and Kanina to
plunder the Greeks in their vicinity and lay siege to several towns. The
emperor took the field against them in person, proposing to carry his arms
afterwards southward against the despotat of Epirus.
The Albanians had hoped to secure their plunder in their mountain fastnesses,
but two thousand Turkish auxiliaries in the emperor’s pay proved as active
in mountain warfare as the Skipetars. Not only the
booty recently taken was recovered, but the native fastnesses of the Albanians
were stormed, and their wives and children reduced to slavery by the Turks. Cantacuzenos, on this occasion, indulges in a vain boast
that the Greek troops in the imperial army were not allowed to enslave their
fellow-Christians, but we must not forget that the imperial army was unable to
subdue these fellow-Christians without the assistance of Turkish mercenaries, who
were allowed to pay themselves by carrying away Christians as slaves. The
Mohammedans took what they considered the most valuable part of the booty, and
left the cattle to the emperor’s troops. The number of slaves taken on this
occasion is not recorded; but 5,000 horses, 300,000 oxen, and 1,200,000 sheep
were captured.
The despotat of Epirus, which owed its
independent existence to the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders, had
now remained separated from the empire for a hundred and thirty years. It was
formed by members of the family of Angelos, but
passed by marriage and assassination into the allied family of the Counts of Cephallenia, who assumed the name of Dukas.
The assassination of John Dukas by his wife Anne,
daughter of the protovestiarios Andronikos
Palaeologos, in the year 1337, enabled his murderess
to govern as regent for her son Nicephorus II, a child of seven years of age.
Anne, finding that she would be unable to maintain her authority, invited the
Emperor Andronicus to take possession of the despotat,
and succeeded in placing all its fortresses in his hands without opposition.
After the emperors return to Constantinople, a party in Epirus took up arms
and gained possession of the three principal fortresses near the coast, Arta, Rogo, and Thomokastron (a.C. 1339). Andronicus again visited Epirus in person,
though he was in a weak state of health. He recovered the fortresses from the
rebels, and pacified the country, but did not long survive his return to
Constantinople, dying on the 15th June 1341, and leaving his son John V., a
child nine years of age, his successor.
Sect. IV
Reign of John V (Palaeologos), A.D. 1341-1391, including the Reigns of John Cantacuzenos, A.D. 1347- 1354, and of Andronicus, the son
of John V, A.D. 1375-1376 and 1379-1381.
The Empress Anne of Savoy was, both by the nomination of the deceased
emperor and by the custom of the empire, regent during the minority of her son
John V (Palaeologos). Byzantine etiquette required
her to weep for nine days beside the body of her husband, who expired in the
habit of a monk in the monastery of the Guiding Virgin; but John Cantacuzenos, the grand domestikos,
who directed the public administration as first minister of state, having
immediately established himself in the imperial palace in order to constitute
himself tutor to the young emperor, and having assumed a guard of five hundred
men, the widowed empress deemed it necessary to return to the palace on the
third day, that she might watch over the rights of her children. The absence of
a strict rule of hereditary succession, and the contempt of the Greek nobles
for every principle of law and equity, rendered the imperial crown a prize for
which party leaders and powerful ministers were constantly plotting. Cantacuzenos had worked for a long time with great activity
to form a party in the public administration and in the provinces. He was vain,
wealthy, and ambitious; but both his friends and enemies knew that his mind was
destitute of that vigour which affords original suggestions and gives firmness
of purpose. That he would assume the rank of emperor seemed certain; whether he
would content himself with remaining the colleague of the young Palaeologos was more doubtful. Apokaukos,
the ablest, boldest, and most unprincipled of the Byzantine statesmen, in order
to gain the credit of being the first to urge the completion of an act which he
supposed was unavoidable, recommended Cantacuzenos to
lose no time in proclaiming himself emperor. The weak prime-minister listened
to the treason without following the advice of the traitor; and Apokaukos, suspecting that the treason was to be executed
without his being allowed to participate in its profits, became the enemy of Cantacuzenos, and determined to support the empress in the
regency.
The Patriarch, John of Apri, who had been
appointed tutor of the young emperor during the last expedition of Andronicus
to Epirus, claimed both the tutorship of the emperor and the superintendence of
public affairs. By the support of the party opposed to Cantacuzenos,
and the jealousy of the empress, who feared the prime-minister’s ambition, the
Patriarch was appointed president of the ministerial council. A contest of
intrigue then commenced between the two parties, in which neither was able to
gain a decided superiority in the capital, for the empress-regent was as little
inclined to trust implicitly in the good faith of the Patriarch and Apokaukos as in the loyalty of Cantacuzenos.
It was necessary to assemble a considerable army in Thrace, as the empire was
threatened with invasion by the Bulgarians, Albanians, and Turks, and the grand
domestikos assumed the command of this force, for he
feared to intrust it even to one of his own partisans. While he was absent from
Constantinople, Apokaukos attempted to seize the
direction of public affairs and render himself master of the young emperor’s
person. Failing in his attempt, he escaped to the castle of Epibates,
which he had fortified so strongly that Cantacuzenos
did not venture to attack it. On returning to the capital, Cantacuzenos
made an abortive attempt to get himself declared emperor by means of a tumult
in which his soldiers endeavored to force an entry for him into the imperial
palace on horseback. This act would have been tantamount to declaring him
emperor, and, if the plot had succeeded, would have been followed by a
proclamation to that effect. He had already prepared for rebellion by
fortifying Empythion, near Didymoteichos,
as Apokaukos had fortified Epibates;
and as he was solicited by the Greeks in the Peloponnesus to attack the
principality of Achaia, he quitted Constantinople at the end of September to
make preparations for an expedition to reannex the Peloponnesus to the empire. Apokaukos then returned to the capital, and was appointed
Prefect of Constantinople: in a popular sedition the houses of many of the
partisans of Cantacuzenos were plundered; his friends
were placed under arrest; but he himself, though satisfied that his intrigues
were known, and believing that it was now necessary for his safety to mount the
throne, still pretended to refuse the title of Emperor, which his partisans
urged him to assume. This tortuous conduct made even his most violent
supporters distrust his behaviour, for his indecision led every party to
believe that he was carrying on some secret negotiation from which they were
excluded. At length he was proclaimed emperor at Didymoteichos,
about four months after the death of Andronicus III, and the ceremony of his
coronation was performed on the feast of St. Demetrius. Cantacuzenos,
in describing his coronation, would fain insinuate that the blunders and crimes
of his rebellious reign must be attributed to the decrees of Providence, whose
dissatisfaction was presaged by the blunder of the imperial tailor, who made
the robe of state so small that Cantacuzenos could
hardly squeeze himself into the embroidered vestment, while the mantle was so
long that it hung round him like a horseman’s cloak. The Bishop of Didymoteichos, seeing that the mind of the rebel emperor was
affected by this omen, consoled him with a sneer, saying that those who eat
figs while they are green are sure to have their lips blistered.
The weakness, indecision, and incapacity of Cantacuzenos
became apparent when he mounted the throne. He was destitute of the energy
necessary to command the factious chiefs of his party, and his vanity prevented
his selecting ministers who could perform the services required to keep his
supporters closely united. The people, though discontented with the fiscal extortions
and judicial corruption of the central government, knew well, from their
experience in the civil wars of Andronicus, that the rebellion of a rival
emperor would only add to their sufferings. Feudal usages had penetrated into
Greek society; many provincial nobles had assimilated their authority to that
of feudal barons, and the magistrates of many towns were striving to establish
or defend their local independence. The whole state of society beyond the
immediate sphere of the court and the imperial administration rendered the
question whether John V should be replaced by Cantacuzenos
or whether Apokaukos should govern as prime-minister,
or Cantacuzenos as emperor, matters of secondary
consideration. Every page of the dethroned rebel’s memoirs, written after he
had time to reflect on the past in the calm of monastic seclusion, proves that
he was incapable of understanding the circumstances of his age or the general
and popular feeling of his contemporaries. Both he and Gregoras
are in an especial degree the historians of the court and church of
Constantinople; of the interests and opinions of the people they took no
account. Court intrigues, family alliances, party interests, personal hatreds,
local prejudices, and religious bigotry, concealed the existence or stifled the
growth of every national and patriotic sentiment.
The Regent Anne, under the guidance of the Patriarch and the Grand-duke Apokaukos, adopted prompt and effectual measures to
intimidate the partisans of the rebels. Theodora, the mother of Cantacuzenos, a woman of more virtue and talent than her
son, was thrown into prison, and treated with great cruelty until her death.
The young emperor was solemnly crowned at Constantinople on the 19th of
November; Apokaukos was then named Grand-duke, and
the war against the rebels was prosecuted with a degree of promptitude and
energy that confounded all their plans. Cantacuzenos
had counted more on the effect of his intrigues than on his own military
talents. The grand-duke had taken effectual measures to countermine these
intrigues before he pushed Cantacuzenos into
rebellion, and he now showed that he knew far better how to direct the
operations of a campaign than the rebel emperor.
The desire of the people for the preservation of peace, and their aversion
to the aristocratic pretensions of the partisans of Cantacuzenos,
contributed probably to his failures at Adrianople and Thessalonica quite as
much as the activity of the grand-duke. The authority of the regency was
re-established in all the Thracian towns. The only fortress in Thrace of which
the rebels retained possession was Didymoteichos; but
Cantacuzenos and his followers, being cut off from
all communication with this place, and unable to defend himself in Macedonia,
fled into Servia, hoping to conquer the Greek empire by the assistance of the Sclavonians. The wealth of Cantacuzenos
and of his partisans was confiscated; but though the losses of the rebel
emperor were immense, he still possessed considerable riches, with which he
could pay his followers, bribe partisans and reward friends. The immense
fortunes accumulated in the public service form a strong proof of the
corruption of the administration; while, on the other hand, some traces of a
healthy national feeling among the mass of the Greek population were rendered
apparent by the attempt which the rebels made to awaken Hellenic traditions.
Unfortunately, the decline of the empire soon caused both public and private
wealth to disappear, and the Hellenic reminiscences of the people produced no
love of liberty, nor respect for order; their operation was confined to
rhetorical common-place.
Stephen Dushan, who had ascended the throne of
Servia in the year 1333, and who was subsequently crowned emperor, was one of
the most dangerous enemies of the Greeks. Active, brave, able, and perfidious,
he was formed by nature to contend with the Byzantine court, over which he
gained many advantages; and he laboured indefatigably to transfer the empire of
the Greeks to the Servian nation. He had already established his residence at Skoupies, in order to watch every occasion for extending
his dominions; and he availed himself of the pretensions and difficulties of Cantacuzenos to form an alliance with the rebel and invade
the empire. The Servian auxiliaries enabled the rebel to lay siege to Serres, a city of great importance, from its command over a
rich and extensive plain; but they were soon attacked with fevers in the plains
of Macedonia, and the siege was abandoned. About the same time, Didymoteichos was closely invested by the imperial troops,
and was in great danger of being taken, when it was relieved by a Turkish army
under Amour, the son of Aïdin, with whom Cantacuzenos had formed a strict alliance (January 1343).
The failure of the attack on Serres, the retreat of
the Servians, an insurrection of the peasantry
against the partisans of Cantacuzenos in the
neighbourhood of Didymoteichos, and the return of
Amour with his Turks to Asia Minor, again reduced the rebels to the verge of
ruin. In these circumstances, the support of the Vallachians
of Thessaly was of the greatest importance to their cause. The inhabitants of
Great Vlakia, it is true, were more anxious to secure
the neutrality of their territory, and the enjoyment of their local usages and
municipal laws, than to establish the supremacy of any emperor at
Constantinople. It was probably rather to protect themselves against a Servian
invasion, than from any preference for Cantacuzenos,
that they now received John Angelos, a near relation
of the rebel emperor, as their prince; and the charter, under the golden seal
of the Emperor Cantacuzenos, conferring his office,
ran in the name of the Emperor John V and the Empress-regent Anne, as well as
in that of the rebels, Cantacuzenos and his wife
Irene.
The support of the Thessalian Vallachians enabled
Cantacuzenos to open the campaign of 1343 with
an effective force. He gained possession of Berrhoea,
Servia, Platamona, Petra, Soskos,
and Staridola, and entertained hopes of being
admitted into Thessalonica, which were disappointed by the activity of Apokaukos, who arrived to protect the city with a naval
force of seventy Greek and thirty-two Turkish ships. Thus we find that, even in
maritime warfare, the Turkish race was rapidly advancing to an equality with
the Greeks. The return of Amour with a Turkish army subsequently re-established
the ascendancy of Cantacuzenos. He invaded Thrace,
seized the pass of Christopolis, and once more made Didymoteichos his headquarters. But his progress in Thrace
was arrested by the return of his ally Amour to Asia, where the emir was
detained by an attack on Smyrna by the Genoese and the Knights of Rhodes.
The assistance of the Turks alone enabled the rebels to maintain their
ground during the year 1344. The imperial government had formed alliances
with Alexander, king of Bulgaria, and Stephen Dushan,
king of Servia, who both marched against the rebels. Apokaukos
himself took the field, and though he failed in an attempt to take Didymoteichos, he detached a Bulgarian chief, named Momitzilos, from the party of Cantacuzenos.
This warrior held the districts of Merope and Morrha,
in the chain of Mount Rhodope, as an independent principality. The most
fortunate event of this campaign for the rebels was the accidental defeat of
the Servian army by the Turks, in which Cantacuzenos
had no share. The ships belonging to a large body of Turks who had landed to
plunder Thrace were destroyed at Pallene by the Knights of Rhodes. The Turks
were therefore compelled to march by land to the Thracian Chersonesus;
and as they passed through the Chalcidice they were attacked by the Servians, whom they completely defeated. This event enabled
Cantacuzenos to gain possession of Gratianopolis, and to conclude treaties both with the Kings
of Servia and of Bulgaria.
The most important event of the year 1345 was the murder of Apokaukos, which happened during the summer. Symptoms of
discontent had manifested themselves at Constantinople, and other cities
attached to the regent’s cause, and an opposition to the government of Apokaukos was formed, both in the court and the
administration. It is always the policy of the prime-minister in a despotism to
treat even a moderate and legal opposition as rebellious sedition; and the
grand-duke, who was as daring as he was ambitious, determined to strengthen his
authority by getting rid of his most dangerous opponents. A proscription of all
the men of wealth and influence who were either suspected or disliked by Apokaukos was commenced; numbers of rich and eminent
persons were imprisoned in the building called the Palace of Constantine, of
which the ruins, still rising over the walls of Constantinople, retain the same
name at present. The official residence of the grand-duke, as admiral of the
fleet, was situated not far from this palace and prison, overlooking the head
of the port. There Apokaukos dwelt, surrounded by
military guards, and by crowds of the rude Zakonians
and insolent Gasmuls who served in the fleet; and at
the nearest quay, an armed galley, fully manned, constantly awaited his orders.
His power, his boldness, his activity, his armed attendants, and his
suspicions, all seemed to insure his safety. New dungeons were constructed
within the precincts of the palace of Constantine, and many persons accused
only of political offences were soon to be consigned to hopeless captivity by
the cruelty of Apokaukos, who watched the completion
of their prison with an inhuman interest. When the work was finished, the
grand-duke resolved to inspect it, and, contrary to his usual habit, entered
the court of the old palace without his guards. Many prisoners of rank were
allowed to walk at large in this court; and for some time they had been in the
habit of speaking of the death of the grand-duke as the only means of averting
their perpetual imprisonment in the dungeons he had prepared to receive them.
When he was seen to enter, followed by a single attendant, Heaven appeared to
have delivered him into the hands of the men he had treated with the greatest
injustice. One of the prisoners seized a block of wood and struck him to the
ground; the rest, with the materials left by the workmen who had built the new
prisons, killed him on the spot. His head was cut off with a carpenter’s axe,
and exhibited from the walls. The guards, who had remained by his orders at the
outer gate, on seeing that their master was dead, retired without attempting to
avenge his death. The prisoners, proud of having delivered the empire from a
cruel master, made no attempt to escape. They expected thanks, if not rewards;
but the empress-regent felt that she had lost the services of a man of energy
and talent, whose place it would be difficult to supply from among the Greek
nobles of her court, and she wished to see his murderers punished. The servants
of Apokaukos, and the sailors about the arsenal, were
allowed to take up arms, and fill the capital with bloodshed and pillage. All
the political prisoners were massacred with the greatest cruelty, though only a
few had any share in the death of the grand-duke. The murder of Apokaukos took place on the 11th of June 1345.
The civil war continued to lay waste all the country in the vicinity of
Constantinople. The industrious citizens of the Thracian towns and the
cultivators of the soil were plundered by military leaders, who frequently
changed sides to prolong the contest. The Bulgarians, the Servians,
the Albanians, the Genoese, and the Turks, were all encroaching on the empire
of Constantinople. But the miseries inflicted on the Greek population by the
mercenary troops of Cantacuzenos surpassed their
other sufferings. The ranks of these mercenaries were filled with Sclavonians, Vallachians, and
Germans, whose rapacity was excited and their hearts hardened by great military
vicissitudes and constant change of place. They plundered the cultivators of
the soil without compassion, and compelled even friendly cities to pay
extraordinary contributions. In vain the magistrates acknowledged the title of
the rebel emperor, and offered to admit his garrisons within their walls; their
offers of submission were refused, for the mercenaries could only be maintained
by extorting from the people sums far exceeding the amount of the ordinary
taxes; and as an excuse for practising such extortion, it was deemed necessary
to treat a great proportion of the Greek cultivators of the soil in Thrace as
if they had been a hostile population. The partisans of the Regent Anne were
not less rapacious than those of Cantacuzenos; the
property of the rebels, and of those who were accused of favouring their cause,
both in the cities and the country, was plundered, and their houses and
vineyards destroyed. Anarchy began to dissolve all political bonds. Some cities
shut their gates against both the emperors. Some leaders declared themselves
independent; and Momitzilos, at the head of a band of
four thousand well-armed veterans, defied them both. Cantacuzenos
admits that he consulted his own interests rather than those of the empire by
distributing the command of the Thracian cities among his own relations and his
noble partisans, in order to afford them the means of living according to their
aristocratic rank The insecurity of property was so great that all commercial
intercourse was interrupted, and many articles previously manufactured to a
considerable extent, for the consumption of the neighbouring provinces or for
foreign exportation, ceased to be produced. The civil wars of Andronicus III
and of Cantacuzenos, following one another at so
short an interval, reduced the Greek population of Thrace and Macedonia to such
a state of destitution that they were prepared to submit to any foreign
invader. The people became as corrupted and unprincipled as their rulers.
Selfishness, party passions, and religious schisms, inflamed their quarrels,
and so completely absorbed their attention that they possessed neither courage
nor patriotism sufficient to fight their own battles, but remained torpid
spectators of the contest which was to decide the existence of their empire,
the orthodoxy of their church, and the fate of their nation. Even the schisms
which rent the Greek church at this period, and the disputes of the Palamites and Barlaamites, which
fill so many pages of the political history of Constantinople, never interested
the whole Greek population, whose orthodoxy was satisfied with their doctrines
concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost, the use of leavened bread in the
eucharist, and an inveterate hatred of the Pope and the Latin church.
The first foreigner who took advantage of the paralysed state of the
Greek nation was Stephen Dushan, the king of Servia,
whom we have already seen changing sides more than once during the civil war.
He was a man of great ambition, and was celebrated for his gigantic stature and
personal courage. His subjects boasted of his liberality and success in war;
his enemies reproached him with faithlessness and cruelty. He had driven his
father, Stephen VII, from the throne, and the old man had been murdered in
prison by the rebellious nobles of Servia, who feared lest a reconciliation should
take place with his son. Stephen Dushan had passed
seven years of his youth at Constantinople, where he had become acquainted with
all the defects of the Byzantine government, and with all the vices of Greek
society. The circumstances in which rival emperors were placed during the year
1345 were extremely favourable to the ambitious projects of the Servian prince.
