After the defeat of the Latins at Hadrianople, Theodore’s situation became temporarily a little easier. Baldwin’s successor on the Constantinopolitan throne, however, his brother Henry, an energetic and talented leader and ruler, after his coronation in St. Sophia somewhat recovered from the reverse with the Bulgars and again opened hostilities against Theodore, having it in mind to annex the possessions of Nicaea to the Latin Empire. The Emperor of Nicaea could not, by force of arms, check the successes of the Latins. But the Bulgarian danger to the Latins and the Seljuq danger to Theodore compelled both of them to come to an agreement and to conclude a truce, by the terms of which Theodore had to pull down several fortresses.31
The Seljuq Turks
Theodore’s war with the Seljuq Sultan, to whom belonged the greater part of Asia Minor, had great importance for the new Empire of Nicaea. The appearance of a new state, the Empire of Nicaea, was, undoubtedly, exceedingly disagreeable to the Turkish Sultanate of Iconium or Rum, for it hindered the Turks in their further advance to the West toward the coast of the Aegean Sea. To this main cause of the strained relations between the two states must be added the fact that Theodore Lascaris’ father-in-law, Alexius III Angelus, fled to the sultan and besought him for help to regain his lost throne. Availing himself of the opportunity of Alexius’ arrival, the sultan sent to Theodore a threatening demand to deliver the throne to him, concealing under this pretext his real aim of taking possession of the whole of Asia Minor. Hostilities began; they took place particularly at Antioch, on the Maeander river, in Caria. The chief force of Theodore was the eight hundred brave western mercenaries. In their fight with the Turks, they displayed great heroism and inflicted enormous losses on the enemy, but almost all of them were left dead on the field of battle. By his personal courage and great presence of mind, however, Theodore Lascaris regained control of the situation. In the following clash the sultan was slain, perhaps by Theodore himself. A contemporary source said, the sultan “fell as from a tower,” i.e. from the mare on which he was mounted.32 In the same battle the former emperor, Alexius III, who had taken refuge with the Turks, was captured. He put on the cowl and ended his life in one of the monasteries of Nicaea.
This war seems to have brought about no great territorial changes for Theodore.33 But the moral significance of the victory of the Greek Christian Emperor of Nicaea over the Muslims was very great: it confirmed the new Empire, revived the former Byzantine traditions of the struggle against Islam, and filled with joy and vigor the hearts of the Greeks, not only the Asiatics, but also the Europeans, who, for the first time, saw in Nicaea a possible center of their future unification. Nicetas Choniates wrote in honor of Theodore’s victory a long and bombastic panegyric.34Nicetas’ brother, Michael Acominatus, the former metropolitan of Athens, from the island of Ceos, where he was spending the last years öf his life, sent Theodore a letter of congratulation in which he expressed his wish that Theodore might take possession of the throne of Constantine the Great in the place which our Lord had originally chosen,35 that is to say, in Constantinople.
The Latin Empire
But if the Greeks rejoiced in Theodore’s victory, the Latin emperor, Henry, who feared the brave western mercenaries of Theodore, was also contented with the same victory, however strange it may seem at first sight; since almost all these mercenaries had fallen in the war against the Turks, the victory, in the opinion of Henry, actually weakened the Emperor of Nicaea. A historian of that time said that Henry declared: “Lascaris has been vanquished, and has not vanquished.”36 Henry was mistaken, however, because shortly after the war Theodore had again at his disposal a considerable number of Franks and well-armed Greeks.37
The victory over the Turks allowed Theodore to open hostilities against Henry. At that time Theodore’s specific goal was to attack Constantinople with the support of his already considerable fleet. A very interesting letter, which Gerland called a manifesto,38 was written by Henry from Pergamon at the beginning of the year 1212, addressed to “all his friends whom its contents may reach” (universis amicis suis ad quos tenor presentium pervenerit). The letter testifies that Henry regarded Theodore as a very dangerous foe; he wrote: “The first and greatest enemy was Lascaris who held the whole land beyond the Strait of Saint George39 as far as Turkey, and, setting up for an emperor, he often pressed upon us from that part…. Lascaris collected a very great number of galleys in order to take possession of Constantinople; therefore the city was trembling in great desolation, so that despairing of our return (from Asia Minor) many of our people were planning to flee across the sea; and a great many passed over to Lascaris promising him help against us…. All the Greeks began to murmur against us and promised Lascaris support if he would come to fight Constantinople.” The letter ends with an appeal to the Latins to support Henry. “To have full victory and possess our Empire we need a great number of Latins to whom we may give the land which we are acquiring and which we have acquired; for, as you know, it is not enough to acquire the land, but there must be those who can maintain it.”40 This letter shows clearly that Henry was greatly alarmed by the hostilities of Theodore Lascaris, and, furthermore, that the spirit of his new subjects was wavering.
Nevertheless, this first attempt of Nicaea to restore the former capital of the Empire miscarried; the Empire of Nicaea was not yet sufficiently strong nor prepared for this purpose. The success was on the side of Henry, who penetrated rather far into the interior of Asia Minor. In a letter recently published and dated apparently in the year 1213, Henry gives a brief account of his victory over the Greeks, who “with such insolence and abuse rose against the Roman church that they considered all its sons, devoted Latins, as dogs and, because of their contempt of our faith, generally called them dogs.”41
The peace concluded between the two emperors fixed exactly the borders of the two empires in Asia Minor: the northwestern part of the peninsula remained in the hands of the Latin Empire. In other words, without taking into consideration some insignificant territorial annexations made by the Latin Empire within the country, the Latin possessions in Asia Minor, after that peace, differed very little from the possessions that the Empire had received in the partition of 1204.42
In 1216 the talented and energetic Henry died in the prime of life. He was admired and beloved even by the Greeks, and a Byzantine chronicler of the fourteenth century said that Henry was “a real Ares.”43 The historians of the twentieth century also estimate highly his personality and activities. Gerland declared: “Of the [Latin] Empire Henry became the real founder. His institutions laid the basis upon which the Frankish dominion in Greece developed.”44“Henry’s death,” wrote A. Gardner, “was certainly a calamity for the Latins—possibly for the Greeks likewise—since his strong but conciliatory policy might have succeeded, if any policy ever could, in filling up the breach between East and West.”45 In the person of Henry the most dangerous enemy of Nicaea passed away. His successors on the Constantinopolitan throne were distinguished neither for talent nor energy.
