 |
CHAPTER XII
THE LATER COMNENI.
JOHN (1118-1143). MANUEL (1143-1180). ALEXIUS II
(1180-1183).
ANDRONICUS (1183-1185)
JOHN COMNENUS was one of the best Emperors that ever reigned at
Constantinople. Of a lofty and generous temper, severe but not cruel, and
prompt to forget injuries, the son of Alexius succeeded in gaining the respect
of his adversaries. Even the Latins, ill-inclined as they generally were to the
Emperors, were forced to bear testimony to his virtues. Upright and austere,
John presents a strong contrast to his son and successor Manuel.
Our knowledge of his reign is very scanty, for the two Greek chroniclers
who have related the history of Constantinople in the twelfth century, Cinnamus and Nicetas Acominatus, are tantalizingly brief in their notices of
him, nor can the gaps in their narratives be at all satisfactorily filled by
the help of Oriental or Latin records. Thus we know almost nothing of all that
concerns the domestic policy of the reign.
The boldness and decision shown by the son of Alexius during his father’s
last hours baffled the conspiracy to bring about the succession of the Caesar Nicephorus Bryennius, the husband of Anna Comnena, and for some
time peace appeared to reign at Constantinople. The new Emperor, however,
suspected his adversaries of meditating fresh attempts, and, fearing that even
his life was in danger, lived for some time in retirement in his palace. His
fears gradually died away, and yet, before a year had passed, events fully
justified all his apprehensions. Anna Comnena wove a new conspiracy, and, in
order to realize her dream of wearing the imperial crown, resolved to procure
her brother's assassination. The unwillingness of the Caesar Nicephorus to take
the course urged upon him by his wife led to the failure and discovery of the
plot. The chief conspirators were arrested. John contented himself with
confiscating their property, and before long even pardoned his sister Anna, who
having failed to realize her ambitious projects went into retirement for the
rest of her life, and endeavored in recording her father's exploits to console
herself for her ill-success and for the oblivion into which she had fallen.
The moderation which John showed towards those who had attempted to
deprive him of his crown was due to the inspiration of his friend Axuch, the companion of his childhood. Of Mussulman origin,
this man had been made prisoner at the capture of Nicaea by the crusaders and
handed over to Alexius. Having been brought up with John Comnenus, Axuch succeeded in gaining his friendship and confidence;
he received the office of Grand Domestic and to the end retained the favor of
his master. Together with him should also be mentioned, as having had a large
share in the government of the Empire, Gregory Taronites,
and the Logothete Gregory Camaterus.
During the early part of John's reign, his brother Isaac the Sebastocrator also
enjoyed immense favor, of which, as we shall see, he was later to prove himself
unworthy.
The reign of John Comnenus bore in a marked degree a military stamp. The
army was the chief care of the Emperor, who throughout his life paid special
attention to the training and discipline of his troops. His efforts were
rewarded with success, and he was able to organize his army on a strong and
sound basis; but the obligation of serving in it was a heavy burden to that
part of the population on which it fell, and at times produced among them
considerable discontent. Apparently the Emperor’s reign was not marked by any
considerable building operations; but he completed and richly endowed the
monastery of the Pantokrator, founded by his wife.
As regards foreign policy, John was in no respect an innovator. All the
great European or Asiatic questions which concerned the Empire had already
taken definite shape during the reign of his father. Alexius had given to
Byzantine policy the direction which he judged likely to lead to the most
advantageous results, and so sagacious had been his judgment that it may be
said that his son and grandson had merely to carry on his work. This continuity
of policy on the part of the various sovereigns who succeeded one another
during a century is extremely remarkable and much to their credit.
Two great questions of foreign policy predominated throughout the reign
of John, that of the kingdom of Sicily and that of the principality of Antioch.
If, owing to events which took place in the Norman states of Southern Italy,
the former question slumbered for the first few years of the reign, it was not
so with the latter, which claimed the constant attention of John Comnenus. With
unwearied persistence, the Emperor, in his dealings with the principality of
Antioch, pressed for the execution, not of the treaty concluded with the
leaders of the First Crusade at the time of their passing through
Constantinople, but of the convention which in 1108 had put an end to the war with
Bohemond. By this agreement the former duchy of Antioch had been restored to
Alexius, who had thereupon granted it in fief to the son of Guiscard. It took
eighteen years for John to bring the Princes of Antioch to submit to his
claims, the validity of which candid Latins could not but acknowledge. These
eighteen years were largely taken up with the preliminary campaigns which the
Emperor's designs upon the principality of Antioch necessitated. In fact, it is
worthy of remark that the wars of John Comnenus against Europeans were purely
defensive. The Emperor took the offensive only against the Mussulmans in Asia,
and these wars themselves were a necessary prelude to any expedition into
Syria. It was impossible for John to contemplate so distant an undertaking
until he had put a stop to the advance of his Muslim neighbors, the boldest of
whom were thrusting their outposts westward almost as far as the coast, or were
even attacking the Byzantine possessions in Cilicia.
Expedition against the
Turk
The maintenance of order along the frontier in Asia Minor was, in fact,
one of the chief tasks laid upon John Comnenus. After the last campaign of
Alexius against the Mussulmans, changes had taken place in the political
situation of the states along the Byzantine frontier. Shahinshah,
Sultan of Iconium, son of Qilij Arslan,
had been overthrown by his brother Masud, with the
help of the Emir Ghazi, the Danishmandite prince, who
some years before had succeeded in subduing a large number of independent
emirs. Indeed, for several years Asia Minor was divided between Masud, the Emir Ghazi, and another son of Qilij Arslan, Tughril Arslan, Emir of Melitene. While the last-named was
attacking the Byzantine possessions in Cilicia, Masud was pushing his way down the valley of the Maeander, and the Emir Ghazi was
attempting to capture the towns held by the Emperor on the coast of the Black
Sea.
Of these various enemies the Mussulmans of Iconium were the most
formidable. Their unceasing attacks are to be attributed to the nomad tribes
dependent on the Sultan of Iconium, who were under the necessity of securing
pasture for their flocks. The Maeander valley and the district about Dorylaeum were the two regions the fertility of which gave
them a special attraction for the nomads. Their continual advance towards the
west and north, apart from the material damage involved, brought with it
another danger. The Emperor, if he left the way open to the invaders, risked
the cutting of his communications with his possessions on the Black Sea coast,
as well as with Pamphylia and Cilicia. Of the three main roads which led to
Cilicia two were already in the power of the Turks, and the Byzantine troops
could only control the route through Attalla. What has been already said as to
the designs of Greek policy upon Antioch is sufficient to explain the stress
laid by the Emperor upon maintaining free communication between the various Byzantine
possessions in Asia.
The first expedition of John Comnenus to Asia Minor in 1119 seems to
have taken the form of a double attack. In the north the Duke of Trebizond, Gabras, attempted to take advantage of the divisions among
the Mussulman princes, and relied on the support of Ibn Mangu, son-in-law of the Emir Ghazi. He was, however,
defeated and taken prisoner. John Comnenus, with better fortune, succeeded
first in clearing the valleys of the Hermus and the Maeander, and then a little
later occupied Sozopolis, and retook a whole series
of places in the district round Attalia. He thus
secured for a time freedom of communication with Pamphylia.
Events in Europe were the cause of an interruption in the war in Asia.
For nearly a year (1121-1122)1 John was occupied with an invasion by certain
Patzinak tribes which had escaped the disaster of 1091. The barbarians had
succeeded in forcing the passes of the Haemus, and had overflowed into
Macedonia and devastated it. After long negotiations the Emperor succeeded in
gaining over the chiefs of certain of the tribes; he then marched against such
of the barbarian bands as had refused to treat. Preceded by a picture of the
Blessed Virgin, the Byzantine troops attacked in the neighbourhood of Eski-Sagra, and inflicted a defeat upon the barbarians, who
sought in vain to take refuge behind the wagons which formed their laager.
After this defeat the Patzinaks negotiated with the Emperor, to whom they
agreed to furnish troops.
The Venetians
About the same time (1122) an attack was made on the Empire by the
Venetians. In order to secure the support of the Venetian fleet against the
Normans of Italy, Alexius had granted the republic a large number of commercial
privileges. On his death, the Doge Domenico Michiel requested John to renew the treaties. But at that
moment the Empire had less to dread from the Normans, as they were weakened by
the internal dissensions which followed the death of Robert Guiscard in 1085
and broke forth with increased violence on the death of Duke Roger in 1118.
John therefore considered that he was paying too dearly for services of which
he no longer stood in need, and refused the request of the Venetians for a
renewal of the treaties. The doge in revenge attempted in 1122 at the head of a
numerous fleet to obtain possession of Corfu. He was unsuccessful. Being
urgently entreated to come to the help of the Latins in Palestine, the
Venetians broke off hostilities, only to renew them on the return of their
fleet from the Holy Land. On this occasion they pillaged Rhodes, occupied
Chios, and ravaged Samos, Lesbos, Andros, and Modon (1125). Next year they
occupied Cephalonia. Confronted with these attacks, John decided to negotiate,
and in 1126 he restored to the Venetians the privileges granted them by his
father.
About the same time negotiations were begun with the Papacy. The offers
formerly made by Alexius to Paschal II had been by no means forgotten at Rome,
and Pope Calixtus II, during his struggle with Henry
V, sought to obtain the help of John Comnenus. The question of the reunion of
the Churches was again brought up, and letters were exchanged. On the death of Calixtus, negotiations were continued with Honorius II; in
1126 John wrote to the Pope, but while agreeing to reopen the question
staunchly maintained the imperial claims. The discussion does not appear to
have been carried further at this time. Later on the claims of John Comnenus
upon Antioch were to excite displeasure at Rome, and by a bull of 28 March 1138
Innocent II ordered all Latins serving in the Byzantine army to leave the
Emperor's service should he attack the principality of Antioch.
