Volume Two
Histor-jr of the
BY Z AN TINE KMFIRK
9k9.$ V33h v.2 72-73300
Vasiliev
History of the 'Byz an tine Empire
Kansas city public library
^SSfiM***
Books will be issued only
on presentation of library card.
Please report lost cards and
change of residence promptly.
Card holders are responsible for
all books, records, films, pictures
or other library materials
checked out on their cards.
A. A. Vasiliev
HISTORY OF THE
BYZANTINE
3x4-1453
Volume II
Madison, Milwaukee, and London
THE UNIVERSITY' OF WISCONSIN PRESS
Published 1952
The University of Wisconsin Press
Box 1379, Madison, Wisconsin 53701
The University of Wisconsin Press, Ltd.
70 Great Russell Street, London, WClB 3BY
SECOND ENGLISH EDITION
Copyright 1952; in Canada, 1952
The Regents of the University of Wisconsin
All rights reserved
In one volume, 1952
In two volumes, 1958, 1961, 1964, 1971
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN 0-299-80926-9, LC 58-9277
The first English edition was published as
University of Wisconsin Studies in the Social Sciences
and History, Numbers 13 and 14, 1928-29.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER VII: BYZANTIUM AND THE CRUSADES 375
The Comneni Emperors and Their Foreign Policy 375
Foreign Policy of the Angeli 438
Internal Affairs under the Comneni and Angeli 469
Education, Learning, Literature, and Art 487
CHAPTER VIII: THE EMPIRE OF NICAEA (1204-61) 506
New States Formed on Byzantine Territory 506
Foreign Policy of the Lascarids and the Restoration of the Byzantine
Empire 514
Ecclesiastical Relations with the Nicene and Latin Empires 540
Social and Economic Conditions in the Empire of Nicaea 546
Education, Learning, Literature, and Art 548
Byzantine Feudalism 563
CHAPTER IX: THE FALL OF BYZANTIUM 580
Foreign Policy of the Palaeologi 580
Ecclesiastical Problems under the Palaeologi 656
Political and Social Conditions in the Empire 676
Learning, Literature, Science, and Art 687
Byzantium and the Italian Renaissance 713
APPENDIX 725
Emperors of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453 725
Genealogical Tables of the Byzantine Dynasties 727
BIBLIOGRAPHY 735
INDEX 800
iii
fANSAS CITY (MO,) PUBLIC LfBRART
PLATA 7273(MfccT 9 1972
LIST OF MAPS
THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE 1025-1402 following page 479
BULGARIANS AND SERBS IN THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES 610
EXPANSION OF THE TURKISH EMPIRE 610
POSSESSIONS IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 611
IV
HISTORY OF THE
BYZANTINE EMPIRE
314-1453
CHAPTER VII: BYZANTIUM AND THE CRUSADES
THE COMNENI EMPERORS AND THEIR FOREIGN POLICY
THE revolution of 1081 elevated to the throne Alexius Comnenus, whose
uncle Isaac had been emperor for a short time at the end of the sixth
decade of the eleventh century (1057-59). The Greek name of the Comneni,
mentioned in the sources for the first time under Basil II, came originally from
a village not far from Hadrianople. Later the family became large landowners
in Asia Minor. 1 Both Isaac and his nephew Alexius distinguished themselves
by their military talents. Under Alexius the military party and provincial large
landowners triumphed over the bureaucrats and civil regime of the capital,
and at the same time the epoch of troubles came to its end. The first three
Comneni succeeded in keeping the throne for a century and transferring it
from father to son.
Owing to his energetic and skillful rule, Alexius I (1081-1118) secured the
Empire from serious external dangers which sometimes threatened the very
existence of the state. But the succession of the throne created difficulties.
Long before his death, Alexius had nominated his son, John, heir to the im-
perial dignity and thereby greatly irritated his elder daughter, Anna, the
famous authoress of the historical work, Alexiad. She devised a complicated
plot in order to remove John and force the recognition as heir to the throne of
her husband, Nicephorus Bryennius, who was also an historian. The aged
Alexius remained, however, firm in his decision, and after his death John
was proclaimed Emperor.
Upon ascending the throne, John II (1118-1143) had at once to undergo
a painful experience. A plot against him was discovered, in which his sister
Anna took the leading part; his mother was also entangled. The conspiracy
failed, but John treated the conspirators very leniently, only punishing the
majority by depriving them of their property. Because of his lofty moral
qualities, John deserved general respect; he was called Calojohn (Caloyan),
1 See F. Chalandon, Essai sur le regne des Comnenes," Bulletin de la section his-
d' Alexis l^ Comnene, 21. Recently a hypothe- lonque de I' Academic roumaine, XI (1924),
sis was set forth on the Wallachian (Vlachian) 212-16.
origin of the Comneni. G. Murnu, "L'ongine
375
376 Byzantium and the Crusades
that is to say, John the Good (or the Handsome). Both Greek and Latin
writers are unanimous in their high appreciation of John's character. Nicetas
Choniates said, "he was the best type (KG/OO^I?) of all the Emperors, from the
family of the Comneni, who had ever sat upon the Roman throne." 2 Gibbon,
who was always severe in his judgment of Byzantine rulers, wrote of this
"best and greatest of the Comnenian princes," that even "the philosophic
Marcus (Aurelius) would not have disdained the artless virtues of his suc-
cessor, derived from his heart, and not borrowed from the schools." 3
Opposed to needless luxury and wasteful prodigality, John stamped his
mark upon the court, which, under his rule, lived a strict and economical
life; there were no more entertainments, no festivities, no enormous expenses.
On the other hand, the reign of this merciful, calm, and most moral Emperor
was little but a continuous military campaign.
His son and successor, Manuel I (1143-1180) formed a complete contrast
to John. A convinced admirer of the West who had chosen as his ideal the
western knight, the new Emperor changed at once the austere court setting
of his late father. Cheerful entertainments, love, receptions, sumptuous fes-
tivities, hunting parties after the western pattern, tournaments all these
spread widely over Constantinople. The visits to the capital of foreign sover-
eigns such as the kings of Germany and France, the sultan of Iconium, and
several Latin princes from the East, with the king of Jerusalem, Amaury I,
at their head, required enormous amounts of money.
A very great number of western Europeans appeared at the Byzantine court,
and the most lucrative and responsible offices of the Empire began to pass
into their hands. Manuel was married twice, each time to a western princess.
His first wife, Bertha of Sulzbach, whose name was changed in Byzantium
to Irene, was a sister-in-law of the king of Germany, Conrad III; his second
wife, Mary (Maria), was a French lady of rare beauty, a daughter of a prince
of Antioch. The whole reign of Manuel was regulated by his western ideals,
as well as by his illusive dream of restoring the unity of the former Roman
Empire; for that purpose he hoped, with the aid of the pope, to deprive the
king of Germany of his imperial crown, and he was even ready to effect a
union with the western Catholic church. Latin oppression and neglect of
indigenous interests, however, evoked general discontent among the popu-
lation; and a vigorous desire to change the system arose. But Manuel died
before he saw the collapse of his policy.
Alexius II (1180-1183), son and successor of Manuel, was twelve years old
at his father's death. His mother, Mary of Antioch, was proclaimed regent.
2 Nicetas Choniates, Histona, ed I. Bekker, 3 E. Gibboii, The History of the Decline and
Corpus Scriptorum Histonae Byzantinae, Pall of the Roman Empue, ed. J. B. Bury, V,
64-65; hereafter referred to as Bonn ed. 229.
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 377
But practically all power passed into the hands of the regent's favorite, Alexius
Comnenus, Manuel's nephew. The new government relied upon the support
of the hated Latin element. Popular exasperation, therefore, kept increasing.
Empress Mary, formerly so popular, was now considered as a "foreigner."
The French historian Diehl compared the condition of Mary to that of Marie
Antoinette, who in the time of the French revolution was similarly called by
the populace "the Austrian." 4
A strong party formed against the all-powerful favorite Alexius Comnenus;
at the head of that party stood Andronicus Comnenus, one of the most singu-
lar figures in the annals of Byzantine history, and an interesting type for both
historian and novelist. Andronicus, a nephew of John II and cousin of Manuel
I, belonged to the younger line of the Comneni, which had been removed
from the throne and had distinguished itself by extraordinary energy, some-
times wrongly directed. Later, in the third generation, this line provided the
sovereigns of the Empire of Trebizond who are known in history as the dy-
nasty of the Grand Comneni. "Prince-exile" of the twelfth century, "the
future Richard III of Byzantine history," in whose soul there was "something
similar to that of Caesar Borgia," "Alcibiades of the Middle-Byzantine Em-
pire," Andronicus represented "a perfect type of a Byzantian of the twelfth
century with all his virtues and vices." 5 Handsome, elegant, and witty, an
athlete and a warrior, well educated and charming, especially to the women
who adored him, frivolous and passionate, skeptic and, in case of need, hypo-
crite and perjurer, ambitious conspirator and intriguer, terrible in his later
days for his ferocity, Andronicus, as Diehl said, being a genius by nature,
might have become the savior and regenerator of the exhausted Byzantine
Empire; but for that purpose he lacked "perhaps, a little moral sense." 6
An historian contemporary with Andronicus, Nicetas Choniates, wrote
about him : "Who has been born of such strong rock or with a heart forged
on such an anvil as not to be softened by the streams of Andronicus' tears nor
to be charmed by the wilmess of his words which he poured out as from a
dark spring." The same historian compared Andronicus to the "multiform
Proteus." 7
In spite of a semblance of friendship with Manuel, Andronicus was sus-
pected by the latter and found no opportunities of presenting himself in his
true light in Byzantium. He spent most of Manuel's reign in wandering over
4 Charles Diehl, 'Figures byzantmes (4th ed. 3 Grossen," in H. F. Helmolt, Weltgeschichte, V,
1909), II, 112. 95-
5 V. Vasihevsky, 'The Alliance of the Two 6 Figures byzantmes, II, 93 L. Brehier, "An-
Empires," S>lavyan$\y Sborm\, II (1877), 255- dronic (Comnene)," Dicttonnaire d'histoire et
57; in Worlds of V. G. Vasilievsfy, IV, 68-70. de geographic ecclesiastiques, II, 1782
Diehl, Figures byzantmes, II, 90, 93. R. von 7 Nicetas Choniates, Histona, Bonn ed., 317,
Seal a, "Das Gnechentum seit Alexander dem 319.
378 Byzantium and the Crusades
the different countries of Europe and Asia. Having been sent by the Emperor
first to Cilicia and then to the borders of Hungary, Andronicus was accused
of political treason and plotting against Manuel's life; he was confined in a
Constantinopolitan prison, where he spent several years; after many extraor-
dinary adventures, he succeeded in escaping from his confinement through a
neglected drain pipe; then he was caught again and imprisoned for several
years more. But he escaped again to the north and took refuge in southwest
Russia with the Prince of Galich, Yaroslav. Under the year 1165 a Russian
chronicler said: "The Emperor's cousin Kyr (Sir) Andronicus took refuge
from Tsargrad with Yaroslav of Galich; and Yaroslav received him with
great love and gave him several cities in consolation." 8 As Byzantine sources
report, Andronicus was kindly received by Yaroslav, had his residence in
Yaroslav's house, ate and hunted with him, and even took part in his councils
with the boyars (Russian nobility). 9 But the stay of Andronicus at the court
of the Prince of Galich seemed dangerous to Manuel, whose restless relative
was already entering into negotiations with Hungary, with which Byzantium
had begun a war. Manuel accordingly determined to pardon Andronicus, who
was dismissed by Yaroslav from Galich to Constantinople, "with great honor,'*
as a Russian chronicler says. 10
Appointed Duke of Cilicia, in Asia Minor, he did not stay there for long.
He arrived in Palestine via Antioch; there he fell in love with Theodora, the
Emperor's relative and widow of the King of Jerusalem, who yielded to his
solicitations. The infuriated Emperor commanded Andronicus to be blinded,
but warned in time of his danger, he fled abroad with Theodora and led a
wandering life for several years in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Armenia, spend-
ing some time even in far-off Iberia (Georgia or Gruzia, in the Caucasus).
At last, Manuel's envoys succeeded in seizing the passionately beloved
Theodora and the children she had borne to Andronicus; incapable of endur-
ing that loss, he resolved to make his submission to Manuel. Pardon was
granted, and Andronicus apparently repented the follies of his stormy life.
His appointment as governor of Pontus, in Asia Minor on the shores of the
Black Sea, was a sort of honorable exile of a dangerous relative. At that time,
1 1 80, Manuel died, and his son, Alexius II, a child of twelve, became Emperor.
Andronicus was then sixty years old.
Such was the biography of the man in whom the population of the capital,
exasperated by the latinophile policy of the Empress-regent, Mary of Antioch,
8 Ipatyevsfya Lietopis (Chronicle) under the 9 loarmis Cmnami Histona, Bonn ed , 232.
year 6673, p. 359 = Voskresensfyya Lietopis, Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 172.
under the same year, in the Complete Collec- 10 Ipatyevstyya Lietopis V os%resens%aya
tion of Russian Chronicles, VII, 78. Lietopis.