In 1222 the founder of the Empire of Nicaea died. Theodore I Lascaris had created a Hellenic center in Asia Minor, unified the state, and attracted to it the attention of the European Greeks. He had laid the foundation upon which his successor was able to build a vast structure. In his eulogistic letters to Theodore Lascaris, Michael Acominatus wrote: “The capital hurled by the barbarian inundation out of the walls of Byzantium to the shores of Asia in the shape of a miserable fragment has been received by thee, guided, and saved…. Thou ought to be called forever the new builder and peopler of the city of Constantine…. Looking only to thee and calling thee a savior and universal liberator the people wrecked in the universal deluge take refuge in thy state as in a calm harbour…. No one of the emperors who reigned over Constantinople I consider equal to thee, except, of those nearer in time, the great Basil Bulgaroctonus, and of the more ancient, the noble Heraclius.”46
John III Ducas Vatatzes (1222–1254)
After the death of Theodore I Lascaris, John III Ducas Vatatzes, the husband of his daughter Irene, ascended the throne of Nicaea and reigned from 1222 to 1254.47 Although his predecessor had laid some foundation for the further development of the state of Nicaea, nevertheless its international position was such as to require urgently the rule of a decisive and energetic man. This man appeared in the person of John Vatatzes.
At that time four states were contending for mastery over the East: the Empire of Nicaea, the Latin Empire, the Despotat of Epirus, and the Bulgarian Kingdom of John Asen II. John Vatatzes’ external policy, therefore, consisted on the one hand of wars, and on the other of alliances with one or another state. By a stroke of good fortune his three rivals in the Balkan peninsula never acted jointly and decisively, but pursued a vacillating and weakening policy of interstate hostilities, or a policy of transient alliances. John Vatatzes thoroughly succeeded in managing the complicated international situation.
The Despotat of Epirus and its relation to the Empire of Nicaea
For the further destiny of the Empire of Nicaea the history of the Despotat of Epirus was extremely important. Epirus was the second Greek center, where, under certain conditions, might have been concentrated the interests of the western Greek patriots and from which might have come the idea of the restoration of the Byzantine Empire. The two Greek states, Epirus and Nicaea, which could not come to a satisfactory compromise in their rivalry to bring about Hellenic unification, were unavoidably to struggle to restore Byzantium.
The founder of the Despotat of Epirus in 1204 was Michael I Angelus. The family of the Epirotic Angeli was related to the families of the Comneni and Ducae, and therefore the names of the rulers of Epirus are sometimes accompanied by a long dynastic title “Angelus Comnenus Ducas.” Originally the possessions of the Despotat of Epirus had extended from Dyrrachium (Durazzo) in the north to the Gulf of Corinth in the south; that is to say, they had occupied the territory of ancient Epirus, Acarnania, and Aetolia. The city of Arta became the capital of the new state.
The history of the Despotat of Epirus in the thirteenth century is not yet thoroughly investigated and the sources are far from complete; for this reason, many questions still remain debatable and dark. Much light has been thrown upon the history of the Despotat by the letters of John Apocaucus (Apokaukos), the metropolitan of Naupactus (Lepanto), which were published at the end of the nineteenth century by V. G. Vasilievsky.48
In its internal administration the Despotat did not differ from the system in use before 1204, when its territory had formed a province of the Byzantine Empire; the name of the form of government changed, but the people continued to live on the basis of the Byzantine administration. Surrounded on all sides by the Latin and Slavonic states, on the east by the feudal Kingdom of Thessalonica, on the northeast by the Bulgarian Kingdom, and on the west by the possessions of Venice which threatened the coast of Epirus, the Despotat was obliged to develop a strong military power that might, in case of need, offer an adequate resistance to external foes. The mountainous and inaccessible nature of the country also served as a great support. The despot Michael I considered himself an absolutely independent ruler and did not recognize any superiority or leadership on the part of Theodore Lascaris of Nicaea. The church in the Despotat was also independent, and Michael I commanded the bishops to be ordained by the local metropolitans.
The original task of the Despot of Epirus was to preserve Hellenism in the western districts of Greece from absorption by the neighboring Franks and Bulgars. Broader aims, which led the Despotat far beyond the narrow limits of its own interests, appeared and developed later.
During the reign of Theodore Lascaris Nicaea seems to have had no conflicts with the Despotat. With the ascension of John Vatatzes to the throne, circumstances changed. At that time the brother of the slain Michael, Theodore, sat on the throne of Epirus. His name is connected with the idea of the expansion of his state at the expense of the Latins and Bulgars.
In his brother’s lifetime the new despot, Theodore Angelus, had stayed at the court of the Emperor of Nicaea. When the late Michael I had begged Theodore Lascaris to let his brother go back to Epirus to help the despot in ruling the state, the Emperor of Nicaea granted Michael’s request, having previously exacted from Theodore of Epirus an oath of allegiance to him as emperor as well as to his successors. Theodore Lascaris’ apprehensions proved well grounded. When Theodore Angelus had become the Despot of Epirus, he paid no attention to the oath he had taken to the Emperor of Nicaea, and when he judged it advisable, he opened hostilities against Nicaea.
The first act that drew attention to Theodore Angelus was his capture of the Latin Emperor of Constantinople, Peter de Courtenay, count of Auxerre. After Henry’s death (1216), the barons elected as emperor his brother-in-law, Peter de Courtenay, who had married Yolande, the sister of Baldwin and Henry. At the time of his election he was with his wife in France. Having received the news of the election, he set out with her for Constantinople by way of Rome, where Pope Honorius III crowned Peter with the imperial crown, not in St. Peter’s, but in San Lorenzo Fuori le Mura, wishing to emphasize the fact that the Empire of Romania in the East was not the Empire of Rome in the West,—a distinction which might have been obscured if the coronation of an eastern emperor had taken place in St. Peter’s, where the western emperors, beginning with Charlemagne and Otto I, had been crowned.49 From Italy Peter sent his wife, Yolande, by sea to Constantinople; he and his troops sailed across the Adriatic and landed near Dyrrachium, hoping to reach the capital by land. But Theodore Angelus attacked him from an ambush in the mountains of Epirus, and defeated and captured the greater part of Peter’s troops. The Emperor himself, according to one source, fell in battle; according to another, was seized by Theodore and died in Greek captivity.50 V. G. Vasilievsky said, this “deed of Theodore absolutely in Greek-Byzantine taste”51 produced a particularly strong impression on the West, where the chroniclers painted in the very darkest colors Theodore’s savagery and cruelty.52 The fate of Peter de Courtenay, like that of the first Latin Emperor, Baldwin, is veiled in mystery; in all likelihood, Peter died in prison. Meanwhile, the widow of Peter, Yolande, who had reached Constantinople, governed the Empire for the two years before her death (1217–19). The death of Peter de Courtenay must be regarded as the first attack of the Despotat of Epirus, that is to say, of the western Hellenic center, upon the Latin newcomers to the Balkan peninsula.
But the anti-Latin policy of Theodore Angelus did not stop there. Soon afterwards there arose the question of the Kingdom of Thessalonica (Salonika) whose king, Boniface of Montferrat, had been killed in 1207 in a fight with the Bulgars. After his death troubles and strife raged in the kingdom. As long as the energetic Latin Emperor, Henry, was alive, he could defend Thessalonica against its two most menacing foes, Bulgaria and Epirus. But after the death of Henry and of the new Latin Emperor, Peter de Courtenay, the Kindom of Thessalonica was unable to resist the aggressive policy of Theodore of Epirus.