The Hungarians
Two years after the conclusion of peace with Venice, the Greek Empire
had to repel an attack by the Hungarians. Hungarian affairs had never ceased to
arouse interest at Constantinople; on the extension of his territories by Koloman, Alexius I, being anxious in case of need to have
the means of intervening in the affairs of his powerful neighbors, had married
his son to a Hungarian princess named Piriska, who on
taking possession of the women's apartments in the imperial palace had assumed
the name of Irene. Since that time the Empire had not had occasion to take any
part in the affairs of Hungary, but when its King, Stephen II (1114-1131), put
out the eyes of his brother Almos, the blinded prince
took refuge at Constantinople, where he was well received. Doubtless the ties
of relationship and the pity inspired by the hapless victim sufficiently
explain the hospitable reception of Almos, but to
these reasons must be added the Emperor’s desire to have within reach a
candidate to oppose in case of need to the ruler of Hungary. Stephen II showed
great displeasure at the hospitality extended to the victim of his brutality,
and demanded that the Emperor should expel his guest from the imperial
territory. John Comnenus refused to comply with this demand, and Stephen,
irritated by his refusal, seized upon the first pretext that offered to declare
war against the Greek Empire. The desired excuse was found in the ill-treatment
of some Hungarian traders near Branichevo, and
hostilities began. Apparently the Hungarians surprised the garrisons of the
frontier posts, and succeeded in taking Branichevo and reaching the neighbourhood of Sofia (1128). They then fell back without
being molested. To punish them John Comnenus carried the war into Hungary and
won a victory near Haram (Uj Palanka),
not far from the junction of the Nera with the
Danube. But on the withdrawal of the Byzantine troops the Hungarians re-took Branichevo, and the Emperor in order to drive them off
returned to the Danube. During the winter, having learned that the enemy was
again advancing in force, he succeeded in avoiding an action and withdrawing
his troops safely. Such at least is the account given in the Byzantine records;
according to the Hungarian, the troops of Stephen II were defeated, and in
consequence of this check the king was compelled to treat. Probably the death
of Almos, which took place soon after the outbreak of
the war, removed an obstacle to peace.
Towards the end of the reign of Stephen II, John Comnenus, faithful to
the policy which had so far been followed, entertained another possible
claimant to the Hungarian throne, Boris, the son of Koloman and of Euphemia, daughter of Vladimir Monomachus.
Euphemia, accused of adultery, had been banished, and her son had been born in
exile. Returning to Hungary, Boris, a little before the death of Stephen, had
attempted to usurp the throne. He failed, and took refuge in Constantinople,
where John gave him a wife from the imperial house. Later on, in the time of
Manuel Comnenus, Boris was to prove a useful instrument of Byzantine policy.
The Serbs
About the time of the war with Hungary, perhaps indeed while hostilities
were still going on, the Serbian vassals of the Empire rose in rebellion and
destroyed the castle of Novibazar. In considering
what were at this time the relations between the Serbs and Constantinople, we
touch upon one of the most obscure questions of Byzantine history in the
twelfth century. After the death of the prince Constantine Bodin,
who for the moment had made the unity of Serbia a reality, the descendants of Radoslav, whom he had dethroned, disputed for power with
his heirs. Serbia then passed through a time of inconceivable anarchy. For
several years the various rivals succeeded one another with bewildering
rapidity. The Zupan of Rascia, Bolkan, taking advantage of the confusion to extend
his power, succeeded momentarily in imposing his candidate upon the coast
districts of Serbia. This claimant however died. The widow of Bodin, Jaquinta, daughter of Argyrus of Bari, now contrived to secure the throne for her
son George. It was probably at this juncture that John intervened and set Grubessa on the throne (1129?). When Grubessa died, George succeeded in regaining power, which brought about an intervention
of the Greeks, George being taken prisoner and sent to Constantinople. As his successor
they set up Gradicna.
Two points stand out in this confused narrative. In the first place, it
is plain that the influence of Constantinople in Serbia is small; the Empire
contents itself with having a pretender at hand to put forward in case the
reigning prince should give cause for displeasure. In the second place, the Zupans of Rascia come to play a
more and more important part. After Bolkan we find Uros Zupan of this region. One of
his daughters married Bela II the Blind, a future
King of Hungary. The other, Mary, became the wife of the Moravian prince
Conrad, while a son, Bela, took up his abode at the
Hungarian court, where later he was to become prominent, and married his
daughter to the Russian Prince, Vladimir Mstilavich.
These alliances were to prove extremely useful to the sons of Urog when, under Manuel, they were to attempt to cast off
the suzerainty of Constantinople.
John Comnenus in Asia Minor
About 1130 John Comnenus was again able to turn his arms against the Musulmans of Asia Minor. The fruits of the previous
campaigns had not been lost. As far as Iconium was concerned, the position had
remained satisfactory. Masud, being dethroned by his
brother, Arab, had even come to Constantinople to ask help of the Emperor, who
had supplied him with subsidies to oppose the usurper. These disputes among the
Mussulman rulers had lessened their strength, and for a time the principality
of Iconium was less formidable to the Empire. Far different was the position of
the Emir Ghazi. In 1124 he had seized upon the principality of Melitene, and
then conquered Ancyra and Comana, and occupied some
of the Byzantine strongholds on the coast of the Black Sea. In 1129, on the
death of the Armenian prince Thoros, he had turned towards Cilicia, and there
was every sign that he was about to contend with his co-religionist, the Atabeg of Mosul, for his share of the spoils of the Latin
princes of Syria. Thus a new enemy threatened Antioch, and from this time we
may discern the reasons which urged John Comnenus to attempt the overthrow of
the Danishmandite ruler.
The first expedition of John Comnenus proved abortive; the Emperor had
hardly crossed into Asia when he learned that a conspiracy against him had been
hatched by his brother Isaac. On receiving this news he resolved to return to
Constantinople. Isaac the Sebastocrator succeeded in avoiding punishment and
escaped into Asia, where he attempted to draw into the struggle against his
brother not only the Mussulman princes, but also the Armenian Thoros and Gabras, Duke of Trebizond, who had shortly before secured
his independence. Isaac met with but partial success, and only the Emir Ghazi
lent him support. Even at a distance the Sebastocrator continued his intrigues;
he maintained communications with various personages at the Court of
Constantinople; and when in 113 John entered upon a campaign against the Emir
Ghazi, he was soon forced to return to his capital, where a fresh plot, the
result of Isaac's intrigues, had been discovered. As soon as order was restored
the Emperor renewed the campaign, and during the winter of 1132-1133 he took
from the Emir Ghazi the important fortress of Castamona,
which, however, was soon afterwards recovered by the Muslims.
On the death of Ghazi, which took place next year (1134), the Emperor
decided to profit by the quarrels which immediately arose among the Mohammedan
princes to try his fortune in the field. An expedition was set on foot against
Mahomet, son and heir of Ghazi, to which Masud sent a
contingent of troops in the hope of having his share in the dismemberment of
the Danishmandite state. No advantage accrued to the
Empire from this alliance; the Muslim troops played false during the siege of Gangra, and John was forced to fall back. Next year,
however, he was more fortunate, and Gangra and Castamona fell into his hands (1135).
Italian affairs
This success at last enabled the Emperor to attempt the realization of
his designs upon Antioch. A series of negotiations with the Western Emperor and
with Pisa prepared the ground for this new campaign. It was apparently not
before 1135 that John Comnenus entered into diplomatic relations with the
Emperor Lothar who, while he was staying at Merseburg,
gave audience to a Byzantine embassy bearing instructions from the Greek
Emperor to request help against Roger II, King of Sicily. During the last few
years the position of the Norman states in Italy had sensibly altered. Not only
had the Count of Sicily, Roger II, added the duchy of Apulia to his dominions,
but he had raised his possessions to the rank of a kingdom, and since 1130 had,
to the great indignation of the Byzantines, assumed the title of King. The new
king, intensely ambitious and more powerful than any of his predecessors, did
not confine himself to attacking the coasts of the Greek Empire, but set up
claims to the Latin states of the Holy Land, and in particular to Antioch.
Accordingly John Comnenus found it necessary, before his departure for Syria to
try his fortune in arms, to secure himself against a fresh invasion of his
dominions by the Normans of Italy during his absence. It was with this object
in view that he had recourse to the Emperor Lothar, whom he urged to make a
descent upon Italy in order to oppose the new king, and to whom for the
furtherance of this design he promised considerable subsidies. Lothar responded
to the Byzantine embassy by sending Anselm of Havelberg to Constantinople. An agreement was arrived at, and Lothar pledged himself to
undertake an expedition into Italy. He proved as good as his word, and we know
that in 1137, while still in Southern Italy, he received a Greek embassy
bringing him gifts from the Emperor. The negotiations of John Comnenus with the Pisans were in the same way dictated by a wish to
detach them from the Norman alliance, and ended in 1136 in a renewal of treaty
engagements.
Having thus secured his dominions against a possible attack by the
Normans, John Comnenus could at last undertake the long-meditated expedition to
restore Antioch and its surrounding territory to the Empire (1137). But before
invading the principality the Byzantine army had another task to accomplish.
The territory of the Empire no longer actually extended as far as the frontier
of Antioch,; from which it was now separated by the dominions of the Armenian
Leo. This prince (a descendant of Rupen, one of those
Armenian rulers who, fleeing before the advance of the Muslims, had established
themselves in the Taurus and in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates) had in 1129
succeeded his brother Thoros. After an open breach with the Empire, he had made
himself master of the chief towns of Cilicia—Tarsus, Adana, and Mamistra. His possessions thus barred the path of John's
army, and the conquest of Cilicia was the necessary prelude to the siege of
Antioch.
In the early part of the campaign the Emperor met with unbroken success.
Tarsus, Adana, and Mamistra were quickly captured,
and then came the turn of Anazarbus and the
surrounding district. Leo, with his two sons, Rupen and Thoros, was obliged to seek safety in the mountains. Without stopping to
pursue them, John at once took the road to Antioch, for at that moment circumstances
were eminently favorable to the Greeks.