The attention of the rebels and of the regency was so constantly demanded to
the changes at Constantinople that they were unable to defend the frontiers of
the empire, and Stephen Dushan seized the opportunity
to extend his conquests in every direction. To the east he rendered himself
master of the whole valley of the Strymon, took the large and flourishing city
of Serres, and garrisoned all the fortresses as far
as the wall that defended the pass of Christopolis.
To the west his dominions extended to the shores of the Adriatic; Achrida, Kastoria, and Joannina, were
provincial cities of his new conquests. He subdued the Vallachians
of Thessaly and the Albanians of southern Epirus, and formed the plan of
depriving the Greeks of their political and orthodox supremacy. He assumed the
imperial crown at Serres, where he established a
court on the Roman or Byzantine model, and took the title of Emperor of
Romania, Sclavonia, and Albania, conferring at the
same time the title of King of Servia on his son. He promulgated a code of
laws, which is now the oldest existing monument of the Servian language. His
political sagacity is shown by his endeavours to modify the principles of
slavery prevalent in Servia, and to encourage trade. Seeing how much the Greek
emperors had lost by neglecting the commercial interests of their subjects, he
secured the friendship of the Venetian republic, and inscribed his own name in
the register of her nobility called the Golden Book. His arms were successful
against the Bosnians and the Hungarians, as well as against the Greeks; and at
his death in 1355 the Servian Empire extended from the Danube to the frontiers
of Etolia. The dominions of the Servian emperor were
partitioned after his death; but the Greeks have never since been able to
recover their former preponderance in the provinces from the valley of the Strimon to the shores of the gulf of Arta. In that
extensive district they no longer compose a decided majority of the population.
The success of Cantacuzenos was at last decided
by the aid he received from the Turks, not by his own political intrigues and
military exploits. His own history of the civil war presents the Greeks under
the most unfavourable aspect, and far inferior both in morality and
courage to the Turks. Amour, the Seljouk emir of Aïdin, is the noblest character of the age; Orkhan, the Othoman sultan, is
the most sagacious statesman; and both these princes were the allies of the
rebel at the end of the war. But the Regent Anne also relied more on the aid of
Turkish mercenaries than on the courage of the imperial army, and it was the
defection of Orkhan from her cause, and the desertion
of the troops of the Emir of Saroukhan, which ruined
her military position in the year 1346.
The manner in which both Cantacuzenos and the
empress-regent generally paid their Mussulman allies was by allowing them to
plunder the country and carry off the Greek population to be sold as slaves in
Asia Minor. The friendship of the Emir Amour for Cantacuzenos
may have been as disinterested as the rhetorical historian represents it; but
the Turkish mercenaries under his banner required to be maintained and
rewarded. The rebel emperor was often unable to famish them with provisions and
money; and when this was the case they plundered both friend and foe, and
carried off the wretched inhabitants into slavery wherever they could seize
them. The historian Ducas, a warm partisan of Cantacuzenos, who wrote in the next century, declares that
the treaty by which the Empress Anne purchased the aid of Orkhan
contained a clause authorising the ottoman Turks to make slaves of the
Christian subjects of the rebel emperor, and to transport them to the
slave-markets in Asia by the way of Skutari; thus
rendering the Asiatic suburb of Constantinople the principal depot of the trade
in Greek slaves. When Orkhan subsequently changed
sides, there can be no doubt that he enforced a clause of similar tenor against
the Christian subjects of the Emperor John V with the approval or connivance of
Cantacuzenos. Slaves were at this time the most
marketable production throughout all western Asia.
Cantacuzenos perceived that the power of the ottoman Turks was fixed on firmer
foundations than that of the other Turkish princes, and he felt that the
alliance of the former would afford the surest guarantee of ultimate success to
the rebel cause. He succeeded in detaching the sultan from the party of the
regency, though, in order to create a permanent family alliance with the house
of Othman, he was compelled to give his daughter Theodora in marriage to Orkhan, and send her to dwell at Brusa,
as a tenant of the sultan’s harem. The Tartar and Turkish princes had long
attached great importance to marriages that introduced into their families the
blood of the emperors of Constantinople; and when Cantacuzenos
affected to reject the overtures of Orkhan, the
sultan backed his negotiations with a threat that he would prosecute the war in
favour of the empress-regent in a vigorous manner. The junction of the ottoman
army with the rebels formed the crisis of the civil war. The campaign of 1346
rendered Cantacuzenos master of the greater part of
Thrace, and enabled him to advance to the walls of the capital.
In this period of danger there was no person of talent to conduct the
affairs of the young emperor. The Empress Anne quarrelled with the Patriarch,
and became the protector of his enemies in the church. A council of bishops was
assembled, and the orthodoxy of the head of the church was called in question,
examined, and condemned. At this time the Greek Church was torn by schisms, and
had fallen into the same state of anarchy as the rest of the empire. Indeed,
the prevalent opinion that the Greek Church has been more free from heresies
and schisms than other churches cannot be considered as true. On the contrary,
the Greek church has been the prolific mother of heretical opinions, and has
filled her household with the disputes of her children; but the power of the
emperor over the temporalities of the ecclesiastical establishment, the simoniacal spirit of the higher clergy, the consequent
torpidity of the public mind on purely religious questions, and the veil with
which Byzantine history conceals the feelings of the people throughout the
empire, prevent all knowledge of the extent to which mankind protested in each
successive age against the oppression of the imperial government and the
corruption of the Greek church. But we nevertheless discover proofs that in
every age there were Greeks who advocated the cause of liberty and religion.
The people of Constantinople at last became tired of the civil war; and as Cantacuzenos was evidently more inclined to grant a general
amnesty than the regency, his cause rapidly gained ground after the murder of Apokaukos. Fortunately for the Greek empire, he was enabled
to gain possession of Constantinople without the participation of his Turkish
allies. His partisans within the walls organised a plan for admitting him
within the city. While the attention of the government party was occupied in
celebrating the deposition of the Patriarch John of Apri,
the Golden Gate was thrown open, and the rebel emperor entered Constantinople
without bloodshed. The empress-regent showed a determination to defend herself
in the imperial palace; but her partisans were less courageous than their
female chief, and she was compelled to submit to the victor.
The terms dictated by Cantacuzenos, as master of
the capital, prove the real weakness of his party as much as his own
moderation. He entered Constantinople on the 3d of February 1347, and it was
not until the 8th that a treaty was concluded with the empress-regent, and the
gates of the palace of Blachern were opened to receive
the new emperor. By this treaty Cantacuzenos was
recognised as emperor, but his right to direct the administration of the empire
was limited to ten years; and as soon as John V attained the age of
twenty-five, he was to enjoy an equal share of the imperial power. A general
amnesty was proclaimed; all landed property was restored to its original
possessors; but movable property was left in the possession of those who had
acquired it during the civil war. The termination of hostilities was evidently
caused more by the general desire of the people for peace, and for security of
property, than by the victorious arms of the rebels. The military forces of the
victor were so utterly alien to all political feeling, that on this occasion a
long period of anarchy was not, as usual in civil contests, terminated by the
establishment of a military despotism. Cantacuzenos
was a man of intrigues and stratagems, not of battles and strategy. His leading
partisans were courtiers in armour, not soldiers; so that the interests of the
middling classes, and the feelings of the mass of the people, in the end,
warned those who were contending for power that they must hasten to make peace,
though public opinion had not sufficient consistency to dictate the measures
necessary for insuring permanent respect to the articles of the peace of Blachern.
The Emperor Cantacuzenos found the empire shrunk
into a mere shadow of that which he had governed as the prime-minister of
Andronicus III. Whole provinces were lost, and the treasury was empty; yet with
that insatiable vanity which has ever been a curse of Greece, his first care
was to exhibit himself to the people with an appearance of pomp and splendour.
He had already been twice crowned, yet he was not satisfied until the ceremony
was performed a third time. The exhibition was ill-timed. Custom required that
the coronation of an emperor should take place in St Sophia’s, but an
earthquake in the preceding year (1346) had thrown down the great eastern
semi-dome of that magnificent church, and covered the bema with ruins. It was
therefore necessary that the rebel emperor should receive the imperial crown in
the church of Blachern, and at the same time he
conferred the imperial crown on his wife Irene. Eight days after the coronation
of Cantacuzenos, on the 21st of May, which is the
Feast of Constantine and Helena, the young emperor, John V, then fifteen years
of age, married Helena, the daughter of Cantacuzenos,
who was only thirteen. She received the imperial crown, and the people were
entertained with the spectacle of two emperors and three empresses seated on
their thrones. The strange spectacle delighted the gazers; but it was not
viewed without some feeling of contempt; for it was generally known that the
imperial crowns were bright with false pearls and diamonds; that the robes were
stiffened with tinsel; that the vases were of brass, not gold; and instead of
the rich brocade of Thebes, the hangings were of gilded leather.
A review of the limits into which the empire had now shrunk reveals the
full extent of the injuries inflicted on the Greeks by the civil wars of
Andronicus III and Cantacuzenos. Many provinces were
lost for ever, and the Greek race, which had previously formed the dominant
class, was expelled from many districts. The property of the Greeks was
plundered, their landed estates were confiscated, and even their families were
in danger of being reduced to slavery unless they emigrated. From this period
we lose all trace of an independent class of Greek landed proprietors. In the
empire, the Greek nobility was composed of titled officials, salaried
courtiers, courtly abbots, and simoniacal bishops; in
the conquered provinces the higher classes of Greeks sank into farmers of the
public revenue, local tools of the government, and tax-gatherers. The landed
property and the military power, with the social influence they conferred,
passed into the hands of the Servians, the Albanians,
the Genoese, and the ottoman Turks; and after the middle of the fourteenth
century, we find foreign names occupying an important place in the history of
Macedonia, Epirus, and Greece, and Servian and Albanian chiefs attaining a
condition of almost entire independence.
The Greek Empire consisted of several detached pieces when Cantacuzenos seated himself on the throne; and the
inhabitants of these different pieces could only communicate freely by sea. The
direct intercourse by land, even between Constantinople and
Thessalonica by the Egnatian Way, was
interrupted, for the Servian emperor possessed Amphipolis and all the country
about the mouth of the Strymon from Philippi to the lake Bolbé.
The first portion of the empire, and the nucleus of the imperial power,
consisted of the city of Constantinople and the greater part of Thrace. On the
Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, the Greek possessions were confined to the
suburb of Skutari, a few forts, and a narrow strip of
coast extending from Chalcedon to the Black Sea. In Thrace, the frontier
extended from Sozopolis along the mountains to the
south-west, passing about a day’s journey to the north of Adrianople, and
descending to the Aegean Sea at the pass and fortress of Christopolis.
It included the districts of Morrha and the Thracian Chalkidike. The second portion of the empire in importance
consisted of the rich and populous city of Thessalonica, with the western part
of the Macedonian Chalkidike, and its three
peninsulas of Cassandra, Longos, and Aghionoros. By land it was entirely enclosed in the Servian
Empire. The third detached portion of the empire consisted of a part of Vallachian Thessaly and of Albanian Epirus, which formed a
small imperial province interposed between the Servian Empire and the Catalan
duchy of Athens and Neopatras. The fourth piece
consisted of the Greek province in the Peloponnesus, which obtained the name of
the Despotat of Misithra,
and embraced about one-third of the peninsula. Cantacuzenos
conferred the government on his second son, Manuel, who preserved his place by
force of arms after his father was driven from the throne. The remaining
fragments of the empire consisted of a few islands in the Aegean Sea which had
escaped the domination of the Venetians, the Genoese, and the Knights of St
John, with the cities of Philadelphia and Phocaea, which still recognised the
suzerainty of Constantinople, though surrounded by the territories of the emirs
of Aidin and Saroukhan.
Such were the relics of the Byzantine Empire, which were now burdened with the
maintenance of two emperors, three empresses, and an augmented list of despots,
sevastokrators, and salaried courtiers.
As Cantacuzenos gained the empire by a sudden
revulsion of opinion in the inhabitants of Constantinople, it was evident
that the stability of his power would depend in a great measure on the wisdom
and success of his internal administration. Public opinion called him to the
throne as the readiest means of establishing security of property and lessening
the public burdens. The people consented to try his talents for administration
without believing that he had any right to share the Byzantine throne. The new
emperor soon showed himself unequal to the exigencies of his position, and his
whole reign consists of a succession of temporary expedients. His first
financial step was a gross blunder. Instead of endeavouring to revive the trade
of the capital and restore the fortunes of the inhabitants, whose estates had
been ravaged during the civil war by his mercenaries, he attempted to fill the
imperial treasury. His object was to reward his partisans and surround himself
with a foreign guard; but he did not venture to impose any new taxes on the
people. He expected that his eloquence and power would induce all classes to
grant him a voluntary contribution, and he convoked an assembly of the leading
men of every class in Constantinople—merchants, manufacturers, shopkeepers,
artisans, administrators of monasteries, and trustees of ecclesiastical
property—to whom he proposed a contribution for the public service. The request
was peremptorily refused, for the subjects of the Byzantine Empire had no idea
of constituting an assembly that could control the appropriation of their
money; and they feared with reason that their contributions would be expended
in increasing the existing evils in the state. Their prudence was soon
justified by the events that followed. The warmest partisans of Cantacuzenos were dissatisfied with the restraints imposed
on his power of rewarding and enriching them by the partisans of Paleologos. Cantacuzenos was himself willing to set aside the clause of
the treaty of pacification which excluded his family from the throne. Matthew Cantacuzenos, taking advantage of these feelings, placed
himself at the head of the most violent adherents of his father’s rebellion,
and before the end of the year 1347 gained possession of Didymoteichos,
Adrianople, and the surrounding country. His father allowed him to retain in
his hands the government of a principality, which extended from Didymoteichos to Xantheion, on
his restoring Adrianople to the imperial administration. The friends of John V
naturally considered this rebellion as collusive, and availed themselves of the
circumstance to alarm the young emperor at the proceedings of his
father-in-law, and to engage in active opposition to the usurpations of
Matthew. Every suspicion was confirmed when, in 1353, after open hostilities
had taken place between John V and Matthew, the latter was proclaimed emperor
by his father; and this step became the signal for a mortal strife between the
houses of Paleologos and Cantacuzenos.
Cantacuzenos was a heretic, but as the church of Constantinople was during his reign a
heretical church, his religious opinions in all probability facilitated his
ecclesiastical administration. But he alienated the feelings of the Palamite clergy, and roused the indignation of all the
orthodox, by an iniquitous misappropriation of the funds of the great cathedral
of St Sophia. The church of Russia preserved its orthodoxy when that of
Constantinople lapsed into the Palamite heresy; but
the Russian clergy did not break off their communion with the mother church,
and the orthodox patriarch of Russia continued to receive his investiture from
the heretical Byzantine patriarch. The Russians continued to take the warmest
interest in the misfortunes of the Greek ecclesiastics; and when they learned
that the reconstruction of the portion of St Sophia’s, which had been thrown
down by the earthquake of 1346, was stopped from want of money, Simeon the
Proud, and many of his nobles, remitted large sums to complete the repairs. The
money arrived at Constantinople about the year 1350; and this sacred deposit
was seized by the Emperor Cantacuzenos, and employed,
with the connivance of the Greek patriarch Kallistos,
to pay the ottoman mercenaries in his service.
Again, in the year 1352, Cantacuzenos found it
necessary to employ twelve thousand Turks to oppose the Bulgarians and Servians, who aided his colleague, John V, in the civil war
that had broken out between them. In order to pay these Infidels, Cantacuzenos laid his hands on the treasures of the church
a second time. He seized all the gold, silver, and jewels in the treasuries of
the churches and monasteries of Constantinople.
The financial operations of Cantacuzenos were not
confined to soliciting contributions and plundering the church: he added to his
unpopularity by imposing new burdens on the people. It appears that when he was
anxious to prepare for war with the Genoese of Galata, he exempted his own
subjects from some customs paid by foreigners, or put an end to some monopolies
from which the Genoese had derived great profit. But the advantages obtained by
the Greeks from this remission of duties was of short duration, for when the
animosity of the Genoese at the loss of their previous gains induced them to
attack Constantinople, the emperor made considerable additions both to the
direct taxes and to the custom duties. The vineyards of the Greeks were then
the most profitable portion of their landed property. There was an immense
demand for wine, not only for the ships of all the Italian republics, but also
for the supply of Russia and a part of western Europe, where the most esteemed
qualities commanded high prices. The fiscal rapacity of Cantacuzenos
could not omit taxing an article which promised to furnish him with a large sum
with little trouble. A duty of two byzants was imposed on the merchant for
every fifty measures, and an additional impost of one byzant on the grower.
This tax must have inflicted a serious blow on the Greek landed proprietors,
already burdened with the payment of a tenth of their produce, and exposed to
have their crops destroyed by the ravages of foreign invaders. A duty of half a
byzant was imposed on every measure of wheat imported into Constantinople, and
the customs, which had hitherto amounted to ten per cent, were now increased by
the addition of one-fiftieth, or two per cent. The people complained that they
paid two hundred thousand byzants in consequence of these new taxes, of which,
however, only fifty thousand reached the treasury. The whole maritime policy of
Cantacuzenos was imperial, not commercial. His
immediate object was to increase the navy of the state, and the measures which
would have enabled his subjects to recover their proper share in the Black Sea
trade were a secondary consideration in his policy. For the Greek people in
general, and for the inhabitants of Constantinople in particular, he felt no
affection. He fortified the Golden Gate as a citadel, in order to command the
communications of the citizens with the districts to the east; and he
surrounded his person and filled his palace with Turkish and Catalan guards.
In addition to these causes of unpopularity, it is necessary to add, that
the accession of Cantacuzenos did not, as was
expected, put an end to the invasions of the Turks, and relieve the Greeks from
the burden of maintaining the ottoman troops. In all the wars the new emperor
carried on, whether with the Servians, the
Bulgarians, or with his son-in-law and colleague John V, the greater part of
his army consisted of Infidels, whose cruelty and rapacity seemed to increase
every year. His egregious self-conceit, his incurable habits of tergiversation,
his deficiency in administrative talent, and his want of personal
determination, became apparent to all, and it seems probable that his
abdication was a measure to which the increasing discontent of his subjects
compelled him to look forward from the time his colleague John V took up arms
against him in 1351.
The wars of Cantacuzenos were not undertaken on
any political plan; and desultory hostilities with the Servians,
Bulgarians, Genoese, and Turks, do not require to be narrated in detail. It is
not easy to group the events of the reigns of Cantacuzenos
and John V in such a way as to paint the anarchy that existed in the empire, or
the momentary exigencies under which Cantacuzenos
acted. He had not reigned a year before he was involved in hostilities with the
Genoese colony of Galata, which had always contained many warm partisans of the
house of Paleologos. This factory had grown into a flourishing town, and
commanded a large portion of the Golden Horn. During the civil war the Genoese
capitalists had supplied the regency with money, and they now farmed almost
every branch of the revenue which the imperial government derived from the
port. The duties they collected amounted to two hundred thousand byzants, and
they paid for this only thirty thousand to the imperial treasury. The financial
measures of the new emperor reduced their profits; and if he had persevered in
his policy of lightening the burdens of his own subjects, the Greeks might soon
have recovered some portion of the trade, which the insecurity of property,
caused by the civil wars, had transferred to Galata. As it was, the increased
industry of the Greeks, and the jealousy of the Genoese, led to open
hostilities. The colonists of Galata commenced the war in a treacherous manner,
without any authority from the republic of Genoa, (1348). With a fleet of only
eight large and some small galleys they attacked Constantinople while Cantacuzenos was absent from the capital, and burned
several buildings and the greater part of the fleet he was then constructing.