Theodore made war against the neighboring Latin kingdom, won the victory and in 1222, without great effort, took possession of Thessalonica, the second city in importance of the former Byzantine Empire and the first fief of the Latin Empire of Constantinople. “Thus, after only eighteen years of existence, this ephemeral Lombard kingdom fell ingloriously—the first of the creations of the Fourth Crusade to succumb.”53 Having seized Thessalonica and extended his dominions from the Adriatic to the Aegean, Theodore judged it his right to assume the imperial crown, that is to say, to become emperor of the Romans. This meant that he refused to recognize the title of John Vatatzes, who had just ascended the throne of Nicaea (1222). From the viewpoint of Theodore of Epirus, he himself, as a representative of the glorious families of the Angeli, Comneni, and Ducae, had a great advantage over John Vatatzes, a man of no very noble origin, who had mounted the throne only because he was Theodore Lascaris’ son-in-law.
The question of who should crown Theodore at Thessalonica was next raised. The metropolitan of Thessalonica declined the honor, unwilling to violate the rights of the Greek patriarch, who was then living at Nicaea and had already crowned John Vatatzes. Accordingly Theodore turned to another hierarch, who was independent of the Orthodox patriarch of Nicaea, namely, to the autocephalous (independent of archiepiscopal or patriarchal jurisdiction) archbishop of Ochrida (Achrida) and of “all Bulgaria,” Demetrius Chomatenus (Chomatianos), whose works, the letters in particular, have great interest for the history of the epoch. He crowned and anointed Theodore who “put on the purple robe and began to wear the red shoes,”54 distinctive marks of the Byzantine basileus. One of the letters of Demetrius Chomatenus shows that the coronation and anointment of Theodore of Epirus was performed “with the general consent of the members of the senate, who were in the west (that is, on the territory of the state of Thessalonica and Epirus), of the clergy, and of all the large army.”55 Another document testifies that the coronation and anointment were performed with the consent of all the bishops who lived “in that western part.”56 Finally, Theodore himself signed his edicts (chrysobulls) with the full title of the Byzantine Emperor: “Theodore in Christ God Basileus and Autocrat of the Romans, Ducas.”57
Interesting and fresh information on this subject is contained in the precious collection of the letters of the above-mentioned metropolitan of Naupactus, John Apocaucus. From his correspondence, wrote V. G. Vasilievsky, “we learn for the first time what an active part in the Epirotic movement was taken by the Greek clergy and especially by the Greek bishops. The proclamation of Theodore Angelus as the Emperor of the Romans was considered very seriously; Thessalonica, which had passed over into his hands, was contrasted with Nicaea; Constantinople was openly indicated to him as the nearest goal of his ambition and as an assured gain; in speech, thought, and writing, it was the common opinion that he was destined to enter St. Sophia and occupy there the place of the Orthodox Roman emperors where the Latin newcomers were sitting illegally. The realization of such dreams did not lie beyond the limits of possibility; it would be even easier to take Constantinople from Thessalonica than from Nicaea.”58
The proclamation of Theodore’s coronation as the Emperor of Thessalonica and his anointment by the archbishop Demetrius Chomatenus must have brought about a political rupture between Thessalonica and Nicaea as well as an ecclesiastical rupture between the western Greek hierarchs and the patriarchate of Nicaea, which was called the patriarchate of Constantinople.
In the course of a rather long period after the fall of the Latin kingdom of Thessalonica, several western European princes related to the family of Montferrat continued to use in the West the extinct title of king of Thessalonica. They were the so-called “titulary” kings of Thessalonica, as, after the fall of the Latin Empire in 1261, there were to be “titulary” Latin emperors in western Europe.
Thus, from 1222,59 when the Empire of Thessalonica was proclaimed and refused to recognize the Empire of Nicaea, there were in the Christian East three empires: the two Greek Empires of Thessalonica and of Nicaea, and the Latin Empire in Constantinople which was becoming weaker every year.60 The further history of the thirteenth century is concerned with the relations between these empires, in whose destinies the Bulgarian Kingdom of John Asen II was the decisive factor.
Thessalonica and Nicaea
The two Greek Emperors, John Vatatzes and Theodore Angelus, had one common foe in the Emperor of Constantinople. But the Greek rulers could not come to an agreement concerning the Latin Emperor, for each of them wished at all costs to seize Constantinople for himself. In their opinion, only one of them could be the restorer of the Byzantine Empire. Therefore they had to fight separately against the Latin Empire, and finally clashed with each other.
Tidings of the growth of Nicaea and Epirus reached western Europe and aroused alarm on behalf of the Latin Empire. In a letter (May, 1224) to Blanche, the queen of France, the mother of Louis IX, Pope Honorius III, speaking of the powerful Empire of Romania and the fact “that recently there has been created a sort of new France,” warned the queen that “the strength of the French [in the East] has decreased and is decreasing while their adversaries are growing considerably stronger, so that, unless speedy help is given the Emperor, it is to be feared that the Latins may be menaced by irreparable damage to both men and means.” Honorius III proceeded to appeal to the king of France, asking him to help the Latin Emperor.61
Soon after his ascension to the throne, John Vatatzes opened successful hostilities against the Latins in Asia Minor; then, by means of the fleet which was already at the disposal of the Emperor of Nicaea, he seized some islands of the Archipelago, Chios, Lesbos, Samos, and some others, and after that, having been asked by the inhabitants of Hadrianople to free them from the Latin yoke, he transferred hostilities to Europe. He sent towards Hadrianople an army which seems to have occupied this important point without a battle. To John Vatatzes the possession of Hadrianople might open the gates of Constantinople. One of the rivals seemed to be not far from his cherished goal.
But at the same time, Theodore Angelus set out from Thessalonica and conquered a major part of Thrace; then in 1225, approaching Hadrianople, he caused the army of John Vatatzes to withdraw. To the latter’s plans, the loss of Hadrianople was a severe blow. Meanwhile, Theodore seized some other places and with his troops reached the very walls of Constantinople. It was a critical moment for the Latins. The Emperor of Thessalonica was on the point of becoming the real restorer of the Byzantine Empire. His dominions extended from the Adriatic almost to the Black Sea.
But Theodore was compelled to give up hope of further successes in his fight against the Latins, for he himself began to be seriously menaced from the north by John Asen II of Bulgaria, who also had a claim upon Constantinople.