John in Syria and
Cilicia
When John appeared before the city (end of August 1137) Raymond of
Poitiers, who, by his marriage with Constance daughter of Bohemond II, had
become Prince of Antioch, was absent from his capital. Although aware of the
impending attack by the Byzantines, Raymond had not hesitated to go to the help
of the King of Jerusalem, who had just suffered a serious defeat at the hands
of the Atdbeg of Mosul, Imad-ad-Din Zangi, at Harim. When
Raymond returned, the siege of Antioch had already begun. The besieged, owing
to the disaster which had just befallen the Latins in their struggle with the
Mohammedans, despaired of receiving succor, and from the first a considerable
party of them had contemplated negotiations with the Emperor. Certain of the
records make it appear probable that the King of Jerusalem, on being consulted,
had admitted the validity of the Greek Emperor’s claims, and had recommended
negotiation. Whatever may be the truth about these pourparlers,
it is plain that Raymond, threatened with the loss of his dominions, preferred
treating with John Comnenus. At the moment the Emperor was bent above all on
obtaining a formal recognition of his claims, while for Raymond the main
desideratum was the withdrawal of the Byzantines. Once this point had been
gained, other matters might be arranged as circumstances should dictate. After
some negotiation the Prince of Antioch consented to take the oath of fealty to
John Comnenus, and, as a sign of his submission, to hoist the imperial banners
on the walls of the city. The Emperor in exchange bound himself to help the
Latins the next year in their struggle with the Muslims, but it was stipulated
that if by the help of the Basileus Raymond should recover Aleppo, Shaizar, Emesa, and Hamah, he
should restore Antioch to the Greek Empire.
This agreement being concluded John returned to Cilicia. It seems
probable that it was on this occasion that he succeeded in capturing the
Armenian prince, Leo, who with his two sons was sent prisoner to
Constantinople, where not long afterwards he died.
Faithful to his engagements, John opened the campaign in the spring of
1138. The Byzantine army, swelled by the Latin contingents, took in succession Balat (between Antioch and Aleppo) and Bizaa.
The allies, however, failed to surprise Aleppo, and turned to besiege Shaizar on the Orontes on 29 April 1138. Before long
serious dissensions broke out between the Latin princes and the Emperor. John,
indignant at the suspicious behavior of the Prince of Antioch and of Joscelin, Count of Edessa, seized upon the first pretext he
could find to raise the siege and grant the defenders conditions which they had
never hoped for.
Returning northwards by the valley of the Orontes, the army fell back
upon Antioch, John making a solemn entry into the city. During his stay there,
the Emperor, in virtue of the feudal rule obliging a vassal to hand over his
castle to his suzerain whenever he was required by him to do so, demanded
possession of the citadel. The Latin rulers, not daring a direct refusal, got
out of the difficulty by stirring up a riot in the city. In the face of the
menacing attitude of the populace, John for the time being ceased to urge his
claims and quitted Antioch. The Emperor once gone, the Latins again offered to
treat. The result was a hollow reconciliation.
John and the Western
Empire
The Greek army then set out on its return. While, on its march towards
Constantinople, it was securing the safety of the frontier by police operations
against brigands, Isaac Comnenus came to make submission to his brother and
received his pardon. The sole result of the campaign was the recognition of the
imperial rights over Antioch, whereby the prestige of the Emperor was
strikingly increased, not only in the eyes of his subjects but also in those of
the Mussulmans and Latins. No practical advantage, however, was obtained.
In 1139 the war against the Mussulmans was resumed. The Danishmandite prince Mahomet had taken several places in
Cilicia from the Byzantines, and then proceeded to ravage the country as far as
the Sangarius. John drove of these invading bands,
and during the winter of 1139-1140 laid siege to Neo-Caesarea. In this campaign
John, son of Isaac Comnenus, deserted to the enemy. On his return to Constantinople
(15 January 1141) the Emperor planned a new campaign, the object of which was
Antioch.
A series of diplomatic operations was again undertaken in order to hold
the King of Sicily in check during the Emperor’s absence. Lothar had died on
returning from his Italian campaign, and had been succeeded by Conrad III. In
1140 John asked Conrad to renew the alliance made with his predecessor, and in
order to set a seal upon the friendship requested the hand of a princess of the
imperial house for his youngest son Manuel. Conrad in reply offered his
sister-in-law Bertha, daughter of the Count of Sulzbach.
In 1142 another Byzantine embassy was dispatched with instructions to treat of
the question of a descent upon Italy. Conrad in return sent his chaplain Albert
and Robert, Prince of Capua, to Constantinople. A Greek embassy carried John’s
reply, and brought back the future Empress. These negotiations were disquieting
to the King of Sicily, who, in order to break up the league between his
enemies, sent an embassy at the beginning of 1143 to propose an alliance with
John.
John and the
Principality of Antioch
While the negotiations with Conrad were going on, the Emperor again set
out for Antioch. The whole of the early part of the campaign was devoted to
police work in the neighbourhood of Sozopolis. The
army then marched to Attalia, and here a double blow
fell upon the Emperor. Within a short interval he lost, first his son Alexius,
whom he had associated in the government, and then another son Andronicus. This
twofold bereavement did not turn the Emperor from his purpose, and on leaving Attalia the army took the road to Syria.
Since 1138 the position of the Latin states harassed by the Muslims had
only altered for the worse. During the last few years they had repeatedly
begged help from the Byzantines. Having learned by past experience, John
Comnenus did not trust to the promises which had been made to him, and above
all he resolved to make himself secure of the fidelity of the Latin rulers by
exacting hostages from them. He took pains to conceal the object of his
expedition by giving out that he intended only to put into a state of defence
the towns in Cilicia which he had taken from Leo. Thanks to these precautions
the Emperor was enabled to descend upon the Latin territory in a totally
unexpected manner. John had not forgotten the behavior of Joscelin during the last campaign; so the first attack was made on him, the Emperor
appearing suddenly in front of Turbessel. The Count
of Edessa, taken by surprise, was obliged to give up his daughter as a hostage,
and from Turbessel the Emperor marched to the castle
of Gastin (1142). There he demanded of Raymond the fulfillment
of his promise to surrender Antioch. Raymond thus driven into a corner took up
a pitiful attitude, sheltering himself behind the wishes of his vassals. An
important part in the matter was played by the Latin clergy, to whom it was a
source of annoyance that the progress of the Greek clergy proceeded pari passe with
that of the Byzantine armies. The demands of the Basileus were rejected in the
name of the Pope and of the Western Emperor.
John Comnenus had certainly foreseen this refusal and had determined to
take Antioch by force. This siege was in his eyes only a prelude to the
campaign which he intended to wage against the Mussulmans—a campaign which, if
his views were realized, would be crowned by the entrance into Jerusalem of the
Byzantine troops. But having been delayed, doubtless by the death of his sons,
the Emperor reached Antioch too late in the season to begin a siege which could
not fail to be a long one. He resolved therefore to postpone the renewal of
hostilities, and led his troops into Cilicia where he intended to winter. It
was there that an accidental wound from a poisoned arrow, received during a
hunting party, carried him off on 8 April 1143, at the moment when he was
looking forward to the attainment of the object which had been the goal of his
entire policy. On his deathbed John named as his successor Manuel, the youngest
of his sons, and procured his recognition by the army.
Accession of Manuel
Comnenus
Manuel when he ascended the throne was about twenty years old. For the
first few years of his reign he continued the confidence which his father had
placed in Axuch and John Puzes,
and it was only little by little that the young Emperor's personality developed
and made its mark by the direction that he gave to his policy. Manuel's
disposition showed a singular mixture of qualities in the most marked contrast
to one another. While on the one hand he has some of the most characteristic
traits of the Byzantine type, other sides of his nature seem to mark him out as
a product of Western civilization. He is the typical knight-king, and in
courage might compare with Richard Coeur-deLion.
Even on the first campaign in which he accompanied his father, Manuel showed
himself a bold and courageous warrior, ever a lover of the brilliant bouts and
thrusts of single combat. It may be that in his campaigns he proved himself
rather a valiant knight than a great general, that he sought too eagerly after
those successes, rather showy than permanent, which evoke the plaudits of women
and the encomiums of court poets. He constantly sought opportunity to display
his skill in riding and fencing, hunting and tournaments, and evidently looked
upon it as his vocation to repeat the exploits of the paladins. Hence it is
that Manuel is open to the reproach of having cared less for realities than for
show, of having attempted to carry out simultaneously projects on a gigantic
scale, any single one of which would have taxed the resources of the Empire.
This is the weak side of his policy. Manuel attempted to get others to carry
out the tasks which he could not himself accomplish; hence arose the failures
he met with. It would appear further that Manuel was fitted only for success,
and was incapable of bearing misfortune. At his only defeat, the disaster of Myriocephalum, when he saw that he was beaten and in danger
of being slain by the enemy with the poor remains of his army, his one idea was
to take to flight without giving a thought to his soldiers. Only the opposition
of his captains prevented him from carrying out this disgraceful intention.
Manuel’s devotion to the ideals of chivalry and his two marriages with
Western princesses fostered in him a strong preference for the Latins. Men of
Western race, whether Germans, French, Normans, Italians, or English, were sure
of his eager welcome, and of finding posts about his court or in his army. Though
ignorant of the Greek language, these foreigners who “spat better than they spoke”
contrived, nevertheless, to fill considerable administrative offices, to the
great disgust of the Emperor's subjects. Nor were they any better pleased to
see the Venetians, Pisans, and Genoese settle down at
Constantinople. This policy on the part of Manuel led to the accumulation of
the national hatred against the Latins which was to burst forth in the reign of
Andronicus.
Turkish attacks
On the death of John Comnenus the Latins of Antioch had again taken the
offensive, and even while Manuel was still in the East had begun hostilities
and occupied several places in Cilicia. This provocation had been keenly
resented by Manuel, who made it his first care to send troops to Cilicia to
deal with the Latins. The Greek arms were victorious, and in 1145 Raymond of
Poitiers had to submit to the humiliation of coming to Constantinople to ask
mercy of Manuel; he was compelled to visit the church of the Pantokrator and make the amende at the dead Emperor’s tomb.