The Empress Irene, who administered the government in the absence of her
husband, behaved with great prudence and courage, and repulsed a bold attack of
the Genoese. Cantacuzenos hastened to the capital,
where he spent the winter in repairing the loss his fleet had sustained. As
soon as it was ready for action, he engaged the Genoese in the port, where he
hoped that their naval skill would be of no avail, and where the numerical
superiority of his ships would insure him a victory. He expected, moreover, to
gain possession of Galata itself by an attack on the land side while the
Genoese were occupied at sea. The cowardly conduct of the Greeks, both by sea
and land, rendered his plans abortive. The greater part of his ships were
taken, and his army retreated without making a serious attack. Fortunately for Cantacuzenos, the colonists of Galata received an order
from the senate of Genoa to conclude peace, even should they be compelled to
make considerable concessions. Their victory enabled them to obtain favourable
terms, and to keep possession of some land they had seized, and on which they
soon completed the construction of a new citadel.
The friendly disposition manifested by the government of Genoa induced Cantacuzenos to send ambassadors to the senate to demand
the restoration of the island of Chios, which had been conquered by a band of
Genoese exiles in 1346. A treaty was concluded, by which the Genoese were to
restore the island to the Emperor of Constantinople in ten years, and during
that period they were to pay an annual tribute of twenty-two thousand byzants.
But this treaty was never carried into execution, for the exiles at Chios set
both the republic of Genoa and the Greek empire at defiance, and retained their
conquest.
Thessalonica long refused to recognise Cantacuzenos
as emperor; but the people became at last afraid that their leaders would enter
into terms with the Servian emperor, and they consequently determined to renew
their connection with the government of Constantinople. Cantacuzenos
was invited to visit the city in person, and take measures for defending it
against the intrigues and hostilities of Stephen Dushan.
The young emperor, John V, was now eighteen years of age, and his good
temper, personal beauty, noble figure, and martial air, concealed the defects
of his mind, and rendered him popular with all ranks. The jealousy of Cantacuzenos was increased by the attachment generally
shown to his young colleague; and in order to prevent the partisans of the
house of Paleologos availing themselves of the public favour to emancipate the
young emperor, he never allowed John V to quit his side. In 1350 he carried him
in his train to Thessalonica. The two emperors left Constantinople with a
fleet, while Matthew Cantacuzenos, with an auxiliary
force of twenty thousand Turkish cavalry, under the command of Suleiman, the
son of Orkhan, advanced by land against the Servians in order to reconquer the country between Christopolis and Thessalonica. But Suleiman, whose object
was to enrich his followers and keep together a large army at the expense of
others, felt no wish to see the Greeks gain any very decided advantage over the
Servians. He now declared that his father had
recalled him to Asia Minor; and, separating his troops from those of Matthew Cantacuzenos, he marched up the valley of the Hebrus into the Bulgarian territory, from whence he carried
off immense booty in cattle and prisoners. With these spoils he crossed the
Hellespont. Matthew, finding his troops insufficient to attack the Servians, disbanded his new levies, and sent back the
veterans to the garrisons from which they had been drafted, remaining on the
defensive behind the walls of Christopolis. In the
meantime the fleet advanced to Anactoropolis (Eion), where a Bithynian named Alexios,
who had been a partisan of Apokaukos, was established
as an independent chief, and maintained a few piratical vessels, with which he
levied contributions on the people of Lemnos, and incommoded the troops at Christopolis. Cantacuzenos made a
fruitless attack on Anactoropolis, but he destroyed
the ships of Alexios.
The retreat of his ottoman auxiliaries made Cantacuzenos
afraid to trust himself within the walls of Thessalonica, where the partisans
of Paleologos possessed the ascendancy. While he was in doubt how to act, he
received the news that a fleet of twenty-two Turkish ships had anchored at the
mouth of the Strymon on a plundering expedition. He immediately engaged these
marauders in his service, and entered Thessalonica under the escort of these
Mussulman robbers. Partly by their assistance, and partly in consequence of the
dissatisfaction of the Greek population at the Servian yoke, he regained
possession of several towns in Macedonia. But he failed in an attempt to
conclude a treaty of peace with Stephen, emperor of the Servians.
Cantacuzenos, finding himself obliged to return to
Constantinople, left his colleague, John V, at Thessalonica, (1351). Whether
jealousy induced him to take this step voluntarily, in order to exclude his
son-in-law from the capital, or whether the power of the partisans of
Paleologos in Thessalonica enabled John V to refuse quitting the place, the
measure was a serious blow to the authority of Cantacuzenos,
and soon caused a renewal of the civil war.
The ecclesiastical disputes of the period compelled Cantacuzenos
to hurry back to Constantinople; but they are so devoid of practical interest,
and so like a rehearsal of more important religious contests in the Greek
church, that they may be left to be narrated by ecclesiastical historians.
Those who take an interest in the history of the heresies which have ripened in
the soil of the Greek church, will read with pleasure the passionate account of
the controversy which has been transmitted to us by Nicephorus Gregoras, one of the orthodox. His opposition to the
heretical emperor and patriarch drew on him a degree of persecution which he would
fain magnify into a species of martyrdom.
Sound policy required the two emperors to combine their forces for
recovering the country between Thessalonica and Christopolis;
but Cantacuzenos felt that the expulsion of the Servians from this district would increase the power of
John V. He therefore preferred adopting measures which he expected would enable
him to annihilate the influence of the house of Paleologos at Constantinople.
This could only be done by driving the Genoese out of Galata, and he hoped to
effect this important conquest with the assistance of the Venetians, who were
then carrying on the war with Genoa, called the war of Caffa.
The Genoese had drawn into their hands the greater part of the commerce of
the Black Sea. The town of Tana or Azof was then a place of great commercial
importance, as many of the productions of India and China found their way to
western Europe from its warehouses. The Genoese, in consequence of a quarrel
with the Tartars, had been compelled to suspend their intercourse with Tana,
and the Venetians, availing themselves of the opportunity, had extended their
trade and increased their profits. The envy of the Genoese led them to obstruct
the Venetian trade and capture Venetian ships, until at length the disputes of
the two republics broke out in open war in 1348.
In the year 1351, Cantacuzenos entered into an
alliance with Venice, and joined his forces to those of the Venetians, who had
also concluded an alliance with Peter the Ceremonious, king of Aragon. Nicolas
Pisani, one of the ablest admirals of the age, appeared before Constantinople
with the Venetian fleet; but his ships had suffered severely from a storm, and
his principal object was attained when he had convoyed the merchantmen of
Venice safely into the Black Sea. Cantacuzenos,
however, had no object but to take Galata; and, expecting to receive important
aid from Pisani, he attacked the Genoese colony by sea and land. His assault
was defeated in consequence of the weakness of the Greeks and the lukewarmness
of the Venetians. Pisani retired to Negropont, to effect a junction with the
Catalan fleet; and Pagano Doria, who had pursued him with a superior force, in
returning to Galata to pass the winter, stormed the town of Heracleia
on the sea of Marmora, where Cantacuzenos had
collected large magazines of provisions, and carried off a rich booty, with
many wealthy Greeks, who were compelled to ransom themselves by paying large
sums to their captors. Cantacuzenos was now besieged
in Constantinople, but his fleet was safe from the attacks of the Genoese in
the port of Heptaskalon, which he had cleared out.
The walls of the city were repaired on the land side, and strengthened by the
addition of a deep ditch, extending from the Eugenian
to the Wooden Gate, or Xyloporta. The Genoese, unable
to make any impression on the city, indemnified themselves by ravaging the
Greek territory on the Black Sea. They captured Sozopolis,
which refused to allow the garrison sent by the emperor to enter its walls; and
this city, which had previously been in possession of a flourishing trade, was
now ruined. When the Genoese had carried away everything they could find, they
threatened to reduce the houses to ashes, unless the inhabitants paid a large
sum from their concealed treasures.
Early in the year 1352, Pisani returned to Constantinople with the Catalan
fleet, under Ponzio da Santapace, and a great battle
was fought between the allies and the Genoese, in full view of Constantinople
and Galata. The scene of the combat was off the island of Prote,
and it received the name of Vrachophagos from some
sunken rocks, of which the Genoese availed themselves in their manoeuvres. The
honour of a doubtful and bloody day rested with the Genoese. The Catalans
displayed undaunted valour, but suffered severe loss from getting entangled
among the rocks. The Greeks accused the Venetian admiral of timidity, and the
Venetians asserted that the Greek fleet abandoned the action in the evening to
shelter themselves in their own port. Pisani soon quitted the neighbourhood of
Constantinople, and Cantacuzenos, having nothing more
to hope from the Venetian alliance, and finding himself again involved in civil
war with the partisans of the house of Paleologos, concluded a peace with the
republic of Genoa. In this war he had exposed the weakness of the Greek empire,
and the decline of the maritime force of Greece, to all the states of Europe.
The treaty confirmed all the previous privileges and encroachments of the
colony of Galata, and other Genoese establishments in the empire. Greek ships
were only allowed to trade with Tana in company with the Genoese, and with a
special licence from the republic.
As soon as John V, found himself surrounded by his partisans at
Thessalonica, he began to take measures for emancipating himself completely
from the authority of Cantacuzenos, and prepared for
driving the usurper from the throne. He entered into a treaty with the Servian
emperor, by which he engaged to divorce Helena, the daughter of Cantacuzenos, and espouse the sister of the Servian
empress. This was not carried into effect; and it is not worth our pains to
follow all the personal intrigues of the rival emperors. John V was the first
to take up arms and involve his country in a new civil war, without having
sufficiently weighed his strength or determined on his plans. He drove his
brother-in-law, Matthew Cantacuzenos, from the
appanage he had been allowed to occupy, and besieged him in the citadel of
Adrianople. The Emperor Cantacuzenos marched from
Constantinople with a body of Turks and Catalans to relieve his son, recovered
possession of the city of Adrianople, and allowed his mercenaries to plunder
the place and make slaves of the inhabitants. John V called in the Servians and Bulgarians to his aid; Cantacuzenos,
as usual, filled the empire with Turks. These allies plundered the people
without mercy, but felt little inclined to put an end to a war from which they
derived an assured profit. The military experience of Cantacuzenos,
supported by the superiority of his Turkish troops, enabled him at last to
drive the young emperor from the continent, and compel him to seek a refuge in
the island of Tenedos. The moment seemed favourable for transferring the empire
from the house of Paleologos to that of Cantacuzenos.
Matthew was proclaimed emperor in 1353, but the opposition of the Patriarch Kallistos deferred his coronation. Kallistos
was deposed, and his successor Philotheos performed
the ceremony in 1354. But the memory of the treaty of Blachern,
concluded in February 1347, by which Cantacuzenos had
engaged to resign the government of the empire to its hereditary sovereign at
the expiry of ten years, and not to raise any of his own family to the throne,
had ever been fresh in the memory of the people of Constantinople. The Emperor Cantacuzenos was now generally hated by the Greeks; and his
throne was only supported by his close alliance with his son-in-law, Orkhan, whose troops were allowed to use the Greek
territories as a hunting-ground to supply their slave-markets. From every
quarter John V was urged to make another attempt to dethrone the detested ally
of the Infidels.
While John V was seeking for means to renew the war, Francesco Gattilusio, one of the merchant nobles of Genoa, and member
of a family which had long possessed some influence in the Greek empire,
chanced to anchor at Lesbos with a small fleet. His vessels were well armed,
for every coast in the Levant was infested with Turkish pirates. Communications
were opened with John V, who purchased the services of Gattilusio
by a promise of bestowing on him one of his sisters in marriage, and investing
him with the sovereignty of Lesbos as her dowry.
On a dark stormy night in December 1354, a large ship was driven by
the wind towards the port of Heptaskalon. The sailors
shouted from the deck to the guards of the tower at its entrance that their
vessel was in danger of going to pieces; they said she carried a valuable cargo
of oil and offered large rewards for assistance. The gates were thrown open,
and the soldiers hastened to the spot towards which the ship was drifting. At
this moment two galleys, following the great merchantman, landed a body of
troops, who seized the open gates, and rendered themselves masters of the tower
and all the fortifications that surrounded the port. It was soon known over all
Constantinople that John V was within the walls; the partisans of the house of
Paleologos filled the city with their acclamations, and the people everywhere
declared in his favour. Cantacuzenos, who could rely
only on his Turkish and Catalan guards, shut himself up in the palace of Blachern, and attempted to negotiate. He had more than once
talked of resigning his power when no one could insist on his keeping his word:
his object now was to gain time; yet, either from timidity, or a conviction
that he would be able to overreach his enemies, he threw away his only chance
of safety, and omitted to retire into his new citadel at the Golden Gate. The
young emperor showed more talent and vigour than the veteran hypocrite. He cut off
Cantacuzenos from his Turkish and Catalan guards, and
gave him to understand that his life could only be preserved by abdicating, and
taking the monastic vows. It is impossible to read the partial account which Cantacuzenos has left us of the events that attended his
abdication without a feeling of contempt for the emperor, and a conviction of
the falsity of the narration. Whatever may have been his virtues in private
life and his literary merits, and both were considerable, he was nevertheless,
as a man, vain and hypocritical; as a statesman, timid and intriguing; as a
minister, treacherous; and as a general, incapable, though as a soldier he was
brave. As emperor, he made allies of the most dangerous enemies of his nation
and his religion; and as a historian, he laboured, like the imperial prisoner
of St Helena, to falsify history in order to gratify his own egregious vanity.
Cantacuzenos remained at Constantinople as the Monk Joasaph
until about the year 1358, when he visited his son Manuel, the despot, in the
Peloponnesus. He was accompanied by his eldest son Matthew, who had been also
compelled to abdicate. In 1360 Cantacuzenos returned
to Constantinople, where he resided in the monastery of Mangana,
engaged with literary pursuits. He afterwards retired to the monastery of Vatopedhion on Mount Athos, of which he had been a great
benefactor, to end his days. John V became sole emperor at the age of
twenty-five, and he carelessly watched the decline of the empire for thirty-six
years. Cantacuzenos had indeed left him little
territory, dignity, or power to lose, and his own policy seemed to aspire only
at making the empire last his own time, in order that he might draw from it the
means of enjoying life. Yet in the earlier years of his reign he showed some
personal activity : he was enabled by an accident to detach Sultan Orkhan from the interests of the house of Cantacuzenos, and thus relieve the empire from its most
dangerous enemy.
Suleiman, the warlike son of Orkhan, made
repeated encroachments on the empire, even while his father was in the closest
alliance with Cantacuzenos; for the usurper was often
unable or unwilling to pay the sums due on account of the services of
his ottoman mercenaries. On one occasion Suleiman had taken possession of
the fortress of Tzympe, for the restoration of which
he exacted the payment of ten thousand byzants. In March 1354 a series of
earthquakes threw down the walls of several cities in Thrace, and Suleiman,
taking advantage of the confusion, occupied Callipolis,
repaired the fortifications, and filled the abandoned houses within its walls
with a colony of Turkish families. This was the first permanent establishment
of the ottoman Turks in Europe. Cantacuzenos in vain
called upon Orkhan to evacuate Callipolis,
offering, when it was too late, to pay forty thousand byzants, which was
probably the sum claimed as due for the service of the ottoman mercenaries.
There can be no doubt that the restoration of John V to his paternal
throne was not pleasing to Orkhan, and that the Turk
saw with pleasure that Matthew Cantacuzenos was able
to continue the civil war. But, as we have already said, an accident induced
the sultan to alter his policy, and form a friendly alliance with John. His son
Khalil, while enjoying the freshness of the sea-breeze in a boat on the gulf of
Nicomedia, in the summer of 1356, was captured by a pirate galley, which
suddenly issued from its concealment in a neighbouring creek. The pirates were
from Phocaea, and they carried their prisoner to that city, which was
considered as a portion of the Greek empire. The governor, Kalothetes,
however, being attached to the party of Cantacuzenos,
held the place as an independent chief. Orkhan
invited John to obtain his son’s release, offering his alliance, and the
remission of the debts due by the empire to the Turkish government, as a
recompense for his success, and threatening him with vengeance in case of
failure. Stimulated by the hope of detaching the ottoman sultan from the party
of Matthew Cantacuzenos, the Emperor John collected a
fleet, and besieged Kalothetes in Phocaea. The Greeks
had lost the art of conducting sieges, so that any fortress of moderate
strength baffled their skill. The siege dragged on slowly, and Kalothetes would probably have defeated the whole power of
the Greek empire, had not the hopes of his party been annihilated by the defeat
of Matthew Cantacuzenos. That rebel emperor was taken
prisoner by the Servians in 1357, delivered up to
John V., and compelled to abdicate. After this, Kalothetes
consented to release Khalil on receiving a ransom of one hundred thousand
byzants, and the grant of a high Byzantine title. During the following winter,
Suleiman was killed by a fall from his horse; and about a year later (a.C. 1359) Sultan Orkhan died
after a reign of thirty-three years. Orkhan was one
of the greatest legislators of modern times; his institutions rendered an
immense Christian population in Europe subject to the ottoman power, and made
the ottoman armies superior to those of all other nations, at a period when
their enemies in western Europe were rapidly advancing in civilization and
force. But in the following chapter we must examine the progress of the ottoman
power and the effect of Orkhan’s institutions more
particularly.
Murad I ascended the ottoman throne on the death of his father Orkhan. He soon recommenced that system of encroachment
which a powerful government and increasing population invariably carries on
against a feeble neighbour with a depopulated territory. Every year added some
new cities to the ottoman dominions. The strong fortresses of Tzurulon and Didymoteichos
received his garrisons, and in 1361 he became master of Adrianople. It must be
observed that the country now so easily subdued by the Ottomans, was precisely
that in which the partisans of the house of Cantacuzenos
were most numerous, so that we are warranted in surmising that party
animosities persuaded the Greek nobles of these districts to prefer the
government of Sultan Murad to that of the Emperor John. The voluntary
submission of the people explains the silence of the Greek historians
concerning the progress and the causes of these conquests. After the conquest
of Adrianople, Murad turned his arms against the Bulgarians and Servians. In 1363 he took Philippopolis from the former,
and in a short time Serres from the latter. The fame
of Murad’s justice, as well as of his power, induced the republic of Ragusa to
conclude a commercial treaty with the ottoman government. The sultan granted
the Ragusans the privilege of trading throughout his dominions; and as this
concession was viewed in the light of the donation of a superior, the republic
sent the sultan an annual present of five hundred pieces of gold. This treaty
was concluded in 1365, and is said to have been the first which the Ottomans
entered into with the Western nations. Murad, either because he found it
troublesome to sign his name, or because there happened to be no reed for
writing at hand, daubed the ink on his palm, and impressed it at the top of the
treaty. This sign-manual has been imitated by every succeeding sultan, and
figures in fantastic form at the head of their firmans
and on the obverse of their coins.
The increasing power of Murad alarmed the emperor to such a degree that,
instead of seeking to awaken the national spirit of the Greeks, he resolved to
beg assistance from the Pope. He commenced a hypocritical endeavour to delude
the Latins into fighting for his cause, by pretending that the Greeks were
ready to sacrifice the only thing for which that nation had, during the
preceding century, displayed any attachment—namely, its superstitions. Urban V
did all in his power to revive the crusading spirit; but Peter, king of Cyprus,
directed the operations of the crusading army to serve the interests of the
Catholic powers in the Levant, not to fight for the Greeks, Bulgarians, and Servians. A force composed of the troops of the King of
Cyprus, contingents from the Venetians and the Knights of Rhodes, with a band
of English volunteers, stormed Alexandria on the 13th of October 1365; but as
soon as they had plundered its rich warehouses, Peter considered it necessary
to abandon his conquest.
The Greek emperor visited the Court of Rome in person in the year
1369, and carried his hypocrisy so far as to join the Latin communion. He
delivered to Pope Urban V a written profession of faith, agreeable to the
tenets of the Roman church, and declared verbally his conviction that the third
person of the Trinity proceeds from the Father and the Son; that it is lawful to
distribute the communion in unleavened bread; that the church of Rome is the
mother church—that she alone has authority to decide questions of faith, and
that she has the sole right of receiving appeals on ecclesiastical matters. All
this was publicly pronounced in the Church of St Peter’s; yet the emperor
gained little by his servility : the Pope only supplied him with two galleys,
three hundred soldiers, and a few thousand ducats; and on his way back to
Constantinople he was arrested for debt at Venice. His eldest son, Andronicus,
who acted as regent of the empire during his absence, pretended that he was
unable to raise the money required to release his father; but his second son
Manuel succeeded in raising the necessary funds at Thessalonica, of which he
was governor, and John returned covered with disgrace to his palace, A.D. 1370.