The role of Bulgaria in the Christian East under Tsar John Asen II
John Asen II (1218–1241), the greatest of the Asens, was the son of John Asen I. “Though not himself a conqueror,” to quote the well-known historian Jireček, “he expanded the boundaries of the kingdom which he had received in a disorganized state, to limits that it had not reached for several centuries and which it never achieved afterward.”62 Tolerant in religious matters, well educated, and clement, he left a good name not only among the Bulgars, but also among the Greeks. A Greek historian of the thirteenth century, George Acropolita, wrote of him: “All considered him a wonderful and happy man because he did not resort to the sword in his dealings with his subjects and did not stain himself with the murders of Romans, like the Bulgarian kings who had preceded him. Therefore he was beloved not only by the Bulgars, but also by the Romans and other peoples.”63
In the history of Byzantium, John Asen II was very important as the representative of the idea of the Great Bulgarian Kingdom which, it seemed, should unify the whole Orthodox population of the Balkan peninsula and establish its capital at Tsargrad (Constantinople). Such plans, undoubtedly, were opposed to the vital interests of both Greek empires and must have brought about hostilities. But the course of events seemed to facilitate the realization of the Bulgarian tsar’s plans.
On the death of the Latin Emperor, Robert de Courtenay (1228), the throne was supposed to pass to his brother, Baldwin II, a boy of eleven. The question of regency arose. Some proposed as a regent John Asen, who was related to Baldwin; and to strengthen the ties of friendship between the two countries, the betrothal of Baldwin to Asen’s daughter was suggested. Realizing all the advantages of the proposed agreement and hoping to capture Constantinople without bloodshed, Asen accepted the proposition and promised Baldwin that he would free the lands occupied by his enemies, especially Theodore of Epirus. The Latin knights and clergy, however, stubbornly resisted the candidature of a deadly foe of the Latin Empire and insisted upon the election as regent of the Empire a Frenchman, the “titulary” king of Jerusalem, who at that time was in western Europe, John of Brienne, a man of eighty. Thus Asen’s first chance of taking Constantinople ended in failure.
After the capture of Hadrianople, the chief role in the Balkan peninsula was played by Theodore of Epirus, Emperor of Thessalonica, who concluded an alliance with Asen. But their friendly relations did not last long. The plan concerning John Asen’s regency in Constantinople aroused serious suspicions in Theodore. He treacherously broke his alliance with Asen and opened hostilities against the Bulgars. The decisive battle was fought in 1230 at a place called Klokotinitza (Clocotinitza), now Semidje, between Hadrianople and Philippopolis, and ended in a complete victory for John Asen, who was vigorously supported by the Cuman cavalry.64 Theodore Angelus was captured. At first mildly treated, he plotted later against Asen’s life and, on the discovery of his plot, was blinded.
The battle of Klokotinitza, in 1230, was one of the turning points in the history of the Christian East in the thirteenth century. It destroyed the western Greek Empire and the western Greek center, which seemed to be on the point of restoring the Byzantine Empire. The short-lived western empire (1222–1230 ) practically ceased to exist, and Manuel, the brother of Theodore Angelus, who was taken prisoner, ruled Thessalonica thereafter, some historians think, not with the title of emperor but with that of despot. But this is doubtful: he continued to sign his decrees with red ink, as befitted the imperial dignity, and called himself in the documents emperor.65 In the further history of the thirteenth century, Thessalonica and Epirus, two separate dominions, played no role of any importance. From that time on, the struggle for Constantinople was carried on, not between three rivals, but two: John Vatatzes and John Asen.
After the victory over Theodore of Epirus, the tsar of Bulgaria occupied Hadrianople without a struggle, as well as almost the whole of Macedonia and Albania as far as Dyrrachium (Durazzo). Thessalonica, Thessaly, and Epirus remained in the hands of the Greeks.
In an inscription on a white marble column in the Church of the Forty Martyrs at Trnovo (Bulgaria), the tsar of Bulgaria told of the results of his victory in this inflated style: “I, John Asen, in Christ God the faithful Tsar and Autocrat of the Bulgars, son of the old Tsar Asen … set forth on a march upon Romania and defeated the Greek troops, and I have captured the Emperor himself, Theodore Comnenus, with all his boyars [nobles], and taken all the countries from Hadrianople to Durazzo, the Greek territory, as well as the Albanian and Serbian territories. The Latins [Franks] have kept only the cities round Tsargrad itself, but even they have become subject to the power of my Majesty, for they have no king but myself, and only thanks to me have they continued their existence.”66 From a charter granted by Asen at the same time to the Ragusan merchants concerning the freedom of their commerce in his realm, it is shown that the whole of European Turkey except Constantinople, as it was before World War I, almost all Serbia, and all Bulgaria was under Asen’s influence.67
The Greco-Bulgarian alliance.—Next, John Asen, irritated by his failure to obtain the regency at Constantinople, took the lead in an alliance of the Orthodox rulers of the East, composed of Asen himself, John Vatatzes of Nicaea, and Manuel of Thessalonica. This new union was directed against the Latins. One cannot help seeing in the formation of this alliance a dangerous step for the interests of the Bulgars in the Balkan peninsula. Thereby, as V. G. Vasilievsky correctly stated, Asen, the soul of the coalition, “contributed to the friendly understanding between Manuel of Thessalonica and the Emperor of Nicaea, between the European and Asiatic Greeks, and opened the way to the Nicene master to extend his influence in the former Empire of Thessalonica and even in Asen’s own dominions. The restoration of the orthodox Eastern Empire was partly decided by this rapprochement.”68 An important result of this alliance for the internal history of Bulgaria was the recognition there of the autocephalous Bulgarian patriarchate, which was established with the consent of the Nicene and other eastern patriarchs.
The capital of the Latin Empire, surrounded on all sides by enemies, was again in a very dangerous position, which was well realized by contemporaries. The aim of the offensive alliance against the Latins was the complete destruction of Latin domination, the expulsion of the Latins from Constantinople, and the division of their possessions between the allies. The troops of Asen and Vatatzes besieged Constantinople in 1235, by land and sea, but were compelled to withdraw without definite results. In his letter appealing to the West for help for the Emperor of Constantinople, the alarmed Pope Gregory IX declared that “Vatatzes and Asen, schismatics, who had recently concluded an alliance of impiety, had invaded with numerous Greek troops the land of our dearest son in Christ, the Emperor of Constantinople.”69 Driven to despair, Baldwin II, the last Latin Emperor, left Constantinople and traveled through western Europe, begging rulers for help for the Empire in men and money.
For the time Constantinople was saved. One cause for the stopping of the advance of the Orthodox alliance was the gradual withdrawal of John Asen himself, who realized that in the Empire of Nicaea he had a more dangerous enemy than in the dying and weakened Latin Empire. Accordingly the king of Bulgaria changed his policy and came out as a defender of the Latin Emperor. Simultaneously with this change of political combinations, Asen took steps towards reconciliation with the papal throne, announcing his faithfulness to the Catholic church and asking the pope to send a legate for negotiations. Thus the short Greco-Bulgarian alliance of the fourth decade of the thirteenth century came to its end.
Alliance of John Vatatzes and Frederick, 11 Hohenstaufen
With the name of John Vatatzes is connected the interesting question of the friendly relations between the two widely separated rulers, the Emperor of Nicaea and the western Emperor, Frederick II Hohenstaufen.