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 379
and her favorite, Alexius Comnenus, reposed all their trust. Very skillfully
pretending to protect the violated rights of the minor Alexius II, who was in
the power of the wicked rulers, and to be "a friend of the Romans"
(faXopapaios) , Andronicus succeeded in winning the hearts of the exhausted
population, who deified him. A contemporary, Eustathius of Thessalonica,
said Andronicus "to the majority of people, was dearer than God himself,"
or, at least, "immediately followed him." 11
After having created the proper feeling in the capital, Andronicus set out
for Constantinople. At the news of his march, the populace of the capital gave
vent to their hatred for the Latins. A raging mob attacked the Latin quarter
and began to massacre the Latins, without distinction of sex or age; the infuri-
ated populace plundered not only private houses, but also Latin churches and
charitable institutions; in a hospital the patients lying in bed were murdered;
the papal legate was insulted and beheaded; many Latins were sold into
slavery in the Turkish markets. By that massacre of the Latins in 1182, as Th.
Uspensky said, "the seed of the fanatic enmity between West and East, if not
planted, was watered." 12 The all-powerful ruler, Alexius Comnenus, was im-
prisoned and blinded. Then Andronicus entered the capital in triumph. In
order to give stability to his position, he began gradually to destroy Manuel's
relatives and commanded the Empress-mother, Mary of Antioch, to be
strangled. Then Andronicus became joint emperor with Alexius II. Several
days later, in spite of his solemn promise to protect Alexius' life, he com-
manded him also to be strangled in secret. Thereupon, in 1183, Andronicus,
at sixty-three years of age, became the sole all-powerful emperor.
Ascending the throne with designs which became evident later, Andronicus
could maintain his power only by a system of terrorism and unspeakable
cruelty. In external affairs, he showed neither energy nor initiative. The mood
of the populace turned against him. In 1185 a revolution broke out which
elevated to the throne Isaac Angelus. Andronicus' attempt to escape met with
failure. Dethroned, he was exposed to hideous tortures and insults, which
he bore with superhuman courage. In his atrocious sufferings he many times
repeated: "Lord, have mercy upon me! Why do you break a bruised reed?" 13
The new emperor did not even allow the lacerated remains of Andronicus to
be buried; and with this tragedy the last brilliant Byzantine dynasty came to
its end.
"Eustathii De Thessalonica a Latinls Vizantiysfy Vremenni\, XXV (1927-28), 14.
capta, Bonn ed, 388. 13 Nicetas Choniates, Histona, Bonn ed,
12 "Emperors Alexius II and Andronicus 458. The numerous sources on the death of
Comnem," Journal of the Ministry of Public Andronicus are discussed in N. Radojcic, Dm
Instruction, CCXIV (1881), 73- Uspensky, posljednja Komnena na congrads\om prices-
"The Last Comnem, Beginnings of Reaction," tola, 94, n. i.
380 Byzantium and the Crusades
Alexius I and external relations before the First Crusade
Anna Comnena, the educated and gifted daughter of the new Emperor,
Alexius, said that her father, at the beginning of his reign, viewed the Turkish
danger from the east and the Norman from the west, and "saw that his
Empire was in fatal agony." 14 The external situation of the Empire was very
serious and gradually became still more troublesome and complicated.
The Norman War. The Duke of Apulia, Robert Guiscard, after conquer-
ing the Byzantine possessions in southern Italy, formed much wider plans.
Ambitious to deal a blow at the very heart of Byzantium, he transferred
hostilities to the Adriatic coast of the Balkan peninsula. He left the government
of Apulia to his younger son Roger and, with his elder brother Bohemond,
well-known as a participator in the First Crusade, sailed against Alexius,
with a considerable fleet. His chief immediate aim was to seize the maritime
city of Dyrrachium (formerly Epidamnus; Slavonic Drach [Drac] now
Durazzo) in Illyria. Dyrrachium, the chief city of the theme of Dyrrachium,
which had been organized under Basil II Bulgaroctonus, was very well forti-
fied and justly considered the key to the Empire in the west. The famous
military road of Egnatius (via Egnatia), constructed as far back as Roman
times, led from Dyrrachium to Thessalonica and then farther to the east
toward Constantinople. Therefore it was perfectly natural that Robert's chief
attention should be directed upon Dyrrachium. This expedition was "the
prelude of the Crusades and preparation (Vorbereitung) for the Prankish
dominion in Greece," 15 "the pre-crusade of Robert Guiscard, his great war
against Alexius Comnenus." 16
Realizing that with his own forces he was incapable of overcoming the
Norman danger, Alexius Comnenus called on the West for aid, and among
other rulers he appealed to Henry IV of Germany. Henry at that time had
some difficulties within his own empire and had not yet settled his struggle
with Pope Gregory VII so that he was able to afford no aid to the Byzantine
Emperor. But Venice, with a view to her own interests, replied favorably to
the appeal of Alexius. In return for the help of her fleet, the Emperor
promised the Republic of St. Mark enormous trade privileges. It suited the
interests of Venice to support the eastern Emperor in his war against the
Normans because in case of military success the Normans could immediately
seize the trade routes to Byzantium and the East, in other words, could obtain
possession of what the Venetians themselves hoped in the course of time
14 Anna Comnena, Alextas, III, 9; ed. A. 16 H. Gregoire and R. de Keyser, "La Chan-
Reifferscheid, I, 117. son de Roland et Byzance ou de 1'utihte du
15 C. Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlands vom grec pour les romanistes," Byzantion, XIV
Begmne des Mittelahers bis au] die neuere (1939)1 274.
Zeit, I, 141.
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 381
to control. Besides, a real and immediate danger pressed upon Venice : Norman
possession of the Ionian Islands, especially Corfu and Cephalonia, and the
west coast of the Balkan peninsula, would have barred the Adriatic to the
Venetian vessels plying in the Mediterranean.
After the capture of the island of Corfu, the Normans besieged Dyrra-
chium by land and sea. Although the Venetian vessels had relieved the
besieged city on the seaward side, the land army under Alexius, composed
of Macedonian Slavs, Turks, the imperial Varangian-English bodyguard,
and some other nationalities, was heavily defeated. At the beginning of 1082,
Dyrrachium opened its gates to Robert. But a revolt which had broken
out in south Italy called Robert away. Bohemond, to whom the command
of the expeditionary corps had been delegated by his brother, was finally
vanquished. 17 A new expedition undertaken by Robert against Byzantium
was successful, but an epidemic broke out among his troops and Robert
himself fell a victim to the disease. He died in 1085 in the north of the island
of Cephalonia. Even today a small bay and village in the island, Fiscardo
(Guiscardo, Portus Wiscardi, in the Middle Ages, from the name of Robert
Guiscard), recalls the name of the powerful Duke of Apulia. With Robert's
death the Norman invasion of Byzantine territory ceased, and Dyrrachium
passed again to the Greeks. 18
It has been shown that the aggressive policy of Robert Guiscard in the
Balkan peninsula failed. But under him the question of the south Italian
possessions of Byzantium was definitely decided. Robert had founded the
Italian state of the Normans, because he was the first to succeed in unifying
the various countries founded by his compatriots and in forming the Duchy
of Apulia, which under him lived through a period of brilliance. A certain
decline of the Duchy which came on after Robert's death, lasted for about
fifty years, at the end of which the foundation of the Sicilian Kingdom opened
a new era in the history of the Italian Normans. Robert Guiscard, the French
historian Chalandon declared, "opened a new way to the ambition of his
descendants: after him the Italian Normans were to direct their gaze toward
the east; in the east and at the expense of the Greek Empire, twelve years
later, Bohemond was to create a princedom for himself." 19
Venice, in return for the aid given by her fleet, received from the Emperor
enormous trade privileges which established for the Republic of St. Mark
quite an exceptional position in the Empire. Besides magnificent presents to
the Venetian churches and honorable titles with a fixed salary to the doge and
17 See R. B. Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of place of the death of Guiscard is not definitely
Antioch, 18-22. fixed. Chalandon, Alexis I er Comnene, 93, n.
18 Chalandon, Alexis I er Comnene, 64-92. F. 9. Yewdale (Bohemond I, 23) says that Guis-
Chalandon, "The Earlier Comneni," Cam- card died at Cassiope on Corfu.
bridge Medieval History, IV, 329-30. The 19 Chalandon, Alexis I 61 " Comnene, 94.
382 Byzantium and the Crusades
Venetian patriarch and their successors, the imperial charter of Alexius (or
chrysobtdl, i.e. the charter confirmed with a gold imperial seal) of May 1082
granted the Venetian merchants the right of buying and selling all over the
Empire and made them free of custom, port, and other dues connected with
trade; the Byzantine customs officers had no right of inspecting their mer-
chandise. In the capital itself the Venetians received a large quarter with many
shops and stores as well as three landing places, which were called in the
East scales (mantimas tres sccdas), where the Venetian vessels could be freely
loaded and unloaded. The charter of Alexius gives an interesting list of the
places of the Empire which were commercially most important, on the sea-
shore and in the interior, which were open to Venice in Asia Minor, the
Balkan peninsula and Greece, and in the islands of the Aegean, ending with
Constantinople, which is called in this document Megalopolis, i.e. Great City.
In their turn, the Venetians promised to be the faithful subjects of the Em-
pire. 20 By the privileges accorded to the Venetian merchants in the charter
they were treated much more favorably than the Byzantine merchants them-
selves. By the charter of Alexius Comnenus a solid foundation was laid for
the colonial power of Venice in the East; the conditions established to create
her economic preponderance in Byzantium were such as would seem likely
to make competition impossible for a long time. But the same exceptional
economic privileges granted Venice served in the course of time, under
changed circumstances, as one of the causes of the political conflicts between
the Eastern Empire and the Republic of St. Mark.
Struggle of the Empire against the Tur\$ and Patzinafy.'Thc Turkish
danger from the east and north, from the Seljuqs and Patzinaks, which had
already been very threatening under the predecessors of Alexius Comnenus,
increased in intensity under that monarch. The victory over the Normans and
Guiscard's death had permitted Alexius to restore the Byzantine territory in
the west as far as the Adriatic coast, but on the other borders, the attacks of
the Turks and Patzinaks were so successful that the Empire was considerably
reduced in territory. Anna Comnena rhetorically declared that at that time
"the neighboring Bosphorus was the frontier of the Roman Empire in the
east, and Hadrianople in the west." 21
It seemed that in Asia Minor, which had been almost wholly conquered by
the Seljuqs, circumstances were shaping themselves favorably for the Empire,
because among the Turkish rulers (emirs) a struggle for power was weaken-
ing the Turkish strength and bringing the country into a state of anarchy. But
20 G. L. F. Tafel and G. M. Thomas, Ur- des Mittelcdters und der neuern Zeit,l (i), 27-
\unden zur altcrn Handels- und Staatsge- 28; contains very good bibliography.
schichte der Repubh% Venedig, I, 51-54. Sec ^ Alexias, VI, u; ed. Reifferscheid, I, 214-
F. Dolger, Corf us der griechischen Ur\unden 15.
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 383
Alexius was unable to take full advantage of the distractions of the Turks
because of the attacks of the Patzinaks from the north.
In their conflict with Byzantium the Patzinaks found allies within the
Empire in the Pauhcians who dwelt in the Balkan peninsula. 22 The Paulicians
represented an Eastern duahstic religious sect, one of the chief branches of
Manichaeism, which had been founded in the third century A.D. by Paul of
Samosata and reformed in the seventh century. Living in Asia Minor, on the
eastern border of the Empire, and firmly adhering to their doctrine, they
sometimes caused grave trouble to the Byzantine government by their war-
like energy. One of the familiar methods of Byzantine internal policy was to
transport various nationalities from one place to another; for example, the
Slavs were moved to Asia Minor and Armenians to the Balkan peninsula.
The Paulicians also had been transported in great numbers from the eastern
border to Thrace in the eighth century by Constantine V Copronymus, as
well as in the tenth century by John Tzimisces. The city of Philippopolis in
the Balkan peninsula became the center of the Paulicians. Tzimisces, by
settling the eastern colony in the vicinity of that city, succeeded first in re-
moving the stubborn sectarians from their strongholds and castles on the
eastern border, where it was very difficult to manage them, and also he hoped
that in their new settlement the Paulicians would serve as a strong bulwark
against the frequent invasions of the northern "Scythian" barbarians. In the
tenth century the Paulician doctrine had been carried into Bulgaria by the
reformer of that doctrine, Pope Bogomile, after whom the Byzantine writers
named his followers Bogomiles. From Bulgaria the Bogomile doctrine later
passed into Serbia and Bosnia, and then into western Europe, where the fol-
lowers of the eastern dualistic doctrine bore different names: Patarins in Italy,
Cathari in Germany and Italy, Poblicans (i.e. Paulicians) and Albigensians
in France.
The Byzantine government was disappointed in its expectations from
eastern sectarians settled in the Balkan peninsula. First of all, the unexpected
spreading of the heresy was speedy and wide. Secondly, the followers of the
Bogomile doctrine became the spokesmen for the national Slavonic political
opposition against the severe Byzantine administration in both ecclesiastical
and secular matters, especially within Bulgaria, which had been conquered
by Basil II. Therefore, instead of defending the Byzantine territory from the
northern barbarians, the Bogomiles called on the Patzinaks to fight against
Byzantium. The Cumans (Polovtzi) joined the Patzinaks.
The struggle with the Patzinaks, in spite of some temporary successes, taxed
all the strength of Byzantium. At the end of the ninth decade Alexius Com-
nenus suffered a terrific defeat at Dristra (Durostolus, Silistria), on the lower
22 See p. 256.
Byzantium and the Crusades
Danube, and was nearly captured himself. Only the quarrel resulting from
the division of the spoil, which had broken out between the Patzinaks and
Cumans, prevented the former from taking full advantage of their victory.