Murad had watched this attempt to oppose a barrier to the ottoman
power with prudent circumspection. In the meantime, he had consolidated his
conquests in Thrace by subduing the Greek, Bulgarian, and Servian chiefs, who
held independent districts in the chains of Haemus and Rhodope. But when the
sultan saw the Greek emperor return to his capital as weak as ever, and far
more unpopular with his orthodox subjects, hostilities were renewed. John,
unable to form a generous resolution, consented to become the vassal of the
sultan as he had already consented to become a servant of the Pope. He had
hardly concluded his treaty with Murad when the imprudence of his son Manuel
again exposed the empire to the attacks of the Ottomans. The position of Manuel
enabled him to form a plot with the Greek inhabitants of Serres,
by which he hoped to gain possession of that city. The conspiracy was revealed
to Murad, and John V was compelled to disavow the conduct of his favourite son.
Manuel abandoned Thessalonica, and fled to Lesbos; but seeing little chance of
escape, he resolved to trust to the known generosity of the sultan. He repaired
to Adrianople, and begged for pardon at the feet of Murad, who treated him with
clemency, and even kindness. But the ottoman sultan took advantage of the
gratuitous violation of the recent treaty with the empire by the Greek prince
to take possession of Thessalonica.
The historians who have narrated the events of the last century of the
Greek empire often disagree both in the history and the chronology of the
period. Many of the details, therefore, require to be illustrated by the
publication of new official documents; but much may always remain to exercise
the sagacity of the critics who may deem this unfortunate period of Greek
history worthy of minute attention. It seems that, about the year 1375, the
Emperor John V, being summoned to join the camp of Sultan Murad in Asia with
his contingent of Greek troops, left his eldest son Andronicus to act as regent
at Constantinople during his absence, as at the time of his visit to Italy.
Andronicus formed a conspiracy to keep possession of the throne; and having
united with Saoudgi, the eldest son of Sultan Murad,
who had been intrusted with the direction of the government in the ottoman
territories in Europe, the two rebel princes proclaimed themselves sovereigns.
Murad at first suspected John V of being privy to his son’s rebellion; but he
was soon convinced that this was not the case. He hastened to Europe, the
Turkish troops deserted his son’s standard, and the two rebel princes were
forced to throw themselves into Didymoteichos, where
their leading partisans, who had no hope of pardon, made an obstinate defence.
The place was compelled to surrender from want of provisions. Murad put out the
eyes of his son Saoudgi, and sent Andronicus to his
father, who had agreed to inflict on him the same punishment. The sultan
treated his other prisoners with excessive cruelty: the soldiers were drowned
in the river that flowed beneath the walls of the fortress, and the fathers of
the rebel officers were compelled to become the executioners of their sons; for
the sultan determined that as many of his subjects as possible should share his
grief, (1376).
The blind Andronicus was imprisoned in the tower of Anemas,
near the palace of Blachern, for two years, but he
then succeeded in making his escape through the assistance of the Genoese of Galata.
Andronicus had secured the friendship of the republic of Genoa during his
rebellion, by bestowing on it the island of Tenedos. He soon succeeded in
driving his father from the throne, which he held for two years and a half. He
conferred the title of Emperor on his son John, and immured his own father,
John V, in the prison from which he had himself escaped. But the protection the
Genoese had accorded to the rebellious son rendered the Venetians anxious to
reinstate the imprisoned father on his throne. Carlo Zeno, a Venetian noble,
undertook to deliver John V on his signing a grant of the island of Tenedos to
the republic of Venice. Zeno asserted that the timidity of the emperor alone
prevented his escape. The plot for his release was discovered, and Zeno was
obliged to quit Constantinople, carrying with him the emperor’s deed ceding the
island of Tenedos to Venice. Zeno fell in with a Venetian fleet under the
command of Justiniani, his own father-in-law, whom he
persuaded to seize the opportunity for gaining possession of an island which
commanded the entrance of the Dardanelles. When the success of the Venetians
was known at Constantinople, the rebel Emperor Andronicus and the Genoese made
an attempt to regain possession of Tenedos. The city was closely invested, and
it is said that mortars for throwing stone bullets were employed on board the
Genoese fleet at this siege for the first time. The attack was nevertheless
defeated.
John V at last effected his escape, and obtained the support of Murad,
which rendered all resistance on the part of Andronicus hopeless. A treaty was
concluded between the father on one side, and the son and grandson on the
other, by which John V resumed the government of the empire, and took
possession of Constantinople, but by which he recognized the right of
Andronicus and his son John to the imperial title as the lawful heirs to the
throne. The city of Selymbria became the residence of
the Emperor Andronicus, and its revenues, with those of the towns of Daneion, Heracleia, Kedestos, and Panion, formed his
appanage. The podestat and council of the Genoese
colony of Galata engaged to assist in enforcing this treaty; yet it appears to
have been very soon violated, for in the year 1384, Manuel, the second son of
John V, was crowned emperor at Constantinople, and proclaimed heir to the
throne.
When John V escaped from prison in the year 1381, he concluded a
treaty with Sultan Murad, acknowledging himself a vassal and tributary of the
Ottoman Empire. Murad continued to pursue his career of conquest in Europe
without troubling the despicable fragments of the imperial government, which
still mock the researches of the historian under the proud title of the Roman
Empire. The princes who pretended to share the throne were all equally contemptible,
and the people was in no degree superior to its rulers. The selfish rapacity of
the aristocracy and the clergy, and the bigotry and turbulence of the populace,
cannot be described in all their mean details. Indeed, no description could
convey a stronger impression of the degradation of Greek society, than the fact
that the policy and courage of the merchants of Genoa and Venice was more
effectual in deciding the fate of Constantinople than the feelings and
interests of the Greek nation.
In the year 1389 the celebrated battle of Kossova
was fought. The ottoman army gained a complete victory, and destroyed the power
of the Servians; but Murad was stabbed by a Servian
noble as he contemplated the scene of the bloody contest. His son, Sultan
Bayezid, renewed his father’s treaty with John V, but called on Manuel to take
the personal command of the Greek contingent in the ottoman camp. This
contingent, with the Emperor Manuel at its head, was directed against the city
of Philadelphia, the last community of Greeks which had retained its
independence in Asia Minor. The history of Philadelphia at this period excites
our curiosity and sympathy, though unfortunately we know little of its
political condition and civic government. For two generations we see it maintaining
its independence in the midst of the Seljouk Turks.
The Byzantine writers mention it as a provincial city of the empire in the year
1323, when it was besieged by the Seljouks, and
reduced to the last extremity by famine. On that occasion it was relieved by Alexios Philanthropenos, one of
the last patriotic warriors named in Byzantine history. A veil then covers its
fate: it was cut off from the central administration of the Greek empire, and,
being relieved from fiscal oppression and commercial monopolies, its resources
appear immediately to have increased; local independence became of practical
value, and the valour and prudence of the citizens protected their liberty.
Philadelphia was of so much importance in the year 1336, when Andronicus III
besieged Phocaea, that in his treaty with the Seljouk
emirs of Aïdin and Saroukhan
he inserted a clause binding these princes to treat the people of Philadelphia
as friends and allies.
The commercial importance of a neutral city in the midst of the rival
emirs, which afforded a regular market for all Turkish produce, and insured a
constant communication with Greek and Italian merchants on the sea-coast,
was generally felt. This circumstance contributed to maintain the independence
of Philadelphia. But if its magistrates and citizens had been as worthless as
those of Constantinople, its liberty could not have continued for two
generations. Recent events had changed the state of Asia Minor. The rapid
conquests of the Ottomans had swallowed up the neighbouring Seljouk
principalities, and Sultan Bayezid, who possessed many seaports, no longer
desired to see a neutral commercial city on the frontier of his dominions; on
the contrary, he was eager to increase his power by its conquest. Philadelphia
refused his summons to submit; but when the people saw the Emperor Manuel and
the imperial standard in the hostile army, they perceived that the cause of
Greek liberty and of the Orthodox Church was hopeless, and they capitulated.
The terms conceded to their Greek subjects at this time by the ottoman sultans
were not regarded as oppressive, for their fiscal burdens were lightened. The
Emir of Aïdin was forced to cede Ephesus to Bayezid,
and the principalities of Saroukhan and Menteshe were at the same time incorporated in the Ottoman
Empire. These new conquests were formed into a government of which
Philadelphia, called by the Turks Alashehr, was
constituted the capital, and Ertogrul, the son of
Sultan Bayezid, was appointed governor.
The haughty conduct of the young sultan alarmed John V, who now, when it
was too late, began to strengthen the fortifications of Constantinople. Thirty
six years had elapsed since he had ordered the citadel constructed by Cantacuzenos at the Golden Gate to be destroyed. He now
commenced repairing this stronghold, and proposed improving the defences of the
Golden Gate itself by the addition of two towers. In order to complete the work
with the greatest celerity, he employed the solid marble blocks that had been
used in building the Church of the Holy Apostles and other sacred edifices,
which were now little better than heaps of ruin; while, to hide the plan of his
fortifications, he lavished architectural decorations on the outer walls.
Bayezid, however, was no sooner informed of his proceedings, than he sent an
order to his imperial vassal to level the work he had already completed with
the ground, threatening that, in case of any delay, he would render the Emperor
Manuel responsible. The miserable old emperor, who feared that his son might be
deprived of sight, immediately destroyed his work, and shortly after sank into
the grave.
The personal beauty of John V obtained for him the name of Kalojanni, which his subjects repeated as a contemptuous
compliment, on account of his success in licentious amours.
It is difficult to convey any idea of the rapidity with which
Constantinople declined during his long reign. The Greeks, who aspired only at
remaining stationary, could not conceal from themselves that they were
descending in the scale of nations. They imitated the dress and the manners of
the Italians and the Turks, but they never attempted to emulate their activity
and courage. The depopulation and poverty of the empire were exhibited in long
ranges of dilapidated edifices, which now disfigured many of the principal
streets of Constantinople, once adorned with palaces faced with the richest
marbles. The government and the nobles had sold the architectural ornaments,
variegated marbles, the columns, the tesselated
pavements, and rich mosaics to the merchants of Genoa and Venice, who had
transported them to the Adrian lagunes and Ligurian rocks, to decorate new
palaces, and to ornament the temples and shrines of another church.
Sect. V
REIGN OF MANUEL II, A.D.
1891-1426.
Emperor Manuel was at Brusa when he heard of his
father’s death. He was generally esteemed, being neither destitute of talent
nor personal courage, while his disposition was mild and conciliatory. Before
Bayezid was informed of the death of John V the new emperor had made his escape,
and reached Constantinople in safety; but the sultan treated him as a
rebellious vassal in consequence of his secret departure. John Paleologos, the
son of Andronicus, who had succeeded his father in the appanage of Selymbria, was encouraged to claim the empire in virtue of
the treaty of 1381, by which the succession had been secured to his father and
himself. A body of Turkish troops was instructed to ravage the Greek territory
up to the very walls of Constantinople; but other matters calling for Bayezid’s
care, he accepted the submission of Manuel, and the Greek emperor again
appeared as a vassal at the Sublime Porte.
The ambition of Bayezid was unbounded, and his love of war was
inflamed by an inordinate confidence in his own military talents, and in the
power of the ottoman army. He despised the Christians and considered it his
first duty to reduce them to the condition of subjects, if not of slaves. The
position of Manuel was therefore as dangerous as it was degrading; for although
the spectacle of a Roman emperor standing as a suppliant before his throne
soothed the pride of Bayezid, it was apparent that his vanity would readily
yield to his ambition, if an opportunity presented itself of gaining possession
of Constantinople.
For several years Bayezid was employed consolidating his dominions both in
Europe and Asia and he was compelled to watch the movements of the Western
powers, which threatened him with a new crusade. At last, when Sigismund, king
of Hungary, was about to invade the ottoman dominions, the sultan convoked an
assembly of the Christian princes who were then his vassals, in order to
prevent their combining to assist the invaders. Manuel the Greek emperor, John
despot of Selymbria, Theodore despot of the
Peloponnesus, Stephen king of Servia, Constantine Dragazes,
the son of Tzarko, prince of the valley of the
Vardar, and several Greek, Servian, Bulgarian, and Albanian chiefs of less
importance, who were already independent, appeared in the ottoman camp at Serres. Circumstances induced the Emperor Manuel and the
Despot Theodore to believe that their correspondence with the Pope was known to
the sultan, and that their lives were in danger. They both fled, and gained
their own states in safety. John of Selymbria
remained to profit by the flight of his uncles; but Bayezid could only attend
to the Hungarian war. His brilliant victory at Nicopolis
in 1396 taught all Europe that the discipline of the janizaries
was more than a match for the valour of the chivalry of France, and left him at
liberty to punish the Greek princes for their desertion. He immediately turned
his arms against the Despot Theodore, and marched in person into Thessaly. The
Bishop of Phocis was the first traitor who joined the Mussulmans, and urged
them to conquer Greece. The Valachians of Thessaly
and the widow of the Count of Galona submitted to the
terms imposed on them; and the sultan, seeing that no resistance would be
offered to his troops by the Greeks in the Peloponnesus, turned back to Thrace.
His generals, Takoub and Evrenos,
took Corinth and Argos; while Theodore shut himself up within the walls of Misithra, and contemplated the ruin of his subjects without
making an effort to save them. The ottoman army, after ravaging great part of
the peninsula retired, carrying away immense booty and thirty thousand
prisoners, whom they sold as slaves.
As Bayezid was not master of a sufficient naval force to attempt blockading
Constantinople, he resolved to undermine the power of Manuel in such a way as
would be least likely to awaken the jealousy of the commercial republics of
Italy. He fanned the flames of family discord, which shed their lurid light on
the records of the house of Paleologos, by acknowledging John, despot of Selymbria, as the lawful Emperor of Constantinople, and
supplying him with a Turkish army to blockade Manuel by land. In return for
this assistance, John engaged to put the Ottomans in possession of a quarter in
Constantinople, to be occupied by them with the same privileges as the
Venetians, Pisans, and Genoese held their quarters; the sultan was to name a
cadi to reside in the Ottoman quarter, as the legal judge of all Mohammedans,
who were to build a mosque and celebrate their worship publicly. In order to
render the blockade as troublesome as possible to the citizens of
Constantinople, Bayezid prohibited all intercourse with his dominions, and cut
off the supply of provisions from the coast of Asia. The necessaries of life
soon rose to an enormous price; the people began to repine at their sufferings,
and many escaped into the ottoman territory, leaving their houses to be
destroyed for firewood. Ducas tells us that the
modius of wheat was sold for twenty byzants. The Emperor Manuel, as soon as he
saw that war with Bayezid was inevitable, had sent an ambassador to solicit
assistance from Charles VI, king of France. The Marshal de Boucicault, who had
already served with distinction in the East, and had been taken prisoner by
Bayezid at Nicopolis, was appointed to command the
forces which Charles VI sent to assist the Greek emperor. Boucicault sailed
from Aiguesmortes, and after some delay effected his
junction with a fleet composed of eight Genoese, eight Venetian, two Rhodian
galleys, and one of Mitylene, and proceeded to
Constantinople, where he arrived in 1398. The arrival of Boucicault and his
little army, which consisted of six hundred men-at-arms, without horses, six
hundred infantry soldiers, and one thousand archers and crossbowmen, revived
the courage of the Greeks. The Genoese and Venetians were well acquainted with
the ottoman coast, and under the direction of Boucicault the garrison of
Constantinople carried on a succession of plundering incursions along the
Asiatic coast, from the gulfs of Nicomedia and Mudania
to the shores of the Black Sea. It was evident that this system of warfare
could not long uphold the empire, and Boucicault, finding the Greeks incapable
of making any exertions in their own defence, advised Manuel to seek assistance
from the Western nations. This advice would have in all probability arrived too
late, had not the ottoman power at this moment been threatened by the great
Tartar conqueror, Timor. The sultan was therefore as much inclined to conclude
a temporary peace as the emperor. The pretensions of John of Selymbria were the only obstacle, and Manuel overcame this
difficulty by a generous resolution. He opened communications with his nephew,
whom he easily convinced that, if he entered Constantinople with Turkish
troops, his reign would prove of short duration. He then offered to receive
John as his colleague, and invest him with the government, while he himself
visited Western Europe. The Marshal Boucicault guaranteed these arrangements,
and a French force remained in the capital to protect the interests of Manuel
during his absence. On the 4th of December 1399, John entered Constantinople,
and was proclaimed emperor, and on the 10th Manuel quitted his capital with
Boucicault, to present himself as a suppliant at the European courts.
We must now turn from contemplating the decline of the Greek
empire and the debasement of the Hellenic race, to examine the causes
which led to the rapid rise and solid organization of the Ottoman power. The
state of society both in the Greek and Seljouk
empires, after the middle of the thirteenth century, held out no hope of
internal reform. All classes were imbued with those conservative prejudices,
which, by attempting to fix mankind in a stationary position, become the
heralds of a declining civilization. Mutability being a law of nature in the political
as in the physical world, every community which ceases to be in a state of
progress must soon begin to retrograde. The whole mass of the Christian and
Turkish population between the Danube and Mount Taurus was smitten with a moral
palsy, or absorbed in the selfish pursuit of individual interests. Differences
of rank and the power of the aristocracy were declining in proportion as the
moral degradation of the Greek nobles and of the Seljouk
emirs increased ; while, on the other hand, order and discipline, reposing on
no basis of duty and law, acquired little strength among the people when their
adventitious bonds were loosened. Insecurity of property caused a rapid
diminution of the population. The labour of rural slaves became of little
value; their lives consequently were considered of less. Free labourers could
not venture to seek employment at any distance from walled towns or fortified
castes. The revenues of the central government failed, the administration of
justice ceased in many provinces, and was corrupt in all, and even the
influence of religion was powerless among the Christian clergy. Anarchy
pervaded the whole fabric of society; yet both the Greeks and the Seljouk Turks talked only of their orthodoxy. Still they
perceived and trembled at their own want of spirit. The conquest of the Seljouk Empire by the Tartars, and of the Greek empire by
the Catalans or Franks, seemed probable events. The storm of conquest at last
burst, but it desolated all around, leaving the Greek empire uninjured, but incapable
of profiting by the respite. The Tartars broke the Seljouk
power to pieces, and reduced the Russians to the condition of the most abject
slaves. A new career was opened for the Greek race, but no Greek arose in any
rank of society whose name deserves to be recorded among the great or the good;
no individual arose who strove to make the sentiments of patriotism, of
justice, and of truth predominate over the prejudices of orthodoxy in the
breasts of his countrymen.
The Mohammedan world presented a different spectacle. A small nomadic tribe
of Turks, which had recently quitted the deserts of Mesopotamia, suddenly
became impressed with the noble ambition of excelling in morals and religion as
much as in military virtues. It embraced a career of progressive improvement,
which rapidly changed the face of the East. We have already noticed the history
of Othman, who gave his name not only to his own tribe, but also to the empire
which was founded by his son Orkhan. We must now
record the institutions which entitle Orkhan to be
regarded as the greatest legislator of modem times. The Code Napoleon is a mere
mimicry of Roman law, and Napoleon himself was only “a kind of bastard Caesar”.
The institutions of Orkhan, on the contrary, were not
composed of rules drawn from a different state of society by schoolmen; they
were the expressions of native energy; they were modelled on the unexpected
demands of a progressive society, and they were calculated to provide for
future exigencies by organizing a conquering nation.