Frederick II, the most remarkable of all the Germanic kings of the Middle Ages, united under his power Germany and the Kingdom of Sicily. The latter, in the person of the Emperor Henry VI, at the end of the twelfth century had menaced Byzantium with fatal danger. Frederick had spent the years of his childhood and youth under the southern sky of Sicily, at Palermo, where had lived the Greeks, later the Arabs, and then the Normans; he spoke Italian, Greek, and Arabic beautifully and, probably, at least in his youth, he spoke German badly. He regarded religious problems much more coolly than his contemporaries. Under the influence of the eastern scholars, Arabs and Jews, large numbers of whom were at Frederick’s court in Sicily, he became an enthusiast about science and philosophy and he founded the University of Naples and patronized the medical school at Salerno, a school famous in the Middle Ages. In a word, in mind and education Frederick greatly surpassed his contemporaries, and they did not always understand him. The time of Frederick II may be designated as a “prologue to the Renaissance.” In the middle of the nineteenth century, a French historian wrote that Frederick II “gave the impulse to the Renaissance, which prepared the fall of the Middle Ages and the coming of modern times.”70 He was “a man of creative and daring genius.”71 A few years ago a German historian said: “In his universality, he was a real Renaissance genius on the imperial throne and at the same time an Emperor of genius.”72 A subject of perennial interest to the historian, Emperor Frederick II represents in many respects a riddle which has not yet been solved.73
Having inherited the conception of the imperial power as unlimited and granted by God and comprehending supreme sovereignty over the world, Frederick was a sworn enemy of the papacy and of its doctrine of the superiority of the papal power to that of the kings. The struggle of the popes with Frederick II was stubborn; three times the Emperor was excommunicated and he died wearied and exhausted by the persistent struggle, in which the popes, putting aside any spiritual aim, were revenging themselves on their personal enemies, this “viper brood of the Hohenstaufens,” which they were determined to exterminate.
In such a nature as Frederick’s, political plans and motives were predominant over ecclesiastical. Frederick’s hostile attitude toward the papacy extended to all that had the support of the popes. Hence, as to the Latin Empire in the East, in which the papacy saw a means of union between the western and eastern churches, the interests of Frederick and John Vatatzes were the same. Frederick was hostile toward the Latin Empire, because he saw in it one of the elements of papal power and influence; John Vatatzes considered the pope an adversary who, by refusing to recognize the Orthodox patriarchate of Constantinople established at that time at Nicaea, was creating a serious obstacle to Vatatzes’ aim of taking possession of Constantinople. Close relations between the two emperors began at the end of the fourth decade of the thirteenth century. Frederick did not hesitate to make an “alliance with the Greeks, deadly enemies both of the papacy and of the Latin Empire.”74
Even earlier Theodore Angelus of Epirus had held friendly correspondence with the western Emperor and had even received from him financial support, for which Pope Gregory IX had excommunicated and anathematized both Frederick and the Despot of Epirus. It is clear that for Frederick’s political combinations, the question of religion, either Orthodox or Catholic, had no importance.
But in their hostility towards the papacy, Frederick and John Vatatzes were pursuing different aims. The former wished the popes to renounce their claim to secular power; the latter wished that, by means of some compromises, the West should recognize the eastern church and that thereby the Latin patriarchate at Constantinople should lose its reason to exist. John Vatatzes could then hope that the Latin Empire would quietly disappear. The pope also differed in his attitude toward the two sudden allies. In Frederick he saw a disobedient son of the Church, who encroached upon the prerogatives of the “vicars of Christ” and the heirs of St. Peter, inalienable from the papal standpoint. John Vatatzes was, in the eyes of the pope, a schismatic, who hindered the fulfillment of the cherished dream of the papacy, that is, the reunion of the churches. The allies came to an agreement. Frederick II promised Vatatzes to free Constantinople from the Latins and return it to the legal emperor; for his part the Emperor of Nicaea pledged himself to become the vassal of the western Emperor and restore the union between the two churches. It is, of course, difficult to say how sincere these promises were.
The relations between Frederick and John Vatatzes were so close that, at the end of the fourth decade of the thirteenth century, the Greek troops fought in Italy in Frederick’s army. But the relations of the two antipapal emperors became still closer after the death of the first wife of John Vatatzes, Irene, daughter of Theodore I Lascaris. The widower-Emperor, said a source, “being unable to bear his loneliness”75 married Constance of Hohenstaufen, the daughter of Frederick II, then only eleven or twelve years old, who, when she joined the Greek church, took the Greek name of Anna. There exists a long poem written by Nicolaus Irenikos (Eirenikos) on the occasion of the nuptial festivities at Nicaea; the first two lines of the poem are:
Around the lovely cypress-tree, the ivy gently windeth;
The Empress is the cypress-tree, my Emperor is the ivy.76
Constance-Anna survived her husband by many years, which were full of vicissitudes and adventures. She ended her days in the Spanish city of Valencia, where, in the little church of St. John-of-the-Hospital, the coffin of the former basilissa (empress) of Nicaea has been preserved. It bears the epitaph: “Here lies the lady Constance, the august Empress of Greece.”77
Frederick’s ecclesiastical ideas, which give some scholars grounds for comparing him to the king of England, Henry VIII, under whom the reformation in England began,78 are reflected in his correspondence with John Vatatzes. In one of his letters Frederick stated that he was actuated not only by his personal affection for Vatatzes, but also by his general zeal for supporting the principles of monarchic government: “All of us, kings and princes of the earth, especially zealous for the orthodox [orthodoxe] religion and faith, cherish an enmity towards the bishops and an inward opposition to the primates of the Church.” Then, inveighing against the abuses of liberty and the privileges of the western clergy, the Emperor exclaimed: “O happy Asia! O happy Powers in the East! they do not fear the arms of their subjects nor dread the interference of the pontiffs.”79Despite his official allegiance to the Catholic faith, Frederick showed himself remarkably kind to eastern Orthodoxy; in one of his letters to Vatatzes which is preserved both in Greek and in Latin, there is this passage: “How! this so-called great arch-priest [that is, Pope; in Latin sacerdotum princeps; in Greek ἀρχιερεύζ], excommunicating every day Your Majesty by name in the presence of all men and all your subject Romans (in Latin Graecos), shamelessly calling heretics the most orthodox Romans, from whom Christian faith has reached the extreme bounds of the Universe …”80 In another letter to the Despot of Epirus Frederick wrote: “We desire to defend not only our own right, but also that of our friendly and beloved neighbours, whom pure and sincere love in Christ has united with us, and especially the Greeks, our close friends…. [The Pope calls] the most pious and orthodox Greeks most impious and heretics.”81
The friendly intercourse between Frederick and Vatatzes continued until Frederick’s death, though in his last years he was alarmed by the negotiations between Nicaea and Rome and by the exchange of embassies between them. For this reason, in his letter to Vatatzes, Frederick blamed “in a fatherly manner the behavior of the son,” who, “without the paternal suggestion, had sent an ambassador to the Pope.” Not without irony Frederick wrote further: “We desire to do or undertake nothing without your advice” in the affairs of the East, “for these countries which are your neighbors are better known to your Majesty than to us.”82 Frederick warned Vatatzes that the Roman bishops are “not archpriests of Christ, but rapacious wolves and wild beasts devouring the people of Christ.”83
After Frederick’s death, and especially after his natural son, Manfred, had become king of Sicily, relations changed, and Manfred came out as an enemy of the Empire of Nicaea. In a word, after John Vatatzes’ death, in 1254, “the alliance of which Frederick II had dreamt, was nothing but a memory.”84
It cannot be said that the alliance between the two emperors brought about important results; but it may be pointed out that John Vatatzes, relying on the friendly support of the western Emperor, must have had a surer hope for the final success of his policy, that is, the taking of Constantinople.