While the Byzantine army was on its way back from Cilicia, the troops of
the Sultan of Iconium had carried of several persons of importance at court;
further invasions had then taken place, the Muslim bands advancing as far as Pithecas near Nicaea; the whole of the Byzantine
possessions in Asia Minor were devastated, ruins were heaped up on every side,
and the luckless populations were forced to leave their villages and seek
refuge in the towns along the coast. Thus one of the first tasks with which
Manuel was faced was to secure his frontier in Asia by the erection of a series
of fortified posts, intended to check the invaders. This was his main work, and
he pursued it to the end of his reign. At the same time he attempted to strike
at the heart of the Mussulman power, more than once endeavoring to reduce
Iconium. At the opening of his reign he was aided in his struggle against Masud by the divisions among the Muslim leaders which had
followed upon the death of the Danishmandite prince
Mahomet (1141). His lands were divided between his son, Dhul-Nun,
who obtained Caesarea, and his brothers, Yaqub Arslan and Ain-ad-Daulah, whose shares respectively were Siwas and Melitene. Threatened by Masud, Yaqub Arslan, the most powerful of
the heirs of Mahomet, treated with Manuel who helped him with subsidies. During
the years 1146-4147 the Greeks fought with no great measure of success; Manuel
got as far as Iconium, but failed to take it. At the moment when the crusaders
appeared before Constantinople, Manuel had just concluded a truce with Masud.
The Second Crusade
During this period the policy of Manuel in the West had yielded no
striking results. For a short time the Emperor seemed to be meditating a league
with the King of Sicily, but he soon returned to the idea of a German alliance,
and in January 1146 took to wife Bertha of Sulzbach,
sister-in-law of Conrad. But at the very time when this marriage seemed to have
set a seal upon his friendship with Germany, all that had been gained by it was
lost by the opening of the Second Crusade, the Greek Empire being left to
confront the Norman power in a state of complete isolation.
Learning of the new Crusade by letters from Louis VII and the Pope,
Eugenius III, Manuel immediately set himself to obtain guarantees against all
eventualities by demanding of the Pope that the crusaders should bind
themselves to him by engagements similar to those taken by the leaders of the
First Crusade to Alexius. In return he promised that on payment being
forthcoming provisions should be supplied. At the assembly of Etampes (February 1147) Manuel’s envoys met those of Roger
II, who had been instructed to bring about the diversion of the Crusade to
their master's profit by promising large advantages. The influence of Conrad,
who had only joined in the project for a Crusade at the end of 1146, was
certainly not without its weight in the decision to go by Constantinople. The
fact that not only the King of France but also the King of Germany was to take part
in the expedition made the position of Manuel with regard to the crusaders all
the more perilous. He was haunted by the fear that, if the Western troops
collected outside his capital, they might be tempted to an assault upon
Constantinople. He made every effort to avoid this danger, his task being
rendered easier by the ill-feeling of Conrad towards the French.
The measures taken with regard to the crusaders were of the same kind as
those employed by Alexius in the case of the First Crusade. The Byzantine
troops were disposed so as to confine the streams of pilgrims in a single
channel and to prevent the pillaging bands from wandering too far from the
prescribed route. The elements of which the crusading army was composed made
these precautions necessary. Not only were there warriors on the march; the
bulk of the army consisted of pilgrims and of a rout of adventurers ready for
any mischief.
The Germans were first to pass through the imperial territory. Their
relations with the Greeks were as bad as possible, outrages being committed on
both sides which generated violent excitement. Hadrianople was especially the scene of bloodshed. Manuel made a last effort to divert the
crusaders from the route through Constantinople and to persuade them to pass
through Sestos, but his suggestions were listened to with suspicion and were
rejected. Many disasters would have been avoided if his advice had been taken,
and it was the route recommended by him which Louis VII took after the
destruction of the German army.
Conrad III and Louis VII
Little is known of the relations between Manuel and Conrad during the
time that the crusading army remained before Constantinople. It is probable
that the two Emperors did not meet; at the same time they appear to have come
to an agreement. The news of the arrival of Louis VII decided Conrad upon
crossing over into Asia Minor—a step which all the urgency of Manuel had not
availed to secure. The march of the German army upon Iconium ended in disaster.
The crusaders, although aware of the length of the journey, had not brought a
sufficient quantity of provisions; famine soon made its appearance, whereupon
the Greek guides were alarmed by accusations of treachery, which caused them to
abandon the army and take to flight. The crusaders were forced to fall back
upon Nicomedia, harassed as they marched by the Turks who slew them in
thousands; as many perished by famine. At Nicomedia the remnants of Conrad's
army found the French.
The journey of the French across the Greek territories was equally
accompanied by acts of violence; but a Latin eye-witness admits that up to
their arrival before Constantinople the Franks did as much injury to the Greeks
as they received from them, and that the wrongs were on both sides. Manuel
welcomed Louis VII, but made every effort to induce him to cross at once to the
coast of Asia Minor. The apprehension which the Greek Emperor showed is
justified by the known fact that there was a regular party in the King of
France’s council urgent for the taking of Constantinople.
The French once across the Bosphorus, new difficulties arose. Manuel
demanded that the barons should do homage and swear fealty to him, and after
long parleying Louis ended by yielding. Having joined the wrecks of the German
army, the French gave up the idea of marching upon Iconium and took the road
for Attalia. At Ephesus Conrad fell ill, and
abandoned the Crusade. The march of the crusaders through the Asiatic provinces
of the Byzantine Empire was marked by similar acts of violence to those
committed in Europe; this explains the fighting which took place between the
Greeks and the Latins. The chief accusation brought against the Greeks is that
they did not supply provisions and that they charged too dear for such as they
did supply. The vast numbers of the crusaders made provisioning a matter of
great difficulty, and the presence of unnumbered multitudes in one place is a
sufficient explanation of the dearness of commodities.
The army of Louis VII, thus ill-provided, suffered greatly on the march
from Laodicea to Attalia. The Musulman bands had appeared, and their unceasing attacks added to the difficulties of
the mountain route. The army reached Attalia in a
deplorable state. Here provisions were still lacking. Louis VII and the chief
lords hired ships of the Greeks and departed, forsaking the mass of the
pilgrims. The leaders left in charge abandoned them in their turn. The wretched
people fell a prey to the Turks, and to the Greeks who were exasperated at the
acts of pillage which the famished multitude had committed.
Manuel and Roger II
Manuel has been held responsible for the failure of the Second Crusade.
Such accusations are now to a large extent discredited by historians. The
ill-success of the Crusade was due to defective organisation,
to the want of discipline among the crusaders, and to their obstinate
persistence, in spite of the Emperor's advice, it following the road taken by
Godfrey of Bouillon and his companions. Conrad, who had been left behind sick
at Ephesus, was received by Manuel, who brought him to Constantinople and
loaded him with attentions. The fact was that Manuel was just then threatened
by a danger which made the prospect of help from the German King of great value
to him. Profiting by the difficulties into which the Basileus was thrown by the
coming of the crusaders, Roger II of Sicily had in the autumn of 1147 directed
a naval attack upon the coast of the Empire. Corfu had fallen into his hands; Negropont and Cerigo had been
ravaged. The Normans then sailed up the Gulf of Corinth and took Thebes and
Corinth (centres of the silk-trade and two of the
most important commercial towns in the Empire), their rich warehouses being
given up to pillage. In order to resist this aggression, Manuel, while the
crusaders were still on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus, had in vain begged
for help from Conrad and Louis. He was obliged to meet the Normans with his own
forces, for which however he had secured the support of the Venetian fleet.
Being detained by an invasion of the Cumans (1148), Manuel sent the Grand Domestic Axuch and the
Grand Duke Alexius Contostephanus to occupy the
places taken by the Normans and to besiege Corfu. It was during the winter of
1148-4149 that Manuel received Conrad, who was returning from the Holy Land,
and concluded a treaty with him, by which the German king bound himself to make
a descent upon Italy in order to attack Roger II (1149).
Corfu having been retaken (summer of 1149), Manuel resolved to organize
an expedition to punish Roger II. A revolt among the Serbs, supported by the
King of Sicily, prevented him from carrying out his plan. Roger II, threatened
by the Germano-Byzantine alliance, created
difficulties for them both which hindered them from carrying out their project
of an invasion of Italy. While Welf, thanks to
supplies furnished by Roger, fomented an agitation which detained Conrad in
Germany, the Sicilian king was launching the Serbs and Hungarians against the
Greek Empire. Hungary and Constantinople were at that time on very bad terms
owing to their pursuing a diametrically opposite policy in Russia. While Geza,
King of Hungary, maintained the claims of his brother-in-law Izyaslav to the throne of Kiev, Manuel gave his support to
George Dolgoruki, son of Vladimir Monomachus,
who was also favored by Vladimirko, Prince of Halicz. At the instigation of the King of Sicily, Geza
encouraged the Zupan of Rascia, Pervoslav Uros, to revolt,
and the disturbance which broke out in Serbia in the autumn of 1149 kept Manuel
occupied until 1150. The Serbs having been subdued, Manuel, eager to punish
their Hungarian supporters, took advantage in 1151 of the absence of Geza, who
was maintaining Izyaslav’s cause in Russia against Vladimirko, to take Semlin and
ravage the country between the Save and the Danube. Peace was signed the same
year, but in 1152 hostilities broke out again, and Geza formed a connection
with Manuel's cousin, Andronicus Comnenus, the future Emperor. This treason was
discovered and Andronicus was arrested. The struggle lasted until 1155, when
peace was signed. The only appreciable result of the campaigns seems to have
been the conquest of Semlin.
Roger II had not been satisfied with stirring up the Serbs and
Hungarians against Manuel; he had at the same time made use of the failure of
the Crusade to attempt the organization of a European coalition against him.
Louis VII sympathized with these projects, but Conrad's fidelity to the
Byzantine alliance, and the rupture which took place in 1150 between Pope
Eugenius III and Roger, prevented the latter's designs from taking effect.
Finally in 1152 the death of Conrad delivered the Norman King from the peril of
a Germano-Byzantine alliance.
With Conrad’s successor, Frederick Barbarossa, Manuel was never able to
come to an understanding. From the beginning of his reign Barbarossa refused to
countenance any territorial advantage which might be gained by the Basileus in
Italy—a concession which Conrad had made. From 1152 to 1158 numerous embassies
came and went between the two Emperors, but it was found impossible to arrange
an alliance. Wishing to take advantage of the death of Roger II in 1154,
Frederick Barbarossa made a descent upon Italy. Manuel, fearing that this
expedition having been made without reference to him might prove to have been
made against him, decided to try his fortune single-handed and to make his
profit out of the unsettled conditions which had followed on the death of Roger
II. He dispatched to Italy Michael Palaeologus, who in the course of 1155, thanks
to the support of Robert of Loritello, a revolted
vassal of the Norman King William I, and his fellow-rebels, achieved
unlooked-for success. In a few months the Greek Emperor's authority was recognized
from Ancona to Taranto. This success turned Manuel's head,
and was chiefly instrumental in giving a new direction to his policy. At the
very time when in 1155 the German Emperor, forced to own himself unable to
maintain order in Italy and to play the part he had assumed of protector of the
Papacy, abandoned the idea of invading the Norman Kingdom, the Basileus was
enforcing the recognition of his own imperial authority in all that part of
Italy which had formerly been in the possession of the Greek Emperors. Hence
arose in Manuel the desire to restore the Eastern Empire to what it had been in
the time of Justinian, and to obtain from the Pope the reestablishment of
imperial unity in exchange for the reunion of the Greek Church with the Church
of Rome. The first negotiations with this object were begun with Hadrian IV,
and the rupture which took place at this time between the Papacy and the
Western Emperor seemed to Manuel likely to further the accomplishment of his
dream.
Manuel and Alexander III
The counter-strokes of William I, which in a short time demolished the
frail edifice of Byzantine conquest, did not avail to dissuade Manuel from his
project. Southern Italian questions became of secondary importance to him in
comparison with the schemes he was caressing, and he made no difficulty in 1158
in complying with the suggestions of the Papacy, which, leaning as it did on
the support of the kingdom of Sicily and of the Greek Empire, desired to see
peace restored between its two allies.
From 1157 onwards Byzantine policy is governed wholly by the idea of
restoring the unity of the Empire. For the sake of clearness we will consider
in order the relations of Manuel with Italy and Frederick Barbarossa, with the
Hungarians and Serbs, and finally with the Muslims and the Latins of the East.
It was natural that Manuel should show himself favorable to the Pope,
Alexander III. During the years from 1161 to 1163 long negotiations went on
between the Emperor, Alexander III, and Louis VII concerning a coalition to be
formed against the Western Emperor. Three years later Manuel judged that the
Pope was sufficiently in need of his help to make it safe to acquaint him
completely with his desire to reestablish the unity of the Empire under his scepter.
Negotiations about this project went on for several years, Manuel remaining the
ally of Alexander until the preliminaries of the Peace of Venice (1177).
Although his name does not appear as one of the signatories of the peace, the
connection between the Papacy and Constantinople lasted as long as Manuel
reigned.
If the understanding between the Pope and the Greek Emperor led to
nothing, one of the chief causes of this was the opposition maintained by the
King of Sicily to the Byzantine policy. It will readily be understood that
neither William I nor William II looked with favor on the attempts of Manuel to
gain a footing in Italy, but that both on the contrary offered a vigorous
resistance. Manuel tried every means of overcoming their opposition; he had
recourse to Louis VII, and on two occasions he endeavored to arrange for the
marriage of his daughter Mary with William II. But just as matters seemed to be
finally settled, the match was broken off, Barbarossa having made overtures to
Manuel which seemed to him to promise a more brilliant future to his daughter
than alliance with William of Sicily could offer.
Manuel’s attitude towards the Italian cities was a natural result of his
policy with regard to Alexander III. He endeavored by every possible means to
attach to his interest a group of dependent Italian towns, or at least to be
able to rely on the support of a party in the more important cities. Milan was
encouraged by him in her struggle with Barbarossa, and Byzantine gold helped to
rebuild her streets. Cremona and Pavia had their share of the Greek subsidies.
Once already Ancona had given itself up to
Palaeologus, and later on, about 1166, its population embraced the Greek cause,
won over by the gold of Manuel's emissaries. In 1167 Barbarossa was only able
to win a partial advantage over them.
With Pisa Manuel in 1161 entered into negotiations which lasted until
1172. Dragged in different directions by their Ghibelline sympathies and their
desire to take advantage of the commercial privileges offered by the Basileus,
the Pisans pursued an indecisive policy. The Genoese
in the same way treated with the Greek Emperor in 1155, but also with
Barbarossa in 1162. Though intercourse between them and Constantinople was
broken off in 1162, it was resumed in 1164, and went on until 1170. Manuel was
never able to bring the Genoese to the point of breaking with Barbarossa.
The Greek occupation of Ancona and the
recapture of the Dalmatian towns gave some anxiety to the Venetians, who had
very nearly come to a breach with Manuel at the time of the siege of Corfu, as
the result of an unpleasant incident which occurred between the troops of the
two nations. Things reached such a point that in 1167 relations between the two
countries were completely broken off. The doge even recalled all those of his
nation who had settled upon Greek territory. Diplomatic intercourse, resumed at
the request of Manuel who drew the Venetians into a veritable snare, was again
definitively broken off on 12 March 1171. On this date Manuel ordered the
arrest of all Venetians settled in his dominions and the confiscation of their
goods. Enormous damage was thus inflicted upon Venice. In revenge the republic
during the winter of 1171-2 pillaged the coasts of the Empire and ravaged Negropont, Chios, and Lesbos. In the course of the campaign
negotiations were initiated in which the Venetians were duped. These were
continued without result up to 1175. At this date Venice made an alliance with
William II, King of Sicily. Thus directly threatened, Manuel decided upon
concessions. He set at liberty the prisoners arrested in 1171, restored their
goods to them, and granted to Venice the privileges enjoyed under former
treaties of commerce. In the interval, in 1173, Venice had given help to the
Germans in their attempt to take Ancona from the
Greeks.
The policy which Manuel pursued in Italy naturally reacted upon the
relations between the Greek Empire and the Germans. The attitude which he took
up there would naturally have as its first consequence a complete rupture with
Barbarossa. This, however, was postponed for some time owing to the secrecy
with which the Greek Emperor contrived to cover up his intrigues. It was only
when the occupation of Ancona took place in 1166 that
Manuel's hostility to Barbarossa showed itself clearly. From 1159 to 1165
several embassies were exchanged between the two Emperors, and in 1166 Henry,
Duke of Austria, made a useless journey to Manuel’s court to attempt to bring
about an understanding. Just at that time Manuel's occupation of Ancona had opened Barbarossa’s eyes, and he was determined
to avenge himself on the earliest opportunity. However, the progress made by
Manuel in Italy, marked by the treaties with Genoa in 1169 and with Pisa in
1170, decided Barbarossa on attempting a reconciliation. From 1170 to 1172
proposals were discussed for the marriage of Manuel's daughter with
Barbarossa's son. They led to nothing, and in 1173 Barbarossa was engaged in
the siege of Ancona (which had given itself up to the
Greeks), and was also trying to negotiate an alliance with William II, evidently
directed against Manuel. At the same time the Western Emperor was attempting in
his turn to create difficulties for his adversary, and was treating with the
Sultan of Iconium. Manuel took no share in the Treaty of Venice (1177) and, as
we shall see, continued the struggle with the Western Emperor up to the last
day of his life.
Manuel and Hungary
His Italian policy, being based wholly on diplomacy, always left the
greater part of the military forces of the Empire free, a circumstance which
enabled the Emperor at the same time to pursue a more active and warlike course
in two other quarters, Hungary and Asia. Since the peace signed with Geza,
Manuel had played a waiting game in Hungary, content with giving a refuge at
Constantinople to two of the king’s brothers, the future Stephen IV and
Ladislas. At the death of Geza (1161), Manuel had made use of the pretenders
whom he had at hand in order to interfere in the concerns of the Hungarian
succession, calculating thus to secure some advantage for the Empire. The laws
of succession were not yet fully fixed in Hungary, and Stephen IV could plead
in his favor the ancient usage by which the brother of a dead king was to be
preferred to the son, in order to put forward a claim to the throne to the
prejudice of his nephew Stephen III. Manuel supported the claims of his protégé
by Byzantine troops. A strong party grew up in Hungary hostile to the claims of Geza’s son, but refusing to admit those of Stephen
IV, who was looked upon as too much the vassal of Constantinople. The
Hungarians feared that by giving the crown to Stephen IV their country might
become a mere satellite of Constantinople, and to avoid this danger made choice
of Ladislas, brother of Stephen IV, whom they regarded as less submissive to
the influence of the Byzantine court. Ladislas was barely seated on the throne
when he died (1162). The struggle between the two Stephens then recommenced,
Manuel still giving support to his candidate. To bring the contest to an end,
the counselors of the young King Stephen III offered to hand over to Manuel
another son of Geza’s named Bela,
who was recognized as the future heir to the crown of Hungary and granted a
considerable appanage which included Dalmatia. As the appanage of Bela, who would
be brought up in Constantinople, Dalmatia practically fell back into the hands
of the Byzantines, and the result of Manuel's Hungarian policy was an important
territorial acquisition. To make his success the surer, Manuel, who as yet had
no son, decided to betroth his daughter Mary to the Hungarian prince, whom he
destined for his successor. By this means Hungary would have been united to the
Greek Empire.
It was not without difficulty that the Greeks entered into possession of
Dalmatia. As the position of Stephen III grew stronger, the Hungarians came to
regret the sacrifice they had agreed to, and for several years the war was
renewed. Manuel, having become master of Dalmatia in 1166, remained in the end
the victor. The birth of a son to him in 1169 caused him to alter his
arrangements. Bela ceased to be heir presumptive and,
his betrothal to Mary having been set aside, he was married to the Emperor’s
sister-in-law, a daughter of Constance of Antioch. On the death of Stephen III, Bela with the aid of Byzantine troops mounted the
throne of Hungary. As the price of his support Manuel kept his hold on Bela’s appanage. Bela always remained devoted to him, although it was only
after his patron’s death that he recovered Dalmatia.
Manuel and Serbia
The continual wars which were waged during this period on the Danube
frontier kept up a state of unrest among the Serbs, who were vassals of the
Empire. Manuel was repeatedly obliged to intervene. He deposed Pervoslav Uros, replacing him by
his brother Bela (1161?). Then, Bela having retired from power, Manuel set up as his successor Dessa,
another son of Bela Uros (c. 1162). Dessa, who a few years later took the name
of Stephen Nemanja, attempted to throw off the
Byzantine suzerainty. More than once Manuel was forced to interfere to restore
order; finally he seized Stephen Nemanja, whom he
kept prisoner for some time in Constantinople. It is not known exactly at what
date Stephen regained his liberty. He took advantage of the disorder which
followed the death of Manuel to secure the independence of his country.
It was not until about 1150 that the affairs of the East called for the
intervention of Manuel. At that time the situation of the Byzantine possessions
had become critical. Thoros, son of the Armenian prince Leo, had escaped from
captivity, and had succeeded in taking from the Greeks a large part of Cilicia.
At the same time the Muslim conquest had made a great step in advance by the
capture of Edessa, and the position of the Latin states in Palestine was
rendered even more precarious by the entrance into the contest of the Mussulmans
of Iconium, who with Qilij Arslan,
son of Masud, wished to have their share in the
dismembering of the Latin principalities. In the extreme peril in which they
stood the Latins asked for help from the West, but the danger was so
threatening that they had recourse to the Emperor of Constantinople. Manuel
ordered his troops in the East to support the Latins. About the same time he
bought from the wife of Joscelin II, Count of Edessa,
all that remained in her hands of the possessions of her husband. Constance,
Princess of Antioch, having become a widow, also turned to the Emperor for
protection. The position of things thus favored Greek intervention. Manuel
charged his cousin, Andronicus Comnenus, with the task of reducing Thoros, and
sent also his brother-in-law the Caesar John-Roger whom he proposed to
Constance as a husband. This projected marriage never took place, and
Andronicus only succeeded in getting himself defeated before Mamistra.
Manuel then changed his policy and attempted to secure the submission of
Thoros by means of Masud. The latter accepted
Manuel's offers all the more willingly as he had himself subjects of complaint
against Thoros. The Armenian prince had pillaged Cappadocia, taking advantage
of the struggle between Masud and the Danishmandite rulers, Yaqub Arslan and Dhul-Qarnain, son and
heir of Ain-ad-Daulah. The
result of this experiment did not correspond to Manuel’s hopes. On a first
occasion Masud treated with Thoros but at Manuel's
expense; on a second the Mussulman troops were thoroughly beaten. Profiting by
the inaction of Manuel, who was detained by affairs in Italy, Thoros approached
Reginald of Châtillon who had become Prince of Antioch through his marriage
with Constance, and the two set on foot an expedition against the island of
Cyprus, where immense booty was obtained (1155 or 1156).
This aggression against the Byzantines greatly displeased the King of
Jerusalem, Baldwin, for, confronted by the growing success of the Ataheg Nar-ad-Din, the master of Damascus, he was
meditating a rapprochement with Manuel, to whom he had applied for the hand of
a princess of the imperial family. The request of Baldwin came just as the
imperial idea was beginning to take shape in Manuel's mind. The Emperor, whose
Oriental policy, like that of his predecessors, was dominated by the wish to
regain Antioch for the Empire, eagerly welcomed the proposal of Baldwin, which
would give him an opportunity of posing as the protector of the Holy Places. He
gave the King of Jerusalem the hand of his niece Theodora, daughter of his
brother Isaac, and as soon as peace had been concluded with the King of Sicily
(1157) he organized a great expedition for the East.
By about the month of September 1158 Manuel had arrived in Cilicia at
the head of a very considerable force. None of his adversaries dared to stand
against him, and in succession Reginald of Châtillon and Thoros were obliged to
come in penitential garments and submit themselves to his mercy. The Emperor
consented to pardon them. Reginald was obliged to acknowledge himself the
vassal of the Empire, engaging to supply a strong contingent of troops whenever
required to do so by the Emperor. Ambassadors from most of the Oriental princes
were to be found hastening to the imperial camp before Mamistra.
The Latins themselves, the King of Jerusalem first among them, sought help of
Manuel in whom they now placed all their hopes; Baldwin himself entered into a
treaty, he also being obliged to furnish troops to the Greek Empire.
In April 1159 Manuel left Cilicia to make his solemn entry into Antioch,
escorted by the Latin princes on foot and unarmed, and followed by the King of
Jerusalem on horseback but without weapons. Passing through streets adorned
with carpets and hangings, to the sound of drums and trumpets and to the
singing of triumphal hymns, the Emperor was brought in procession to the
cathedral by the Patriarch in his pontifical robes, while the imperial banners
were hoisted on the city walls.
His stay at Antioch marks the highest pitch of glory to which Manuel
attained throughout his reign. He took pleasure in the pomp with which he
surrounded himself, and in the largess which he distributed to dazzle the
Latins and Orientals. For a week feasts and shows followed each other rapidly,
and on one day the Emperor might be seen descending into the lists to measure
himself against Reginald of Châtillon, while the officers of the imperial army
contended with the Frankish knights.
Manuel’s marriage with
Mary of Antioch
Towards the end of May the Emperor left Antioch with all the materials
for a siege, taking the road to Edessa, but after a few days' march the army
halted, for the negotiations with Nar-ad-Din had just reached a conclusion. Manuel
procured the liberation of all the captives held in the Atabeg’s prison, the number of whom reached six thousand. The abandonment of the
campaign which had been begun caused the deepest disappointment to the
Christians of the East. To justify the retreat of the Greeks, a rumor was
circulated that a conspiracy had been discovered at Constantinople. There is
perhaps no need to lay stress on the explanations put forward at the time. May
it not be supposed that Manuel entered into the treaty because he had no kind
of interest in the destruction of the power of Nar-ad-Din? It was to the
struggle of the Atabegs and the Christians that the
Empire owed the advantages which had been won in the East. Had he subjugated
Nar-ad-Din, Manuel would have delivered the Latins from their dread of the Mussulman
peril, and they as soon as the danger was removed would, as they had done
before, make haste to forget their engagements to the Empire. In order that the
suzerainty of Constantinople might be recognized by the Latins, it was
necessary that the Mussulman peril should continue to exist. This appears to
give the most reasonable explanation of Manuel's conduct.
On his return to Constantinople Manuel, who had been left a widower,
meditated drawing closer the bonds between himself and the Latins of Palestine
by marrying a Latin princess. He requested the King of Jerusalem to grant him
the hand of Millicent, sister of Raymond III, Count of Tripolis.
But, the marriage being once agreed upon, the negotiations were drawn out for
more than a year, until at last Manuel suddenly broke them of and transferred
his choice to Mary, daughter of Constance, Princess of Antioch. The chief
result of the marriage was to bring Antioch more decidedly within the sphere of
Byzantine influence, which was now exerted energetically on the side of the
Latins against the Turks. At the battle of the Bukaia (1163) and at Harim (1164) the Greeks fought side by
side with the Latin lords. After the defeat at Harim the Emperor sent reinforcements to Cilicia, but he made the mistake of
committing the province to his cousin Andronicus as governor. Andronicus ruined
the imperial policy by procuring the murder of Stephane,
the brother of Thoros, who was thus alienated from the Empire. Then, having
fallen in love with Philippa, Manuel’s sister-in-law,
Andronicus deserted his post as governor in order to fly with the object of his
passion. In spite of these incidents Constantinople and Antioch remained on
excellent terms. Manuel came to the help of his brother-in-law Bohemond III
with financial support, and obtained from him permission for the Greek
Patriarch to return to Antioch. While Amaury, the
Latin Patriarch, departed hurling anathemas against the city, the Greek,
Athanasius, took possession of the see. This supplies a fresh proof of the
influence exercised over Antioch by the Greek element. There was then in this
quarter substantial progress on the part of the Byzantines.
Amaury of Jerusalem
Such was not the case in Cilicia. Thoros having died (c. 1167), his son
Ruben II succeeded him, but after a short time was robbed of his crown by his
uncle Mleh, who in order to seize power had allied
himself with Nur-ad-Din. With the latter’s help Mleh succeeded in maintaining his position until the death
of his patron, when he was overthrown and, Ruben II being dead, was replaced by
Ruben III, son of Stephane, the victim of Andronicus.
Throughout these struggles Constantinople seems to have played a very secondary
part in Cilicia. It is only the attempt by Manuel to bring about the union of
the Greek and Armenian Churches which shows that Constantinople had not yet
lost interest in Armenian affairs. It is quite probable that the object aimed
at by the Emperor was at least as much political as religious, and that the
opposition offered by the Armenian clergy, which caused the failure of the
negotiations, was also political in character.
Baldwin's successor on the throne of Jerusalem, Amaury,
after having at the opening of his reign sought in vain for help from the West,
turned decidedly from 1165 onwards towards Constantinople. He asked for the
hand of a princess of the imperial family, and on 29 August 1167 his marriage
took place at Tyre with the daughter of the Protosebastos John Comnenus, a nephew of the Emperor, the son of his brother Andronicus.
Through this new connection the ties between Constantinople and the kingdom of
Jerusalem became closer, and Manuel agreed to lend his help to King Amaury, who, in order to prevent Nur-ad-Din
from occupying Egypt, where the Caliphate had fallen into utter decadence,
wished to annex the country himself. Several attempts by the King of Jerusalem
had failed; it was now decided that in 1169 the Greeks and Latins should try to
effect a joint conquest of Egypt. Delays on the part of Amaury caused the expedition to fail, for the provisions of the Greeks, calculated to
last for three months, had been already largely consumed when their fleet
quitted Acre.
The Greek fleet under the command of the Grand Duke Alexius Contostephanus had a strength of 150 biremes and 60
transport ships. It left the port of Coda near Sestos in July. But the
expedition, instead of setting out in August as had been agreed, only left
Syria to besiege Damietta in October. The siege lasted for two months, at the
end of which the town made terms with Amaury. The
campaign had failed, and the Greeks, who were suffering greatly from want of
provisions, were in haste to depart. Their return journey was disastrous, a
large number of their vessels being lost at sea, and the Empire derived no
advantage whatever from the expedition.
Manuel, however, was not discouraged by this want of success, and in
1171 he gave a favorable reception to Amaury, who had
come to Constantinople to ask for his support. A treaty was signed by which
Manuel pledged himself to assist the King of Jerusalem in a renewed attempt
upon Egypt. According to a Greek chronicler, Amaury at this time acknowledged himself the vassal of the Emperor, but as the
statement cannot be verified it is impossible to speak decidedly on the point.
As to the proposed expedition, we know that Manuel urged Amaury’s successor, Baldwin IV, to march upon Egypt (1177). The opposition of Philip,
Count of Flanders and Vermandois, who was then in
Palestine, was fatal to the plan which had been agreed on, its execution being
deferred to some unspecified date.
Wars with the Turks
It remains for us to consider the relations of Manuel with the Sultan of
Iconium. Masud had died (c. 1155) and had been
succeeded at Iconium by Qilij Arslan,
and at Gangra and Ancyra by another of his sons, Shahinshah. On its return from Antioch in 1159 the Greek
army was attacked near Cotyaeum by Musulman bands, and next year Manuel undertook a campaign
in order to chastise Qilij Arslan.
In this struggle he relied on the support of other Mohammedan princes, Yaqub Arslan, Dhal-Nan, Mahomet,
son of Dhal-Qarnain, and also on Sharhinshal,
brother of Qilij Arslan. In
1160 Yaqub Arslan was
attacking Qilij Arslan,
while on all sides the Greeks were falling upon such Turkish tribes as were to
be found in the neighbourhood of the frontier. In consequence of this general
onslaught Qilij Arslan treated for peace during the winter of 1161. The negotiations fell through, and
war was resumed at the beginning of spring. Manuel, by way of Philadelphia,
invaded the dominions of the Sultan, who retorted by attacks upon Phileta and Laodicea.
In 1162 Manuel called upon all his vassals to strike a decisive blow.
Finding himself seriously menaced, Qilij Arslan made friends with Yaqub Arslan and Shahinshah, and then
negotiated with Manuel, with whom he finally concluded a treaty of alliance.
Soon after, Qilij Arslan appeared at Constantinople, where he remained for more than three months. He
departed loaded with presents, having made the Emperor the fairest of promises
for the future. He had pledged himself to restore to the Empire a number of
towns which had been taken by the Mussulmans. Not one of these promises was
ever carried out.
The years from 1162 to 1174 were occupied by perpetual strife among the Mussulmans
of Asia Minor, the Greeks being thus allowed some respite. In the end Qilij Arslan was left victor over
his chief adversaries. His brother Shahinshdl and Dhul-Nun then sought refuge at Constantinople.
In order to be able to pursue his European policy undisturbed, Manuel
had since his treaty with Qilij Arslan supplied the latter with heavy subsidies as the price of peace. In proportion
as his power increased, the Sultan of Iconium, urged on perhaps by Frederick
Barbarossa, assumed a more independent attitude towards the Empire, while the
incursions of the nomad tribes of Turks were renewed with greater frequency
than ever. To secure his frontier, Manuel repaired the fortifications of a
certain number of strongholds, notably Pergamus and Chliara.
He then fortified the two lines of defence supplied by the rivers Maeander and
Hermus.
Battle of Myriocephalum
It was not till 1175 that a definitive rupture took place between Manuel
and the Sultan of Iconium. The former insisted that Qilij Arslan should fulfill his promise to restore to the
Empire certain towns which he had taken from it. Supported by Frederick
Barbarossa, Qilij Arslan refused to comply with the Emperor’s demands, and Manuel decided upon war,
counting upon the support of all the remaining partisans of Shahinshah and Dhul-Nun among the Mussulmans. While a detachment
of Greek troops was sent under Gabras and Shalinshah to occupy Amasia,
which was still in the hands of the latter's supporters, Manuel carried out the
fortification of a whole series of towns, Dorylaeum,
an important strategic point on the road to Iconium, Lampe, and Sublaeum (1175). Next year the Emperor resolved to attack
Iconium. With this object he preached a regular crusade, calling upon all his
vassals for help. While Andronicus Vatatzes went to
attack Neo-Caesarea, Manuel himself took command of the army which was to march
upon Iconium. The fate of both expeditions was equally disastrous. Vatatzes failed before NeoCaesarea and was killed, his army being routed. Manuel himself became entangled with his
whole army in the mountainous region to the east of Sublaeum (Homa). He had neglected to explore the countryside
with scouts during his march, and was caught by the Muslims in the narrow
defiles at Myriocephalum. The Greeks met with a
complete disaster, in which the finest of the imperial troops were slaughtered
by the Mussulmans. Manuel himself compared his defeat to that of Romanus
Diogenes at Manzikert. For reasons unknown to us Qilij Arslan used his victory
with moderation, and offered peace on honorable terms, stipulating only for the
destruction of the fortifications at Dorylaeum and Sublaeum. Manuel agreed to the conditions proposed, and led
the wreck of his army back to Constantinople.
With the disaster of Myriocephalum all
enterprises on a large scale in the East came to an end. Though broken by his
defeat, the Emperor did indeed renew the war during the latter part of his
reign; but the Greek generals had to confine themselves to the defence of the
frontier, and all idea of an advance upon Iconium, to attack the central seat
of the Musulman power, was abandoned. In fact, the
battle of Myriocephalum sealed the fate of the Comnenian dynasty, if not of the Byzantine Empire.
As a result of his defeat Manuel met with a mortification from Frederick
Barbarossa which he must have felt keenly. The Western Emperor wrote to the
Basileus, and remembering old scores himself spoke of the unity of the Empire.
In his letter he clearly asserts the superiority of the Emperor of the West,
sole heir of the Roman Emperors, over all other sovereigns, in particular, over
the King of the Greeks.
Manuel, who feared that the Westerns might profit by his defeat to
attack his Empire, strove by all the means which he had before found successful
to paralyze Barbarossa’s forces. He supported William, Marquess of Montferrat, when he raised a revolt in Italy, and, in order to set a seal on
the alliance, married his daughter Mary to Renier,
one of William's sons. Again it was Byzantine gold that helped to equip the
troops that defeated Frederick's Arch-Chancellor, Christian of Mayence, near Camerino. Manuel
was trying to arrange for the purchase of Christian, whom Conrad of Montferrat
had made prisoner, when his own death put a stop to the negotiations. Thus
after lasting twenty years the struggle between the two Empires came to an
end—a struggle in which diplomacy counted for more than armies. Manuel's policy
with regard to Barbarossa was very burdensome to the imperial treasury, for
money was the weapon with which he chiefly carried on the contest. If his
policy seems to have yielded no very striking results, it must be remembered
that Manuel was successful in keeping the forces of his enemy in a state of
inaction, and was thus able to pursue his policy of conquest in Hungary and the
East unhindered.
The only success which sweetened the bitterness of Manuel's last years
was the marriage of his son Alexius with Agnes, the daughter of Louis VII of
France. This match had been arranged at the Emperor's request by Philip, Count
of Flanders, who on his return from an expedition to the Holy Land had passed
through Constantinople in 1178. The little princess, who reached Constantinople
in a Genoese vessel, was married to the heir of the Empire on 2 March 1180. On
24 September in the same year the Emperor died after a long illness, during
which, confident in the predictions of astrologers, he never ceased to nurse
illusions as to his prospect of recovery. This conviction that he would recover
prevented him from making any arrangements for the organization of the
government during the minority of his son.
Alexius II
Alexius II, son and successor of Manuel Comnenus, was twelve years old
at the time of his father's death. Naturally therefore he had no share in state
affairs, the regency being in the hands of his mother Mary of Antioch, whose
charm and beauty the chroniclers vie in celebrating. Every man about the court,
convinced that the Empress could be wooed and won, endeavored to attract her
attention. For some time the court was the scene of all manner of intrigues,
and, in order to gain favor with the Empress, young and old rivaled one another
in the elegance and splendor of their attire and in their jewels and perfumes,
each hoping to be the lucky man on whom her choice would fall, Mary made the
double mistake, first, of allowing herself to make a choice among the crowd of
gallants who surrounded her, and, secondly, of distinguishing with her favor the
vainglorious and incapable Protosebastos Alexius
Comnenus, son of Manuel's elder brother Andronicus. All power was soon
exercised by the favorite, who by his childish pride, his contemptuous
treatment of the chief officials, and the pretensions which he ostentatiously
put forward, excited a general hatred in which the Regent was naturally
included. The favor which she showed to the Latins who filled the chief posts
in the army and the administration, and on whose support she came naturally to
rely, completed the exasperation of the public mind, which was besides excited
by the courtiers. Before long the "foreign woman" as the Empress was
called was detested in Constantinople, and a plot was set on foot against the
all-powerful favorite. In order to kindle the indignation of the populace, it
was given out that Alexius Comnenus intended to marry the Empress and to
arrange for the disappearance of the young Emperor in order to seize the throne
himself.
The leading spirit in the plot was Mary daughter of Manuel, with her
husband the Caesar Renier. Having been for a short
time heiress to the throne, Mary was inconsolable for the loss of her
prospects, and she heartily detested her step-mother. A great many of the
members of the imperial family gathered round her—Alexius Comnenus,
illegitimate son of Manuel, John and Manuel Comnenus, the sons of Andronicus
the future Emperor; and to these were added some of the chief officials,
notably John Camaterus, prefect of the city. The
assassination of the favorite was resolved on, but the stroke miscarried and
the plot was discovered. Mary and her fellow-conspirators at once took refuge
in St Sophia, which they turned into a fortress. Although the people showed
themselves clearly in favor of the conspirators, who also had the support of
the Patriarch Theodotus and the higher clergy, the Protosebastos did not scruple to order an assault upon the
church, thereby causing immense scandal (May 1182). This profanation, which
finally alienated the public mind from him, in no way benefited Alexius
Comnenus, whose troops were unable to take St Sophia. The Empress-Regent,
reduced to treat with the besieged, was compelled to pardon them and to promise
the leaders their lives and dignities. Nor was it long before the favorite met with
a further rebuff. He attempted to depose the Patriarch and to constrain him to
retire into a monastery. But Theodosius was brought back in triumph by the
populace. The Regent, feeling herself in danger from the general hostility that
surrounded her, sought help from outside, and petitioned her brother-in-law Bela III, King of Hungary, to come to her aid.
Andronicus
Meanwhile events at Constantinople were being watched from a distance
with passionate interest by a man whose supporters were constantly stirring up
the hostility of the populace against the Regent and her favorite. His name
began to pass from mouth to mouth; he was the only person capable of saving the
situation; the people of the capital and the malcontents of the Court rested
all their hopes on Andronicus Comnenus.
This son of Isaac Comnenus was a strange being. His father was a brother
of the Emperor John, and in the son the populace of Constantinople saw its
future deliverer. Learned, eloquent, and witty, he had for a long time been the
arbiter of fashion and taste in the capital, and the magnificence of his
dwelling had become famous. The exquisiteness of his dress showed off his
handsome features—handsome enough to befit a throne, says a chronicler. A man
of personal courage, Andronicus, like Manuel, had distinguished himself in
single combat, but his cool and ready audacity delighted above all things in
political intrigue. Full of ambition, he meditated unceasingly on the means of
reaching the throne; of debauched life, the court rang with stories of his
various scandalous amours. His vices were paraded with astonishing cynicism.
While the lover of his cousin Eudocia, Andronicus had been appointed Duke of
Cilicia, and on his defeat by Thoros II had hastened back to his mistress. He
had then entered into a conspiracy with Geza, King of Hungary, and when
arrested in 1153 was plotting the assassination of Manuel. He made several
unavailing attempts to escape, but in the end after many changes of fortune
succeeded in gaining a refuge at the court of Yaroslav,
Prince of Halicz (1164). Manuel, uneasy that so
restless a brain should be intriguing among the Russians, had pardoned his
cousin and had then reappointed him Duke of Cilicia. While residing in his
province Andronicus conceived a passion for the Emperor’s sister-in-law Philippa, daughter of the Princess of Antioch, who yielded
to his solicitations. Quickly forsaking her, Andronicus set out for the Holy
Land, where he carried off his cousin Queen Theodora, widow of Baldwin of
Jerusalem. The couple for several years led a wandering life, going from court
to court in the Muslim East, and finally establishing themselves near Colonea in a citadel presented to them by a Mussulman emir.
Andronicus made use of his position, which was close to the frontier of the
Empire, to keep up incessant warfare against his cousin. Excommunicated by the
Patriarch for his relations with Theodora, he nevertheless continued to live
with her. It was, however, on her account that he was at last reduced to sue for
pardon. In order to get the better of his cousin, Manuel had his mistress
carried off by the Duke of Trebizond. Andronicus, incapable of dispensing with
her society, resolved upon making his submission. After a solemn reconciliation
with Manuel, in which he proved his talents as an actor, he retired into
private life at Oenaeum on the shores of the Black
Sea.
Coup d'état of
Andronicus
It was from this retreat that for more than a year he followed the
course of events at Constantinople. Increasing age had taught prudence, and he
fully realised that if he did not succeed in reaching
the throne this time all his hopes would be at an end. Affecting complete
indifference to all the rivalries which surged round Alexius II, Andronicus was
meanwhile setting in motion partisans who kept him informed of the state of
opinion. The moment came when his daughter Mary gave him the signal for action.
He marched without hesitation upon Constantinople at the head of his tenants
and of some of the troops in Paphlagonia whom he had
seduced from their allegiance, declaring his object to be the liberation of the
Emperor. His march across Asia Minor was a triumph; not only did he defeat the
loyal troops, but their general, Andronicus Angelus, declared for him. His
victorious army encamped upon the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus, and before
long the very sailors of the fleet, on whom lay the duty of barring his
passage, came to make their submission to him. The population of the capital
rushed to greet its darling, who took up the role of champion of the Greeks
against the foreigners.
The Empress-Regent and her favorite no longer received any support
except from the Latins, who alone staved off the entry of Andronicus into the
capital. To overcome this obstacle a formidable outbreak was engineered in
Constantinople; the populace, goaded on to attack the Latin quarters, indulged
in the most shameless excesses and even massacred the sick in the hospitals.
Many Latins perished; at the same time a large number succeeded in getting on
board some fifty vessels, and by the ravages they committed in the islands of
the Propontis and along the coast exacted a heavy
penalty from the Greeks for the treacherous onslaught which they had made.
Once her Latin supporters had been massacred, all was over with the
Regent. Giving himself out as the liberator of Alexius II, Andronicus entered
Constantinople. He began by banishing the Empress from the palace, and then
arranged for the disappearance of such members of the imperial family as were likely
to oppose any obstacle to his plans. Mary and the Caesar Renier died in a manner unknown; the Empress-mother was condemned to death, and her
son forced to sign her sentence himself. In the face of these atrocities the
Patriarch Theodotus withdrew. In September 1183
Andronicus became joint Emperor with Alexius II, whom he murdered in November
of the same year, and thereupon married Agnes, who had been his victim’s wife.
The reign of Andronicus presents a series of unparalleled contrasts. So
far as the administration of the provinces is concerned, Andronicus showed
great and statesmanlike qualities; on the other hand his government at
Constantinople was that of the most hateful of tyrants.
The provincial population had much to bear both from the imperial
functionaries and from the great feudal lords. Andronicus exacted from the
latter class an unfailing respect for the property and rights of the peasants,
and treated with extreme severity such as were reported to him as having abused
their power. As to the officials, he made a point of choosing them carefully
and paying them liberally, so that they should have no need to oppress the
peasants in order to recoup themselves for the price paid for their
appointments. To all he guaranteed rigid justice. Such as were convicted of
peculation were severely punished. “You have the choice”, the Emperor used to
say, “between ceasing to cheat and ceasing to live”. Short as was the reign of
Andronicus, these measures had their effect; order and prosperity returned to
the provinces, and some of them which had been deserted by their inhabitants
again became populated. Finally, one of the happiest measures introduced by the
Emperor was the abolition of the rights of wreck and stray.
Andronicus was a lover of literature and of the arts. He surrounded
himself with jurists, and took pleasure in beautifying Constantinople. The
repairing of aqueducts and the restoration of the church of the Forty Martyrs
were the two chief works which he carried out. In one of the additions made to
the church of the Forty Martyrs he had a series of mosaics executed
representing his adventures and his hunting exploits.
But this bright side of Andronicus’ reign is defaced by the ferocious
cruelty with which he treated his opponents. The aristocracy opposed him
violently. At Philadelphia, at Nicaea, at Prusa, at Lopadium, and in Cyprus, risings took place organized by
the representatives of the greatest families among the nobility. At this
juncture the Empire was being attacked on all sides: the Sultan of Iconium had
retaken Sozopolis and was besieging Attalia, Bela III had crossed the
Danube, and finally in 1185 the King of Sicily, William II, was invading
Byzantine territory. In face of all these dangers Andronicus, fearing to lose
the power so long coveted, determined to maintain himself by terror. The
noblest Byzantine families saw their most illustrious members put to death or
horribly mutilated. At Constantinople as in Asia Minor the work of repression
was terrible; even the Emperor's own family was not spared. In the capital,
terror had bowed the necks of all, and Andronicus seemed to have nothing left
to fear when the Norman invasion came and brought about his fall.
Death of Andronicus. The Angeli
During the summer of 1185 the Normans, having taken Thessalonica,
advanced upon Constantinople. At their approach a panic fell upon the city; the
population, in terror of their lives, complained that Andronicus was making no
preparations for resisting the enemy. The Emperor’s popularity, already
impaired by his cruelties, crumbled away under the fear of invasion. Sullen
disaffection was muttering in the capital, and Andronicus again had recourse to
violence; large numbers were arrested on the pretext of punishing those
secretly in league with the Normans, and the Emperor contemplated a general
massacre of the prisoners. The arrest of a man of no great importance, Isaac
Angelus, was the last drop that made the cup run over. Escaping from the
soldiers sent to arrest him, Isaac took refuge in St Sophia; the people at his
summons gathered in crowds, and before long rebellion thundered around him and
burst out with terrific force. Isaac Angelus was proclaimed Emperor. Andronicus
in vain attempted to resist; he was beaten and took to flight, but was stopped,
and soon after given up to the fury of the people. The rabble tore out his
beard, broke his teeth, cut off one of his hands, put out one of his eyes, and
then threw him into a dungeon. On the morrow his tortures began afresh. He was
led through the city on a mangy camel, while stones and boiling water were
thrown at him. Finally, he was brought to the Hippodrome, where the soldiers,
having hung him up by the feet, amused themselves by cutting him in pieces.
Throughout these hideous tortures Andronicus showed superhuman courage. Raising
his mutilated arm to his lips he constantly repeated Kyrie eleison! wherefore wilt thou break
a bruised reed?
Such in September 1185 was the end of the last Emperor of the house of
the Comneni, who for more than a century had arrested
the ruin of their country. With his great qualities of statesmanship, the last
of the dynasty might have helped to regenerate the Empire. Unfortunately the
evil elements in his character had the mastery, and contributed to hasten the
hour of that decadence which no member of the house of the Angeli was to prove capable of retarding.
The reign of Isaac II (1185-1195) was indeed a succession of
misfortunes, converted by incapacity into disasters. Cyprus remained in revolt
under an Isaac Comnenus until it was conquered by Richard Coeur-de-lion in
1191; and the great nobles of the Empire were so much out of hand as to be
almost independent. The Bulgarians rose; the Serbs had thrown off (1180) their
vassalage. If the Byzantines were able to throw back the invasion of William II
of Sicily, Isaac II’s alliance with Saladin, and his resistance to Frederick
Barbarossa's transit through the Balkans on the Third Crusade confirmed the
growing enmity of the West. Frederick forced his way to the Bosphorus, ravaging
the country and sacking Hadrianople. He compelled the
transport of his troops to Asia from Gallipoli, and the delivery of provisions,
but not before he had mooted the proposal of a crusade being preached against
the Greeks. When in 1195 Alexius III took advantage of the general discontent
to blind and depose his brother, no improvement came about. Rather, the anarchy
became worse, while the government's incompetence and oppression remained
glaring. The thirteenth century was to show that there were sound elements and
great men still in the Empire, but before they could gain control there fell
upon it the shattering disaster of the Fourth Crusade.
CHAPTER
XIII
|
|