The establishment of the Ottoman Turks in Europe is the last example of the
conquest of a numerous Christian population by a small number of Mussulman
invaders, and of the colonization of civilized countries by a race ruder than
the native population. The causes which produced these events were in some
degree similar to those which had enabled small tribes of Goths and Germans to
occupy and subdue the Western Roman Empire; but three particular causes demand
especial attention. First, the superiority of the ottoman tribe over all
contemporary nations in religious convictions and in moral and military
conduct. Second, the number of different races which composed the population of
the country between the Adriatic and the Black Sea, the Danube and the Aegean.
Third, the weakness of the Greek empire, the degraded state of its judicial and
civil administration, and the demoralisation of the Hellenic race.
First: The superiority of the ottoman tribe is proved by the respect with which
Othman and his followers were treated in the Seljouk
Empire, and the readiness with which both Mohammedans and Christians submitted
to his government. He could utter the proud boast, that tribe after tribe
quitted the Seljouk emirs to join his followers, and
that city after city threw off the yoke of the Greek empire to admit his
garrisons, but no tribe ever forsook his banner, and no city threw off his
yoke. The virtues of the ottoman Turks would have soon yielded to the
seductions of wealth and power, had not Orkhan laid
the foundations of a new power by blending together his father’s tribe—the Seljouks and the Turkomans who joined his banner, and the
apostate Christian population which served in his armies—into one body by a
framework of civil and military institutions. We must not, however, overlook
the fact that, after the conquest of Constantinople, the legislation of Orkhan was smothered in new laws and ordinances borrowed
from the Caliphate, from Persian law-books, and from Byzantine usages; and that
the Kanun Namé, or laws of Suleiman the Magnificent,
the only Ottoman code known in Europe, represents the original institutions of Orkhan, in the same way as the code of Justinian represents
the laws of the Twelve Tables, or as the constitution of the United States of
America represents the Magna Charta of England.
The establishment of the Ottoman Empire dates from the year 1329, as in
that year Orkhan first assumed the power of coining
money, and ordered his own name to be mentioned in the public prayers, to the
exclusion of the Seljouk sultan. At the same time,
his brother Aladdin, who acted as his vizier or prime-minister, advised him to
reorganize his military force, and create an army of household slaves, who
would remain for life members of his own family. This army, which for several
centuries met no equal on the field of battle, and whose deeds rival the
exploits of the Macedonians and the Romans, was composed of Christian children,
who, if they had received as good an education from their parents and from
orthodox priests as they did from the sultan and the Mohammedan moolahs, ought successfully to have resisted the power they
established. Orkhan formed his army of regular
cavalry and infantry. The cavalry was already called Gipahi;
but it is doubtful whether the name Yenitsheri, or
janissaries, was then applied to the infantry, or only adopted about thirty
years later, when the dervish Hadji Bektash
consecrated the corps for Murad I. Two important bodies of irregular militia
were formed at the same time, consisting of light cavalry and infantry, or
armed pioneers; and it is a proof both of the enlightened views of Orkhan, and of the comparative weakness of the ottoman
tribe, that several squadrons of cavalry and regiments of infantry among these
irregulars were formed of Christians, in order to secure the population from
the oppression and insolence of the Seljouk Turks,
who formed the bulk of these irregulars. Orkhan also
regulated the relations of the leaders of the military forces established in
his new conquests to the government, and laid the foundation of the military
fiefs, or timars and siamets,
which for a long period occupied an important position in the history of the
Ottoman Empire. These fiefs were rendered hereditary by Murad I in 1376.
The nucleus of the Ottoman Empire was the house-hold of Orkhan;
and the primary object of his legislation was to concentrate the whole strength
of his government within his palace walls. He effected this in a most singular
manner, by educating all the civil servants of the administration, and the best
officers and soldiers of his army, as members of his family, after having
annihilated every other domestic tie which connected them with their natural
parents and with the place of their birth. The object of Orkhan
was to form the ablest and most energetic instruments of his will. His brother
and vizier, Aladdin, attained the desired end by the organization of the
tribute-children, whom he moulded into a community more obedient to the sultan
than the Jesuits to the popes, and equally able as an instrument of authority,
which knew no moral responsibility but to the will of its master. The portion
of the tribute-children trained for service in the administration rivalled the
Jesuits in intellectual superiority, as the corps of janissaries surpassed in
deeds of arms the exploits of the military orders of Christian knights. To the
education of the tribute-children we must ascribe the chief strength of the
Ottoman Empire, in as far as it proved superior to all contemporary
governments. By them, or rather by their organization, a vast variety of races
both of Mohammedans and Christians were held together by as firm a grasp as
that by which imperial Rome held her provinces, and the standard of the sultan
was carried victoriously into the heart of Europe and Asia, and far along the
shores of Africa. Never was such a power reared up so rapidly from such scanty
means as were possessed by Orkhan and his vizier,
when they conceived the bold idea of exterminating Christianity by educating
Christian children.
The Mohammedan law expressly places one-fifth of the booty taken in war,
and particularity of slaves—which then formed the most valuable portion of
all booty—at the disposal of the sovereign. Besides this, every child without
parents who falls into the hands of a Mussulman belongs to Islam, and his
master is bound to bring him up in the religion of Mahomet, and even to force
him to embrace the true faith. The wars of Orkhan, as
an ally of Cantacuzenos, were therefore in a great
measure undertaken to fill his palace with young slaves. But a sufficient
number could hardly be obtained of the tender age at which they could be
brought up as Mussulmans, for the Mohammedan law strictly prohibits the forced
conversion of prisoners. The Othoman tribe was small,
the Seljouks were disorderly, and no dependence could
be placed on mercenary troops. Orkhan consequently
felt the necessity of seeking for a permanent supply of well-disciplined
recruits. In this difficulty, either his brother Aladdin, or his relation Kara
Khalil Tchenderli, suggested that he should in future
impose a tribute of children on every Christian district which he conquered.
This singular tax met with little opposition from the Greek Christians, whose
country had been laid waste by war, and whose families were often in danger of
perishing from famine during the civil wars of their emperors. The tribute
established by Orkhan was extended by Murad I, and
was not legally abolished until the year 1685.
The tribute-children were generally collected about the age of eight. They
were lodged in a portion of the sultan’s palace, and instructed by able
teachers selected by Orkhan and his counsellors. The
history of the Ottoman empire proves the excellence of the system adopted in
their education. As their talents and physical strength were developed, they
were divided into two classes. One class was educated as men of the pen, and
from these the officials of the civil and financial administration, the
secretaries in the public departments, and even the ministers of state, were
chosen. The other class was disciplined to form men of the sword, and formed
the corps of janissaries. This college of conquerors was founded with one
thousand neophytes; but as every year added to its numbers, the janissaries
soon increased to an army of twelve thousand young men in the prime of youthful
enthusiasm and manly vigour.
The ottoman princes were educated on the same system as the
tribute-children, and for several generations the sultans were eminently men of
progress as well as sagacious sovereigns. They were always ready to receive
suggestions for the improvement of their army and their government. Each
successive sultan embraced new schemes of conquest, and adopted new inventions
in war and new ideas in administration. Intelligence was stimulated in every
rank. New combinations daily presented themselves to every Ottoman officer in
authority which called for a prompt decision, and he was compelled to report
the reasons for his decision to an able and despotic master. Hence it was that
the pashas of the Ottoman Empire formed a clear conception of the object they
wished to attain. The first modern school of statesmen and generals was formed
under the early sultans. The preceding pages have furnished ample proofs of the
great abilities and wise administration of Orkhan and
Murad I. The bitterest enemies of the Ottomans bear testimony to the wisdom and
talents of their successors. Even the fiery Bayezid was liberal and generous to
his Christian subjects, and admitted them freely to his society, by which he
rendered himself extremely popular. Sultan Mohammed I, who transferred the
capital of his empire from Brusa to Adrianople, was a
firm friend and liberal master to all his followers; but in his hostility to
his enemies he was as persevering as a camel. Murad II distinguished himself by
his attention to the administration of justice, and for his reforms of the
abuses prevalent under the Greek emperors. If any of his pashas or judges
oppressed his Christian subjects, they were punished without mercy. Such was
the conduct of the five sultans who prepared the way for the conquest of the
Greek race; it ought to be carefully contrasted with that of the contemporary
Greek emperors.
The second cause which facilitated the conquest of the
Ottomans in Europe was the number of different races of Christians who dwelt in
the Greek Empire, and in the countries south of the Danube. The Sclavonians were probably then the most numerous body of
the population, for they formed a portion of the population in every state,
from the banks of the Save to the mountains of the Peloponnesus. The Greeks,
who were next in number, were even more dispersed than the Sclavonians,
and lived under as many different governments. Even the Bulgarians were not all
united under the government of the King of Bulgaria. The Albanians were
governed by many chieftains without any supreme head, and the power of the
Prince of Great Vlachia, and the number of the
Thessalian Vallachians, was rapidly diminishing. The
geographical distribution of all these races being quite independent of the
actual distribution of political power, the Greek emperors, the Servian and
Bulgarian kings, the chieftains of the Albanians and Vallachians,
and the Frank princes of Greece, were unable to awaken a national interest in
opposition to the Ottoman government. The daily complaint of every Christian
who dwelt to the south of the Danube was, that he was governed by a rapacious
and unjust master, that his property and his life were insecure, and that no
change could render his condition worse. The ottoman armies appeared, and the
sultan promised security to the timid and justice to the oppressed. As the
ottoman sovereigns respected their promises, we need not wonder at the rapidity
of the conquests of the Mohammedans.
The third cause which facilitated the progress of the
Ottoman power was the weakness of the Greek empire; and this weakness was
caused by the degraded state of its judicial and civil administration, and the
demoralized condition of its people. The preceding pages have treated this
subject in detail, and marked the decay of the energy of the Byzantine empire,
and its transformation into a petty Greek state, whose rulers were
characterised by financial rapacity, whose church lost its sentiments of Christianity
in its eagerness to maintain a national orthodoxy, and whose people became a
type of ignorant and conceited immovability. The state of the civil and
sanitary police affords a sad illustration of the demoralization of the
Hellenic race, and the decay of Greek civilization. In the interval between the
years 1348 and 1418 the Greek empire was visited by eight great pestilential
disorders, and by a succession of famines.
Manuel II gained very little by his mendicant pilgrimage to Italy,
France, and England. Some valuable presents were bestowed upon him by Visconti,
the magnificent Duke of Milan, and Charles VI of France granted him a pension
of thirty thousand crowns; but he was compelled to return to Constantinople at
the end of two years, with a little money and a few volunteers collected from
people poorer and not more numerous than the Greeks. He learned on his way home
that his enemy Bayezid had been defeated by Timor, and that the Ottoman Empire
was utterly ruined. On reaching Constantinople he deprived his nephew John, who
had ruled during his absence, of the imperial title, and banished him to Lenmos. John had already placed the Greek empire in a state
of vassalage to the Tartar conqueror; Manuel ratified the treaty, and paid to
Timor the tribute which he had formerly paid to Bayezid.
Historians have indulged in the wildest fables when they have recounted the
history of the defeat of Angora. The armies of Bayezid and Timor are said to
have consisted of such numbers that it would have been impossible to feed them
for a day without a month’s preparation at every station. It is only necessary
to expose the falsity of these accounts by citing one example. The Servian
contingent in the army of Bayezid was only two thousand men at the opening of
the campaign, yet after the losses which it must have sustained in its march
from the Bosphorus, it is said to have amounted to twenty thousand at the
battle of Angora. Every number appears to have been augmented in the same
manner with as little foundation. Rarely, however, has the world seen a more
total defeat than that sustained by the ottoman army. Bayezid died a captive in
the hands of Timor. Brusa, the whole of the ottoman
dominions in Asia Minor, the treasures and the harem of the sultan, all became
the spoil of the Tartars, and the institutions of Orkhan
seemed doomed to annihilation. Yet rarely has so great a victory produced so
little effect on the fate of the vanquished. For a moment, indeed, the ottoman
power was humbled, and an opening formed for the revival of the Greek empire;
but no energy remained in the political organization of the Hellenic race
beyond the confined sphere of local and individual interests; while the
institutions of Orkhan, surviving the defeats and
civil wars of the Ottomans, soon restored power to their central government,
and rendered the sultan again the arbiter of the fate of Greece. Timor would
have annihilated the ottoman power had it reposed only on the talents and
dynastic position of the sultan; and when he held Bayezid a captive, and saw
his sons disputing for the remnants of his succession, he very naturally
believed that the ottoman power was utterly destroyed. He beheld the
insignificancy of the Ottomans as a people, but he could not see the living
soul that survived in their political administration.
The civil wars among the sons of Bayezid had no small influence in
prolonging the existence of the Greek empire. The ottoman historians
reckon an interregnum of ten years after the battle of Angora, during which
four of the sons of Bayezid contended for the sovereignty. Suleiman, Isa, and
Mousa, successively perished, and the youngest of the family, Mohammed I, at
last reunited all his father’s dominions, and was regarded as his legitimate
successor, and the fifth sultan of the Ottomans, including Othman, the founder
of the dynasty.
After the battle of Angora, Suleiman sought safety in Constantinople, where
he concluded a treaty with the Emperor Manuel in the year 1403, by which he
yielded up Thessalonica, the valley of the Strymon, Thessaly, and the coast of
the Black Sea, as far as Varna, to the Greeks. John of Selymbria
was recalled from Lemnos, and established at Thessalonica, with the title of
Emperor; but the control of the government was vested by Manuel in the hands of
Demetrius Leontaris, a Byzantine noble. In return for
the cession of these provinces, the emperor furnished Suleiman with money to
collect an army, and to establish his authority over the remainder of the
ottoman dominions in Europe.
Isa contrived to conceal himself in the neighbourhood of Brusa until Timor quitted Asia Minor. He then assembled an
army, and recovered possession of Brusa, and all the
early possessions of the house of Othman. He was subsequently attacked and
defeated by his brother Mohammed, and is supposed to have perished in
attempting to reach Karamania.
Mousa was taken prisoner with his father, and placed by Timor in the hands
of the Sultan of Kermian, who afterwards released
him. He then retired to Vallachia, and, obtaining
assistance from its prince, Myrtshy, and from
Stephen, king of Servia, he waged war with his brother Suleiman. The debauchery
of Suleiman at last induced the janissaries to join Mousa, and Suleiman was
slain in attempting to escape to Constantinople, A.D. 1410.
The close alliance which had existed between Suleiman and Manuel induced
Mousa to turn his arms against the Greek empire. He reconquered all the towns
in Macedonia and Thessaly which his brother had ceded to Manuel, with the
exception of Thessalonica and Zeitounion. Mousa then
laid siege to Constantinople; but his operations were paralyzed by the
destruction of a naval armament he had fitted out. The emperor had strengthened
the imperial fleet, the command of which he had intrusted to his natural
brother, named also Manuel, a man of courage and military talents. The admiral
gained a complete victory over the ottoman fleet; but his brilliant success
excited the jealousy of his imperial brother. On returning to receive the
thanks of his country, he was thrown into prison on an accusation of treason,
and remained a prisoner during the life of his brother. The siege of
Constantinople was merely a succession of skirmishes under its walls, in which
several Greek nobles were slain; and the attention of Mousa was soon exclusively
occupied by the attacks of his brother Mohammed.
Mousa rendered his government as unpopular by his severity as Suleiman by
his debauchery, and many of the Othoman officers in
Europe invited Mohammed to seize the throne. The Emperor Manuel agreed to
furnish transports to convey the Asiatic troops over the Bosphorus; but he
refused to admit them into Constantinople, though he allowed them to form their
camp under its walls. The first operations of Mohammed were unsuccessful; but
at last he forced Mousa to retire to Adrianople, who, in the end, was deserted
by all his and slain, a.C. 1413. Little more than ten
years elapsed from the day that Mohammed, then a mere youth, fled from the
field of Angora with only one faithful companion, until he reunited under his
sway nearly all the extensive dominions which had been ruled by his father.
Timor had not perceived the fact, that, the tribute of Christian children being
the keystone on which the whole fabric of the ottoman power rested, its
resources were really much greater in Europe than in Asia.
The energy displayed by the Ottomans in recovering all they had lost by
Timor’s victories is surprising, and the circumstance that this was effected
amidst incessant and bloody civil wars requires some explanation. It seems
strange that a powerful party was always found ready to embrace the cause of
any one of Bayezid’s sons who claimed the throne, and that the bloody wars they
carried on in no degree weakened the Ottoman Empire. The origin of Othman and
his tribe solves the mystery. From the son of a foreign emigrant he gained the
rank of a Seljouk prince, and his new power made him
the ruler of a numerous population of Seljouk landed
proprietors, and of nomadic Turkomans, as well as chieftain of the few families
which had composed his father’s horde. When the Ottoman dominions extended, the
sultan’s court was crowded with haughty Seljouk beys
and powerful Turkoman chieftains; and when these proud Mussulmans beheld the
army and the administration filled with the tribute-children, who were devoted
to the sultan as members of his family, their prejudices and their interests
alike placed them in opposition to the ottoman government. The spirit of
personal independence was as warmly cherished by the Seljouk
and Turkoman beys as by the feudal barons of Western Europe. The civil wars in
the Ottoman empire correspond with the wars between the crown and the nobility
which took place in the feudal kingdoms; they were the struggle between a
despotic sovereign and a powerful aristocracy. The Greek emperors, Manuel and
his son John VI, availed themselves of this dissatisfaction in a powerful body
of the Turkish population to create frequent troubles in the Ottoman Empire, by
putting forward several claimants to the throne of the sultans, and every
claimant found a party hostile to the central administration ready to take up
arms. The love which the Greeks have always manifested for mental contests and
diplomatic intrigues induced them to expect greater results from their manoeuvres
than could ever result from the political combinations of a power destitute of
military force. The vanity of the Byzantine court prevented its tracing the
unquiet spirit of the Turkish population to its antipathy to the institutions
of Orkhan.
The Greek empire enjoyed an uninterrupted peace during the reign of
Mohammed I, which lasted until the year 1421; and Manuel devoted his
attention during this period to restoring some order in the public
administration, and to re-establishing the sway of the central authority in the
distant provinces of the empire. After completing his reforms in the civil,
financial, military and ecclesiastical departments at Constantinople, he found
it necessary to visit the provinces in person, in order to reduce the local power
of the Greek archonts within reasonable bounds. He
quitted Constantinople in the month of July 1413, and commenced his operations
by reducing the island of Thasos, the citadel of which resisted his little army
for two months. The emperor then visited Thessalonica, where it appears that he
remained more than a year. His nephew John, who was governor of the city,
assumed the monastic habit; but whether he was compelled by the emperor to
adopt this step, in order to allow the new reforms to be carried into execution,
is uncertain. The Despot Andronicus, the emperor’s second son, was appointed
governor of Thessalonica. After his father’s death he sold the city to the
Venetians for the sum of fifty thousand sequins.
In March 1415 Manuel visited the Peloponnesus. The Roman Empire of the East
had shrunk to such pitiful dimensions that the Byzantine province, which only
comprised about three-quarters of that peninsula, was now its most extensive
province. The first care of the emperor was to strengthen the means of
defending this territory by fortifying the Isthmus of Corinth. He then directed
his attention to reforming the abuses which the feudal tyranny of the Franks
and the unprincipled fiscal extortions of the Greek archonts
had introduced into the administration. These abuses were rapidly exterminating
the Greek agricultural population, and making way for the immigration of a
ruder class of Albanian labourers.