The Mongol invasion and the alliance of the rulers of Asia Minor against the Mongols
In the fourth and fifth decades of the thirteenth century there appeared from the East the menacing danger of the invasion of the Mongols, namely, the Tartars (in Byzantine sources, “Tahars, Tatars, Atars”). The hordes of Batu (Baty), one of the descendants of the famous Khan Temuchin, who had assumed the title of Jenghiz Khan, i.e., “Grand Khan,” rushed into present-day European Russia and in their destructive and irresistible onslaught seized Kiev in 1240, then crossed the Carpathians, and arrived at Bohemia before they were forced to retrace their march to the Russian steppes. At the same time the other Mongol group, marching in a more southerly direction, conquered all Armenia with Erzerum and invaded Asia Minor, menacing the Sultanate of Rum or Iconium and the weak Empire of Trebizond. Under the pressure of common danger from the Mongols sprang the alliance of the three states of Asia Minor: the Sultanate of Iconium, the Empire of Nicaea, and the Empire of Trebizond. The Seljuqs and the military forces of Trebizond were defeated by the Mongols. After that, the Sultan of Iconium was compelled to relieve himself by paying tribute and supplying annually horses, hunting dogs, and the like. The Emperor of Trebizond, realizing the impossibility of fighting the Mongols, made a speedy peace with them and, on condition of paying an annual tribute, became a Mongol vassal. Fortunately for the Seljuqs and John Vatatzes, the Mongols occupied themselves with other military enterprises and temporarily suspended their onslaught upon the West, which enabled the Emperor of Nicaea to take decisive measures in the Balkan peninsula.
From the example of the alliance mentioned above it is obvious that in the thirteenth century alliances between Christians and infidels did not trouble their participants; before the common danger the Orthodox emperors of Nicaea and Trebizond came to a friendly understanding with the Muhammedan Sultan of Iconium.
In connection with the Tartar invasion two stories given by a western historian of the thirteenth century, Matthew of Paris, reflect some rumors circulating at that time in Europe.85 In both, Matthew said that in 1248 two Mongol envoys were sent to the papal court and cordially received by Pope Innocent IV, who, like many other members of the Catholic church, hoped to convert the Mongols to Christianity. But in the first version he said also that at that time many supposed that the letter of the Mongol prince to the pope contained the proposition of the prince to make war against John Vatatzes (Battacium), “a Greek, son-in-law of Frederick, schismatic, and disobedient [son] of the papal curia; and this proposition was supposed not to be unpleasant to the Pope.” In his Historia Anglorum Matthew said that the pope directed the Mongol envoys to notify the king of the Tartars that, if the latter had adopted Christianity, he should march with all his troops upon John Vatatzes, “a Greek, son-in-law of Frederick, schismatic, and rebel against the pope and Emperor Baldwin, and after that upon Frederick himself who had risen against the Roman curia.” But the Tartar envoys, not liking to encourage “the mutual hatred of Christians,” answered through their interpreters, that they were not authorized to impose such conditions upon their master, and they feared that on receiving this news he would be very angry.
Of course, neither of these versions, especially the second one, which reflects a kind of thirteenth century European gossip, has any real historical value,86 and they cannot be treated as historical fact, as W. Miller regarded them. Referring to the second version, Miller wrote: “Having given the Holy Father this lesson in Christianity, the infidels returned to their own savage country.”87 But it is very interesting to emphasize the fact that the political power and importance of John Vatatzes was widely and thoroughly appreciated and played a certain part, at least in the opinion of western European writers, in the negotiations between the pope and the Mongol envoys. The envoys were received with great esteem and attention by Innocent IV, who wrote to “their illustrious king, and to the nobles and to all the princes and barons of the Tartar army” a long letter, in which he urged them to adopt the Christian faith.88 Of course, the name of John Vatatzes was not mentioned in this papal letter. Meanwhile John Vatatzes, relieved from the danger of Mongol invasion from the East, concentrated all his attention on the Balkan peninsula and obtained brilliant results.
Significance of the external policy of John Vatatzes
With the death of John Asen II, in 1241, the brilliant epoch of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom passed away, and Asen’s weak and inexperienced successors could not maintain his conquests. With his death collapsed the second attempt of the Bulgars to found in the Balkan peninsula a great Greco-Slavonic Empire with its center at Constantinople; for both Simeon in the tenth century, and the Asens, Kalojan and John II, in the thirteenth century, this task proved to be too great. The last attempt of this kind conceived and organized on a larger scale by Slavs, that is, by the Serbs, was to be made in the fourteenth century.
Taking advantage of the decline of Bulgaria, John Vatatzes crossed with his army to the European coast and in a few months took away from Bulgaria all the regions of Macedonia and Thrace which had been conquered by Asen II. Pursuing his march, Vatatzes advanced towards Thessalonica, where anarchy prevailed, and in 1246, without difficulty, took possession of this city. The state of Thessalonica ceased to exist. In the ensuing year Vatatzes seized some Thracian cities which were still under Latin rule. The Emperor of Nicaea drew near Constantinople. The Despotat of Epirus submitted to Vatatzes’ suzerainty. There were no more rivals in Vatatzes’ aspiration for the shores of the Bosphorus.
Towards the end of Vatatzes’ reign his dominions, both direct and vassal, extended from the Black Sea to the Adriatic. Leaving out of the question middle Greece and the Peloponnesus, nothing but Constantinople was lacking for the restoration of the Empire.
In 1254 John Vatatzes died at the age of sixty-two, ending a reign of thirty-three years. With rare unanimity the sources praise him. His son and successor, Theodore II Lascaris, wrote in a panegyric: “He has unified the Ausonian land, which was divided into very many parts by foreign and tyrannic rulers, Latin, Persian, Bulgarian, Scythian and others, punished robbers and protected his land…. He has made our country inaccessible to enemies.”89 Byzantine historians unanimously glorify John Vatatzes.90 Even if there is some exaggeration by the sources in their estimate of the Emperor of Nicaea, John Vatatzes must be considered a talented and energetic politician, and the chief creator of the restored Byzantine Empire.