After a short relief obtained from the Patzinaks by payment, Byzantium had
to live through the terrible time of 1090-1091. The Patzinaks came, after a
stubborn struggle, up to Constantinople itself. Anna Comnena related that,
on the day of the commemoration of the martyr Theodore Tyron, the inhabi-
tants of the capital, who usually went to visit in great numbers the church
of the martyr in a suburb beyond the city wall, could not do so; it was im-
possible to open the city gates, because the Patzinaks were standing under the
walls. 28
The situation of the Empire became still more critical when a Turkish
pirate, Tzachas, began to menace the capital from the south. He had spent
his youth in Constantinople at the court of Nicephorus Botaniates, had re-
ceived a high Byzantine title, and on the accession of Alexius Comnenus, had
fled to Asia Minor. Having taken possession by means of his fleet of Smyrna
and some other cities of the western coast of Asia Minor and some islands of
the Aegean, Tzachas boldly set himself the goal of dealing a blow to Con-
stantinople from the sea and thereby cutting off all means of supply from the
capital. To assure the effectiveness of his plan, he entered into negotiations
with the Patzinaks in the north and the Seljuqs of Asia Minor in the east.
Secure of success, Tzachas already called himself emperor (basileus), put on
the insignia of imperial rank, and dreamt of making Constantinople the
center of his state. Both the Patzinaks and Seljuqs were Turks who, thanks
to their military and political relations, came to realize their ethnographic
kinship. The Russian scholar V. Vasihevsky declared "in the person of
Tzachas there appeared a foe of Byzantium who combined with the enter-
prising boldness of a barbarian the refinement of a Byzantine education and
an excellent knowledge of all the political relations of eastern Europe of that
time; he planned to become the soul of the general Turkish movement and
would and could give a reasonable and definite goal and general plan to the
senseless wanderings and robberies of the Patzinaks." 24 It seemed that on the
ruins of the Eastern Empire a new Turkish state of the Seljuqs and Patzinaks
would now be founded. "The Byzantine Empire," as Vasilievsky continued,
"was drowning in the Turkish invasion." 25 Another Russian historian, Th.
Uspensky, wrote: "In the winter of 1090-91 the condition of Alexius Com-
nenus can be compared only with that of the last years of the Empire, when
23 Alexias, VIII, 3; cd. Reifferscheid, II, monograph on Tzachas, Akdes Nimet Kurat,
6^7. Qaka.
24 V. G. Vasilievsky, "Byzantium and the 25 Ibid., I, 77.
Patzinaks," Woifa *> 7 6 - There is a Turkish
Foreign Policy of the Co-mneni 385
the Ottoman Turks surrounded Constantinople on all sides and cut it off from
outward relations." 26
Realizing the whole horror of the condition, of the Empire, Alexius followed
the usual Byzantine diplomatic tactics of rousing one barbarian against the
others: he appealed to the Khans (princes) of the Cumans (Polovtzi), those
"allies in despair/' asking them to help him against the Patzinaks. The savage
and ferocious Cuman Khans, Tugorkhan and Boniak, very well known in the
Russian chronicles, 27 were invited to Constantinople, where they were re-
ceived in the most flattering way and sumptuously entertained. The Byzan-
tine Emperor humbly solicited the aid of the barbarians, who were very proud
to be on an equal footing with the Emperor. The Cuman Khans gave Alexius
their word and kept it. On the twenty-ninth of April, 1091, a bloody battle
took place; in all probability, the Russians as well as the Cumans took part in
it. The Patzinaks were crushed and mercilessly annihilated. Anna Comnena
noted: "One could see an extraordinary spectacle: the whole people, reckon-
ing not in ten thousands but surpassing any number, entirely perished on that
day with wives and children." This battle left its trace in a contemporary
Byzantine song, "The Scythians" (so Anna Comnena calls the Patzinaks),
"because of one day did not see May." 28 By their interference in favor of
Byzantium the Cumans did an enormous service to the Christian world.
"Their chiefs, Boniak and Tugorkhan, must be justly reckoned among the
saviors of the Byzantine Empire." 29
Alexius returned to the capital in triumph. Only a small part of the cap-
tured Patzinaks were left alive. This remnant of the terrific horde settled
in the Balkan peninsula, east of the Vardar river, and later on entered the
Byzantine army, in which they formed a special contingent. The Patzinaks
who had succeeded in escaping beyond the Balkans were so weakened that
for thirty years they could undertake nothing against Byzantium.
Tzachas, who had terrified Byzantium but had not succeeded in supporting
the Patzinaks with his fleet, lost a part of his conquests in the conflict with
the Greek maritime forces. Then the Emperor stirred up against him the
sultan of Nicaea, who invited Tzachas to a festival and killed him with his
own hand. Thereupon the sultan came to a peaceful agreement with Alexius.
Thus the critical situation of 1091 was successfully settled for the Empire,
and the following year, 1092, proceeded under quite different conditions.
26 The History of the Crusades, 8. one day before May. In her edition of the
27 Anna Comnena, Alexias, VIII, 4; ed. Alexiad Elizabeth Dawes translated this song:
Reifferscheid, II, 9: 6 ToyopraK, o Mavuut. "Just by one day the Scythians missed seeing
See thereupon Vasihevsky, "Byzantium and the month of May." Alexius, trans. Dawes,
the Patzinaks," Wor\s, I, 9%, n. 2 205.
28 Alexias, VIII, 5; ed. Reifterscheid, II, 29 Vasilievsky, "Byzantium and the Patzi-
15. The battle took place April 29, 1091, just naks," Wor\s, I, 107.
3 86 Byzantium and the Crusades
In the desperate days of 1091 Alexius had sought allies not only among
the Cuman barbarians, but, apparently, also among the western Latins. Anna
Comnena wrote that Alexius "was anxious to dispatch messages calling on
mercenaries from all sides." 30 That such messages were dispatched also to
the West is shown from another passage of the same authoress who stated
that, soon afterwards, Alexius "was expecting the mercenaries from Rome." 31
In connection with these events, historians usually discuss the problem of
a message of Alexius Comnenus to his old friend, Count Robert of Flanders,
who some years before had passed through Constantinople on his way back
from the Holy Land. In his letter the Emperor depicted the desperate situa-
tion "of the most Holy Empire of the Greek Christians which is oppressed
by the Patzinaks and Turks," told of the insulting and murdering of the
Christians, children, youths, women, and girls, as well as of the almost com-
plete occupation of the Empire's territory by enemies; ''there is left almost
nothing but Constantinople, which our enemies threaten to take away from
us in the very near future, unless speedy help from God and from the faithful
Latin Christians reach us"; the Emperor "is running before the Turks and
Patzinaks" from one city to another and prefers to deliver Constantinople
into the hands of the Latins rather than those of the pagans. In order to
stimulate the ardor of the Latins, the message gives a long list of relics of the
capital and reminds the Count of the uncounted wealth and treasure accumu-
lated there. "Therefore, hasten with all your people; strain all your forces,
lest such treasures fall into the hands of the Turks and Patzinaks. . . . En-
deavor, so long as you have time, that the Christian Empire and, which is
still more important, the Holy Sepulcre be not lost to you and that you may
have in heaven no doom, but reward. Amen!" 32
V. Vasilievsky, who referred this message to the year 1091, wrote; "In 1091,
from the shores of the Bosphorus, there broke upon western Europe a real wail
of despair, a real cry of a drowning man who already was uncertain whether
a friendly or unfriendly hand would be lent for his salvation. The Byzantine
Emperor did not hesitate now to reveal before the eyes of the foreigners the
whole depth of shame, dishonor, and humiliation, into which the Empire of
the Greek Christians had been precipitated." 33
This document, depicting in such vivid colors the critical situation of By-
zantium about 1091, has been the cause of many discussions among scholars.
It survives only in a Latin version. Opinions are divided: some, for example
the Russian scholars V. Vasilievsky and Th. Uspensky, considered the letter
Alexias, VIII, 3; ed. Reifferscheid, ir, 7. den Jahren 1088-1100, 130-36. Dolger, Cor-
^Ibid. t VIII, 5; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 12. pus der gnechtschen Ur\unden, II 3 39-40 (no.
32 P. E. Riant, Alexii 1 Comneni ad. Rober- 1152).
turn I Flandnae comitem epistola spuna, io~ 3S "Byzantium and the Patzinaks," Wor\s,
20. H. Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbrieje au$ I, go.
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 387
authentic; others, for example the French scholar Riant, regarded it as spuri-
ous. The more recent historians who have been interested in this problem
incline to recognize, with some limitations, the authenticity of the message,
i.e. they acknowledge the existence of an original text, which has not been
preserved of the message which was addressed by Alexius Comnenus to Robert
of Flanders. The French historian Chalandon admitted that the middle part
of the message was composed on the basis of the original letter; but the
Latin message was drawn up by somebody in the West to stimulate the
crusaders a short time before the First Crusade (in the form of an excita-
torium)?* The more recent publisher of the letter and investigator of it, the
German scholar, Hagenmeyer, agreed in substance, but with some restrictions,,
with the opinion of Vasilievsky concerning the authenticity of Alexius' mes-
sage. 35 In 1924 B. Leib wrote that this letter was but an amplification made
shortly after the Council of Clermont and was doubtless inspired by the au-
thentic message that the Emperor had sent Robert to remind him of the
promised reinforcements. 36 Finally, in 1928, Brehier wrote: "It is possible,
following Chalandon's hypothesis, that Robert, after his return to Flanders,
forgot his promise; then Alexius sent him an embassy and letter, but, of
course, entirely different from the text which has come down to us. As far as
this apocryphal document is concerned, it might have been composed, perhaps
with the aid of the authentic letter, at the moment of the siege of Antioch,
in 1098, to demand reinforcements in the West. Alexius' letter, then, has noth-
ing to do with the origins of the crusade." 37 In his history of the First Cru-
sade, H. Sybel considered the letter of Alexius to Robert of Flanders an official
documentary source with reference to the crusade. 38
Some time is devoted to the question of the message of Alexius Comnenus
to Robert of Flanders, because with it is partly connected the important prob-
lem whether the Emperor called upon the aid of the West or not. The state-
34 Chalandon, Alexis 1^ Comnene, appen- siecle, 122; a brief French version o the letter,
dix, 325-36; see esp. 331, 334, and 336. The 188-89.
history of the problem of the Letter of Alexis S7 L. Brehier, Lf&glise et I'Orient du moyen
to the Count of Flanders is also given. age; Les Croisades (5th ed, 1928), 58. N,
35 "Der Brief des Kaisers Alxios I Kom- lorga, Essai de synthese de I'histoire de I'hu-
nenos an den Graf en Robert I von Flandern," mamte, II, 276-77; lorga rejects any sigmfi-
Byzantintsche Zettschrtft, VI (1897), 26. Ha- cance of this letter. G. Buckler (Anna Com-
genmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbrieje, 38-40. See nena. A Study, 457, n. i) declared the letter
also H. Pirenne, "A propos la lettrc d* Alexis apocryphal, if not wholly at least in the greater
Comnene a Robert le Prison, comte de Flan- part. See also C. Erdmann, Die Entstehung
dre," Revue de V instruction pubhque en des Kreuzzugsgedan^ens, 365: it is of less
Belgique, L (1907), 217-27. G. Caro, "Die interest whether a genuine piece of writing
Berichterstattung au dem ersten Kreuzzuge," served as a foundation for the falsified text
Neue Jahrbucher fur das \lasstscne Aliertum, or not.
XXIX (1912), 50-62. S8 Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges ($rd
Rome t Kiev et Byzance a la fin du XP ed., 1881), 7-9,
388 Byzantium and the Crusades
ment of the contemporary Anna Comnena that Alexius was sending messages
to the West, supports the fact that he must have sent a message to Robert of
Flanders, and the probability that this message is the basis of the embellished
Latin text which exists today. It is very probable that the original message was
sent by Alexius in the critical year iopi. 39 It is also very probable that in
1188-89 an imperial message was sent to the Croatian King Zvonimir to urge
him to take part in the struggle of Alexius Comnenus "against the Pagans and
Infidels." 40
The success of Alexius with external enemies was followed by similar
success with internal enemies. Conspirators and pretenders, who wished to
profit by the difficult situation of the Byzantine Empire, were discovered and
punished.
Besides the peoples mentioned, the Serbs and Magyars (Hungarians) had
begun to assume importance under Alexius Comnenus before the First Cru-
sade. In the second half of the eleventh century Serbia became independent,
and her independence was sealed by the adoption by the Serbian prince of the
title of king (^ral). His was the first kingdom of Serbia with the capital at
Scodra (Skadar, Scutari). The Serbs had taken part in the army of Alexius
during his war with the Normans and abandoned the Emperor at the critical
moment. But after Dyrrachium had been reconquered by Byzantium from
the Normans, hostilities between Alexius and Serbia began, and under the
difficult circumstances of the Empire, their issue could not be very fortunate
for the Emperor. Shortly before the crusade, however, a peace was made
between the Serbs and the Empire.
Relations with Hungary (Ugria), which had previously taken an active
part in the Bulgaro-Byzantine war of the tenth century under Simeon, be-
came strained in the reign of Alexius Comnenus. At the end of the eleventh
century continental Hungary, under the kings of the dynasty of Arpad, be-
gan to expand south toward the sea, toward the coast of Dalmatia. This was
the cause of dissatisfaction both to Venice and to Byzantium. Thus the inter-
national policy of the Empire toward the time of the First Crusade had grown
considerably more extended and complicated, and raised new problems.
But almost at the end of the eleventh century Alexius Comnenus, who had
overcome the numerous dangers which threatened him and seemed to have
created peaceful conditions for the Empire, could gradually prepare for the
struggle with the eastern Seljuqs. With that struggle in view, the Emperor
undertook a number of offensive measures. Then he heard of the approach of
the first crusading troops to the borders of his empire. The First Crusade had
39 Dolger, Corpus der gnechischen Vr'kun- 40 See F. Sisic, Geschichte der Kroaten, I,
den, II, 39 (no. 1152) mentioned the letter 315-16.
under the year 1088.
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 389
begun; it changed Alexius' plans and led him and the Empire into new ways
which were later to prove fatal to Byzantium.
The First Crusade and Byzantium
The epoch of the crusades is one of the most important in the history of the
world, especially from the point of view of economic history and general
culture. For a long time the religious problem pushed into the background
the other sides of this complicated and manifold movement. The first country
to realize the full importance of the crusades was France, where in 1806 the
French Academy and then the National Institute offered a prize for the best
work which had for its purpose : "To examine the influence of the Crusades
upon the civil liberty of the peoples of Europe, their civilization, and the
progress of knowledge, commerce, and industry." Of course, at the beginning
of the nineteenth century it was premature to discuss thoroughly such a prob-
lem; it has not even yet been solved. But it is worth pointing out that the epoch
of the crusades ceased to be discussed exclusively from the narrower stand-
point of the religious movements of the Middle Ages. Two volumes were
crowned in 1808 by the French Academy: one book by a German, A. Heeren,
which was published at the same time in German and French under the title
An Essay on the Influence of the Crusades Upon Europe; the other book,
the work of the Frenchman M. Choiseul Daillecourt, Upon the Influence
of the Crusades on the State of the European Peoples. Though both these
studies are now out of date, they do not lack interest, especially the first.
Of course, the crusades are the most important epoch in the history of the
struggle of the two world religions, Christianity and Islam the struggle
which has been carried on from die seventh century. But in this process not
only religious idealistic motives were involved. Even in the First Crusade,
which reflected most plainly the ideals of the crusade movement to deliver
the Holy Land from the hands of the infidel, secular objects and earthly
interests were already evident. "There were two parties among the crusaders,
that of the religious-minded, and that of the politicians." 41 Citing these
words of the German scholar Kugler, the French historian, Chalandon,
added: "This statement of Kugler's is absolutely true." 42 But the more closely
scholars examine internal conditions of the life of western Europe in the
eleventh century, especially the economic development of the Italian cities
at that time, the more they are convinced that economic phenomena also
played a very significant part in the preparation and carrying out of the First
Crusade. With every new crusade the secular side was felt more and more
4i B Kugler, "Kaiser Alexius und Albert ^d' Alexis l er Comnenc, 161. Chalandon,
von Aachen," Foischungen zu> deutschen Ge- "Earlier Comnem," Cambridge Medieval His-
schichte, XXIII (1883), 486. tow, IV, 334-
390 Byzantium and the Crusades
strongly; finally, during the Fourth Crusade, this secular standpoint gained a
definite victory over the primitive idea of the movement, as the taking of
Constantinople and the foundation of the Latin Empire by the crusaders in
1204 demonstrated.
Byzantium played such an important role in that epoch that the study of
the Eastern Empire is necessary to a full and complete understanding of the
origin and development of the crusades. Moreover, the majority of those who
have studied the crusades have treated the problem from a too "occidental"
point of view, with the tendency to make of the Greek Empire "the scapegoat
charged with all the faults of the crusaders." 43
Since their first appearance in the stage of world history in the fourth
decade of the seventh century, the Arabs, with extraordinary rapidity, had
conquered on the territory of the Eastern Empire, Syria, Palestine, Mesopo-
tamia, the eastern regions of Asia Minor, Egypt, the northern seashore of
Africa, and then Spain, the major part of which had belonged to the Visi-
goths. In the second half of the seventh and at the beginning of the eighth
century, the Arabs had twice besieged Constantinople, which had been res-
cued, not without difficulty, by the energy and talent of the Emperors Con-
stantine IV and Leo III Isaurian. In 732 the Arabs who had invaded Gaul
from beyond the Pyrenees were stopped by Charles Martel near Poitiers, In
the ninth century they conquered Crete, and toward the beginning of the
tenth century Sicily and the major part of the southern Italian possessions of
the Eastern Empire passed over into their hands.
These Arabian conquests were of the greatest importance for the political
and economic situation of Europe. The astounding offensive of the Arabs,
as H. Pirenne said, "changed the face of the world. Its sudden thrust had
destroyed ancient Europe. It had put an end to the Mediterranean common-
wealth in which it had gathered its strength. . . . The Mediterranean had
been a Roman lake; now it became, for the most part, a Moslem lake." 44
This statement of the Belgian historian must be accepted with some reserva-
tions. Commercial relations between western Europe and the eastern countries
were restricted by the Muslims but were not suspended. Merchants and pil-
grims continued to travel back and forth, and exotic oriental products were
available in Europe, for example, in Gaul. 45
43 F. Chalandon, Histoire de la premiere ably never have existed and Charlemagne,
crolsade, preface, i. The German dissertation without Mahomet, would be unconceivable"
of A. Gruhn, Die Byzantmuche Politif^ zur (p. 86). Pirenne, Medieval Cities, 24, 26; in
Zeit der Kreuzzuge, is of no importance; French, 25, 28. See R. S. Lopez, "Mohammed
there is no reference to sources. and Charlemagne: A Revision," Speculum,
44 "Mahomet et Charlemagne," Revue beige XVIII (1943), 14-38.
de philologie et d'histoire, I (1922), 85. "With- 45 See L. Halphen, "La Conquete de la Medi-
out Islam the Prankish Empire would prob- terranee par les Europeans au XI e et au XII 6
Foreign Policy of the Gomneni 391
Primitive Islam had distinguished itself by tolerance. Some separate cases
of assaults on the churches and Christians occurred in the tenth century, but
they had no religious motive so that such unfortunate incidents were only
sporadic. In the conquered regions the Arabs had, for the most part, preserved
churches and Christian service. They had not prohibited the practice of Chris-
tian charity. In the epoch of Charlemagne, at the beginning of the ninth
century, there were inns and hospitals in Palestine for the pilgrims; new
churches and monasteries were being restored and built and for that pur-
pose Charlemagne sent copious "alms" to Palestine. Libraries were being
organized in the monasteries. Pilgrims visited the Holy Land unmolested.
These relations between the Prankish empire of Charlemagne and Pales-
tine, in connection with the exchange of some embassies between the
western monarch and the caliph Harun ar-Rashid, led to the conclusion sup-
ported by some scholars that a kind of Prankish protectorate had been es-
tablished in Palestine under Charlemagne as far as the Christian interests
in the Holy Land were concerned, the political power of the caliph in that
country remaining untouched. 46 On the other hand, another group of his-
torians, denying the importance of those relations, say that the "protectorate"
was never established and that "it is a myth quite analogous to the legend of
Charlemagne's crusade to the Holy Land." 47 The title of one of the re-
cent articles on this subject is "The Legend of Charlemagne's Protectorate
in the Holy Land." 48 The term "Prankish protectorate," like many other
terms, is conventional and rather vague; but a discussion of it is important
in order to show that already at the opening of the ninth century the Prankish
Empire had very important interests in Palestine, a fact which is of consider-
able significance for the further development of the international relations
preceding the crusades.
In the second half of the tenth century the brilliant victories of the Byzan-
tine troops under Nicephorus Phocas and John Tzimisces over the eastern
Arabs made Aleppo and Antioch in Syria vassal states of the Empire, and
after that the Byzantine army probably entered Palestine. 49 These military
siecles," Melanges d'histoire ofierts a H. tectorate in Palestine," American Historical
Pirenne, I, 175. J. Ebersolt, Orient et Occi- Review, XXXII (1927), 260. See also V. Bar-
dent, I, 56-57. N. lorga, in Revue htstonque thold, "Charlemagne and Harun ar-Rashid,"
du sud-est europeen, VI (1929), 77. Christians^ Vosto\, I (1912), 69-94.
46 See A. A. Vasihev, "Charlemagne and 4S A. Kleinclausz, "La Legende du protec-
Harun ar-Rashid," Vizanttysty Vremennik, torat de Charlemagne sur la Terre Sainte,"
XX (1913), 63-116. Brehier, Les Croisades Syria, VII (1926), 211-33. S. Runciman,
(5th ed., 1928), 22-34. Brehier, "Charlemagne "Charlemagne and Palestine/' English Histor-
et la Palestine," Revue histonque, CLVII ical Review, L (i$35) 606-19; the theory of
(1928) 277-91; Brehier gave the full bibliog- Charlemagne's protective rights in Palestine
raphy of the problem. must be treated as a myth (p. 619).
* T E. Joranson, "The Alleged Prankish Pro- 49 See pp. 308-10.
Byzantiiim and the Crusades
successes of Byzantium had a repercussion in Jerusalem, so that the French
historian Brehier judged it possible to speak of the Byzantine protectorate
over the Holy Land which put an end to the Prankish protectorate there. 50
When, in the second half of the tenth century (in 969), Palestine had
passed over to the Egyptian dynasty of the Fatimids, the new position of the
country seems not to have brought about, at least at the beginning, any sub-
stantial change in the life of the eastern Christians, and pilgrims continued
to come to Palestine in safety. But in the eleventh century circumstances
changed. The insane Fatimid caliph Hakim, the "Egyptian Nero," 51 began
a violent persecution of Christians and Jews all over his possessions. In 1009 he
caused the Temple of the Resurrection and Golgotha in Jerusalem to be de-
stroyed. In his rage for destroying churches he stopped only because he was
afraid that a similar fate would befall mosques in Christian regions. 52
When L. Brehier wrote of the Byzantine protectorate over the Holy Land,
he had in view a statement of an Arabian historian of the eleventh century,
Yahya of Antioch. The latter says that in 1012 a Bedouin chief who had re-
volted against the caliph Hakim took possession of Syria, forced the Christians
to restore the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, and made a bishop
the patriarch of Jerusalem; then the Bedouin "helped him to build up the
Church of the Resurrection and restore many places in it as much as he
could." 53 Interpreting this text the Russian scholar V. Rosen remarked that
the Bedouin acted "probably in order to win the good will of the Greek Em-
peror." 54 Brehier ascribed Rosen's hypothesis to Yahya J s text. Since this im-
portant statement of the Bedouin's motive does not belong to Yahya, one may
not affirm Brehier's theory of the Byzantine protectorate over Palestine as
positively as he does in his book. 55
But in any event, that was only the beginning of the restoration of the Holy
Land, After Hakim's death in 1021, a time of tolerance for the Christians
ensued. A peace was made between Byzantium and the Fatimids, and the
Byzantine emperors were able to take up the real restoration of the Temple of
the Resurrection. The restoration of the Temple was completed in the middle
of the eleventh century under Emperor Constantine Monomachus. The Chris-
tian quarter was surrounded by a strong wall. Pilgrims again could go to
the Holy Land, and among the other pilgrims mentioned in. the sources is
50 Brehier, "Charlemagne et la Palestine," tonus, 47; in Russian, 49. Yahia Ibn Said An-
Revue historique, CLVII (1928), 38-39. tiochensis, Annales, ed. L. Cheikho, 201.
51 G. Schlumberger, L'Epopee byzantine a 54 Basil Bulgaroctonus, 356.
la fn du dixieme siede, II, 442. 5S Brehier gave Yahya's statement from
52 M. Canard, "Les Expeditions des arabes Schlumberger, Utpopee byzantine, II, 448.
contre Constantinople dans 1'histoirc et dans Schlumberger using Yahya from Rosen gave
la legende," Journal Asiatique, CCVIII (1926), the correct account as far as Rosen's hypothesis
94. is concerned.
53 V. Rosen, The Emperor Basil Bttlgaroc-
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 393
a most celebrated man, Robert the Devil, Duke of Normandy, who died at
Nicaea in 1035, on his way back from Jerusalem. 56 Perhaps at the same time,
in the fourth decade of the eleventh century, the famous Varangian of that
epoch, Harald Haardraade, supported by a body of Scandinavians who arrived
with him from the north, came to Jerusalem and fought against the Muslims
in Syria and Asia Minor. 57 Vexations against the Christians soon recom-
menced. In 1056 the Holy Sepulchre was closed, and more than three hundred
Christians were exiled from Jerusalem. 58
The destroyed Temple of the Resurrection was evidently restored with
magnificence. A Russian pilgrim, the abbot (igumen) Daniel, who visited
Palestine in the first years of the twelfth century, soon after the foundation
of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1099, enumerated the columns of the Temple,
described its marble decorated floor and the six doors, and gave interesting
information on the mosaics. He also described many churches, relics, and
places of Palestine mentioned in the New Testament. 59 Daniel and an Anglo-
Saxon pilgrim, Saewulf, his contemporary, told how "the pagan Saracens"
(i.e. Arabs), hiding themselves in the mountains and caves, sometimes at-
tacked the traveling pilgrims and robbed them. "The Saracens, always laying
snares for the Christians, lie hidden in the hollow places of the mountains
and the caves of the rocks, watching day and night, and always on the
lookout for those whom they can attack." 60
The Arabs' tolerance toward the Christians also manifested itself in the
West. When, for instance, at the end of the eleventh century the Spaniards
conquered the city of Toledo from the Arabs, they were surprised to find
Christian churches in the city untouched and to learn that services had con-
tinued there undisturbed. Similarly, when at the end of the eleventh century
the Normans took possession of Sicily, they found there, in spite of more
than two hundred years of Arabian rule in the island, a very large number
of Christians who were freely professing their faith. Thus the first incident
of the eleventh century which struck the Christian west painfully was the
destruction of the Temple of the Resurrection and Golgotha in 1009. Another
56 See E Freeman, The History of the No?- Ion, 381-82. See Ebersolt, Orient et Occident,
man Conquest of England, I, 473; II, 187. 74.
Ebersolt, Onent et Occident, 79. Brehier, 59 "Life and Pilgrimage of Daniel, igumen
"Charlemagne and Palestine," Revue his- of the Russian Land," Pravoslavny Palestm-
torique, CLVII (1928), 45. sky Sbotni^, no. 3 (1887), 15-16; ed. B. de
57 See V G. Vasihevsky, "The Varangian- Khitrowo, I, 12 ff. See H. Vincent and N.
Russian and Varangian-English Company Abel, Jerusalem. Recherches de topographic,
(druzma) in Constantinople in the Eleventh d'aicheologie et d'histoue, II, 258
and Twelfth Centuries," WorJ(s, I, 265-66. 60 "Life and Pilgrimage of Daniel," ed. de
K. Gjerset, History of the Norwegian People, Khitrowo, I, 12 flf. Pilgrimage of Saewulf to
I, 278. Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 8.
58 Miracula S. Wuljramni, ed. D. T. Mabil-
Byzantium and the Crusades
event connected with the Holy Land took place in the second half of the
eleventh century.
The Seljuq Turks, after they had crushed the Byzantine troops at Manzikert,
in 1071, founded the Sultanate of Rum or Iconium in Asia Minor and pro-
ceeded to advance successfully in all directions. Their military successes had
repercussion at Jerusalem: in 1070, a Turkish general, Atzig, marched upon
Palestine and captured' Jerusalem. Shortly after the city revolted, so that
Atzig had to lay siege to it again. Jerusalem was retaken and terribly sacked.
Then the Turks conquered Antioch in Syria, established themselves at
Nicaea, Cyzicus, and Smyrna in Asia Minor, and occupied the islands Chios,
Lesbos, Samos, and Rhodes. The condition of European pilgrims in Jerusalem
and other places grew worse. Even if the persecution and insults of the
Christians that many scholars ascribe to the Turks are exaggerated, it is very
difficult to agree with the judgment of W. Ramsay on the mildness of the
Turks toward the Christians: "The Seljuk sultans governed their Christian
subjects in a most lenient and tolerant fashion, and even the prejudiced By-
zantine historians drop a few hints at the Christians in many cases preferring
the rule of the sultans to that of the emperors. . . . Christians under the
Seljuk rule were happier than the heart of the Byzantine Empire, and most
miserable of all were the Byzantine frontier lands exposed to continual raids.
As to religious persecution there is not a trace of it in the Seljuk period." 61
The destruction of the Temple of the Resurrection in 1009 and the conquest
of Jerusalem by the Turks in the eighth decade of the eleventh century were
facts that profoundly affected the religious-minded masses of western Europe
and evoked a powerful emotion of religious enthusiasm. Moreover, many
Europeans realized that if Byzantium fell under the pressure of the Turks
the whole of the Christian West would be exposed to terrible danger. "After
so many centuries of terror and devastations," said a French historian, "will
the Mediterranean world succumb again to the assault of the barbarians ?
Such is the anguished question that is raised toward 1075. Western Europe,
slowly reconstructed in the course of the eleventh century, will take charge
of replying to it: to the mass attacks of the Turks it prepares to reply by a
crusade." 62
But the most threatening danger from the ever-growing power of the Turks
61 The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, I, close of the eleventh century, cf., e.g., P. E.
16, 27. He is followed by J, W. Thompson, Riant, 'Inventaire critique des lettres his-
An Economic and Social History of the Mid- toriques de croisades," Archives de I' orient
die Ages, 391, where a wrong reference was latin, I (1881), 65.
given to W. Ramsay's article, "The War of 62 L. Halphen, LesBarbares' des grandes tn-
Moslem and Christian for the Possession of vasions aux conquetes turques du XI 6 siecle,
Asia Minor," Contemporary Review, XC 387. See also Erdmann, Die Entstehung des
(1906), 1-15, On the Turks in Palestine at the Kreuzzugsgedanfan, esp. 363-77.
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 395
was felt by the Byzantine emperors, who, after the defeat of Manzikert, seemed
to be unable to resist the Turks successfully with their own forces. Their eyes
were turned to the West, mainly to the Pope, who as the spiritual head of the
western European world could, through his influence, induce the western
European peoples to furnish Byzantium with adequate assistance. Sometimes,
as the message of Alexius Comnenus to Robert of Flanders shows, the em-
perors also appealed to individual rulers of the West. But Alexius had in mind
merely some auxiliary troops, not powerful and well-organized armies.
The popes replied very favorably to the appeals of the eastern emperors.
Besides the purely idealistic side of the question aid for Byzantium and
thereby for all the Christian world, as well as the liberation of the Holy Land
the popes had also in view, of course, the interests of the Catholic church;
in case of the success of the enterprise the popes could hope to increase their
influence still more and restore the eastern church to the bosom of the
Catholic church. They could not forget the rupture of 1054. The original idea
of the Byzantine Emperor to get some mercenary auxiliaries from the West
gradually developed, especially under the influence of papal appeals, into the
idea of a crusade, that is to say, into the idea of a mass movement of the western
European peoples, sometimes under the direction of their sovereigns and the
most eminent military leaders.
As late as the second half of the nineteenth century scholars believed that
the first idea of the crusades and the first call was expressed at the close of
the tenth century by the famous Gerbert, later Pope Sylvester II. Among his
letters is one "From the ruined Church of Jerusalem to the Church Universal" ;
in this letter the Church of Jerusalem appealed to the Church Universal,
asking the latter to come to her aid. Today the best authorities on Gerbert's
problem consider this letter an authentic work of Gerbert written before he
became pope; but they see in it no project of a crusade, merely an ordinary
message to the faithful asking them to send charity to support Christian in-
stitutions at Jerusalem. 63 At the close of the tenth century the position of the
Christians in Palestine was not yet such as to call for any crusading move-
ment.
Yet before the Comneni, under the pressure of the Seljuq and Patzmak
danger, the Emperor Michael VII Ducas had sent a message to Pope Gregory
VII begging him for help and promising the reunion of the churches. Also
the pope had written many letters, in which he exhorted his correspondents
to support the perishing Empire. In his letter to the Duke of Burgundy he
wrote: "We hope . . . that, after the conquest of the Normans, we shall cross
63 T Havet Lettres de Gerbert (983-97), ^30 and n. 137. See also H. Sybel, Geschtchte
22 and n. 3. N. Bubnov, The Collection of des ersten Kreuzzuges (2nd ed., 1881), 458-
Gerbert's Letters as a Historical Source, II, 59-
Byzantium and the Crusades
over to Constantinople to help the Christians, who, deeply depressed by fre-
quent attacks of the Saracens, anxiously beg that we lend them a helping
hand." 64 In another letter Gregory VII spoke "of the pitiful destiny of the
great Empire/' 65 In a letter to the German king, Henry IV, the pope wrote
that "most of transmarine Christianity is being destroyed by the pagans in
crushing defeat and, like cattle, they are every day being murdered,^and the
Christian race is being exterminated"; they humbly beseech help in order
"that the Christian religion may not entirely perish in our day, which Heaven
forbid" ; following the papal exhortations the Italians and the other Europeans
(ultramontani) are equipping an army, of more than 50,000, and planning,
if possible, to establish the pope at the head of the expedition; they are willing
to rise against the enemies of God and to reach the Holy Sepulchre. "I am
induced to do so," the pope continued, "because the Constantinopolitan
Church, which disagrees with us concerning the Holy Ghost, desires to come
to an agreement with the Apostolic throne." 66
In these letters the question was not only of a crusade for the liberation of
the Holy Land. Gregory VII was planning an expedition to Constantinople
in order to save Byzantium, the chief defender of Christianity in the East.
The aid procured by the pope was to be followed by the reunion of the
churches and by the return of the "schismatic" eastern church to the bosom
of the "true" Catholic church. One is given the impression that in these letters
it is a question rather of the protection of Constantinople than of the con-
quest of the Holy Land, Moreover, all these letters were written before the
eighth decade of the eleventh century, when Jerusalem passed into the hands
of the Turks and when the position of the Palestinian Christians grew worse.
Thus, in Gregory's plans the Holy War against Islam seems to have taken
second place; it seems that, in arming the western Christians for the struggle
with the Muslim east, the pope had in view the "schismatic" east. The latter
seemed to Gregory more horrid than Islam. In one of his briefs concerning
the regions occupied by the Spanish Moors, the pope openly declared that
he would prefer to leave these regions in the hands of the infidel, that is to
say, of the Muhammedans, rather than see them fall into the hands of the
disobedient sons of the church. 67 If the messages of Gregory VII embody the
first plan of the crusades, they show the connection between this plan and
the separation of the churches in 1054.
Like Michael VII, Alexius Comnenus, especially under the pressure of the
horrors of 1091, made appeals to the West, asking that mercenary auxiliaries
6 * J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CXLVIII 3 67 Ibid., 290. See C. Kohler> in Revue hts-
torique, LXXXIII (1903), 156-57. Erdmann,
, 329. Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedaril(ens,
,$6 149-
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 397
be sent. But the interference of the Cumans and the violent death of the
Turkish pirate Tzachas ended the danger, so that from the point of view
of Alexius, western auxiliaries seemed useless to the Empire in the following
year, 1092. Meanwhile, the movement, created by Gregory VII in the West,
spread widely, thanks especially to the confident and active Pope Urban II.
The modest auxiliaries asked for by Alexius Comnenus were forgotten. Now
it was a question of a mass movement.
The first critical investigation of a German historian, H. Sybel, published
for the first time in 1841, advanced these principal causes for the crusades,
from the western point of view: 68 (i) The first is the general religious spirit
of the Middle Ages which increased in the eleventh century owing to the
Cluniac movement. In a society depressed by the consciousness of its sins there
is a tendency to asceticism, to seclusion, to spiritual deeds, and to pilgrimage;
the theology and philosophy of the time were also deeply affected by the
same influence. This spirit was the first general cause which roused the masses
of the population to the deed of freeing the Holy Sepulchre. (2) The second
is the growth of the papacy in the eleventh century, especially under Gregory
VII. Crusades seemed very desirable to the popes, because they opened wide
horizons for the further development of the papal power and authority; if the
popes succeeded in the enterprise whose initiators and spiritual guides they
were to become, they would spread their authority over many new countries
and restore "schismatic" Byzantium to the bosom of the Catholic church.
Thus, their idealistic desire to aid the eastern Christians and to deliver the
Holy Land intermingled with their wish to increase their power and authority.
(3) Worldly and secular motives also played a considerable part with the dif-
ferent social classes. Sharing in the general religious emotion, the feudal no-
bility, barons, and knights, were filled with the spirit of adventure and with
the love of war. An expedition against the East was an unequaled opportunity
to satisfy their ambition and bellicosity, and to increase their means. As far
as the lower classes were concerned, the peasants, ground down by the burden
of feudal despotism and swept away by rudimentary religious feeling, saw in
the crusade at least a temporary relief from feudal oppression, a postpone-
ment of payment of their debts, a certain security for their families and their
modest chattels, and release from sins. Later, other phenomena were empha-
sized by scholars in connection with the origin of the First Crusade.
In the eleventh century western pilgrimages to the Holy Land were particu-
larly numerous. Sometimes pilgrimages were made by very large groups;
along with the individual pilgrimages there were real expeditions to the
Holy Land. In 1026-27 seven hundred pilgrims, at whose head was a French
abbot and among whom were many Norman knights, visited Palestine. In
68 Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (and ed., 1881).
Byzantium and the Crusades
the same year William, count of Angouleme, followed by several abbots of
the west of France and by a great number of nobles, made a voyage to Jeru-
salem. In 1033 ^ere was such a congestion of pilgrims at the Holy Sepulchre
as had never been seen before. But the most famous pilgrimage took place in
1064-65, when more than seven thousand persons (usually said to be more
than twelve thousand) under the leadership of Gunther, the bishop of Bam-
berg, in Germany, undertook a pilgrimage. They passed through Constanti-
nople and Asia Minor, and, after many adventures and losses, reached Jeru-
salem. The sources on this great pilgrimage state that "out of seven thousand,
not two thousand returned," and these came back "measurably attenuated in
material resources." Gunther himself, the leader of the pilgrimage, died pre-
maturely, "one of the many lives lost in this adventure." 69
In connection with these precrusading peaceful pilgrimages the question
has been raised whether the eleventh century might be regarded, as it has
rather often been, as a period of transition from peaceful pilgrimages to the
military expeditions of the crusading epoch. Many scholars have tried to
prove that, because of new conditions established in Palestine after the Turkish
conquest, troops of pilgrims began to travel armed to be able to defend them-
selves against possible attacks. Now, owing to E. Joranson, the fact has been
established that the greatest pilgrimage of the eleventh century was made up-
exclusively of unarmed men; and in this connection inevitably rises the ques-
tion "whether any pilgrimage in the pre-crusading period really was an expe-
dition under arms." 70 Of course, some of the pilgriming knights were armed,
but "though some of them wore coats of mail they were still peaceful pil-
grims," and they were not crusaders. 71 They played a considerable part in the
history of the origin of the crusades, however, by informing western Euro-
peans of the situation in the Holy Land and awakening and maintaining
interest in it. 72 All these pilgrimaging expeditions took place before the Turks
conquered Palestine. One of the results of the more recent investigation of
the pilgrimages of the eleventh century before the Turkish conquest is the
discovery that pilgrims in Palestine were sometimes maltreated by the Arabs
many years before the Seljuq occupation of that land, 73 so that the statement
69 See E. Joranson, "The Great German Pil- son, "The Great German Pilgrimage," Cru-
grimage of 1064-65," The Crusades and sades and Other Essays, 4, n. to p, 3; 40, n.
Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. 141. In The Legacy of the Middle Ages, ed.
Munro, 39. C. Crump and E. Jacob, 63, there is the follow-
lfad., 40. ing misleading statement: "the age of pil-
71 O. Dobiache-Rojdestvensky, The Epoch grimage deepened the interest and the Cru-
of the Crusades; the West in the Crusading sades followed."
Movement, 16. T3 Joranson, "The Great German Pilgrim-
72 See on the pilgrimages of the nth cen- age/' Crusades and Other Essays, 42.
tury Brehier, Les Croisades, 42-50. Cf. Joran-
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 399
that "as long as the Arabs held Jerusalem, the Christian pilgrims from Europe
could pass unmolested" 74 must now be considered too positive.
There is no information on pilgrimages from Byzantium to the Holy Land
in the eleventh century. A Byzantine monk, Epiphane, the author of the first
Greek itinerary to the Holy Land, described Palestine in the precrusading
period, but the period of his life cannot be fixed definitely, and scholars vari-
ously place it between the end of the eighth century and the eleventh. 75
Before the First Crusade Europe had actually experienced three veritable
crusades: the wars in Spain against the Moors, the Norman conquest of
Apulia and Sicily, and the Norman conquest of England in 1066, Moreover, a
political and economic movement occurred in Italy in the eleventh century,
centered in Venice. The pacification of the Adriatic coast laid a solid founda-
tion for the maritime power of Venice, and the famous charter of 1082 granted
to Venice by Alexius Comnenus opened to the Republic of St. Mark the
Byzantine markets. "On that day began the world commerce of Venice/' 76
At that time Venice, like some other south Italian cities which still remained
under the power of Byzantium, did not hesitate to traffic with Muhammedan
ports. At the same time Genoa and Pisa, which in the tenth century and at
the beginning of the eleventh had been raided several times by the African
Muhammedan pirates, undertook in 1015-16 an expedition against Sardinia,
which belonged to the Muhammedans. They succeeded in conquering Sar-
dinia and Corsica. The ships of these two cities thronged the ports of the
opposite African coast, and in 1087, encouraged by the pope, they successfully
attacked Mehdia on the north African coast. All these expeditions against the
infidels were due not only to religious enthusiasm or to the spirit of adventure,
but also to economic reasons.
Another factor in the history of western Europe which is associated with
the origin of the crusades is the increase in population in some countries, which
began at about iioo. It is definitely known that the population increased in
Flanders and France. One aspect of the mass movement at the end of the
eleventh century was the medieval colonial expansion from some western
European countries, especially France. The eleventh century in France was
a time of frequent famines and drought and of violent epidemics and severe
winters. These hard conditions of living made the population think of far
distant lands full of abundance and prosperity. Taking all these factors into
consideration one may conclude that, towards the end of the eleventh century,
74 H. Locwc, "The Seljuqs," Cambridge byzantinischen Litteratur, 420. Vincent and
Medieval History, IV, 316. Abel, Jerusalem, II, xxxvii.
75 See, e.g., K. Krumbacher, GeschicJite der 76 Charles Diehl, Une repuUlque patri-
cienne: Venue, 33.
400 Byzantium and the Crusades
Europe was mentally and economically ready for a crusading enterprise on a
large scale. ^
The general situation before the First Crusade was entirely different trom
the situation before the Second, These fifty-one years, 1096-1147, were one
of the most important epochs in history. In the course of these years the eco-
nomic, religious, and whole cultural aspect of Europe changed radically; a
new world was opened to western Europe. The subsequent crusades did not
add very much to the achievements of this period; they only continued the
processes developed in these fifty-one years. And it is strange to recall that
an Italian historian names the first crusades "sterile insanities" (sterili in-
sanie] , 77
The First Crusade presents the first organized offensive of the Christian
world against the infidels, and this offensive was not limited to central
Europe, Italy, and Byzantium. It began in the southwestern corner of Europe,
in Spain, and ended in the boundless steppes of Russia.
As to Spain, Pope Urban II, in his letter of 1089 to the Spanish counts,
bishops, vice comitcs and other nobles and powerful men, authorized them
to stay in their own land instead of going to Jerusalem and to tax their energy
for the restoration of Christian churches destroyed by the Moors. 78 This was
the right flank of the crusading movement against the infidels.
In the northeast, Russia desperately defended itself against the barbarian
hordes of the Polovtzi (Cumans), who appeared in the southern steppes
about the middle of the eleventh century, laid waste the country, and de-
stroyed trade by occupying all the routes leading east and south from Russia.
The Russian historian, Kluchevsky, wrote: "This struggle between the Rus-
sians and Polovtzi a struggle lasting for well-nigh two centuries was not
without its place in European history at large; for while the West was en-
gaged in crusades against the forces of Asia and the Orient, and a similar
movement was in progress in the Iberian peninsula against the Moors, Rus
[Russia] was holding the left flank of Europe. Yet this historical service cost
her dear, since not only did it dislodge her from her old settlements on the
Dnieper, but it caused the whole trend of her life to become altered." 79 In this
77 F. Cerone, "La politica onentale di Al- son, about the authenticity of this bull. See
fonso d'Aragona," Archivio storico per k Erdmann, Entstehung des Kreuzzugsge-
promncie Napolitane, XXVII (1902), 425. danfans, 295 and n. 38.
78 Bulk Urbam II, July i, 1089, Romae, in 79 V. O. Kluchevsky, A History of Russia,
]. D. Mansi, Sacrorum concthorum nova et trans. C. J. Hogarth, I, 192; (2nd ed. in Rus-
amplissima collects, XX, 701. Migne, Pa- sian, 1906), I, 344-45- See Le ib, Rome, Kiev,
trologia Latina, CLI, 302-3. P. Jaffe, Regesta et Byzance, 276 n. i, 277. Though Russian
Pontificum Romanorum, I, 663 (no, 5401). chroniclers say nothing about the Crusade,
See Riant, "Inventaire critique," Archives de the crusading movement ought to have been
I' orient latin, I (1881), 68-69; Riant was some- known in Russia in the eleventh century. N.
what doubtful, but without any plausible rea- lorga, Choses d f Orient et de Roumanie, 39-
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 401
way Russia participated in the general western European crusading move-
ment; defending herself, she at the same time defended Europe against the
barbarous infidels. "Had the Russians thought of taking the cross," said Leib,
"they should have been told that their first duty was to serve Christianity by
defending their own land, as the Popes wrote to the Spaniards." 80
The Scandinavian kingdoms also participated in the First Crusade, but
they joined the main army in smaller bands. In 1097 a Danish noble, Svein,
led a band of crusaders to Palestine. In the north nothing was heard of any
great religious enthusiasm, and, as far as is known, most of the Scandinavian
crusaders were actuated less by Christian zeal than by love of war and ad-
venture, and the prospect of gain and renown. 81
There were two Christian countries in the Caucasus, Armenia and Georgia;
but after the defeat of the Byzantine army at Manzikert in 1071 Armenia had
come under the power of the Turks, so that there could be no question of the
participation of the Caucasian Armenians in the First Crusade. As to Georgia,
the Seljuqs had taken possession of that land in the eleventh century, and only
after the taking of Jerusalem by the crusaders in 1099 did the king of Georgia,
David the Restorer, drive out the Turks. This occurred in about noo, or, as
a Georgian chronicle asserted, when "a Prankish army had set forth on a
march and, with divine assistance, taken Jerusalem and Antioch, Georgia
restored itself, and David became powerful." 82
When in 1095, in connection with west European complications and pro-
jected reforms, the victorious Pope Urban II summoned a council to meet
at Piacenza, an embassy from Alexius Comnenus was present to make an
appeal for aid. This fact has been denied by some scholars; but the more
recent investigators of this problem have come to the conclusion that an
appeal for aid was really made by Alexius at Piacenza. 83 Of course, this was
40, rejected any relation of Russia to the cru- Kiev, et Byzance, 180. Brehier, "Charle-
sades. D. A. Rasovsky, "Polovtzi, Military magne and Palestine," Revue histonque,
History of Polovtzi," Annales de I'lnstitut CLVII (1928), 61-62. Dolger, Corpus der
Kondafyv, XI (1940), 98. gnechischen Urtynden, II, 43 ( no - "70;
80 Rome, Kiev, et Byzance, 276, n. i. good bibliography. Chalandon, La premiere
81 Gjerset, Norwegian People, I, 313-14. See croisade, I, 156, thought that Alexius' ambas-
P. E. Riant, Expeditions et pelennages des sadors came to Piacenza to resume the nego-
Scandinaves en Terre Sainte, 127-71. tiations concerning the reunion of the
a 2 M. Brosset, Histoire de la Georgie, I, 352- churches; see also pp. 17-18. R. Grousset, His-
53. See also A. Dirr, "Georgie," Encyclopedic toire des Croisades et du royaume franc de
de rislam, II, 139-40. W. E. D. Allen, A His- Jerusalem, I, 5- In the middle of the nine-
tory of the Georgian People, 95-97. teenth century F. Palgrave imagined the fan-
83 See D. C. Munro, "Did the Emperor tastic theory that the Greek legates at Pia-
Alexius I Ask for Aid at the Council of Pia- cenza were really disguised agents of Bohe-
cenza, 1095?" American Historical Review, mond of Tarent: The History of Normandy
XXVII (1922), 731-33 J. Gay, Les Papes du and of England, IV, 509-10. See Yewdale,
XI e siecle et la cfaettente, 366. Leib, Rome, Bohemond 1, 34, n. I.
402 Byzantium and the Crusades
not "the final impulse," which caused the First Crusade, as Sybel asserted. 84
As before, if Alexius appealed for aid at Piacenza, he did not dream of crusad-
ing armies; he wanted no crusade, but mercenaries against the Turks, who
during the last three years had become a great menace in their successful
advance in Asia Minor. About the year 1095, Qilij Arslan had been elected
sultan in Nicaea. "He sent for the wives and children of the men then staying
in Nicaea, and bade them live there, and made this city the dwelling-place,
as one might say, of the Sultans." 85 In other words Qilij Arslan made Nicaea
his capital. In connection with those Turkish successes Alexius might have
appealed for aid at Piacenza; but his intention was not a crusade to the Holy
Land, but assistance against the Turks. His request was favorably received
at Piacenza. But unfortunately there is little information about this episode.
A recent historian remarked, "From the council of Piacenza to the arrival
of the crusaders in the Byzantine empire, the relations between the East and
the West are veiled in tantalizing obscurity." 86
In November 1095, at Clermont (in Auvergne, middle France) the famous
council was held. At this meeting so many people had assembled that not
enough room was found in town for the visitors, and the multitude was
quartered in the open air. After the close of the council, at which some most
important current matters, strictly ecclesiastical, were discussed, Urban II
delivered a very effective oration, the original text of which has been lost.
Some witnesses of the council who wrote down the oration later from memory,
give texts which differ very much from one another. 87 Fervently relating the
persecutions of the Christians in the Holy Land, the pope urged the multitude
to take arms for the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre and of the eastern Chris-
tians. With cries of "Deus lo volt" ("God wills it" or "It is the will of God")
the throngs rushed to the pope. At his proposal, a red cross worn on the right
shoulder was adopted as the emblem of the future crusaders (hence the name
"crusaders"). They were promised remission of sins, relief from debts, and
protection for their property during their absence. There was no compul-
sion; but there must be no turning back, and the renegade was to be ex-
communicated and regarded as an outlaw. From France enthusiasm spread
all over Italy, Germany, and England. A vast movement to the east was form-
ing, and the real scale and importance of it could not be anticipated or realized
at the Council of Clermont.
Therefore, the movement aroused at the Council of Clermont, which in
the ensuing year shaped itself into the form of a crusade, was the personal
8 * Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges, 182. Crusade," Crusades and Other Essays, 48-49.
85 Anna Comnena, Alexias, VI, 12; ed. Reif- 8T See D. C. Munro, "Speech of Pope Urban
ferscheid, I, 220; ed. Dawes, 163. II at Clermont, 1095," American Historical
86 F. Duncalf, "The Pope's Plan for the First Review, XI (1906), 231-42.
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 403
work of Urban II; and for carrying this enterprise into effect he found favor-
able conditions in the life of the second half of the eleventh century, not only
from a religious, but also from a political and economic point of view.
While the danger that loomed in Asia Minor became steadily more immi-
nent, the First Crusade had practically been decided upon at Clermont. The
news of this decision came to Alexius as a sudden and disconcerting surprise;
disconcerting because he neither expected nor desired assistance in the form
of a crusade. When Alexius called mercenaries from the west, he called them
for the protection of Constantinople, that is to say, his own state; and the
idea of the liberation of the Holy Land, which had not belonged to the Em-
pire for more than four centuries, had for him a secondary significance.
For Byzantium, the problem of a crusade did not exist in the eleventh cen-
tury. Neither on the part of the masses nor of the Emperor himself did there
exist religious enthusiasm, nor were there any preachers of a crusade. For
Byzantium the political problem of saving the Empire from its eastern and
northern enemies had nothing to do with the far-off expedition to the Holy
Land. The Eastern Empire had witnessed "crusades" of her own. There had
been the brilliant and victorious expeditions of Heraclius against Persia in the
seventh century, when the Holy Land and the Holy Cross were restored
to the Empire. Then there had been the victorious campaigns under Niceph-
orus Phocas, John Tzimisces, and Basil II against the Arabs in Syria when
the Emperors definitely planned to regain possession of Jerusalem. This plan
had not been realized, and Byzantium, under the menacing pressure of the
overwhelming Turkish successes in Asia Minor in the eleventh century, had
given up all hope of recovering the Holy Land. For Byzantium the Palestine
problem at that time was too abstract; it was not connected with the vital
interests of the Empire. In 1090-91 the Empire was on the verge of ruin, and
when Alexius asked for western auxiliary troops, and was 1 answered by the
coming of crusaders, his motive was to save the Empire. In Alexius' Muses,
written in iambic meter and supposed to be a sort of political will to his son
and heir, John, there are these interesting lines about the First Crusade:
Do you not remember what has happened to me? Do you fail to think of and
take into account the movement of the West to this country, the result of which is
to be that all-powerful time will disgrace and dishonor the high sublimity of New
Rome, and the dignity of the throne! Therefore, my son, it is necessary to take
thought for accumulating enough to fill the open mouths of the barbarians, who
breathe out hatred upon us, in case there rises up the force of a numerous army hurl-
ing lightnings angrily against us, at the same time many of our enemies encircling
our city rebell. 88
88 P Maas, "Die Musen des Kaisers Alexios passage has not yet been used in connection
I," Byzantimsche Zeitschnjt, XXII (1913), with the history of the First Crusade.
357-58, lines 328-29. If I am not mistaken, this
404 Byzantium and the Crusades
With this fragment from Alexius' Muses one may compare the following
passage from Anna Comnena's Alexiad, also on the First Crusade:
And such an upheaval of both men and women took place then as had never oc-
curred within human memory; the simpler-minded were urged on by the real
desire of worshipping at our Lord's Sepulchre, and visiting the sacred places, but
the more astute, especially men like Bohemond and those of like mind, had an-
other secret reason, namely, the hope that while on their travels they might by
some means be able to seize the capital itself, finding a pretext for this. 89
These two statements on the part of the Emperor himself and his learned
daughter give an excellent picture of the real attitude of Byzantium towards
the crusaders and the crusade itself. In Alexius' mind, the crusaders were on
an equal footing with the barbarians menacing the Empire, the Turks and
Patzinaks. Anna Comnena made only a passing mention of the "simpler-
minded 5 ' among the crusaders who really desired to visit the Holy Land, The
idea of a crusade was absolutely alien to the spirit of Byzantium at the end
of the eleventh century. Only one desire was overwhelmingly prevalent in
the leading Byzantine circlesto gain relief from the pressing Turkish danger
from the east and north. Therefore the First Crusade was an exclusively oc-
cidental enterprise, politically slightly connected with Byzantium. True, the
Eastern Empire gave the crusaders some troops, but these Byzantine troops
did not go beyond Asia Minor. In the conquest of Syria and Palestine By-
zantium took no part. 90
In the spring of 1096, owing to the preaching of Peter of Amiens, who
is often called Peter the Hermit and to whom a historical legend, now re-
jected, ascribed the arousing of the crusading movement, there gathered in
France a multitude mostly of poor people, small knights, and homeless va-
grants, almost without arms, who went through Germany, Hungary, and
Bulgaria towards Constantinople. These undisciplined bands under Peter of
Amiens and another preacher, Walter the Penniless, hardly realized through
what countries they were passing, and unaccustomed to obedience and order,
went on their way pillaging and destroying the country. Alexius Comnenus
learned with dissatisfaction of the approach of the crusaders, and this dissatis-
faction became alarm when he was informed of the pillage and destruction
effected by the crusaders on their march. Nearing Constantinople the cru-
saders, as usual, indulged m pillaging in the neighborhood of the capital.
Alexius Comnenus hastened to transport them across the Bosphorus into
89 Anna Comnena, Alexias, X, 5; ed. Reif- dans le mond cretien," Revue ajncaine,
ferscheid, II, 76; ed. Dawes, 250 Dawes trans- LXXIX (1936), 605-23. Canard also empha-
lated the last words of this passage: "looking sized that the idea of a crusade as a holy war
upon this as a kind of corollary." did not exist in Byzantium in the eleventh
90 See an interesting study by M. Canard, century.
"La Guerre sainte dans le monde islamique et
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 405
Asia Minor, where, near Nicaea, they were almost all easily killed by the
Turks. Peter the Hermit had returned to Constantinople before the catas-
trophe.
The episode of Peter the Hermit and his bands was a sort of introduction
to the First Crusade. The unfavorable impression left by these bands in By-
zantium reacted against the later crusaders. As for the Turks, having so easily
done away with Peter's bands, they were sure they would be victorious also
over other crusading troops.
In the summer of 1096 in western Europe, began the crusading movement
of counts, dukes, and princes; in other words, a real army assembled. No
one of the west European sovereigns took part in the Crusade. Henry IV of
Germany was entirely occupied by his struggle with the popes for investiture.
Philip I of France was under excommunication for his divorce from his
legitimate wife and for his marriage with another woman. The English king,
William II Rufus, was engaged in a continuous struggle with his vassals, the
church, and the people, and held his power insecurely.
Among the leaders of the crusading army the following should be men-
tioned. The first is Godfrey of Bouillon, the duke of Lower Lorraine, to whom
a later legend imparted such a pious character that it is difficult to discern
his real features ; in reality, he was a brave and capable soldier and a religious-
minded man, who wished in this expedition to repair losses sustained in his
European possessions. His two brothers took part in the expedition, and one
of them, Baldwin, was to become later the king of Jerusalem. Under God-
frey the Army of Lorraine set forth on the march. Robert, the duke of Nor-
mandy, son of William the Conqueror and brother of the king of England,
William Rufus, took part in the crusade, but not for religious motives or
chivalrous inducements; he was discontented with his small power in his
duchy, which, just before his starting, he had pledged to his brother for a
certain sum of money. Hugh, count of Vermandois, brother of the king
of France, full of ambition, aspired to glory and new possessions and was
greatly esteemed by the crusaders. The rude and irascible Robert II, count
of Flanders, son of Robert of Flanders, also took part in the expedition and
for his crusading exploits was called the Jerusalemite. 91 At the head of the
three armies stood the following men: Hugh of Vermandois, at the head
of the middle French army; Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders,
at the head of the two north French armies. At the head of the south French
army stood Raymond, count of Toulouse, a very well-known fighter against
the Arabs in Spain, a talented leader and a deeply religious man. Finally,
Bohemond of Tarentum, son of Robert Guiscard, and his nephew Tancred,
91 On Robert II of Flanders see an article o the First Crusade/' Crusades and Other Es-
M. M. Knappen, "Robert II of Flanders in says, 79-100.
406 Byzantitim and the Crusades
who commanded the southern Italian Norman army, had no interest in reli-
gion; not improbably they hoped at the first opportunity to even their accounts
with Byzantium, whose stubborn enemies they were, and apparently Bohe-
mond had already fixed his ambitions upon the possession of Antioch. 92 Thus,
the Normans carried into the crusade a purely worldly and political element
which was in contradiction with the original idea of the crusading movement.
Bohemond's army was perhaps the best prepared of all the crusading bands
for such an expedition, "for there were many men in it who had come into
contact both with the Saracens in Sicily and the Greeks in southern Italy." 93
All the crusading armies pursued their own aims; there was neither general
plan nor commander in chief. The chief role in the First Crusade, then, be-
longed to the French.
One part of the crusading armies went to Constantinople by land, another
part by sea. Like Peter the Hermit's bands, the crusaders ravaged the places
they traversed and performed all kinds of violence. A witness of this passage
of the crusaders, Theophylact, the archbishop of Bulgaria, explained in one
of his letters the cause of his long silence and thereby accuses the crusaders;
he wrote: "My lips are compressed; first of all, the passage of the Franks,
or their invasion, or I do not know how one may call it, has so affected and
seized all of us, that we do not even feel ourselves. We have drunk enough
the bitter cup of invasion. ... As we have been accustomed to Prankish
insults, we bear misfortunes more easily than before, because time is a good
teacher of all" 94
It is obvious that Alexius Comnenus had good reason to distrust such defend-
ers of the crusading idea. The Emperor waited with irritation and alarm for
the crusading armies which were approaching his capital on all sides and
which in their number were quite unlike the modest bodies of auxiliaries for
which he had appealed to the West. Some historians have accused Alexius
and the Greeks of perfidy and disloyalty to the crusaders. Such charges must
be rejected, particularly after attention is turned to the pillaging, plundering,
and incendiarism of the crusaders on their march. Also one must now reject
the severe and antihistoric characterization of Gibbon, who wrote: "In a style
less grave than that of history I should compare the Emperor Alexius to the
jackal, who is said to follow the steps, and to devour the leavings, of the
82 See Yewdale, Bohemond I, 44; during his had in view when he took the cross, beyond
march through the Balkan peninsula towards the very general end of personal aggrandize-
Constantinople Bohemond endeavored to merit, we shall probably never know" (p. 44) .
comply as much as possible with the wishes ^Ibid., 38.
of Alexius and his representatives (p. 40). s *Epistola, XI; ed. Migne, Patrologia
But Yewdale remarked: "What Bohemond's Graeca f CXXVI, 324-25,
exact plans were and precisely what end he
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 407
lion." 95 Of course, Alexius was not a man humbly to pick up what the cru-
saders left to him. Alexius Cornnenus showed himself a statesman, who
understood what a threat to the existence of his Empire the crusaders pre-
sented; therefore, his first idea was, as soon as possible, to transport the restless
and dangerous comers to Asia Minor, where they were to carry on the task
for which they had come to the East, that is to say, fighting the infidels. An
atmosphere of mutual distrust and malevolence was created between the
Latins and the Greeks; in their persons stood face to face not only schismatics,
but also political antagonists, who later on were to settle their controversy
by the power of the sword. An educated Greek patriot and learned literary
man of the nineteenth century (Bikelas) wrote:
To the Western eye the Crusades present themselves in all the noble proportions
of a great movement based upon motives purely religious, when Europe . . . ap-
pears the self-sacrificing champion of Christianity and of civilization, in the vigour
of her strong youth and the glory of her intellectual morning. It is natural that a
certain honourable pride should still inspire any family of the Latin aristocracy
which can trace its pedigree to those who fought under the banner of the Cross.
But when the Easterners beheld swarms of illiterate barbarians looting and plun-
dering the provinces of the Christian and Roman Empire, and the very men who
called themselves the champions of the Faith murdering the Priests of Christ on
the ground that they were schismatics, it was equally natural that they should for-
get that such a movement had originally been inspired by a religious aim and
possessed a distinctively Christian character. . . . The appearance (of the crusad-
ers) upon the stage of history is the first act in the final tragedy of the Em-
pire. 96
The special historian of Alexius Comnenus, Chalandon, was inclined to
apply, at least in part, to all the crusaders the characteristics attributed by
Gibbon to the followers of Peter the Hermit: "The robbers, who followed
Peter the Hermit, were wild beasts, without reason and humanity." 97
Thus in 1096 began the epoch of the Crusades, so abounding and rich in
its various consequences, and of such great importance both for Byzantium
and the East and for western Europe.
The first account of the impression made on the peoples in the East by the
beginning of the crusading movement came from an Arabian historian of the
twelfth century, Ibn al-Qalanisi: "In this year (A.H. 490=19 December
1096 to 8 December 1097) there began to arrive a succession of reports that
the armies of the Franks had appeared from the direction of the sea of Con-
stantinople with forces not to be reckoned for multitude. As these reports
** Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, derne, 29. Bikelas, Seven Essays on Christian
ed Bury, chap. 59. Greece, trans. John, Marquess of Bute, 35-36.
9* D. Bikelas, La Grece byzantine et mo- 97 La premiere croisade, 159-60.
Byzantium and the Crusades
followed one upon the other, and spread from mouth to mouth far and wide,
the people grew anxious and disturbed in mind." 98
After the crusaders had gradually assembled at Constantinople, Alexius
Comnenus, considering their troops as mercenary auxiliaries, expressed a wish
to be acknowledged the head of the expedition and insisted that an oath o
vassalage be sworn to him by the crusaders. A formal treaty was concluded
between Alexius and the crusading chiefs, who promised to restore to Alexius,
as their suzerain, any towns they should take which had formerly made part
of the Byzantine Empire. Unfortunately the terms of the oath of vassalage
which the crusading leaders took have not been preserved in their original
form. In all likelihood, Alexius' demands varied concerning different regions.
He sought for direct acquisitions in the regions of Asia Minor, which, shortly
before, had been lost by the Empire after the defeat of Manzikert (1071), and
which' were the necessary conditions of the power and secure existence of the
Byzantine Empire and Greek nationality. To Syria and Palestine, which had
been lost by Byzantium long ago, the Emperor did not lay claim, but con-
fined himself to claiming to be their suzerain."
After crossing to Asia Minor, the crusaders opened hostilities. After a siege,
in June 1097, Nicaea surrendered to them, and by virtue of the treaty made
with Alexius was delivered to him. The next victory of the crusaders at
Dorylaeum (Eski-Shehr), forced the Turks to evacuate the western part of
Asia Minor and to draw back into the interior of the country; after that
Byzantium had an excellent opportunity to restore its power on the coast of
Asia Minor. Despite natural difficulties, climatic conditions, and the resist-
ance of the Muslims, the crusaders advanced far to the east and southeast. In
upper Mesopotamia, Baldwin took the city of Edessa and he soon estab-
lished there his princedom which became the first Latin dominion in the East
and a bulwark of the Christians against the Turkish attacks from Asia. But
the example of Baldwin had its dangerous reverse side: the other barons
might follow his example and found princedoms of their own, which, of
course, would inflict great harm on the very aim of the crusade. Later on,
this danger was fulfilled.
After a long and exhausting siege, the chief city of Syria, Antioch, a very
strong fortress, surrendered to the crusaders; the way to Jerusalem was open.
But because of Antioch a violent strife had broken out between the chiefs end-
ing when Bohemond of Tarentum, following Baldwin's example, became the
ruling prince of Antioch. 100 Neither at Edessa nor at Antioch did the crusaders
98 The Damascus Chronicle of the Cmsad- talia Christiana Penodica, I (ip35)> 2 44~45
ers t trans. H. A. R. Gibb, 41. 10 On the details see Yewdale, Bohemond
99 C. Yewdale, Bohemond I, 44. G. de Jer- I, 52-84. Chalandon, La premiere cioisade,
phanion, "Les Inscriptions cappadociennes et 177-249.
1'histoire de 1'Empire Grec de Nicee," Onen-
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 409
take the vassal oath to Alexius Comnenus. As the greater part of the troops
remained with the chiefs who had founded their princedoms, only a very few,
20,000 to 25,000 in number, reached Jerusalem, and they arrived exhausted and
thoroughly weakened.
At that time, Jerusalem had passed from the Seljuqs into the hands of a
powerful caliph of Egypt, of the Fatimid dynasty. After a violent siege, on the
I5th of July 1099, tne crusaders took the Holy City by storm and effected
therein terrible slaughter. They thoroughly pillaged it, and carried away many
treasures. The famous Mosque of Omar was robbed. The conquered country,
occupying a narrow seashore strip in the region of Syria and Palestine, re-
ceived the name of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Godfrey of Bouillon, who con-
sented to accept the title of the "Defender of the Holy Sepulchre," was elected
king of Jerusalem. The new state was organized on the western feudal pattern.
The First Crusade, which had ended in the formation of the Kingdom of
Jerusalem and of several independent Latin possessions in the east, created a
complicated political situation. Byzantium, satisfied with the weakening of
the Turks in Asia Minor and with the restoring of a considerable part of that
country to the power of the Empire, was alarmed, however, by the appearance
of the crusading princedoms at Antioch, Edessa, and Tripoli, which became
new political foes of Byzantium. The Empire's distrust gradually increased to
such an extent that, in the twelfth century, Byzantium, opening hostilities
against its former allies, the crusaders, did not hesitate to make alliance with
its former enemies, the Turks. In their turn, the crusaders settled in their
new dominions and fearing the strengthening of the Empire in Asia Minor,
also concluded alliances with the Turks against Byzantium. Here, in the
twelfth century, it was already obvious that the very idea of crusading enter-
prise had completely degenerated.
One cannot speak of a complete rupture between Alexius Comnenus and the
crusaders. Of course, the Emperor was deeply discontented with the forma-
tion of the Latin possessions in the East, which had taken no vassal oath to
him; nevertheless he did not refuse adequate help to the crusaders, for ex-
ample, in transporting them from the east to the west, on their way home. A
rupture took place between the Emperor and Bohemond of Tarentum, who,
from the point of view of Byzantine interests, had become excessively power-
ful at Antioch, at the expense of his neighbors, the weak Turkish emirs, and
of Byzantine territory. Therefore Antioch became the chief center of Alexius'
aims. Raymond of Toulouse, the head of the Provencal troops, dissatisfied
with his position in the East 'and also regarding Bohemond as his chief rival,
drew closer to Alexius. At that time, for Alexius the fate of Jerusalem had
secondary interest.
A struggle between the Emperor and Bohemond was unavoidable. An
Byzantium and the Crusades
opportunity apparently presented itself to Alexius when Bohemond was sud-
denly captured by the Turks, that is by the Emir Malik Ghazi of the Danish-
mand dynasty, who at the very end of the eleventh century had conquered
Cappadocia and established there an independent possession, which, however,
was to be destroyed by the Seljuqs in the second half of the twelfth century.
Alexius negotiated with the emir for the delivery of Bohemond in return
for a certain amount of money, but the negotiations came to nothing. Bohe-
mond was redeemed by others and returned to Antioch. On the basis of the
treaty made with the crusaders, Alexius demanded that Bohemond deliver
Antioch to him; but Bohemond decisively refused to do so.
At that time, in 1104, the Muslims won a great victory over Bohemond
and the other Latin princes at Harran, south of Edessa. This defeat of the
crusaders nearly destroyed the Christian dominions in Syria and reinvigorated
the hopes both of Alexius and of the Muslims; both gladly anticipated Bohe-
mond's unavoidable weakening. The battle of Harran destroyed his plans to
establish in the East a powerful Norman state; he realized that he did not
have strength enough to go to war again against the Muslims and the Em-
peror, his sworn enemy. His further stay in the East seemed to him aimless.
Bohemond therefore determined to strike a blow to the Empire in Con-
stantinople itself, with new troops collected in Europe. Having entrusted his
nephew Tancred with the regency of Antioch, he embarked and sailed to
Apulia. Anna Comnena gave an interesting though fictitious account, written
not without humor, of how, in order to be safer from the Greek ships,
Bohemond simulated death, was put into a coffin, and thus accomplished his
crossing to Italy. 101
Bohemond's return to Italy was greeted with the greatest enthusiasm. Peo-
ple flocked to gaze at him, said a medieval author, "as if they were going to
see Christ himself." 102 Having gathered troops, Bohemond opened hostilities
against Byzantium. The pope favored Bohemond's plans. His expedition
against Alexius, explained an American scholar, "ceased to be a mere political
movement; it had now received the approval of the Church and assumed
the dignity of a Crusade." 103
Bohemond's troops were probably drawn, for the most part, from France
101 Anna Comnena, Alexias, XI, 12; ed. 102 "Historia belli sacri (Tudebodus imi-
ReirTerscheid, II, 140-41. See Chalandon, La tatus et continuatus)/ 1 ed. D. Bouquet, Re-
premtere crouade, I, 236, n. 6 Yewdale, Bo- cueil des htstonens des croisades, III, 228. See
hemond I, 102, n. 99. This legend became Yewdale, Bohemond 1, 106.
widespread in the west, where in the Middle 10S Yewdale, ibid., 108, 115. This view is
Ages, accounts of the pretended death and supported by A. C. Krey, "A Neglected Pas-
pretended burials o some prominent persons sage in the Gesta and Its Bearing on the Lit-
are given in several sources. See Vasihevsky, erature of the First Crusade," Crusades and
Worlds, I, 234-35. Other Essays, 76-77.
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 411
and Italy, but there were also> in all likelihood, English, Germans, and
Spaniards in his army. His plan was to carry out his father Robert Guiscard's
campaign of 1081, to take possession of Dyrrachium (Durazzo) and then
through Thessalonica to march upon Constantinople. But the campaign
turned out to be unsuccessful for Bohemond. He suffered defeat at Dyrrach-
ium and was forced to make peace with Alexius on humiliating terms. The
chief terms of the agreement between Bohernond and Alexius Comnenus
were: Bohemond promised to consider himself the vassal of Alexius and his
son, John; to take up arms against the Emperor's enemies; and to hand over
to Alexius all conquered lands formerly belonging to the Empire. Those
lands which had never been a part of the Empire and which Bohemond
gained in any manner, were to be held by him as if they had been granted
to him by the Emperor. He promised to make war on his nephew Tancred
if Tancred did not consent to submit to the Emperor. The patriarch of
Antioch was to be appointed by the Emperor from persons belonging to the
Greek Eastern church, so that there would be no Latin patriarch of Antioch.
The cities and districts granted to Bohemond are enumerated in the agree-
ment. The document closes with Bohemond's solemn oath on the cross, the
crown of thorns, the nails, and the lance of Christ, that he will fulfill the
provisions of the agreement. 104
With the collapse of Bohemond's vast and aggressive plans, his stormy
career perhaps fatal to the crusading movement, came to its end. For the
three last years of his life he was of no particular importance. He died in
Apulia in mi.
Bohemond's death made Alexius' position more difficult, because Tancred
of Antioch refused to carry into effect his uncle's agreement, and would not
hand Antioch over to the Emperor. Alexius had to begin all over again. The
plan of an expedition against Antioch was discussed but was never brought
into effect. It was evident that at that time the Empire was unable to under-
take the difficult project. Tancred's death, which occurred soon after Bohe-
mond's death, made the plan of marching on Antioch no easier. The last
years of Alexius' reign were particularly occupied by nearly annual wars with
the Turks in Asia Minor, which often were successful for the Empire.
In the external life of the Empire, Alexius succeeded in a very hard task.
Very often Alexius' activity has been considered and estimated from the point
of view of his relations to the crusaders, but not from the point of view of
the total of his external policy. Such a point of view is undoubtedly wrong.
104 Bohemond's document composed of an I, 127-29; Dolger, Corpus der giiechischen
original draft is found in Anna Comnena, Urfyinden, II, 51-52 (no. 1243) ; good bibliog-
Alexias, XIII, 12; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 209-21; raphy.
ed. Dawes, 348-57. See Yewdale, Bohemond
412 "Byzantium and the Crusades
In one of his letters, Alexius' contemporary, the archbishop of Bulgaria,
Theophylact, using the words of a Psalm (79:13) compares the Bulgarian
province with a grape-vine, whose fruit "is plucked by all who pass by." 105
This comparison, as says the French historian Chalandon, may be applied
to the Eastern Empire of the time of Alexius. 106 All his neighbors tried to
take advantage of the weakness of the Empire and to seize some of its regions.
The Normans, Patzinaks, Seljuqs, and the crusaders threatened Byzantium.
Alexius, who had received the Empire in a state of weakness, succeeded in
making adequate resistance to them all and thereby delayed for a considerable
time the process of the dissolution of Byzantium. Under Alexius, the frontiers
of the state, both in Europe and in Asia, were extended. The Empire's enemies
were forced to recede everywhere, so that, on the territorial side, his rule
signifies an incontestable progress. The charges particularly often brought
against Alexius concerning his relations to the crusaders must be given up, if
we consider Alexius as a sovereign defending the interests of his state, to
which the westerners, full of desire to pillage and spoil, were a serious danger.
Thus, in his external policy Alexius successfully overcame all difficulties, im-
proved the international position of the Empire, extended its limits, and for
a time stopped the progress of the numerous enemies who on all sides pressed
against the Empire.
External relations under John II
Increasing contacts unth the western states. The son and successor of
Alexius, John II, was of the emperor-soldier type and spent the major part
of his reign among the troops in military enterprises. His external policy
chiefly continued that of his father, who had already pointed out all the
important problems, European as well as Asiatic, in which the Empire of that
time was particularly interested. John set as his goal progress along the political
paths entered upon by his father. The father had hindered his enemies from
invading Byzantium; the son determined "to take away from his neighbors
the lost Greek provinces and dreamt of restoring the Byzantine Empire to its
former brilliancy." 107
Though he clearly understood the European situation, John was little in-
terested in European affairs. He had from time to time to wage war in Europe,
but there his wars were of a strictly defensive character. Only towards the end
of his reign, owing to the threatening rise of the Normans, which expressed
itself in the union of south Italy with Sicily and the formation of the Kingdom
of Sicily, did European affairs become very important to Byzantium. John's
105 Eptrtola, XVI; ed. Migne, Patrologta 107 F. Chalandon, Les Comnene. Studes
Graeca, CXXVI, 529 sur I'Empire byzanUn au Xl e au XH e stedes,
106 La premiere croisade, I, 321-22. II, 10.
Foreign Policy of the Comneni 413
main interest in his external policy was concentrated in Asia Minor. With
regard to John's relations to the West, there were a steadily increasing number
of western European states with which Byzantium had to come into contact.
The Norman danger had caused Alexius to draw closer to Venice, who
had pledged herself to support Byzantium with her fleet; thereupon Alexius
had granted the Republic of St. Mark quite exceptional trade privileges. The
Venetians, who had gone in throngs to the Empire, especially to Constanti-
nople, grew rich and soon formed in the capital a Venetian colony so numerous
and wealthy that it began to be of predominant importance. Gradually, for-
getting that they were neither in their native country nor in a conquered land,
the Venetians began to behave so arrogantly and impertinently towards not
only the lower classes of the Byzantine population, but also the high officials
and nobility, that they aroused strong discontent in the Empire. The small
commercial privileges granted Pisa by Alexius were not important enough
to alarm Venice.
In Alexius' lifetime, relations between the Byzantines and Venetians were
not yet particularly strained. But with his death, circumstances changed.
Learning that Norman Apulia was having internal troubles and therefore con-
sidering the Norman danger to Byzantium already over, John decided to
abrogate the commercial treaty that his father had made with Venice. At
once, the irritated Venetians sent their fleet to raid the Byzantine islands of
the Adriatic and Aegean. Judging an adequate resistance to the Venetian
vessels impossible, John was forced, still in the first years of his reign, to
enter into negotiations with Venice which led to the complete restoration
of the commercial treaty of 1082. Under John, the other Italian maritime cities,
like Pisa and 