When we compare the reforms of Manuel with the legislation of Orkhan, we are astonished at the great intellectual
superiority displayed by the Ottomans at this period. The Greek emperor adopted
only a few temporary devices to arrest the progress of social putrefaction in a
diseased society. His own talents and the energies of his people were
incompetent to make any bold efforts for extirpating the sources of the evil,
and for infusing a spirit of honesty and patriotism into Greek society. Yet the
fact that Greek society as well as the imperial government was rapidly decaying
was generally acknowledged. The Despot Theodore, Manuel’s brother, who died
about the year 1407, had felt the task of undertaking the regeneration of
Greece so hopeless, and had found the difficulty of governing the
Peloponnesians so great, that he attempted to sell his province to the Knights
of Rhodes, after he had introduced numerous colonies of Albanians to fill up
the void caused by the decrease of the native population. The alarming
disorders in Greek society induced George Gemistos Plethon, the Platonist, one of the Byzantine officials
employed in the Peloponnesus, to propose plans of reform as radical but less
practicable than those of Orkhan. The extent of the
evils he wished to cure is shown by the violence of the remedies he proposed to
use. He boldly declares that no reform was possible without a complete change
in the whole frame of society, and to effect this he recommended the abolition
of all individual rights of property in land, which were to be replaced by
rights of occupancy alone, while the absolute property in the soil was to be
vested in the state. His reforms with regard to persons were not less at
variance with the feelings of his age and the feudal manners of the
Peloponnesians. He proposed reviving the great Roman principle of imperial
policy, that a complete separation ought to exist between the classes of
soldiers and tax-payers. On these two maxims he formed the details of his
reform, which were so adverse to every existing interest and prejudice that it
would have been as easy to attempt restoring the laws of Lycurgus.
From a satirist of the time, we learn that while the Emperor Manuel was
occupied in diminishing the power and checking the abuses of the archonts of the Peloponnesus and of the Constantinopolitan
officials, many of the courtiers in his household made a traffic of creating
new corruptions in the administration by selling imperial decrees and
golden bulls. The character of the native Greeks he declares to be equally bad.
He says, “They are formed of three parts; their tongue speaks one thing, their
mind meditates another, and their actions accord with neither”. There can be no
good administration among an utterly demoralized people. When the emperor
returned to Constantinople, he carried with him some of the most turbulent and
intriguing of the Peloponnesian chiefs, who had, previous to his arrival,
contrived to appropriate the greater part of the taxes levied on the people to
their own use. Indeed, the most important result of Manuel’s visit was the
introduction of such a degree of order in the provincial administration, that a
fixed sum could be regularly remitted to the imperial treasury at
Constantinople. His son Theodore remained as his viceroy at Misithra.
The death of Sultan Mohammed I in 1421 involved the empire in a
contest with his son, Murad II. The self-conceit of the Greeks persuaded them
that they could guide the progress of the Ottomans by their superiority in
diplomacy. No experience could teach them that rhetoric and scholastic learning
are feeble arms against military discipline and national courage. A pretender
to the Ottoman throne resided at Constantinople, named Mustapha, who asserted
that he was a son of Bayezid. He was now acknowledged as lawful sultan, and
Manuel concluded with him a treaty, by which Mustapha promised to restore Gallipoli,
the Chalcidice of Macedonia, and the maritime cities on the Black Sea, while
the emperor engaged to furnish money and military stores for the attack of
young Murad. Manuel soon received a lesson which proved the imprudence of
violating the peace with the Ottoman empire when the Greeks were incapable of
carrying on the war themselves. Mustapha gained possession of Gallipoli, but
refused to surrender it, saying that it was not in his power to yield up a city
inhabited by Mussulmans to an infidel sovereign. Manuel would then willingly
have made his peace with Murad II, but the Ottoman councils were guided by
steadier principles than the Greek, and the terms they insisted on were such
that the emperor preferred abiding the fortune of war. For some time the
enterprise of Mustapha was successful; he subdued all the European provinces,
and crossed the Hellespont to fight a decisive battle with Murad in Asia. But
the Turks had discovered his unfitness for the throne. He was abandoned by his
followers, taken prisoner by Murad II, and hanged, in order to convince the
world that he was an impostor.
Murad resolved to punish Manuel for his intrigues. The emperor was
now weakened by age, and the direction of public affairs was in a great
measure intrusted to his son John, who endeavoured to appease the sultan with
abject apologies. Murad gave the imperial ambassadors no answer until his
preparations were completed. He then marched forward and formed the siege of
Constantinople, establishing his own headquarters at the Church of the
Fountain, and commencing his lines of circumvallation in the month of June
1422. Manuel now sent another ambassador to Murad. Korax,
a Greek of Philadelphia, the official interpreter of the court, was charged
with the mission. Like all Greek ministers, Korax was
extremely unpopular, and his knowledge of the Turkish language, joined to the
circumstance that he was not a born subject of the empire, made him the object
of much malicious calumny. His diplomacy failed; he was accused of treachery,
insulted by the people on his return from the Ottoman camp, and seized by the
Cretan guards, who occupied the place of the Varangians of older times. The
emperor was compelled to bring the obnoxious interpreter to trial on a charge
of holding treasonable correspondence with the enemy. Writings of Korax were found which appeared to confirm the accusation.
The gold and silver plate in his house was said to consist of the presents
destined for the sultan. Korax was tried, but as his
judges sat in fear of the Cretans and the populace, it is not surprising that
he was found guilty, even though we suppose that he was innocent. Death was
then rarely inflicted at Constantinople by a judicial sentence; Korax was therefore only sentenced to lose his eyesight;
but the punishment was inflicted with such barbarity as to cause his death. His
house was pillaged by the people, and burned to the ground. This occurrence
paints the suspicious feelings of the inhabitants of the capital and the
indiscipline of the troops too vividly to be passed over in recording the
degradation of the empire.
Murad in the meantime carried on his operations with activity. His lines
extended from the Golden Gate to the Wooden Gate; two movable towers were built
to assist the storming of the wall, and cannon were employed by the Ottomans
for the first time. This early artillery, however, was so ill-constructed and
ill-served that it produced little effect. When everything was ready for the
assault, the besiegers directed their principal attack against the wall near
the gate of St Romanus, which crosses the low ground where the water-course Lykos enters the city. On the 24th of August a celebrated
dervish, named Seid-Bokhari, led on the Ottoman
troops to the assault. The Seid had prophesied that
before nightfall the banner of the Prophet would wave on the ramparts of the
imperial city. His followers, persuaded that to him Heaven had revealed its
will, boldly rushed onward to fulfill his prediction.
The sultan promised the whole plunder of the captured city to the victorious
army. But the dervish proved a false prophet. The ladders of the assailants
were broken; a thousand of the bravest janissaries fell before the walls; while
the Greeks, fighting under cover of their battlements, lost only a hundred and
thirty, killed and wounded. The numerical loss of the Turkish army was not very
serious, for when Mousa attacked Constantinople ten years earlier, the Emperor
Manuel had observed that the loss of ten Greek soldiers was more difficult to
replace than the loss of one hundred Turkish. Fortunately for the empire, Murad
was compelled to raise the siege, in order to march against his brother
Mustapha. This young prince had been furnished by the imperial government with
the means of assembling an army. He was soon betrayed into Murad’s power, and
strangled by his order. Murad II did not renew his attack on Constantinople,
and the last act of Manuel’s reign was to sign a treaty of peace, by which
Murad left the empire in possession of a few cities in Thrace, of Thessalonica,
and a few forts near the mouth of the Strymon, Mount Athos, Zeitounion,
and some places in Thessaly. Manuel also engaged to pay the sultan an annual
tribute of 300,000 aspers.
Manuel adopted the monastic habit two years before his death, and took the
name of Matthew, but he continued to give his advice on public affairs. He
died in July 1425, at the age of seventy-seven, after a reign of thirty-four
years.
Sect. VI
REIGN OF JOHN VI, A.D.
1425-1448.
John VI found the Eastern Roman Empire reduced to the city of
Constantinople, a few neighbouring towns, Thessalonica, and a part of the
Peloponnesus. His reign of twenty-three years passed in almost uninterrupted
peace; yet this long period of tranquillity was productive of no improvement.
The emperor did nothing to render the administration of justice more equitable,
the clergy made no effort to improve the morality of the people, and the
citizens used neither industry nor good faith to increase the commercial
resources of their country. As far as the revenues both of the government and
of the nation were concerned, the emperor and the people alike consumed, before
the expiration of each year, all that the year had produced. The lethargy of
the empire must be attributed quite as much to the insensibility of the Greek
people as to John’s weakness.
The diminution of the Greek population contrasted strangely with the rapid
increase of the Ottomans, while their decline in wealth and industry offered a
still more unfavourable point of comparison with the Genoese colony of Galata.
The trade of the Greeks had passed into the hands of the Italians; the power e
Byzantine emperors was transferred to the Ottoman sultans. The loss of personal
dignity and courage followed the loss of national honour and power. Plague and
pestilence, as often happens, came as attendants on neglected police, bad
government, and social disorder. In the year 1431 a contagious disease of
fearful mortality decimated the population of Constantinople; and it was the
ninth return of pestilence since the great plague of 1347. Nations, however,
are rarely sensible of their own degradation, and at this time the Greeks
looked on the Latins with contempt as well as hatred; they despised the western
Europeans as heretics, and the Turks as barbarians. Court processions,
religious ceremonies, and national vanity amused and consoled them as they
hastened along the path of degradation and ruin. Dramatic representations of
sacred subjects were performed in the Church of St Sophia, as musical exhibitions
had been celebrated in earlier days. Exercises of archery and imitations of
Turkish horsemanship replaced the military pageants and the games of the
hippodrome, which had been the delight of the Byzantine populace of a nobler
period. An interesting description of the aspect of Constantinople, and of the
condition of the Greek territory in its vicinity, has been transmitted to us by
a candid and judicious contemporary traveller, Bertrandon
de la Brocquière, a Burgundian knight, who visited
Constantinople at the end of the year 1432, on his return from a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem. He describes the fortifications of Constantinople as strong and
imposing; but within the walls there were so many open spaces that they
equalled in extent the portion still covered with buildings; several of the
palaces were in ruins, and part of the portico which had enclosed St Sophia’s
had already disappeared. Beyond the walls of the city, the country in every
direction presented a desolate aspect. All the fortified posts had been
destroyed by Murad II when he besieged Constantinople, and the country, as far
as Selymbria, was inhabited only by a few Greeks
engaged in agriculture, who dwelt in open villages. The Greek empire ended at Selymbria. The frontier territory of the Ottomans was a
similar scene of devastation, the land being tilled by a few Christian peasants
for their Turkish masters.
The conquest of Thessalonica by Sultan Murad in 1430, the quarrels of
the despots Theodore, Constantine, and Thomas, in the Peloponnesus, and the
insolence of the Genoese of Galata, who attacked Constantinople on account of
some disputes relating to the Black Sea trade, warned the Emperor John VI that,
unless he could secure some efficient military aid from strangers, the ottoman
power would soon overwhelm the Greek empire. The Pope was the only sovereign
who possessed sufficient power and influence to obtain effectual aid for the
Eastern Empire; but there was no probability that he would exert that
influence, unless the Emperor John consented to the union of the Greek and
Latin churches, and recognised the papal supremacy. In this critical
conjuncture the statesmen and ecclesiastics of rank at Constantinople decided
that the political exigencies of their situation authorised their truckling even
with the doctrines of their church.
In the year 1438 the Emperor John and the Greek Patriarch made their
appearance at the council of Ferrara. In the following year the council was
transferred to Florence, where, after long discussions, the Greek emperor, and
all the members of the clergy who had attended the council, with the exception
of the Bishop of Ephesus, adopted the doctrines of the Roman church concerning
the procession of the Holy Ghost, the addition to the Nicene Creed, the nature
of purgatory, the condition of the soul after its separation from the body
until the day of judgment, the use of unleavened bread in the sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper, and the papal supremacy. The union of the two churches was
solemnly ratified in the magnificent cathedral of Florence on the 6th of July
1439, when the Greeks abjured their ancient faith in a vaster edifice and under
a loftier dome than that of their own much-vaunted temple of St Sophia.
The Emperor John derived none of the advantages he had expected from the
simulated union of the churches. Pope Eugenius, it is true, supplied him
liberally with money, and bore all the expenses both of the Greek court and
clergy during their absence from Constantinople; he also presented the emperor
with two galleys, and furnished him with a guard of three hundred men, well
equipped, and paid at the cost of the papal treasury; but his Holiness forgot
his promise to send a fleet to defend Constantinople, and none of the Christian
princes showed any disposition to fight the battles of the Greeks, though they
took up the cross against the Turks.
On his return John found his subjects indignant at the manner in which the
honour and doctrines of the Greek Church had been sacrificed in an unsuccessful
diplomatic speculation. The bishops who had obsequiously signed the articles of
union at Florence, now sought popularity by deserting the emperor, and making a
parade of their repentance, lamenting their wickedness in falling off for a
time from the pure doctrine of the orthodox church. The only permanent result
of this abortive attempt at Christian union was to increase the bigotry of the
orthodox, and to furnish the Latins with just grounds for condemning the
perfidious dealings and bad faith of the Greeks. In both ways it assisted the
progress of the ottoman power. The Emperor John, seeing public affairs in this
hopeless state, became indifferent to the future fate of the empire, and
thought only of keeping on good terms with the sultan. His brother Demetrius,
however, who had accompanied him to Florence, shared his apostasy, and partaken
of the papal bounty, now basely attempted to take advantage of the popular
dissatisfaction with the union. He claimed the throne as being the first child
of Manuel who was a Porphyrogenitus, but he trusted to gain his ends by the aid
of Turkish troops rather than by the merits of his title or the preference of
the Greeks. Collecting a large force composed of the Turkish nomads, who were
ready to join any standard that offered them an opportunity of plundering and
enslaving the Christians, Demetrius marched to besiege his brother in
Constantinople. Sultan Murad took no direct part in the contest, but he allowed
Demetrius to enrol Turkish troops without opposition, and viewed with
satisfaction a rebellion which tended to weaken the empire. When called upon to
choose between the two brothers, the Greek people acknowledged the superiority
of the reigning emperor. Demetrius, after plundering the suburbs of
Constantinople, saw his army melt away, and was happy to find that his
brother’s moderation and love of peace was so great that he was allowed to
retain his principality at Mesembria with the title of Despot.
The exploits of John Hunniades might have
awakened the Greeks from their lethargy, had any warlike spirit survived in the
nation. The victory of the Hungarian army at the pass of Isladi,
and a war with the Sultan of Karamania, threatened
the Ottoman Empire with serious danger; but the victory of Varna re-established
the glory of the sultan’s arms. Neither the successes of the Hungarians nor the
presence of a papal force in the Hellespont, which at last made its appearance
under the command of Cardinal Gondolmieri, could
induce the Emperor John to unite his cause with that of the Western powers. He
had obtained too many proofs of the instability and imprudence of their
counsels. The moment he heard of the great victory of Sultan Murad at Varna, he
sent an embassy to congratulate his suzerain, and solicit a renewal of their
alliance, which the sultan immediately granted. John even contrived to avoid
taking any part in the war carried on against the sultan by his brother
Constantine in Greece, and succeeded in preserving uninterrupted peace until
his death in 1448. During his inglorious reign of twenty-three years he never
forgot that he was a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. Though a voluptuary, he
appears to have been a man of considerable ability and judgment, of a kind
disposition and a good heart; but he was deficient in all nobler qualities. It
is said that the Emperor Manuel II had feared the enterprising character of his
son John VI would bring ruin on the empire. The old man observed that the
affairs of the government of the Eastern Roman Empire had fallen so low that
Constantinople required an overseer, not a sovereign. John VI proved precisely
the temporising manager of the state that circumstances required; and his
pliancy averted, during his lifetime, the calamities which were ready to
overwhelm the Greek empire.
Sect. VII.
REIGN OF CONSTANTINE XI
A.D. 1448- 1453
Constantine XI, the last of the Greek emperors, was residing in his despotat at Sparta when his brother John VI died. As he had
been recently engaged in hostilities with the sultan, it was doubtful whether
Murad would acknowledge him as emperor, and Demetrius availed himself of these
doubts to make another attempt to occupy the throne. The deficiency of truth,
honour, and patriotism among the Greek aristocracy during the last century of
the Eastern Empire is almost without a parallel in history; but Demetrius was
too well known and too generally despised to find a large party even in that
worthless aristocracy disposed to espouse his cause. Constantine, on the other
hand, was known to possess both candour and energy; and even though he was
attached to the union of the churches, this taint of heresy did not prevent his
being respected by all, except the most bigoted among the virulently orthodox
Greeks. He was therefore formally proclaimed emperor; and the consent of the
sultan having been obtained to his assumption of the imperial title, a
deputation was sent to the Peloponnesus to carry him the insignia of empire.
The ceremony of his coronation was performed at Sparta in the month of January
1449. On arriving at Constantinople he would not allow the ceremony to be
repeated in the Church of St Sophia, lest it should give rise to disputes
between the unionists and the orthodox.
Sultan Murad II died in February 1451, after a prosperous reign of
thirty years, and was succeeded by his son Mohammed II, who was only twenty-one
years old. Mohammed II was a man of great ambition and great talents; he united
with extraordinary activity and courage a degree of judgment rare in his high
station, and still rarer at his early age. On ascending the throne his pride
was soothed by the obsequious attentions of all the Christian powers in the
East, whose ambassadors crowded to Adrianople to offer him their
congratulations, their condolences, and their homage. The Emperors of
Constantinople and of Trebizond, the Despots of the Peloponnesus, the Dukes of
Athens and of Naxos, the Princes of Acamania, Lesbos,
and Chios, the Podesta of Galata, and the Grand-master of Rhodes, all sent
their envoys to solicit a continuance of the friendly intercourse they had
maintained with Murad II. Mohammed sent all away pleased with their friendly
reception. Phrantzes, the historian, who had often
seen the young sultan when he visited the court of Murad II as an ambassador,
has left us an interesting sketch of his character. He says that he united the
enterprise and valour of youth with the prudence and wisdom of old age both in
war and politics; that he was fond of reading. He spoke five languages
correctly, besides his native Turkish —Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian, and Sclavonian.
The conquest of Constantinople was the first object of the ambition of
Mohammed II. It was by nature the capital of his dominions, and as long as it
remained in the hands of the Greeks the Ottoman empire lay open to the
invasions of the western Christians. Having concluded a truce for three years
with John Hunniades, the young sultan crossed over
into Asia to suppress the hostile proceedings of Ibrahim, the sultan of Karamania. Constantine, who appears to have formed a very
erroneous idea of the talents and character of Mohammed, took this opportunity
of insulting him in the most sensitive manner, by sending an embassy to demand
an augmentation of the pension of three hundred thousand aspers, which the
Ottoman court had accorded to the Greek for the maintenance of Orkhan, the grandson of Suleiman. The ambassadors were
instructed to insinuate that, if the demand were not granted, Orkhan might be allowed to lay claim to the Ottoman throne.
Such an insult was not likely to be ever forgotten by a haughty and ambitious
prince. The Grand-vizier Khalil, who had steadily favoured the Greeks, and was
supposed to have received bribes to protect their cause, lost all patience at
the folly of Constantine’s ill-timed demand, and addressed the ambassadors in
these words : — “Your madness will put Constantinople in the hands of the
sultan. Proclaim Orkhan sultan in Europe, call in the
Hungarians to your aid, retake what provinces you can, and you will speedily
see the end of the Greek empire”.' The wary young sultan, however, dismissed
the ambassadors with courtesy. But as soon as his Asiatic campaign was
finished, he ordered the imperial agents to be expelled from the territory in
the valley of the Strymon which had been assigned for the maintenance of Orkhan, and stopped all further payments. Shortly after,
without informing Constantine of his intention, he constructed a fortress on
the Greek territory at the narrowest part of the Bosphorus, opposite a fort
which had been constructed by Bayezid I on the Asiatic shore. The distance
between the two forts is about three-quarters of a mile, and a rapid current
flows between. The sultan had made every preparation for completing the work
with extraordinary celerity. An ample supply of materials had been collected
before his object was known, and as soon as the plan of the fortress was marked
out, a thousand masons and two thousand labourers worked incessantly to
complete the walls. Constantine had good reason to consider the construction of
this fortress on his territory, within five miles of his capital, and
commanding its approach from the Black Sea, as an infraction of the treaty
between the two empires, but he was too weak to resent this signal revenge for
his own recent threats. He complained of the hostile invasion of the Greek
territory, but Mohammed treated his reclamations with contempt, observing that
the ground on which the fortress was built, having been purchased and paid for,
was Turkish property, and the Emperor of Constantinople, being a vassal of the
Porte, had no right to dispute the will of the sultan.