It is interesting that the name of John Vatatzes was so beloved and esteemed by the people that some time after his death, he became a saint in popular tradition; miracles began to be connected with his memory and The Life of St. John the Merciful was composed, a sort of popular canonization. The memory of John Vatatzes has not been officially recognized by the Greek church, and his cult confined itself to the narrow limits of a Lydian city in Asia Minor, Magnesia, where the Emperor was buried. This life of Vatatzes is not to be confused with a biography of a saint of the seventh century, John the Merciful, as sometimes happens, and scholars vary in opinion concerning the place and time of its composition. Even at the present time the clergy and population of Magnesia and its surroundings gather annually on November 4 in the local church and honor the memory of the late Emperor John the Merciful.91 The Orthodox calendar gives under November 4 the name of “John Ducas Vatadzi.”92
The external activity of Vatatzes was extremely important because, by eliminating gradually the pretenders to the role of restorer of the Empire— the rulers of Thessalonica, Epirus, and Bulgaria—he brought under his power so much territory as practically to signify the restoration of the Byzantine Empire. The main role in the restoration belonged to John Vatatzes, and in 1261 Michael Palaeologus only profited by the results of the persistence and energy of the best Nicene Emperor. The generations after John Vatatzes looked back upon him as “the Father of the Greeks.”93
Theodore and John Lascaris and the restoration of the Byzantine Empire
The last rulers of the Empire of Nicaea were the son and grandson of John Vatatzes, Theodore II Lascaris (1254–1258) and John IV Lascaris (12581261). Theodore, thirty-three years old, “seated, according to custom, on a shield,”94 was proclaimed emperor with the consent of the troops and nobility.
In spite of his weak health, Theodore, before ascending the throne, had devoted all his time to studies and literature. His enlightened father had done his best, and Theodore’s education had been carefully supervised by the best scholars of the epoch, with Nicephorus Blemmydes and George Acropolita at their head.
On his accession to the throne, Theodore II, like his father, displayed the energetic political activity which made him sometimes forget his studies, even his favorite philosophy. Realizing the importance of external political relations, he turned his chief attention to the forming of a powerful army. Theodore wrote: “I have one truth, one goal, one desire—to gather together the flock of God and protect it from hostile wolves.”95 Believing that the Greeks had to rely on their own strength and not on foreign alliances or on foreign mercenaries, Theodore, perhaps, was almost the only “Byzantine” Emperor who paid attention to the “hellenization” of the army, contrary to the established custom of making use of the mercenary troops of foreign peoples.96
In 1258, the young Emperor breathed his last in the prime of life (36 years old), having before death exchanged his imperial robes for those of a monk. He left to his successor the vast conquests of John Vatatzes intact. This active and philosophically educated Emperor lived and worked in the belief that history would pass judgment upon him. In one of his letters he said: “The judgment of history will be passed by the generations to come.”97 The special historian of the time of Theodore II, not without some exaggeration, wrote: “Theodore died very young; otherwise Hellenism might have hoped for better days under the wise rule of the Emperor who had exerted all his energy in order to found the Greek Empire upon a solid and steady basis.”98 But this ambition of Theodore remained a theory. In reality the mercenary troops representing different nationalities took an important part in the life of the Empire of Nicaea in general, and during Theodore’s reign in particular.99
In external activity, Theodore undertook two hard Bulgarian campaigns. On the news of Vatatzes’ death the Bulgarian tsar, Michael Asen, seized the opportunity to recover the provinces lost under Vatatzes, and it was feared that all the latter’s European conquests might again become Bulgarian. In spite of many difficulties and the cowardice and treachery of his generals, however, the two Bulgarian campaigns ended successfully for Theodore, and, through the mediation of the Russian prince Rostislav, Michael Asen’s father-in-law, a treaty was made. Bulgarians and Greeks received their former frontiers, and one Bulgarian fortress was even ceded to Theodore.100
Theodore’s relations to the Despot of Epirus in connection with the proposed marriage between the despot’s son and Theodore’s daughter, resulted in Theodore’s receiving the important seaport Dyrrachium (Durazzo), on the Adriatic, and the fortress Serbia (Servia), near the confines of Epirus and Bulgaria. Dyrrachium “was the western outpost of the Nicene Empire, and necessarily a thorn in the side of the despots of Epirus.”101
In Asia Minor, the Seljuq Turks were seriously menaced by the Mongols, who succeeded in making the sultan their tributary. The situation was delicate and complicated, because Theodore had, though undecidedly, supported the sultan in his struggle against the Mongols, and the sultan, “having the heart of a shy deer,”102 took refuge as a fugitive with Theodore. But a military conflict between Nicaea and the Mongols was avoided, and a Mongol embassy was sent to Theodore. The reception which took place, probably at Magnesia, was exceptionally brilliant and imposing; Theodore’s chief idea was to impress the Tartars, of whom he was afraid. The Emperor received the ambassadors, seated on a lofty throne, sword in hand. Byzantine historians gave a detailed account of the reception.103
A recent historian remarked that Theodore “was, in a word, a mass of nerves, an ‘interesting case’ for a modern mental specialist,” and his “brief reign of less than four years did not enable him to make a great mark upon the history of his time.”104 Finally, it has been said lately that “in Theodore was particularly felt what may be called enlightened absolutism.”105 Of course, Theodore’s reign was too short for definite judgment to be passed on its significance. But in the history of Nicaea his name will always be honorably remembered for his continuance of his father’s successful external policy and for his own breadth of learning.
Theodore’s only son and successor, who was not quite eight years old, John IV (1258–61) could not, even with the help of the appointed regent, George Muzalon, master the complicated affairs of the Empire. At this time the crafty and ambitious Michael Palaeologus, John Vatatzes’ relative, “a restless intriguer and an infamous hypocrite, but an able officer,”106 played a decisive role. Several times suspected of plots and treason by Vatatzes and Theodore II, and occupying, nevertheless, high offices, he had in times of danger successfully withdrawn and even fled for a time to the court of the Sultan of Iconium. Stormy times demanded a strong rule. Michael Palaeologus profited skillfully by circumstances and, in 1259, was crowned emperor.
The chief external danger to the Balkan possessions of the Empire of Nicaea arose from the Despot of Epirus, who succeeded in forming an alliance against the Empire consisting of the despot himself, the king of Sicily, Manfred, a relative of the despot and the natural son of Frederick II, and the prince of Achaia, William de Villehardouin. Michael Palaeologus gained some military success against the coalition, and the decisive battle was fought in 1259 in western Macedonia, in the plain of Pelagonia, near the city of Castoria. Turks, Cumans, and Slavs, as well as Greeks, fought in Michael’s army. The battle of Pelagonia or Castoria ended in the complete defeat of the allies. The prince of Achaia was captured. The well-armed troops of the western knights fled before the light-armed Bithynian, Slavonic, and eastern troops. “Perhaps it was the first time that Turks fought against Greeks on Greek soil, and on this occasion in Greek service.”107 A contemporary, George Acropolita, gave this judgment of the event: “Under imperial advice our troops have got so great a victory that the fame of it has passed over all the ends of the earth; of such victories the sun has seen but few.”108 In his autobiography, which is preserved, Michael Palaeologus writes concerning this battle: “Along with them [with the traitors to the Roman state, i.e., the Despot of Epirus and his associates] and their allies, who had as their leader the Prince of Achaia, whom have I vanquished? Alamans, Sicilians, and Italians who came from Apulia, the land of the Iapygians and Brundusium, from Bithynia, Euboea, and the Peloponnesus.”109
The battle of Castoria had a decisive significance for the restoration of the Byzantine Empire. The dominions of the Despot of Epirus were reduced to his hereditary land in Epirus. The Latin Empire could not rely on the defeated Principality of Achaia, and was itself under the direction of the feeble and apathetic Baldwin II.
Meanwhile, in order to make still more sure the success of the final attack on Constantinople, Michael Palaeologus concluded a treaty with the Genoese. The commercial interests of Genoa and Venice conflicted everywhere in the Levant. After the Fourth Crusade and the formation of the Latin Empire, Venice had gained quite exceptional trade power in the Latin dominions of the Levant, and Genoa could not reconcile herself to this state of affairs. Realizing this, Michael came to an agreement with the Genoese; although they knew that an understanding with the schismatic Greeks would evoke the severe censure of the pope and the West in general, they were so desirous of driving out their Venetian rivals from the East that they concluded the treaty with Michael.
In March, 1261, at Nymphaeum, was signed the very important treaty which granted to the Genoese the commercial supremacy in the Levant so long enjoyed by the Venetians. This was a real offensive and defensive alliance against Venice.110 Free trade forever was granted the Genoese throughout the present and future provinces of the Empire. Very important grants at Constantinople and in the islands of Crete and Euboea, if Michael “by the mercy of God” should recover them, were included in the treaty; Smyrna, “a city fit for commercial use, having a good port and abounding in all goods,” was assigned to the absolute control of the Genoese; commercial stations with churches and consuls were to be established in the islands of Chios and Lesbos, and in some other places; the Black Sea (majus mare) was to be closed to all foreign merchants except the Genoese and Pisans, the faithful subjects of Michael. On their side the Genoese pledged themselves to grant free trade to the Emperor’s subjects, and to support him with their fleet, provided that the ships were not employed against the pope and the friends of Genoa. The Genoese fleet was extremely important in Michael Palaeologus’ plans to reconquer Constantinople. This treaty was ratified at Genoa a few days before Constantinople was taken by Michael’s troops. This was a brilliant victory for Genoa which, after Saladin’s victories in Syria, had suffered grievous losses. It was a new page in their economic history. “The vigor of the thirteenth century colonial life offers a sharp contrast with the halting, tentative character of that of the twelfth. Naturally this is the result of wide experience, of better organization, and especially of the amazing developments of trade.”111
On July 25, 1261, without striking a blow, the troops of Michael took possession of Constantinople. Michael himself was at that time in Asia Minor, where he received the news that Constantinople had been taken. He set out immediately and at the beginning of August entered the city, cheerfully greeted by the populace; shortly after, his second coronation was performed in St. Sophia. Baldwin II fled to Euboea (Negroponte). The Latin patriarch and the chief members of the Catholic clergy had time enough to leave the city before it was taken. By Michael’s order, the unfortunate John IV Lascaris was blinded. Michael Palaeologus became the restorer of the Byzantine Empire, Michael VIII, the founder of the last Byzantine dynasty of the Palaeologi, by his success in taking advantage of what had been prepared by the emperors of Nicaea. The capital was transferred from Nicaea to Constantinople.
The fugitive Baldwin proceeded from Euboea to Thebes and Athens. There, “on the venerable rock of Athens was played the last pitiful scene in the brief drama of the Latin Empire of Constantinople. Then Baldwin sailed from the Peiraeus for Monemvasia; and leaving behind him not a few of his noble retinue in the Morea, set out for Europe, to solicit aid for his lost cause and to play the sorry part of an emperor in exile.”112
Thus, the Latin Empire, in the severe judgment of a German historian, Gregorovius, “a creation of western European crusading knights, of the selfish trade-policy of the Venetians, and of the hierarchic idea of the papacy, fell after a miserable existence of fifty-seven years, leaving behind it no other trace than destruction and anarchy. That deformed chivalrous feudal state of the Latins belongs to the most worthless phenomena of history. The sophistical maxim of the German philosopher who asserted that all that exists is rational, becomes here merely an absurdity.”113 Another German historian remarked: “The Latin ignominy belongs to the past.”114
While Western sources, almost without exception, confine themselves to the mere mention of the taking of Constantinople by Michael and of the expulsion of the Franks, Greek sources express great joy on this occasion. George Acropolita, for example, wrote: “Because of this fact all the Roman people were then in merriment, great cheerfulness, and inexpressible joy; there was no one who did not rejoice and exult.”115 Still a discordant note sounded in the words of a high official under Michael Paleologus, a teacher, commentator of Homer, and jurist, Senakherim, who after the taking of Constantinople by the Greeks exclaimed: “What do I hear! This has been reserved to our days! What have we done that we should live through and see such disasters? For the rest, no one can hope for good, since the Romans walk again in the city!”116
In summary, most scholars view with condemnation the behavior of the Latins during their domination of Constantinople. Indeed, considering the sack of the capital by the crusaders, the “dispersal” of its numberless treasures throughout Europe, and the oppression of the Greek Orthodox Church, the hostile attitude of contemporary Greek sources and of most modern writers is understandable. Recently, however, a voice has been raised in extenuation of the Latins, that of an eminent American professor, E. H. Swift, who has dealt with the behavior of the Latins in regard to the famous and unique building of the “Great Church” of Saint Sophia.
In 1907 E. M. Antoniades, the Greek author of a detailed monograph on St. Sophia, wrote: “The fifty-seven years of the Latin occupation constituted the worst and most dangerous period of the entire history of the church, which was saved only by the recovery of the city by the Greeks in 1261.”117 Professor Swift questioned this opinion. He believed that it may be inferred from a number of historical sources as well as from archeological evidence observable in the building as it stands today that quite the opposite seems to be the case. A number of earthquakes before 1204 had rendered the structural condition of the church extremely precarious before the crusaders took possession of it. Since they found it in a dangerously weakened state, they shortly took adequate measure to assure the stability of their newly acquired cathedral, repairing it in various ways, particularly by the erection of buttresses. So, Swift concluded, “the Latins were not as black as they usually are painted, but rather … became in fact the saviours of one of the greatest monuments of the Greek architectural genius.”118 Swift’s observation is an interesting contribution to the history of the building, and it is quite likely that the crusaders contributed appreciably to the preservation of this unique structure. But the fact remains well established that they mercilessly robbed the interior of St. Sophia.