The first open resistance was offered by some Greeks, who endeavoured
to prevent Mohammed’s engineers from carrying off the marble columns from a
church. These pious Christians were cut to pieces by the ottoman troops. As the
work advanced the sultan’s aggressions increased. His soldiers were allowed to
plunder; quarrels ensued in which blood was shed, and then the Turks attacked
the Greeks who were getting in the harvest and slew the reapers. Constantine in
alarm closed the gates of Constantinople, cut off all communications between
the Greeks and the Ottmans, and sent another embassy
to the sultan to ask redress. Mohammed replied by a formal declaration of war.
Both parties now began to prepare for the mortal contest. The siege of
Constantinople was to be the great event of the coming year. The
sultan, in order to prevent the emperor’s brothers in the Peloponnesus
from sending any succours to the capital, ordered Tourakhan,
the pasha of Thessaly, to invade the peninsula. He himself took up his
residence at Adrianople, to collect warlike stores and siege-artillery.
Constantine, on his part, made every preparation in his power for a vigorous
defence. He formed large magazines of provisions, collected military stores,
and enrolled all the soldiers he could muster among the Greek population of
Constantinople. But the inhabitants of that city were either unable or
unwilling to furnish recruits in proportion to their numbers. Bred up in
peaceful occupation, they probably possessed neither the activity nor the
habitual exercise which was required to move with ease under the weighty armour
then in use. So few were found disposed to fight for their country, that not
more than six thousand Greek troops appeared under arms during the whole siege.
The numerical weakness of the Greek army rendered it incapable of defending so
large a city as Constantinople, even with all the advantage to be derived
from strong fortifications. The emperor was, therefore, anxious to obtain the
assistance of the warlike citizens of the Italian republics, where good
officers and experienced troops were then numerous. As he had no money to
engage mercenaries, he could only hope to succeed by papal influence. An
embassy was sent to Pope Nicholas V, begging immediate aid, and declaring the
emperor’s readiness to complete the union of the churches in any way the Pope
should direct. Nicholas despatched Cardinal Isidore, the metropolitan of Kief,
who had joined the Latin Church, as his legate. Isidore had represented the
Russian church at the council of Florence; but on his return to Russia he was
imprisoned as an apostate, and with difficulty escaped to Italy. He was by
birth a Greek; and being a man of learning and conciliatory manners, it was
expected that he would be favourably received at Constantinople.
The cardinal arrived at Constantinople in November 1452. He was
accompanied by a small body of chosen troops, and brought some pecuniary aid,
which he employed in repairing the most dilapidated part of the fortifications.
Both the emperor and the cardinal deceived themselves in supposing that the
dangers to which the Greek nation and the Christian church were exposed would
induce the orthodox to yield something of their ecclesiastical forms and
phrases. It was evident that foreign aid could alone save Constantinople, and
it was absurd to imagine that the Latins would fight for those who treated them
as heretics, and who would not fight for themselves. The crisis, therefore,
compelled the Greeks to choose between union with the Church of Rome or
submission to the Ottoman power. They had to decide whether the preservation of
the Greek empire was worth the ecclesiastical sacrifices they were called upon
to make in order to preserve their national independence.
In the meantime, the Emperor Constantine celebrated his union with the
papal church, in the cathedral of St Sophia, on the 12th of December 1452. The
court and the great body of the dignified clergy ratified the act by their
presence; but the monks and the people repudiated the connection. In their
opinion the Church of St Sophia was polluted by the ceremony, and from that day
it was deserted by the orthodox. The historian Ducas
declares that they looked upon it as a haunt of demons, and no better than a
pagan shrine. The monks, the nuns, and the populace, publicly proclaimed their
detestation of the union; and their opposition was inflamed by the bigotry of
an ambitious pedant, who, under the name of Georgios Scholarios,
acted as a warm partisan of the union at the council of Florence, and under the
ecclesiastical name of Gennadios is known in history
as the subservient patriarch of Sultan Mohammed II. On returning from Italy, he
made a great parade of his repentance for complying with the unionists at
Florence. He shut himself up in the monastery of Pantokrator,
where he assumed the monastic habit, and the name of Gennadios,
under which he consummated the union between the Greek Church and the ottoman
administration. At the present crisis he stepped forward as the leader of the
most bigoted party, and excited his followers to the most furious opposition to
measures which he had once advocated as salutary to the church, and
indispensable for the preservation of the state. The unionists were now accused
of sacrificing true religion to the delusions of human policy, of insulting God
to serve the Pope, and of preferring the interests of their bodies to the care
of their souls. In place of exhorting their countrymen to aid the emperor, who
was straining every nerve to defend their country—in place of infusing into
their minds the spirit of patriotism and religion, these teachers of the people
were incessantly inveighing against the wickedness of the unionists and the
apostasy of the emperor. So completely did their bigotry extinguish every
feeling of patriotism that the Grand-duke Notaras
declared he would rather see Constantinople subjected to the turban of the
sultan than to the tiara of the Pope. His wish was gratified; but, in dying, he
must have felt how fearfully he had erred in comparing the effects of papal
arrogance with the cruelty of Mohammedan tyranny. The Emperor Constantine, who
felt the importance of the approaching contest, showed great prudence and
moderation in his difficult position. The spirit of Christian charity calmed
his temper, and his determination not to survive the empire gave a deliberate
coolness to his military conduct. Though his Greek subjects often raised
seditions, and reviled him in the streets, the emperor took no notice of their
behaviour. To induce the orthodox to fight for their country, by having a
leader of their own party, he left the Grand-duke Notaras
in office; yet he well knew that this bigot would never act cordially with the
Latin auxiliaries, who were the best troops in the city; and the emperor had
some reason to distrust the patriotism of Notaras,
seeing that he hoarded his immense wealth, instead of expending a portion of it
for his country.
The fortifications were not found to be in a good state of repair. Two
monks who had been intrusted with a large sum for the purpose of repairing
them, had executed their duty in an insufficient, and it was generally
said in a fraudulent manner. The extreme dishonesty that prevailed among the
Greek officials explains the selection of monks as treasurers for military
objects; and it must lessen our surprise at finding men of their religious
professions sharing in the general avarice, or tolerating the habitual
peculation of others.
Cannon were beginning to be used in sieges, but stone balls were used in
the larger pieces of artillery; and the larger the gun, the greater was the
effect it was expected to produce. Even in Constantinople there were some
artillery too large to be of much use, as the land wall had not been constructed
to admit of their recoil, and the ramparts were so weak as to be shaken by
their concussion. Constantine had also only a moderate supply of gunpowder. The
machines of a past epoch in military science, but to the use of which the
Greeks adhered with their conservative prejudices, were brought from the
storehouses, and planted on the walls beside the modem artillery. Johann Grant,
a German officer, who arrived with Justiniani, was
the most experienced artilleryman and military engineer in the place.
A considerable number of Italians hastened to Constantinople as soon as
they heard of its danger, eager to defend so important a depot of Eastern
commerce. The spirit of enterprise and the love of military renown had become
as much a characteristic of the merchant nobles of the commercial republics as
they had been, in a preceding age, distinctions of the barons in feudal
monarchies. All the nations who then traded with Constantinople furnished
contingents to defend its walls. A short time before the siege commenced, John Justiniani arrived with two Genoese galleys and three
hundred chosen troops, and the emperor valued his services so highly that he
was appointed general of the guard. The resident bailo
of the Venetians furnished three large galeasses and
a body of troops for the defence of the port. The consul of the Catalans, with
his countrymen and the Aragonese, undertook the defence of the great palace of Bukoleon and the port of Kontoskalion.
The Cardinal Isidore, with the papal troops, defended the Kynegesion,
and the angle of the city at the head of the port down to St Demetrios. The
importance of the aid which was afforded by the Latins is proved by the fact,
that of twelve military divisions into which Constantine divided the
fortifications, the commands of only two were intrusted to the exclusive
direction of Greek officers. In the others, Greeks shared the command with
foreigners, or else foreigners alone conducted the defence. When all
Constantine’s preparations for defence were completed, he found himself obliged
to man a line of wall on the land side of about five miles in length, every
point of which was exposed to a direct attack. The remainder of the wall
towards the port and the Propontis exceeded nine miles in extent, and his whole
garrison hardly amounted to nine thousand men. His fleet consisted of only
twenty galleys and three Venetian galeasses, but the
entry of the port was closed by a chain, the end of which, on the side of
Galata, was secured in a strong fort of which the Greeks kept possession.
During the winter the emperor sent out his fleet to ravage the coast of the
Propontis as far as Cyzicus, and the spirit of the Greeks was roused by the
booty they made in these expeditions.
Mohammed II spent the winter at Adrianople, preparing everything
necessary for commencing the siege with vigour. His whole mind was absorbed by
the glory of conquering the Roman Empire, and gaining possession of
Constantinople, which for more than eleven hundred and fifty years had been the
capital of the East. While the fever of ambition inflamed his soul, his cooler
judgment also warned him that the ottoman power rested on a perilous basis as
long as Constantinople, the true capital of his empire, remained in the hands
of others. Mohammed could easily assemble a sufficient number of troops for his
enterprise, but it required all his activity and power to collect the requisite
supplies of provisions and stores for the immense military and naval force he
had ordered to assemble, and to prepare the artillery and ammunition necessary
to insure success. Early and late, in his court and in his cabinet, the young
sultan could talk of nothing but the approaching siege. With the writing-reed
and a scroll of paper in his hand, he was often seen tracing plans of the fortifications
of Constantinople, and marking out positions for his own batteries. Every
question relating to the extent and locality of the various magazines to be
constructed in order to maintain the troops was discussed in his presence; he
himself distributed the troops in their respective divisions and regulated the
order of their march; he issued the orders relating to the equipment of the
fleet, and discussed the various methods proposed for breaching, mining, and
scaling the walls. His enthusiasm was the impulse of a hero, but the immense
superiority of his force would have secured him the victory with any ordinary
degree of perseverance.
The Ottomans were already familiar with the use of cannon. Murad II had
employed them when he besieged Constantinople in 1422; but Mohammed now
resolved on forming a more powerful battering-train than had previously
existed. Neither the Greeks nor Turks possessed the art of casting large guns.
Both were obliged to employ foreigners. An experienced artilleryman and founder,
named Urban, by birth a Vallachian, carried into
execution the sultan’s wishes. He had passed sometime in the Greek service; but
even the moderate pay he was allowed by the emperor having fallen in arrear, he
resigned his place and transferred his services to the sultan, who knew better
how to value warlike knowledge. He now gave Mohammed proof of his skill by
casting the largest cannon which had ever been fabricated. He had already
placed one of extraordinary size in the new castle of the Bosphorus, which
carried a ball across the straits. The gun destined for the siege of
Constantinople far exceeded in size this monster, and the diameter of its mouth
must have been nearly two feet and a-half. Other cannon of great size, whose
balls of stone weighed 150 lb., were also cast, as well as many guns of smaller
calibre. All these, together with a number of ballists
and other ancient engines still employed in sieges, were mounted on carriages
in order to transport them to Constantinople. The conveyance of this formidable
train of artillery, and of the immense quantity of ammunition required for its
service, was by no means a trifling operation.
The first division of the Ottoman army moved from Adrianople in the month
of February 1453. In the meantime a numerous corps of pioneers worked
constantly at the road, in order to prepare it for the passage of the long
train of artillery and baggage waggons. Temporary bridges, capable of being
taken to pieces, were erected by the engineers over every ravine and water-course,
and the materials for the siege advanced steadily, though slowly, to their
destination. The extreme difficulty of moving the monster cannon with its
immense balls retarded the sultan’s progress, and it was the beginning of April
before the whole battering-train reached Constantinople, though the distance
from Adrianople is barely a hundred miles. The division of the army under Karadja Pasha had already reduced Mesembria, Anchialos, Bizya, and the castle
of St Stephanos. Selymbria alone defended itself and
the fortifications were so strong that Mohammed ordered it to be closely
blockaded, and left its fate to be determined by that of the capital.
On the 6th of April, Sultan Mohammed II encamped on the slope of the hill
facing the quarter of Blachern, little beyond the
ground occupied by the Crusaders in 1203, and immediately ordered the
construction of lines, extending from the head of the port to the shore of the
Propontis. These lines were formed of a mound of earth, and they served both to
restrain the sorties of the besieged, and to cover the troops from the fire of
the enemy’s artillery and missiles. The batteries were then formed: the
principal were erected against the gate Charsias, in
the quarter of Blachern, and against the gate of St Romanos, near the centre of the city wall. It was against
this last gate that the fire of the monster gun was directed and the chief
attack was made.
The land forces of the Turks probably amounted to about seventy thousand
men of all arms and qualities; but the real strength of the army lay in the
corps of janissaries, then the best infantry in Europe, and their number did
not exceed twelve thousand. At the same time, twenty thousand cavalry, mounted
on the finest horses of the Turkoman breed, and hardened by long service, were
ready to fight either on horseback or on foot under the eye of their young
sultan. The fleet which had been collected along the Asiatic coast, from the
ports of the Black Sea to those of the Aegean, brought additional supplies of
men, provisions, and military stores. It consisted of three hundred and twenty
vessels of various sizes and forms. The greater part were only half-decked
coasters, and even the largest were far inferior in size to the galleys and
galleasses of the Greeks and Italians.
The fortifications of Constantinople, towards the land side, vary so
little from a straight line that they afford great facilities for attack. The
defences had been originally constructed on a magnificent scale, and with great
skill, according to the ancient art of war. Even though they were partly ruined
by time, and weakened by careless reparations, they still offered a formidable
obstacle to the imperfect science of the engineers in Mohammed’s army. Two
lines of wall, each flanked with its own towers, rose one above the other,
overlooking a broad and deep ditch. The interval between these walls enabled
the defenders to form in perfect security, and facilitated their operations in
clearing the ditch and retarding the preparation for assault. The actual
appearance of the low walls of Constantinople, with the ditch more than
half-filled up, gives only an incorrect picture of their former state.
Mohammed had made his preparations for the siege with so much skill that
his preliminary works advanced with unexpected rapidity. The numerical
superiority of his army, and the precautions he had adopted for strengthening
his lines, rendered the sorties of the garrison useless. The ultimate success
of the defence depended on the arrival of assistance from abroad; but the
numbers of the Ottoman fleet seemed to render even this hope almost desperate.
An incident occurred that showed the immense advantage conferred by skill, when
united with courage, over an apparently irresistible superiority of force in
naval warfare. Four large ships, laden with grain and stores, one of which bore
the Greek and the other the Genoese flag, had remained for some time wind-bound
at Chios, and were anxiously expected at Constantinople. At daybreak these
ships were perceived by the Turkish watchmen steering for Constantinople with a
strong breeze in their favour. The war-galleys of the sultan, under the command
of the Capitan-pasha Baltaoghlu, immediately got
under way to capture them. The sultan himself rode down to the point of Tophané to witness a triumph which he considered certain,
and which he thought would reduce his enemy to despair. The Greeks crowded the
walls of the city, offering up prayers for their friends, and trembling for
their safety in the desperate struggle that awaited them. The Christians had
several advantages which their nautical experience enabled them to turn to good
account. The great size of their ships, the strength of their construction,
their weight, and their high bulwarks, were all powerful means of defence when
aided by a stiff breeze blowing directly in the teeth of their opponents. The
Turks were compelled to row their galleys against this wind and the heavy sea
it raised. In vain they attacked the Christians with reckless valour, fighting
under the eye of their fiery sovereign. The skill of their enemy rendered all
their attacks abortive. In vain one squadron attempted to impede the progress
of the Christians, while another endeavoured to run along- side and carry them
by boarding. Every Turkish galley that opposed their progress was crushed under
the weight of their heavy hulls, while those that endeavoured to board had
their oars shivered in the shock, and drifted helpless far astern. The few that
succeeded for a moment in retaining their place alongside were either sunk by
immense angular blocks of stone that were dropped on their frail timbers, or
were filled with flames and smoke by the Greek fire that was poured upon them.
The rapidity with which the best galleys were sunk or disabled appalled the bravest;
and at last the Turks shrank from close combat, on an element where they saw
that valour without experience was of no avail. The Christian ships, in the
meantime, held steadily on their course, under all the canvass their masts
could carry, until they rounded the point of St Demetrius and entered the port,
where the chain was joyfully lowered to admit them.
The young sultan, on seeing the defeat of his galleys, lost all command
over his temper. He could hardly be restrained from urging his horse into the
sea, and in his frantic passion heaped every term of abuse and insult on his
naval officers. He even talked of ordering his admiral, Baltaoghlu,
to be impaled on the spot; but the janissaries present compelled even Mohammed
to restrain his vengeance, by boldly demanding the pardon of the unfortunate capitan-pacha, when they saw the sultan strike him with the
mace-at-arms in his hand. This check revealed to Mohammed the extent of the
danger to which his naval force was exposed, should either the Genoese or
Venetians send a powerful fleet to the assistance of the Emperor Constantine.
This naval discomfiture was also attended by some disasters on shore. The
monster cannon burst before it had produced any serious impression on the
walls. Its loss, however, was soon replaced; but the ottoman army was repulsed
in a general attack. An immense tower of timber, mounted on many wheels, and
constructed on the model used in sieges from the time of the ancient Greeks and
Romans, was dragged up to the edge of the ditch. Under its cover, workmen were
incessantly employed throwing materials into the ditch to enable the tower
itself to approach the walls, while the fire of several guns, and the
operations of a corps of miners, ruined the opposite tower of the city. The progress
of the besiegers induced them to risk an assault, in which they were repulsed,
after a hard-fought struggle; and during the following night, John Justiniani made a great sortie, during which his workmen
cleared the ditch, and his soldiers filled the tower with combustible
materials, and burned it to the ground. Its exterior, having been protected by
a triple covering of buffaloes’ hides, was found to be impervious even to Greek
fire.
In order to counteract the effect of these defeats, which had depressed the
courage of the Ottomans and raised the spirits of the Greeks, the sultan
resolved to adopt measures for placing his fleet in security, and facilitating
the communication between the army before Constantinople and the naval camp on
the Bosphorus. The Venetians had recently transported a number of their galleys
from the river Adige overland to the lake of Garda: this exploit, which had
been loudly celebrated at the time, suggested to the sultan the idea of
transporting a number of vessels from the Bosphorus into the port of
Constantinople, where the smooth water and the command of the shore would
secure to his ships the mastery of the upper half of that extensive harbor. The distance over which it was necessary to
transport the galleys was only five miles, but a steep hill presented a
formidable obstacle to the undertaking. Mohammed, nevertheless, having
witnessed the transport of his monster cannon over rivers and hills, was
persuaded that his engineers would find no difficulty in moving his ships over
the land. A road was accordingly made, and laid with strong planks and wooden
rails, which were plastered over with tallow. It extended from the station
occupied by the fleet at Dolma Baktshe to the summit
of the ridge near the cemetery of Pera. On this inclined
plane, with the assistance of windlasses and numerous yokes of oxen, the
vessels were hauled up one after the other to the summit of the hill, from
whence they descended without difficulty to the point beyond the present
arsenal, where they were launched into the port under the protection of
batteries prepared for their defence. Historians, wishing to give a dramatic
character to their pages, have attributed marvellous difficulties to this
daring exploit. It was certainly a well-conceived and well-executed
undertaking, for a division of the ottoman fleet was conveyed into the port in
a single night, where the Greeks, at the dawn of day, were amazed at beholding
the hostile ships safe under the protection of inexpugnable
batteries.
To establish an easy and rapid communication between the naval camp on the
Bosphorus and the army before Constantinople, Mohammed ordered a floating
bridge to be constructed across the port, from the point near the old foundery, on the side of Galata, to that near the angle of
the city walls, near Haivan Serai, the ancient
amphitheatre. The roadway of this bridge was supported on the enormous jars
used for storing oil and wine, numbers of which were easily collected in the
suburbs of Galata. These jars, when bound together with their mouth inverted in
the water, formed admirable pontoons. Artillery was mounted on this bridge, and
the galleys were brought up to the city walls, which were now assailed from a
quarter hitherto safe from attack. The Genoese under Justiniani
on one occasion, and the Venetians on another, were defeated in their attempts
to bum the Turkish fleet and destroy the bridge. The fire of the artillery
rendered the attacks of the Italians abortive, and their failure afforded a
decisive proof that the defence of the city was becoming desperate. To avoid
the admission of their inferiority in force, the defeated parties threw the
blame on one another, and their dissensions became so violent that the emperor
could hardly appease the quarrel.
During all the labours of the besiegers in other quarters, the approaches
were pushed vigorously forward against the land wall. Though the activity in
other and more novel operations might attract greater attention, the industry
of those engaged in filling up the ditch, and the fire of the breaching
batteries, never relaxed. Though all attempts to cross the ditch at the gate of
St Romanos were long baffled by the Greeks, and the
mining operations at Blachern were discovered and
defeated by Johann Grant, still the superior number and indefatigable
perseverance of the Othomans at last filled up the
ditch, and the ceaseless fire of their guns ruined the walls. A visible change
in the state of the fortifications encouraged the assailants, and showed the
besieged that the enemy was gradually gaining a decided advantage. At the
commencement of the siege, the ottoman engineers had displayed so little
knowledge of the mode of using artillery to effect a breach, that a Hungarian
envoy from John Hunniades, who visited Mohammed’s
camp, ridiculed the idea of their producing any effect on the walls of
Constantinople. Tins stranger was said to have taught the Turks to fire in
volleys, and to cut the wall in rectangular sections, in order to produce a
practicable breach. The batteries at length effected a practicable breach at
the gate of St Romanos. Before issuing his final
orders for the assault, Mohammed II summoned the emperor to surrender the city,
and offered him a considerable appanage as a vassal of the Porte elsewhere.
Constantine rejected the insulting offer, and the sultan prepared to take
Constantinople by storm. Four days were employed in the Ottoman camp making all
the arrangements necessary for a simultaneous attack by land and sea along the
whole line of the fortifications, from the modern quarter of Phanar to the Golden Gate. The Greeks and Latins within the
walls were not less active in their exertions to meet the crisis. The Latins
were sustained by their habits of military discipline, and their experiences of
the chances of war; the Greeks placed great confidence in some popular
prophecies which foretold the ultimate defeat of the Turks. They felt a pious
conviction that the imperial and orthodox city would never fall into the hands
of Infidels. But the Emperor Constantine was deceived by no vain hopes. He knew
that human prudence and valour could do no more than had been done to retard
the progress of the besiegers. Time had been gained, but the Greeks showed no
disposition to fight for a heretical emperor, and no succours arrived from the
Pope and the Western princes. Constantine could now only hope to prolong the
defence for a few hours, and, when the city fell, to bring his own life to a
glorious termination by dying on the breach.
On the night before the assault the emperor rode round to all the posts
occupied by the garrison, and encouraged the troops to expect victory by
his cheerful demeanour. He then visited the Church of St Sophia, already
deserted by the orthodox, where with his attendants he partook of the holy
sacrament according to the Latin form. He returned for a short time to the
imperial palace, and on quitting it to take his station at the great breach, he
was so overcome by the certainty that he should never again behold those
present that he turned to the members of his household, many of whom had been
the companions of his youth, and solemnly asked them to pardon every offence he
had ever given them. Tears burst from present as Constantine mounted his horse
and rode slowly forward to meet his fate.
The contrast between the city of the Christians and the camp of the
Mohammedans was not encouraging. Within the walls an emperor in the decline of
life commanded a small and disunited force, with twenty leaders under his
orders, each at the head of an almost independent band of Greek, Genoese,
Venetian, or Catalan soldiers. So slight was the tie which bound these various
chiefs together, that, even when they were preparing for the final assault, the
emperor was obliged to use all his authority and personal influence to prevent Justiniani and the Grand-duke Notaras
from coming to blows. Justiniani demanded to be
supplied with some additional guns for the defence of the great breach, but Notaras, who had the official control over the artillery,
peremptorily refused the demand.
In the Turkish camp, on the other hand, perfect unity prevailed, and a
young, ardent, and able sovereign concentrated in his hands the most despotic
authority over a numerous and well-disciplined army. To excite the energy of
that army to the highest pitch of enthusiasm, the sultan proclaimed to his
troops that he granted them the whole plunder of Constantinople, reserving to
himself only the public buildings. The day of battle was regarded as a
religious festival in the Ottoman camp, and on the previous night lamps were
hung out before every tent, and fires were kindled on every eminence in or near
the lines. Thousands of lanterns were suspended from the flag-staffs of the
batteries, and from the masts and yards of the ships, and were reflected in the
waters of the Propontis, the Golden Horn, and the Bosphorus. The whole Ottoman
encampment was resplendent with the blaze of this illumination. Yet a deep
silence prevailed during the whole night, except when the musical cadence of
the solemn chant of the call to prayers showed the Greeks the immense numbers
and the strict discipline of the host.
Before the dawn of day, on the morning of the 29th May 1453, the signal was
given for the attack. Column after column marched forward, and took up their
ground before the portions of the wall they were ordered to assail. The
galleys, fitted with towers and scaling-platforms, advanced against the
fortifications of the port protected by the guns on the bridge. But the
principal attack was directed against the breach at the gate of St Romanos, where two flanking towers had fallen into the
ditch and opened a passage into the interior of the city. The gate of Charsias and the quarter of Blachern
were also assailed by chosen regiments of janissaries in overwhelming numbers.
The attack was made with daring courage, but for more than two hours every
point was successfully defended. In the port, the Italian and Greek ships
opposed the Turkish galleys so effectually that the final result appeared to
favour the besieged. But on the land side one column of troops followed the
other in an incessant stream. The moment a division fell back from the assault
new battalions occupied its place. The valour of the besieged was for some time
successful, but they were at last fatigued by their exertions, and their scanty
numbers were weakened by wounds and death. Unfortunately, Justiniani,
the protostrator or marshal of the army, and the
ablest officer in the place, received a wound which induced him to retire on
board his ship to have it dressed. Until that moment he and the emperor had
defended the great breach with advantage, but after his retreat Sagan Pasha,
observing that the energy of the defenders was relaxed, excited the bravest of
the janissaries to mount to the assault. A chosen company led by Hassan of Ulubad (Lopadion), a man of
gigantic frame, first crossed the ruins of the wall, and their leader gained
the summit of the dilapidated tower which flanked the breach. The defenders,
headed by the Emperor Constantine, made a desperate resistance. Hassan and many
of his followers were slain, but the janissaries had secured the
vantage-ground, and fresh troops pouring in to their aid, they surrounded the
defenders of the breach. The emperor fell amidst a heap of slain, and a column
of janissaries rushed into Constantinople over his lifeless body.
About the same time another corps of the Ottomans forced an entrance into
the city at the Gate of the Circus, which had been left almost without defence,
for the besieged were not sufficiently numerous to guard the whole line of the
fortifications, and their best troops were drawn to the points where the
attacks were fiercest. The corps that forced the Gate of the Circus took the
defenders of the Gate Charsias in the rear, and
overpowered all resistance in the quarter of Blachern.
Several gates were now thrown open, and the army entered
Constantinople at several points. The cry that the enemy had stormed the walls
preceded their march. Senators, priests, monks, and nuns; men, women, and children,
all rushed to seek safety in St Sophia’s. A prediction current among the Greeks
flattered them with the vain hope that an angel would descend from heaven and
destroy the Mohammedans, in order to reveal the extent of God’s love for the
orthodox. St Sophia’s, which for some time they had forsaken, as a spot
profaned by the emperor’s attempt at a union of the Christian world, was again
revered as the sanctuary of orthodoxy, and was crowded with the flower of the
Greek nation, confident of a miraculous interposition in favour of their
national pride and ecclesiastical prejudices.
The besiegers, when they first entered the city, fearing lest they might
encounter serious resistance in the narrow streets, put every soul they
encountered to the sword. But as soon as they were fully aware of the small
number of the garrison, and the impossibility of any further opposition, they
began to make prisoners. At length they reached St Sophia’s, and, rushing into
that magnificent temple, which could with ease contain about twenty thousand
persons, they performed deeds of plunder and violence not unlike the scenes
which the Crusaders had enacted in the same spot in the year 1204. The men,
women, and children who had sought safety in the building were divided among the
soldiers as slaves, without any reference to their rank or respect for their
ties of blood, and hurried off to the camp, or placed under the guard of
comrades, who formed a joint alliance for the security of their plunder. The
ecclesiastical ornaments and church-plate were poor indeed when compared with
the immense riches of the Byzantine cathedral in the time of the Crusaders; but
whatever was movable was immediately divided among the soldiers with such
celerity, that the mighty temple soon presented few traces of having been a
Christian church.
While one division of the victorious army was engaged in plundering the
southern side of the city, from the Gate of St Romanos
to the Church of St Sophia, another, turning to the port, made itself master of
the warehouses that were filled with merchandise, and surrounded the Greek
troops under the Grand-duke Notaras. The Greeks were
easily subdued, and Notaras surrendered himself a
prisoner.
About midday the Turks were in possession of the whole city, and Mohammed II
entered his new capital at the Gate of St Romanos,
riding triumphantly past the body of the Emperor Constantine, which lay
concealed among the slain in the breach he had defended. The sultan rode
straight to the Church of St Sophia, where he gave the necessary orders for the
preservation of all the public buildings. Even during the licence of the sack,
the severe education and grave character of the Ottomans exerted a powerful
influence on their conduct, and on this occasion there was no example of the wanton
destruction and wilful conflagrations that had signalised the Latin conquest.
To convince the Greeks that their orthodox empire was extinct, Mohammed ordered
a moolah to ascend the bema and address a sermon to the Mussulmans, announcing
that St Sophia was now a mosque set apart for the prayers of the true
believers. To put an end to all doubts concerning the death of the emperor, he
ordered Constantine’s head to be brought, and exposed to the people of the
capital, from whence it was afterwards sent as a trophy to be seen by the
Greeks of the principal cities in the Ottoman Empire.
It is not possible to describe the multifarious sufferings of the
population of Constantinople. Though the storming of the city was attended with
less disorder and bloodshed than the Latin conquest, it caused a greater degree
of permanent misery, and sank the Greeks into a lower state of social
degradation. Slaves were a much more negotiable article of commerce among the
Turks than they had been among the Crusaders, and consequently private families
were oftener dispersed, and a far larger proportion of the population was
reduced to slavery. It is supposed that the calamities and emigrations which
immediately preceded the siege, had reduced the Greek population of Constantinople
to about one hundred thousand souls; of these forty thousand are said to have
perished during the siege or in the sack of the city, and at least fifty
thousand were reduced to the condition of slaves. Only the poorest and lowest
class of labourers were allowed by the conquerors to retain their liberty, that
they might perform the meanest and most laborious occupations necessary for
preserving cleanliness in a large city. The lot of persons of the highest rank
and education was no better than that of the poorest and most ignorant; youth,
strength, and beauty, were the qualities valued by the victors, and these
advantages insured their possessors the sad lot of hopeless slavery,
accompanied often with a forced conversion to the Mohammedan faith.
It has been generally asserted that the retreat of Justiniani
from the great breach on receiving his mortal wound was the immediate cause of
the capture of Constantinople; but the Genoese volunteer has been made the
scapegoat of the lukewarmness or cowardice of the orthodox, who ought to have
crowded to the walls to support their emperor. The fall of the city ought to be
entirely attributed to the superior numbers, steady discipline, powerful
artillery, and unity of command in the Ottoman army. The fact is, that the breach
was stormed about eight o'clock in the morning, and as the assailants had made
their arrangements to renew the attacks until noon, there was no chance that
any degree of valour or skill could have repulsed the fresh troops that were
continually rushing forward. Indeed, the skill and valour of Justiniani and of Constantine prolonged the defence as long
as human means could avail. Whether Justiniani
deserves to be branded with disgrace for retiring when he did may be doubtful,
but Phrantzes and Leonard of Chios, who are most
violent in reproaching him, ought to have remembered that they themselves
avoided seeking a glorious death on the ramparts of the city. The writers who
mention Justiniani’s wound differ concerning its
nature. It is certain that during his whole life he was as distinguished for
daring courage as for military skill. He was a gallant soldier, who lost his
life fighting for the Greeks; and when he received his mortal wound, he
doubtless deemed that he had honourably fulfilled his duties in this world, and
turned his thoughts to prepare for another.
The proceedings of the sultan after the taking of Constantinople were
marked by the sternest cruelty whenever the smallest object could be gained.
The bailo of the Venetians and the consul of the
Catalans were both put to death with all their children. The rest of the Latin
prisoners only escaped with their lives when it was in their power to pay a
liberal ransom to their captors; some nobles purchased safety by presenting
Sagan Pasha with seventy thousand sequins. A few of the garrison gained the
ships in the port, and, weighing anchor, forced their way through the Ottoman
fleet. The Cardinal Isidore, who bravely kept his post on the walls, contrived
to disguise himself in the dress of a dead soldier, and thus escaped
recognition when he was taken prisoner. He was redeemed from slavery by a
Genoese of Galata, and reached Italy in safety. A body of Cretans who bravely
defended one of the towers was allowed by the sultan to capitulate and depart
unmolested.
The fate of the Grand-duke Notaras and his family
maybe cited as an example of the treatment of the Greeks of the highest
rank, whose power and influence over the orthodox would probably have prevented
them from becoming submissive instruments of the Ottoman power. In the first
moment of triumph, Mohammed affected to treat Notaras
and his family with favour; but he soon sent an order that his youngest son, a
youth of fourteen years of age, should be sent to become a page in the imperial
palace. In such circumstances, the mildest fate that could await him would be
to become a Mussulman. The father feared that he was destined to a more
degraded fate. The faith of Notaras was unchristian
from the intensity of his bigotry, but it had the merit of sincerity, and it
ennobled the last scene of his life. He boldly refused to comply with the
demands of the conqueror, deeming it better that he and his house should perish
than that his son should become a dishonoured renegade. Mohammed, thus finding
a plausible pretext for destroying the grand-duke, ordered him and his sons to
be immediately put to death. Many other Greek families were exterminated: the
men were executed, the male children were sent into the schools of the
janissaries among the tribute-children, and the females were shut up in the
harems of the sultan and his courtiers.
The desolate aspect of Constantinople struck the observant mind of its
young conqueror with a feeling of awe. Everything he saw within its walls
attested that a long period of decline had preceded its fall. The deserted
appearance of the imperial palace showed that, long before the accession of
Constantine XI, it had been too vast for the diminished court by which it was
tenanted, and its largest halls had evidently been long abandoned to solitude.
The departed glory of an empire which had for ages ruled the richest provinces
in the East, and often rendered the Cross triumphant over the Crescent,
suggested to Mohammed a couplet of the Persian poet Firdousee
on the instability of human grandeur: “The spider’s curtain hangs before the
portal of Caesar’s palace; the owl is the sentinel on the watch- tower of
Afrasiab”. An empty palace affected the mind of Mohammed II, while he gazed immoved on mountains of dead men. The fall of Constantinople
is a dark chapter in the annals of Christianity. The death of the unfortunate
Constantine, neglected by the Catholics and deserted by the orthodox, alone
gives dignity to the final catastrophe. The governments of western Europe,
occupied with momentary interests, and the nations beginning to feel the
impulses of new civil and political combinations in society, heeded little the
destruction of an old and rotten edifice, incapable of receiving either
internal repairs or external support; while on the part of the Greeks
themselves no patriotic or religious enthusiasm has interwoven the struggle
with the glories of their national history. No immortal band of martial youth
crowding round their emperor, and dying in the breach the death of patriots,
has left its exploits as a legacy of honour to the Hellenic race. The defence
of Constantinople was intrusted to mercenary troops, and Constantine fell in
their ranks.
The first step of Mohammed II, in settling the condition of his conquered
subjects, was to secure the allegiance of the orthodox, by proclaiming himself
the protector of the Greek Church. The hatred felt for the Latins by a numerous
party among the Greeks facilitated the conclusion of this unholy alliance.
George Scholarios, or Gennadios,
accepted the dignity of Patriarch, and received the pastoral staff from the
hands of the sultan. The ceremony of his installation was performed on the
first of June, with the blood of the conquest still staining the pavements of
the city. A charter of Mohammed was subsequently published securing to the
Greeks the use of their churches, allowing them to celebrate their religious
rites according to their own usages, to keep open the gates of the quarter in
which the Patriarch resided for three nights at Easter, and authorising the
Patriarch to decide questions of ecclesiastical law according to the practice
of the Christians.
It was necessary for Mohammed II to repeople Constantinople, in order to
render it the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The installation of an orthodox
Patriarch calmed the minds of the Greeks, and many who had emigrated before the
siege gradually returned, and were allowed to claim a portion of their
property. But the slow increase of population, caused by a sense of security
and the hope of gain, did not satisfy the sultan, who was determined to see his
capital one of the greatest cities of the East, and who knew that it had
formerly exceeded Damascus, Bagdad, and Cairo, in wealth, extent, and
population. From most of his subsequent conquests Mohammed compelled the
wealthiest of the inhabitants to emigrate to Constantinople, where he granted
them plots of land to build their houses. Five thousand families are said to
have been immediately collected among the Turkish and Greek population of his
dominions, who were induced by the concessions made to them to take up their
residence in the new capital. Four thousand Servian prisoners, instead of being
reduced to slavery, were established in the ruined villages without the walls
as cultivators of the soil. When the Peloponnesus was conquered, thousands of
Greek and Albanian families were removed to Constantinople. The same measures
were adopted when Amastris, Sinope, Trebizond,
Lesbos, Bosnia, Akserai (Gausaura),
and Kaffa, were conquered. During his whole reign,
Mohammed II continued to pour into the imperial city fresh streams of
inhabitants. Turks, Greeks, Servians, Bulgarians,
Albanians, and Lazes, followed one another in quick succession, and long before
the end of his reign Constantinople was crowded by a numerous and active
population, and presented a more flourishing aspect than it had done during the
preceding century.
The embellishment of his capital was also the object of the sultan’s
attention. All the most skilful artisans and artists in the two principal
cities of Karamania, Iconium and Laranda
(Karaman), when that country was conquered, were
transported to Constantinople. Mosques, minarets, fountains, and tombs, the
great objects of architectural magnificence among the Mussulmans, were
constructed in every quarter of the city. Upwards of forty Christian churches,
too splendid in their appearance to be left in the hands of the conquered, were
converted into mosques. Their original destination was concealed by the
destruction of many ornaments, and their external form was modified by the
addition of minarets. In the year 1477 the whole circuit of the walls underwent
repair; but the sultan’s object was rather to remove the aspect of dilapidation
than to give strength to the fortifications, and he allowed the ditches to be
in part filled up and the height of the battlements to be diminished.
Thus Constantinople, in becoming the capital of the Ottoman Empire,
became a new city, and received a new race of Greek as well as of Turkish
inhabitants. Its buildings and its population underwent as great a change as
its political, moral, and religious condition. The picturesque beauty of the Stamboul of the present day owes most of its artificial
features to the Ottoman conquest, and wears a Turkish aspect. The Constantinople
of the Byzantine Empire disappeared with the last relics of the Greek empire.
The traveller, who now desires to view the vestiges of a Byzantine capital, and
examine the last relics of Byzantine architecture and art, must continue his
travels eastward to Trebizond.
END THE HISTORY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE