Produced by Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
THE DESTRUCTION
OF
THE GREEK EMPIRE
The Destruction of the Greek
Empire and the Story of the
Capture of Constantinople by
the Turks
BY
EDWIN PEARS, LL.B.
Knight of the Greek Order of the Saviour and Commander of
the Bulgarian Order of Merit
Author of ‘The Fall of Constantinople: being the
Story of the Fourth Crusade’
_WITH MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS_
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK AND BOMBAY
1903
All rights reserved
PREFACE
My object in writing this book is to give an account of the capture
of Constantinople and the destruction of the Greek empire. In order
to make the story intelligible and to explain its significance I
have given a summary of the history of the empire between the Latin
conquest in 1204 and the capture of the city in 1453, and have traced
the progress during the same period of the race which succeeded in
destroying the empire and in replacing the Greeks as the possessors of
New Rome.
It may be objected that the task which I have set before me has already
been accomplished by Gibbon, and that, as his chapter on the last siege
of the city is carefully compiled and written with a brilliancy of
style which he has nowhere surpassed, there is no need for any further
study of the subject. My answer is twofold: first, that an important
mass of new material is now at the disposal of any one who wishes to
retell the story, and second, that Gibbon told it with a bias which
makes it desirable that it should be retold.
The historian of the ‘Decline and Fall’ had less than half the material
before him which is now available, and the story of the siege deserves
telling with more accuracy and completeness than either the authorities
available to him or the scope of his monumental work permitted. It is
true that Professor J. B. Bury, the latest editor of Gibbon, has, by
the aid of scholarly notes and of careful research, enabled the reader
to become possessed of many of the details regarding the siege which
have recently become known, but he would be the first to admit that
there is ample room for a fuller history of the siege than that given
in the ‘Decline and Fall’ even with the aid of his valuable notes.[1]
Gibbon himself regretted the poverty of his materials and especially
that he had not been able to obtain any Turkish accounts of the
siege.[2] The only eye-witnesses whose narratives were before him were
Phrantzes, Archbishop Leonard, and Cardinal Isidore. If we add to their
narratives the accounts given by Ducas and Chalcondylas together with
what Gibbon himself calls ‘short hints of Cantemir and Leunclavius,’ we
have substantially all the sources of information which were available
when the ‘Decline and Fall’ was written.
The new sources of information regarding the siege brought to light
since Gibbon’s day enable us to gain a much more complete view of that
event and of the character of its principal actors than was possible
at the time when he wrote. Several Continental writers have taken
advantage of some at least of the new stores of information to rewrite
its story,[3] but I may be allowed to claim the good fortune of being
the first Englishman who has even attempted to write a narrative of
that event with the whole or even with any considerable portion of the
new material before him.
Before, however, proceeding to indicate what the new sources of
information are, I must say something regarding the second reason I
have assigned why those interested in the account of an event which
marks the end of an epoch of great traditions and of a civilisation on
ancient rather than on modern lines should not remain satisfied with
Gibbon’s account of it. Though he claimed to examine the authorities
before him with philosophical impartiality, the writers known to him
belonged to the Roman Church, and he was influenced unconsciously by
their representations. These writers wrote under the influence of the
most bitter theological controversies. They are imbued with a spirit
of rancour towards those Greeks (that is, towards the great majority
of the population) who had not accepted the Union with the Church of
Rome which had been decreed at Florence. Their testimony throughout
their narratives is for the most part that of violent partisans. But
even if Gibbon, when dealing with the disputes between the great
historical Churches, had been in possession of statements of the
Greek case, his contempt for both Churches was too great to allow him
to do justice to the questions which divided them, questions which
nevertheless, as they prevented the united action of Europe to resist
the Turkish invasion, were among the most important of the time. His
habit of thought as an eighteenth century theist did not allow him to
attach sufficient weight to the theological aspect of the struggle
between the East and the West. Everything that smelt of the cloister
was hateful. The theological questions themselves were not worth
discussion. The disputants were in his view narrow-minded, ignorant,
and superstitious. The refinements of the definitions of the Double
Procession were useless, trivial, or ridiculous. Religious zeal or
enthusiasm was a thing to be condemned--was the mark of fanaticism and
always mischievous. In this attitude of mind Gibbon was neither better
nor worse than the majority of his philosophical contemporaries. He
differed from them in being able to bequeath to future generations a
work of monumental learning, in which his and their reading of the
progress of Christianity in the Eastern empire was destined to have
a long and deservedly great reputation. His research and eloquence,
his keen sarcasm, his judicial manner, and the powerful influence of
the ‘Decline and Fall’ were employed to discredit Christianity rather
than to try to discover amid the fierce wranglings of theologians over
insoluble problems what was their signification for the history of the
time of which he was treating and in the development of the human mind.
He began with a period in which the emperor is worshipped as Divinity
and traced the establishment of Christianity as a national faith among
Pagan subjects until in a diversified form it became accepted by all;
but he did this without affording us any help to see how the human mind
could accept the first position or what were the movements of thought
which led to the evolution of the questions which agitated men’s minds
in the later period.
The century in which he and his contemporaries lived was for them
one of hostility to Christianity rather than of investigation, the
period of Voltaire, who could only see in Byzantine history ‘a
worthless repertory of declamation and miracles, disgraceful to
the human mind’ rather than of the Continental and English writers
of the modern historical school. Happily, in the twentieth century
those who look upon Christianity with an independence as complete
as that of Gibbon recognise that insight can only be obtained by
sympathetic investigation, that for the right understanding of history
it is essential to put oneself in the place of men who have attached
importance to a religious controversy, to consider their environment
and examine their conduct and motives from their point of view, if we
would comprehend either the causes which have led such controversy
to be regarded as important or the conduct of the controversialists
themselves. The absence in Gibbon of any sympathetic attempt to
understand the controversies which play so large a part in his great
drama of human history renders him as unsatisfactory a guide in regard
to them as a writer of English history during the period of Charles
the First would be who should merely treat with contempt the half
religious, half political questions which divided Englishmen. While the
objection I have suggested to Gibbon’s attitude would apply generally
to his treatment of religious questions, I have only to deal with it in
reference to the period of which I am treating. When writing of this
period Gibbon did not realise that the religious question was nearly
always a political one, and that union with Rome meant subjection
to Rome. But unless it be realised how completely the citizens of
Constantinople and the other great cities of the empire were engrossed
with semi-religious and semi-political questions, no true conception
of the life of the empire can be formed; for these questions were of
interest not merely to Churchmen but to all.
Among the documents brought to light during the last fifty or sixty
years which have contributed to our better knowledge of the siege the
most important are the ‘Diary’ of Nicolo Barbaro and the ‘Life of
Mahomet’ by Critobulus.
Barbaro belonged to a noble Venetian family. He was present in
Constantinople throughout the siege, kept a journal[4] of what he saw
and heard, and, though full of prejudices against Genoese, Greeks, and
Turks, contrives to tell his story in a manner which carries conviction
of its truthfulness. His narrative conveys the impression of an
independent observer who had no object in writing except to relate what
he knew about the siege. While probably written from day to day, the
diary bears internal evidence of having been revised after he had left
the city. Its language is old-fashioned colloquial Venetian and has
often puzzled Italians whom I have called in to my aid.
The original manuscript of the diary was preserved in Venice by members
of the Barbaro family until 1829. After various adventures it came in
1837 into the possession of the Imperial and Royal Marciana Library in
Venice. In 1854 it was entrusted to Enrico Cornet, and was published by
him for the first time in 1856.
Critobulus, the author of the ‘Life of Mahomet the Second,’ was a man
of a different type. Nothing is known of him beyond what is contained
in his Life of Mahomet.[5] He describes himself as ‘Critobulus the
Islander.’ After the capture of Constantinople, when the archons of
Imbros, Lemnos, and Thasos feared that the Turkish admiral would
shortly approach to annex these islands, messengers were sent to
the admiral and succeeded, by offering voluntary submission and by
paying him a large bribe, in avoiding the general pillage which
usually followed a Turkish conquest. Shortly afterwards, Critobulus
took service under the sultan and was made archon of Imbros. In this
capacity he received the submission of Lemnos and other places. He
continued to hold this office for at least four years. Book III. of his
history contains (_inter alia_) an account of what he himself did as
the servant of Mahomet. Probably he went to reside in Constantinople
in 1460. His history covers the first seventeen years of Mahomet’s
reign. It is dedicated to the sultan and is followed by an apology to
his fellow Greeks for having written it. While open to the charge of
not allowing himself an altogether free hand in revealing the faults
and cruelties of his master, Critobulus claims that he has taken great
pains to know the truth of what he relates. As he wrote a few years
after the siege and at leisure, his narrative does not show the signs
of haste which mark many of the shorter narratives of that event:
such, for example, as those of Leonard, of the Podestà of Pera, of
Cardinal Isidore in the ‘Lamentatio,’ and of others. As he continued to
belong to the Orthodox Church and to the Greek as opposed to the Roman
party in that Church, his history is free from the denunciations of his
fellow Christians for having refused the union agreed to at Florence.
The writer’s characteristics as a Greek, but also as a servant of the
sultan, show themselves in his work. He expresses sympathy with his
own people, extols their courage, and laments their misfortunes. But
in places his biography of the sultan reads like the report of an able
and courageous official. His training and experience in the work of
government, his service under Mahomet, and perhaps something in the
nature of the man, make his narrative sober and methodical and impress
the reader with the idea that the author felt a sense of responsibility
for the truthfulness of what he was writing. While the narratives of
Phrantzes, Chalcondylas, and Ducas recount some of the incidents of the
siege more fully than that of Critobulus, the latter gives more details
on others and supplies valuable information which none of them have
given. His Life of Mahomet is by far the most valuable of the recently
discovered documents, and, as will be seen, I have made use of it as
the nucleus of my narrative of the siege.
The manuscript of Critobulus was discovered by the late Dr. Dethier
less than forty years ago in the Seraglio Library at Constantinople. It
was transcribed by him and also by Herr Karl Müller and was published
by the latter in 1883 with valuable notes.[6]
Two other works of importance unknown to Gibbon were due respectively
to Tetaldi and Pusculus. Each of these authors took part in the defence
of the city. Tetaldi, who was a Florentine soldier, tells us of his
escape from the slaughter immediately following the capture, and of his
being picked up out of the water by a Venetian ship.[7]
Pusculus was a citizen of Brescia. Though his account of the siege is
given in Latin verse, it contains many details of value of what he
himself saw which are not to be found elsewhere. His poem was never
altogether lost sight of, but until its publication by Ellisen,[8] in
1857, with a useful introduction, its historical value had not been
recognised. The MS. from which Ellisen made his copy is dated 1470.
The late Dr. Dethier, who devoted much time and intelligent study
to the topography and archæology of Constantinople, compiled four
volumes of documents relating to the siege, many of which were
previously unknown. Two of them were printed about 1870, but they can
hardly be said to have been published, and are only to be procured
with difficulty. The remaining two contain, besides Critobulus,
the ‘Threnos,’ Hypsilantes, an Italian and a Latin version of the
‘Lamentatio’ by Cardinal Isidore, an Italian version of Leonard’s
report to the Pope, and other documents of interest to which I refer in
my pages. These volumes were printed by the Buda-Pest Academy but never
published. I am indebted, however, to that learned body for a copy.
I append a list of documents (other than the four principal which I
have described) relating to the siege now available to the historical
student which were unknown to Gibbon:
1. Zorzo (or Zorsi) Dolphin (or Zorsi Dolfin), ‘Assedio e
presa di Constantinopoli nell’ anno 1453.’ This is mainly a
translation from Leonard, but the author claims to have added
what he heard from other eye-witnesses of the siege. It was
published by G. M. Thomas in the ‘Sitzungsberichte’ of the
Bavarian Academy in 1868. Another version is given by Dethier
in his collection of documents relating to the siege, a
collection which I refer to simply as Dethier’s ‘Siege.’
2. ‘Rapporto del Superiore dei Franciscani presente all’
assedio e alla presa di Constantinopoli.’ This report was made
immediately after the siege and has long been published, but
apparently was not known to Gibbon. Dethier also published it
in his ‘Siege.’
3. ‘Epistola Ang. Johannis Zacchariae,’ Podestà of Pera,
written within a month of the capture of the city, was first
published in 1827. The version revised by Edward Hopf and Dr.
Dethier is the one used by me.
4. Montaldo’s ‘De Constantinopolitano excidio’ is reproduced
in Dethier’s ‘Siege,’ and contains useful hints by an
eye-witness.
5. Christoforo Riccherio, ‘La Presa de Constantinopoli,’ first
published in Sansovino’s ‘Dell’ Historia Universale,’ was
republished with notes in Dethier’s ‘Siege,’ and is a valuable
and brightly written narrative.
6. Θρῆνος τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, was first published by
Ellisen in ‘Analekten,’ Leipzig, 1857. If the author was in
Constantinople during the siege, he has not given a single
item of information which is of value to the historian. His
long wail is curious and interesting, but otherwise useless.
7. The Θρῆνος of Hierax the Grand Logothetes, or ‘History of
the Turkish Empire,’ though only written near the end of
the sixteenth century, has valuable topographical hints. It
was translated by H. E. Aristarchi Bey, the present Grand
Logothetes, from a MS. existing in the Monastery of the Holy
Sepulchre at the Phanar, and edited by Dethier.
8. ‘Libro d’ Andrea Cambini Florentino della Origine de’
Turchi et Imperio delli Ottomanni.’ I am not aware whether
this has been published at a later date than the copy in my
possession, which was printed in Florence in 1529. It was
then published by the son of the writer, and Book II., which
treats of the siege, suggests that the author has gained his
information from spectators of the siege. It contains many
useful statements.
9. ‘A Slavic Account of the Siege,’ published by Streznevski,
is judged by Monsieur Mijatovich, on account of its peculiar
idioms, to have been written by a Serbian or Bulgarian. He
speaks of it as the ‘Slavonic Chronicle.’ A translation and
a slightly different version was published by Dethier as the
‘Muscovite Chronicle.’ Though the narrative has been largely
added to by subsequent hands, there is reason to believe that
it was written by an eye-witness of the siege.
10. Another Slavic version is conveniently spoken of as the
‘Memoirs of the Polish Janissary.’ Its author, after serving
with the Turks and, according to his own statement, being
present at the siege, withdrew to Poland. The original MS. was
first published in 1828.
The Turkish authors available who speak of the siege are:
11. Sad-ud-din, ‘The Capture of Constantinople from the
Tajut-Tevarikh (1590),’ translated into English by E. J. W.
Gibb (Glasgow, 1879). This work professes to be based on the
accounts of earlier Turkish historians.
12. ‘Tarich Muntechebati Evliya Chelibi,’ a translation of
which is given in the elder Mordtmann’s ‘Eroberung.’
13. Ahmed Muktar Pasha’s ‘Conquest of Constantinople and the
Establishment of the Ottomans in Europe,’ brought out only in
1902, on the anniversary of the present sultan’s accession.
14. An Armenian ‘Mélodie Élégiaque,’ written by a monk named
Philip, who was present at the siege. This was printed in
Lebeau’s ‘Histoire du Bas-Empire.’ Dethier published the
original version in Armenian.
I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. Mordtmann’s studies of
the archæology and topography of Constantinople,[9] and to Professor A.
van Millingen’s ‘Byzantine Constantinople’[10] a work which is the most
careful study of the history of those parts of the walls and other
portions of the city treated of which has yet been published. I must
also tender him sincere thanks for many suggestions made in the course
of friendly intercourse and in the discussion of matters of mutual
archæological interest, and for permission to reproduce his map of
Constantinople. All future writers on the topography and archaeology of
Constantinople will be under obligations to Dr. Mordtmann and Professor
van Millingen, who have worthily continued the work of Gyllius and Du
Cange.
A few words must be added as to the title of this book. Why, it may
be asked, should it be the ‘Destruction of the Greek Empire’? Why not
follow the example of the late Mr. Freeman, and of his distinguished
successor, Professor J. B. Bury, and speak of the ‘Later Roman Empire’?
My plea is one of confession and avoidance.
I admit that when Charles the Great, in 800, became Roman Emperor in
the West the imperial territory of which the capital was Constantinople
may correctly be spoken of as the Eastern Roman Empire. But I avoid
condemnation for not adopting this name and for not calling the empire
Roman by pleading that I am reverting to the practice of our fathers in
the West during many centuries, and by defending their practice. The
Empire has sometimes been described as Byzantine and sometimes as the
Lower Empire. But these names are undesirable, because the first has a
vague and doubtful meaning, since no two writers who employ it use it
to cover the same period; and the second has a derogatory signification
which the researches of Freeman and Professor Bury, Krumbacher,
Schlumberger, and other modern writers, have shown to be undeserved.
The name ‘Roman’ has more to recommend it. The Persians and the Arabs
knew the empire simply as Roman, and the overwhelming reputation of
Rome led them to speak even of Alexander the Great as ‘Iskender al
Roumy.’ The name of Rome, or Roum, given to Roumelia, and found in
other places as far east as Erzeroum, had been applied when the Latin
element dominated the empire. The tradition of Rome passed on to the
Turks, and the inhabitants of the empire were and are to them I-roum or
Romans. The Byzantine writers usually called themselves Romans. But the
term Roman can hardly be applied to the empire without distinguishing
it as Eastern, and while it is true that down to 1453 the empire was
Roman in name, there is some danger in employing the term of forgetting
how far the New Rome and its territory had become Hellenised, and that
a large portion of the population preferred the name Greek. There had
been a long struggle within the empire itself between those who wished
to adopt the latter designation and those who desired to call it Roman.
The inhabitants of Greece were indeed for centuries preceding and
during the Crusades disloyal subjects of Constantinople. Even during
the reign of Heraclius (610 to 641), they insisted upon being called
Hellenes rather than Romans. From that time onwards a contest was
continued as to whether the name of Greek or Roman should be applied to
the population. The influence of the Greeks henceforth was constantly
working to Hellenise the empire. In the reign of Irene, at the time
when the Western Roman Empire commenced to have a separate existence,
Greek influence was especially strong. Lascaris, four centuries later,
when he made his stand at Nicaea after the Latin conquest, spoke
of the empire as that of Hellas. On the recovery of the city under
Michael, the Church generally employed the term Roman, but declared
that Greek and Roman might be employed indifferently. Various writers
speak of the Latins as Romans and of the Byzantines as Hellenes.[11]
Manuel Bryennius represents the preacher in St. Sophia as calling upon
his hearers to remember their Greek ancestors and to defend their
country as they had done. At times the people were appealed to as the
descendants alike of Greeks and Romans.
As being a continuation of the Roman Empire whose capital was New
Rome, the empire is correctly called Roman, and the name has the
advantage of always keeping in view the continuity of Roman history.
It was the Eastern Roman Empire which declined and fell in 1453. But
if we admit that the empire continued to be Roman till 1453, it must
be remembered, not only that its characteristics had considerably
changed, but that to the men of the West it had come to be known as the
Greek Empire. Latin had been as completely forgotten as Norman French
was by English nobles in the time of Edward III. Greek had become the
official language, as did English in our own country. The inscriptions
on the coins since the time of Heraclius are in Greek. The Orthodox
Church, which aided as much as even law in binding the inhabitants of
the country together, employed Greek, and Greek almost exclusively, as
its language, and, although the great defenders of the term Roman as
applied to the population are found among its dignitaries, the Church
was essentially Greek as opposed to Roman, both in the character of its
thought and teaching and in the language it employed. Hence it is not
surprising that to the West during all the middle ages, the Empire was
the Greek Empire, just as the Orthodox Church was the Greek Church.[12]
The Empire and the Church were each alike called Greek to distinguish
them from the Empire and Church of the West. It is in this general use
of the word Greek that I find my justification for speaking of the
capture of Constantinople, and the events connected with it, as the
Destruction of the Greek Empire.[13]
I have only in conclusion to call the attention of the reader to one
or two matters connected with the authorities which I quote. I must
plead that my residence in Constantinople has not allowed me to refer
to the uniform series of Byzantine authors available in the great
public libraries of Western Europe. My edition of Phrantzes is that
published in the Bonn series; Pachymer, Cantacuzenus, Chalcondylas,
Ducas, and their contemporaries, are quoted from the Venetian edition
of the Byzantine writers edited by Du Cange. My references to
Archbishop Leonard are almost always to the version in the collection
of Lonicerus. Dr Dethier, however, published a contemporary Italian
version which has certain important variations, and to this I have
occasionally referred. The editors of other authorities are mentioned
in the notes to the text.
I have sometimes abstained from discussing the trustworthiness of
my authorities, but have said once for all that their statements,
especially in regard to the numbers they represent as engaged in
battle, of victims slaughtered or captured, and the like, can rarely
be regarded as satisfactory. The means of controlling them seldom
exist. Even in the case of Sir John Maundeville, I have quoted him
without hinting that a doubt of his very existence has been uttered.
Whether he lived and was or was not a traveller, or whether his book
was, as has been suggested, a kind of mediæval Murray’s Guide, does
not in the least affect the statements which I have reproduced from
it. The work of sifting the evidence, new and old, to ascertain its
value has been long and tedious, and I must leave to other students of
the same period to say whether I have succeeded in selecting what is
of use and in rejecting only what is valueless. To have attempted a
critical examination of every important statement which I quote would
have extended my book to an inordinate length, and in regard to most of
them the reader will not find much difficulty in arriving at his own
conclusions as to their trustworthiness.
EDWIN PEARS.
CONSTANTINOPLE, _February 1903_.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
PAGE
The Latin empire (1204–1261) and its struggles with
and final overthrow by the Greeks of Nicaea 1
CHAPTER II
Condition of and difficulties in reconstructing the
empire: difficulties arising (_a_) from attempts by
Latins to recover the empire, (_b_) from Catalan
Grand Company 22
CHAPTER III
The Turks: their entry into Asia Minor: not at first
exclusively Mahometan: their characteristics: Othman
founds a dynasty: progress of Moslems in Europe and
Asia Minor: capture of Brousa in 1326 52
CHAPTER IV
Dynastic struggles in empire: appeals to Pope
for aid; reigns of Andronicus the Second, John
Cantacuzenus, and John; repeated failure of efforts
by Popes to induce Western Powers to assist in
checking Moslem advance 65
CHAPTER V
Reign of Orchan: struggles with empire; its
successes and reverses; invasions of Tartars. Reign
of Murad: defeat of Serbians and Bulgarians by
Turks; battle of Cossovo-Pol and assassination of
Murad 97
CHAPTER VI
Reign of Manuel: encroachments of Turks; Manuel
visits West, Sultan Bajazed summoned by Timour;
friendly relations between Manuel and Mahomet
the First; John associated with Manuel. Siege of
Constantinople by Murad; its failure. Efforts at
union; misconceptions in West regarding Greek
Church; constancy of attempts at union; negotiations
for meeting of Council of Church. Internal struggles
in Latin Church. Emperor invited by both parties;
accepts Pope’s invitation; meeting of Council at
Ferrara and Florence; union accomplished; John
returns to capital; divisions in Greek Church 109
CHAPTER VII
Progress of Turks between 1391 and 1425: Sultan
Bajazed’s reign: conquests in Europe: Bulgarian
kingdom ended: Western armies defeated at Nicopolis:
Anatolia-Hissar built: capital threatened: summons
by Timour to Bajazed: Timour’s progress: reply
of Bajazed: battle of Angora and crushing defeat
of Turks: further progress of Timour: death of
Bajazed, 1403: alarm in Western Europe: departure
of Timour: struggle between the sons of Bajazed:
ultimate success of Mahomet: his good understanding
with Manuel: death of Mahomet, 1420: accession of
Murad: war with empire: siege of Constantinople,
1422: death of Manuel, 1425: triumphal progress of
Murad: he besieges and takes Salonica: besieges
Belgrade but fails: combined movement under Hunyadi
against Murad: battle of Slivnitza, 1443, and
defeat of Turks: Murad sues for peace: treaty made
with Ladislaus: violated by Christians: battle of
Varna, 1444: Murad ravages Morea: Iskender Bey, his
origin: captures Croia: Hunyadi again attacks Murad:
defeated at Cossovo-pol, 1448: reasons for failure
of Christian attempts: John has to forego joining
Western combination against Turks: death of Murad,
1451: Mahomet the Second becomes Sultan 131
CHAPTER VIII
Causes leading to decay of empire: not due to
demoralisation of Court; internal and external
causes; Latin conquest and form of government
had produced internal dissensions and checked
assimilation of hostile races; method of Turkish
conquest and its fatal consequences; ravages of
black death; population of capital in 1453; its
commerce; relations of people with government;
resemblance to Russia; difficulty of obtaining idea
of domestic life 180
CHAPTER IX
Accession of Constantine Dragases; Patriarch Gregory
deposed; renewed attempt to obtain aid from the
West; emperor meets with little success; arrival of
Cardinal Isidore; reconciliation service December
12, 1452, in Hagia Sophia; dissensions regarding it 201
CHAPTER X
Character of Mahomet the Second; receives
deputation from city; returns to Adrianople from
Asia Minor; his reforms; builds Roumelia-Hissar;
rejects overtures from emperor; castle completed,
August 1452; war declared; Mahomet returns to
Adrianople; he discloses his designs for siege
of city. Constantine’s preparations for defence;
arrival of six Venetian ships; aid requested from
Venice; Justiniani arrives, January 1453; boom
across harbour placed in position. Turkish army,
estimate of; notice of Janissaries; mobility of
army; religious spirit of; casting of great cannon;
Turkish fleet arrives in Bosporus; description of
vessels composing it. Mahomet’s army marches to
city; offer of peace 206
CHAPTER XI
Topography of Constantinople; disposition of
Mahomet’s forces and cannon; estimate of fighting
men under emperor; Venetians and Genoese: disparity
in numbers: arms and equipment: attacks on Therapia
and Prinkipo 237
CHAPTER XII
THE SIEGE
Investment by Turks; first assault fails; attempt to
force boom; attempt to capture ships bringing aid;
gallant fight and defeat of Turkish fleet; Turkish
admiral degraded; transport of Turkish ships across
Pera into the Golden Horn 254
CHAPTER XIII
Constantine alleged to have sued for peace; attempt
to destroy Turkish ships in the Golden Horn;
postponed; made and fails; murder of captives;
reprisals; operations in Lycus valley; bridge built
over Golden Horn; sending to seek Venetian fleet;
proposal that emperor should leave city; attacks on
boom; jealousy between Venetians and Genoese; new
assaults fail both at walls and boom; attempts to
undermine walls; construction of a turret; destroyed
by besieged; failure of vessel sent to find Venetian
fleet; unlucky omens 277
CHAPTER XIV
Dissensions in city: between Greeks themselves;
between Greeks and Italians; between Genoese and
Venetians; charge of treachery against Genoese
examined; failure of Serbia and Hungary to render
aid; preparations for a general assault; damages
done to the landward walls; construction of stockade 300
CHAPTER XV
Last days of empire: sultan again hesitates; message
inviting surrender; Turkish council called; decides
against raising siege; proclamation granting three
days’ plunder; sultan’s final preparations; his
address to the pashas and last orders to generals.
Preparations in city: religious processions:
Constantine’s address to leaders and to Venetians
and Genoese; last Christian service in St. Sophia:
defenders take up their final stations at walls, and
close gates behind them: emperor’s last inspection
of his forces 313
CHAPTER XVI
General assault: commenced by Bashi-Bazouks; they
are defeated; Anatolians attack--are also driven
back; attacks in other places fail; Janissaries
attack; Kerkoporta incident; Justiniani wounded
and retires; emperor’s alarm; stockade captured;
death of Constantine: his character; capture of
Constantinople 334
CHAPTER XVII
Attacks in other parts of the city: by Zagan and
Caraja; by fleet; the brothers Bocchiardi hold
their own; panic when entry of Turks became known;
incident of Saint Theodosia’s church; massacre and
subsequent pillage; crowd in Saint Sophia captured;
horrors of sack; numbers killed or captured;
endeavours to escape from city; panic in Galata;
Mahomet’s entry; Saint Sophia becomes a mosque; fate
of leading prisoners: attempts to repeople capital 358
CHAPTER XVIII
Capture of Constantinople a surprise to Europe;
conquest of Trebizond; summary of its history.
Character and conduct of Mahomet: as conqueror;
he increases Turkish fleet; as administrator; as
legislator; his recklessness of human life; as
student; was he a religious fanatic? summary 386
CHAPTER XIX
Dispersion of Greek scholars, and their influence
upon revival of learning; Greek a bond of union
among peoples of empire; disappearance of books
after Latin conquest; departure of scholars to
Italy begins after 1204; their presence stimulates
revival of learning; enthusiasm aroused in Italy
for study of Greek; students from Constantinople
everywhere welcomed; increased numbers leave after
Moslem conquest; Renaissance largely aided by Greek
studies; movement passes into Northern Europe; MSS.
taken from Constantinople 399
CHAPTER XX
Conclusion; the capture epoch-marking; alarm
in Europe; disastrous results; upon Christian
subjects and on Eastern Churches; demoralisation
of both; poverty the principal result; degradation
of Churches: two great services rendered by the
Churches; results on Turks: powerless to assimilate
conquered peoples or their civilisation 414
APPENDICES
I. Note on Romanus Gate and chief place of final
assault 429 II. Where did the sea-fight of April
20, 1453, take place? 436 III. Note on transport of
Mahomet’s ships. What was the route adopted? 443
IV. The influence of religion on Greeks and Moslems
respectively 447
INDEX 459
ILLUSTRATIONS
APPROXIMATE RESTORATION OF THE LAND WALLS OF }
THEODOSIUS THE SECOND BETWEEN THE GOLDEN AND }
SECOND MILITARY GATES } _Between
} pages_ 240–1
PRESENT CONDITION OF A PORTION OF THE LANDWARD }
WALLS }
_from photograph by M. Irenian of Constantinople_. }
MAHOMET THE CONQUEROR }
_from painting by Bellini_. } _Between
} pages_ 388–9
MAHOMET THE CONQUEROR }
_from medallion by Bellini in the British Museum_. }
MAPS
MAP ILLUSTRATING PROGRESS OF TURKS DURING THIRTEENTH,
FOURTEENTH, AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES _Facing p._ 1
MAP OF BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE 237
SKETCH MAP SHOWING THE DISPOSITION OF TURKISH TROOPS
DURING THE LAST DAYS OF SIEGE; MAY 1453 335
[Illustration:
Map illustrating Progress of Turks during 13th., 14th.,
& 15th. Centuries.]
DESTRUCTION OF THE GREEK EMPIRE
CHAPTER I
THE LATIN EMPIRE (1204–1261) AND ITS STRUGGLES WITH AND FINAL
OVERTHROW BY THE GREEKS OF NICAEA
The later Roman Empire and its capital Constantinople never recovered
from the blow inflicted by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. A huge
filibustering expedition had been gathered together at Venice under
pretext of making an attack upon the Saracens in Egypt. Under the
leadership of Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, and Dandolo, the famous
doge of Venice, the expedition had been diverted from its purpose, and,
in spite of the strongest possible protests by Innocent the Third, had
attacked Constantinople. The strength of the empire had been weakened
by a hundred and fifty years’ resistance to the hordes of Asia, during
which it had served as the bulwark of Europe. Its reputation had been
lessened by thirty years of dynastic wars, during which the government
had allowed its fleet to decay so that it was unable to resist the
Venetians and Crusaders. The result was that, for the first time in
its long history, the city was captured. There then followed the
plunder and division of its enormous wealth--a large part of which
found its way to the West, while perhaps a still larger portion was
destroyed--the appointment of a Latin emperor in Constantinople, and
the partition of such portions of the empire as could be occupied among
the conquerors.
[Sidenote: Baldwin, 1204–1205.]
[Sidenote: Difficulties regarding division of empire.]
Baldwin, a Belgian, was elected emperor. An arrangement for the
division of the spoil had been made by the leaders before the attack on
the city, and this seems to have been fairly carried out. To Baldwin
were assigned the two imperial palaces in Constantinople and one fourth
of all that should be captured within the city and throughout the
empire. The remaining three fourths were to be divided equally between
the Crusaders and the Venetians. The difficulties of the conquerors
began with this further division of the spoil. The task of parcelling
out the empire was almost hopeless. It was next to impossible to
accomplish such a partition, even on paper, because of the ignorance
of the Western conquerors of the empire they had destroyed. Its extent
was so great, the difficulty of communication so extreme, and ignorance
of geography so profound, that the conquerors did not know what there
was to divide. They sent into the provinces to obtain information as to
the revenues and general condition of the country so that the partition
might be fairly made; but, without waiting for the information, they
proceeded to divide up the countries and provinces which they imagined
to be within the empire. In their happy ignorance they drew lots
for Alexandria and for the various countries along the north shore
of the Mediterranean as well as for Georgia, Persia, and Assyria.
They competed for the possession of Konia itself, the capital of the
Seljukian Turks.
It was still more difficult to make a partition which should
represent territory which could come at once into the occupation of
the Crusaders. The one system of land tenure with which they were
acquainted was the feudal. The lands of the empire must therefore
be divided into fiefs and the barons and persons of higher and of
lower degree must have grants according to their rank. But though
Constantinople was in the possession of the men of the West, they held
no more of the remainder of the empire than was within the actual
sight of the barons and the comparatively small bodies of retainers
who were under them. The Greeks--or, as the subjects of the later
empire still generally called themselves, the Romans--had no intention
of recognising either the lordship of the barons who had become their
feudal superiors or the overlordship of Baldwin. They knew nothing of a
feudal system, and recognised the representatives of the late empire as
having a first claim to their service. They were ready to follow almost
any leader against men whom they knew only as invaders, belonging to a
different race, speaking a different language, and professing a form of
Christianity which was hateful to them because the conquerors tried to
impose it upon them.
The difficulties of the Latin empire were both internal and external.
[Sidenote: Dissensions among leaders.]
The men from the West soon found that they were too few to hold the
country. Some of the Crusaders had insisted upon leaving the city in
order to proceed to the Holy Land in fulfilment of their vows and to
avoid the censure of Innocent. Others were anxious to return home with
their share of the spoils. ‘Never since the world was created,’ says
Villehardouin the historian, who took an active part in the capture of
the city, ‘was there so much booty gained in one city. Each man took
the house which pleased him, and there were enough for all. Those who
were poor found themselves suddenly rich.’ If they remained they had
hardships to face which as the possessors of newly obtained wealth
they would rather avoid. As soon as new dangers appeared the numbers
of those who wished to get away increased. During the very first year
of Baldwin’s reign, his army on its retreat from an expedition against
the Bulgarians found at Rodosto seven thousand men at arms who had
quitted the capital and were leaving the country. It was in vain that a
cardinal and the leaders sent by the army, among whom was Villehardouin
himself, implored them even with tears to remain, for ‘Never,’ said
these leaders, ‘would they be able to succour a country in so great a
need.’[14] The most favourable answer that they could obtain was that a
reply would be given on the morrow. The deserters set sail in the night
without even giving the promised response to the prayer made to them.
The internal difficulties were increased by the jealousy which existed
between the leaders of the Latins themselves. All through the journey
to Constantinople before the capture of the city, the Crusaders and
Venetians had mistrusted each other. Boniface, the leader of the
Crusade, considered himself ill treated because he had not been named
emperor. Though defeated, he had a large number of adherents. To him
had been assigned territory in Asia Minor. He applied to exchange
it for the kingdom of Salonica, alleging that as he had married the
widow of the Emperor Isaac, who was the sister of the King of Hungary,
he would be at Salonica in a better position to aid the emperor.
His request was granted. Baldwin, however, did not trust him, and,
apparently under the impression that it was the intention of Boniface
to establish an independent sovereignty, insisted on accompanying him
to his newly acquired capital. To this course Boniface objected so
strongly that when the emperor started for Salonica, Boniface not only
refused to accompany him but went off towards Adrianople, captured
Didymotica, and laid siege to the former city. The Greeks flocked to
his standard, possibly being induced to do so by the belief that as he
had married the widow of Isaac he was entitled to their allegiance.
As soon as Dandolo, Count Louis, and the other nobles who had remained
in Constantinople heard what Marquis Boniface was doing, they at
once took counsel in ‘parlement’ as to the measures to be adopted:
‘for,’ says Villehardouin, ‘they thought that they would lose all the
conquests they had made.’ They decided to send a knight to Boniface
without delay, and the historian was himself chosen for the mission. He
went at once to Adrianople and succeeded in persuading the marquis to
submit the questions between him and the emperor to the arbitration of
Dandolo and Count Louis, and for the present to cease hostilities.
Meantime the emperor had occupied Salonica. As soon as he heard of
the siege of Adrianople he at once hastened to its relief and ‘pour
faire tout le mal qu’il pourrait au marquis.’ On the way he met the
messengers from the city, who besought him to submit his case, as
Boniface had consented to do, to arbitration, at the same time plainly
telling him that Dandolo, Count Louis of Blois, and the other barons
would not tolerate war between him and Boniface. The emperor hesitated
and consulted his council. Some of the members urged that the message
was an outrage and advised resistance. Violent language (‘grosses
paroles’) was used, but the emperor, who was unwilling to risk the
hostility of so strong a combination as Dandolo and Louis, gave way to
the extent of stating that he would undertake not to attack Boniface
until he went to Constantinople, although he would not pledge himself
to refer the questions between them to arbitration. Shortly after, when
a peace was patched up between them, it was under conditions which show
that neither party trusted the other. Villehardouin undertook to hold
Didymotica until he knew by a trusted messenger that Salonica had been
handed over to Boniface.
Nor were the external differences which at once presented themselves
less serious. The history of Constantinople and the Latin empire
during the period between 1204 and 1260 is indeed that of a series of
struggles between Baldwin and his successors on the imperial throne,
on the one side, and the leaders of the Greek race who had refused to
recognise the authority of the invaders, on the other.
[Sidenote: Opposition of Greek population.]
The Western barons seemed to have thought that with the conquest of
the capital the whole empire would fall to their lot. They were soon
undeceived. In Macedonia and in Epirus Greek leaders appeared, who
rallied to them all who were indisposed to accept new rulers. At
Trebizond on the Black Sea, and at Nicaea, the once famous city of
the Creed, the Greeks flocked from the capital and its neighbourhood,
and soon there were rulers of these cities who assumed the title of
emperor.
[Sidenote: Empire of Nicaea. Theodore Lascaris, 1204–1222.]
The most important of those who refused to accept the Latin rule was
Theodore Lascaris. He had been the last of the Greek nobles to leave
the city when the invaders captured it. He made his way to Nicaea, and
was followed by many Greeks. Able, courageous, and patriotic, he was
soon recognised by the notables as the fittest man to have rule among
them, and, though without hereditary claim to the imperial throne, he
aspired to be emperor and was accepted as best suited to receive that
dignity. Two years after the capture of Constantinople, a new patriarch
was elected, who consented to live at Nicaea and who amid as much
ceremony as if the coronation had taken place in St. Sophia placed the
crown on the head of Theodore in the church of the same name at Nicaea.
The prudence and judgment of the new emperor did much to rally the best
of his countrymen around him, and justified the choice made in electing
him to the imperial throne. The Greek priests flocked to the city from
all parts of Western Asia Minor as well as from Thrace.
Nevertheless, his task was beset with difficulties. He had enemies
on all sides, pretenders of his own race, the Latin emperor and the
sultan of the Seljukian Turks. The latter, whose capital was at Konia,
had no idea of allowing any neighbour to become formidable. A Greek
pretender held the country to the west of Nicaea. The Latin emperor
and barons chose to regard Theodore as a rebel because he would not
make submission. After unsuccessful attempts against him by Baldwin and
his successor, Theodore was allowed in 1207 to remain in possession of
Ismidt (the ancient Nicomedia) and Cyzicus for a period of two years.
He employed the period in strengthening and extending his empire. At
the end of it, Henry the brother of Baldwin, whom he succeeded as
emperor, made an alliance with the sultan of the Seljukian Turks: that
is to say, the Crusaders who had justified themselves to Innocent the
Third for attacking a Christian city on the ground that the Greek
emperors had allowed the Moslems to have a mosque within the city, now
found themselves under the necessity of joining forces with the infidel
to attack a Christian prince.
Upon the declaration of war by the sultan, Theodore pushed forward
into the valley of the Meander, and a battle was fought which, if the
Byzantine authorities are to be trusted, was decided in single combat
between the two sovereigns. The sultan was killed, and the empire of
Nicaea was saved. The Emperor Henry, however, when he heard of the
extent of the loss in Theodore’s army exclaimed, ‘The Greek is not
conqueror: he is ruined.’
So far from being ruined, his success caused many Greeks to flock into
his empire from Constantinople. When, in 1214, the Emperor Henry again
declared war, Theodore was ready for him; and as the Greeks in Epirus
had commenced a vigorous attack on the crusading barons in Macedonia,
Henry was glad to make a peace which left Theodore undisputed master
of a territory bounded on the west by a line from Heraclea on the
Black Sea to Ismidt, thence to Cyzicus and to the coast just north of
Pergamos. The fruitful valleys of the Meander, the Cayster, and the
Hermus marked his boundaries on the south-west.
Theodore died in 1222. The first duty of the Greeks when driven out of
Constantinople was to make themselves secure against the conquerors and
to prevent the progress of the crusading armies into Asia Minor. This
duty had been effectually done by Theodore. During the eighteen years
of his reign he had made his capital and its beautiful neighbourhood
the rallying-place of what was best in the Greek-speaking populations
of Asia Minor and of Thrace. He had checked the progress of the
crusaders into Asia Minor and had left to his successors the task of
working for the recovery of Constantinople.
[Sidenote: Henry succeeds Baldwin, 1205–1216.]
Meantime, the history of the Latin conquerors of Constantinople had
been one of almost continuous disaster. The first Emperor Baldwin had
been lost in an encounter with the Bulgarians near Adrianople in April
1205, and was probably killed. As his fate remained doubtful, his
brother Henry acted as regent for a year and was then crowned emperor.
Shortly after the commencement of his reign in 1207, Boniface, Marquis
of Montferrat and King of Salonica, was killed in a skirmish. Henry
seems to have realised that in a policy of conciliation towards the
Greeks lay the only hope of the continuance of his empire. He made
peace with the Bulgarians and concluded an arrangement with both the
emperor of Nicaea and the Greek prince who had made himself recognised
as despot in Epirus. He employed Greeks in the public service. He
refused to take part in the persecution of the Greeks who would not
obey the decrees of the pope’s legate. He allowed them to employ the
Greek language in their services, and restrained the pretensions of the
Roman priests. Unfortunately for the Latin empire, the reign of the
chivalrous Henry lasted only ten years.
[Sidenote: Peter succeeds, 1217–1219.]
He was succeeded by Peter of Courtenay, who was invited by the barons
to occupy the throne in the absence of male heirs of Baldwin and his
brother Henry. Peter left France with 140 knights and 5,500 men at
arms, whom he had obtained with the aid of his royal kinsman, Philip
Augustus. The reports of the rich plunder which had been obtained
in the capture of the city had already induced many French knights
to leave their native lands to take service in the empire, but the
detachment with which Peter crossed the Alps was the largest which had
left the West for such purpose.
The Venetians bargained to transport them across the Adriatic on
condition that they would assist in recovering Durazzo from Theodore,
the Greek despot of Epirus. After a useless assault on that city,
Peter started with his followers on a journey across the peninsula to
Salonica. He and his host were soon lost amid the mountains of Epirus.
Their provisions were exhausted. They found the passes fortified, and
their only chance of life was to surrender to Theodore, who had held
the country in defiance of the regent who was governing in the name of
the son of Boniface. Peter was detained in captivity, and his death is
as mysterious as that of the first Latin emperor. He probably perished
in prison in 1218.
[Sidenote: Robert, 1219–1228.]
Peter’s successor, Robert of Courtenay, succeeded in finding his way to
Constantinople, though not across Macedonia, accompanied by a number of
troops furnished at the request of Pope Honorius the Third. His reign
was a series of disasters. He made a treaty of peace with Theodore of
Nicaea in order that he might devote all his attention to the defeat
of the other Theodore, the despot of Epirus. The latter had been
denounced by the pope for his detention of Peter and of the legate who
accompanied him. Honorius indeed had invited the princes of the West to
undertake a crusade for their deliverance. When, however, the legate
was released, Peter seems to have been forgotten. The despot Theodore
made a well-concerted attack upon Salonica, captured it, and was
proclaimed emperor in 1222. Robert led all his forces against this new
claimant for the imperial title and was badly beaten. Theodore pushed
on to Adrianople and hoisted his standard on the walls of that city
almost without opposition.
There were thus in 1222 four persons claiming to be emperors, and
occupying separate portions of what had been twenty years earlier the
Roman Empire in the East. These were Robert at Constantinople, Theodore
at Nicaea, another Theodore at Salonica, and Alexis at Trebizond.
[Sidenote: Nicaea, success of John Ducas Vataces, 1222–1254.]
The history of the next forty years (1222–1261) is that of the
strengthening of the Greek empire at Nicaea and the decadence and
downfall of the other so-called empires, and especially of that of the
Latin Crusaders in Constantinople. The successor of Theodore Lascaris
was John Ducas Vataces, who during a reign of thirty-three years
fortified his position at Nicaea and increased the prosperity of his
empire. He restricted the boundaries of the Latin territory in Asia
Minor to the peninsula formed by a line parallel to the Bosporus from
Ismidt to the Black Sea. He rendered property and life safe, and in
consequence the Greek population continued to flock into his territory.
Even French soldiers in considerable numbers quietly slipped away
from Constantinople to take service with Vataces. At the commencement
of his reign he was attacked by the newly appointed emperor, Robert
of Courtenay, and in the combat which ensued not only was Vataces
successful, but the last of the knights who had taken part in the
capture of the city were left dead on the field. Until Robert’s death
in 1228, Nicaea had few troubles with the Latin empire.
[Sidenote: Latin empire. John of Brienne, 1228–1237. Baldwin II.,
1237–1261.]
Robert’s successor was a boy of eleven, who continued nominally emperor
under the title of Baldwin the Second for upwards of thirty years,
but the Latin knights wisely placed power in the hands of John de
Brienne. Indeed, the crusading leaders seem throughout the whole Latin
occupation to have assumed a large measure of the imperial authority.
The period is contemporary with that of the barons who resisted King
John in England, and who continued to assert their independence under
the reign of Henry the Third. The French barons in Constantinople had
much of the same spirit, with the additional incentive to independence
that, as the emperors were of recent creation, the glamour which had
already gathered about the kingly office in England and France was
absent. The emperor was indeed nothing more than _primus inter pares_,
and his own designs were often set aside for those of his associates.
No one can doubt that they acted wisely in appointing John de Brienne,
but even he, with all his experience and caution, failed as his
predecessor had done when he attacked Nicaea.
[Sidenote: Baldwin visits France,]
[Sidenote: and England.]
The courage and ability of the old Crusader, who was already eighty
years of age, hardly retarded the decay of the Latin empire. Its needs
were great, and accordingly Baldwin the Second was sent on a visit
to the pope and to the Western courts to obtain further supplies of
men and money. Indeed, the greater part of his reign was occupied by
three of such journeys. His first visit to France was in 1237. Hardly
had he arrived in Paris when he learned the death of John de Brienne.
The messenger who brought the tidings told a terrible story of the
distress in the imperial city. The barons and soldiers[15] dared not
venture outside the walls. The supply of food had run so short that
many of the gentlemen of France who were charged with its defence
disguised themselves and escaped by sea or, notwithstanding that the
country was full of dangers, endeavoured to make their way by land to
their own country. The peril was so great that Baldwin was assured
that if aid were not sent the city could not resist an attack. Upon
these tidings Baldwin did his utmost to obtain aid. He was received
with honour wherever he went, but he received little else. In 1238,
he paid a visit to England. On his landing at Dover he was asked
how he presumed to enter the country without the permission of its
independent sovereign, Henry the Third. Henry had had enough trouble
with Crusaders. John de Brienne, who had been in England, had obtained
aid from the king and had been honourably received. On his return to
France he had joined with Philip Augustus against England. Henry,
however, sent word to Baldwin that as he had arrived without troops
he might come on to London. After receiving this permission he paid a
visit to the king and finally left England with the miserable sum of
seven hundred marks.
[Sidenote: Pope supports Latin empire.]
The pope had taken Baldwin’s cause greatly to heart. He enjoined all
Christian princes to give him aid. He ordered the leading archbishops
of the West to publish a new Crusade against the Greek schismatics. He
directed part of the Peter’s pence to be given for the furtherance of
the Crusade and ordered that the money which St. Louis with pious zeal
had extorted from the Jews as obtained by usury should be employed for
the same purpose. He begged the king to direct that one third of the
revenues of the churches should be thus employed, and he wrote to the
king of England with a similar request. In 1238 John de Bethune started
from France with men and money. The expedition, however, came to grief.
Its leader died at Venice and the army melted away, very few ever
arriving at the Bosporus.
[Sidenote: Decay of Latin empire.]
[Sidenote: Sale of relics.]
The character of the news from Constantinople continued constantly to
be more and more distressing. The revenue was yearly decreasing. The
money obtained in Europe was already spent, and the knights were driven
to desperate expedients to obtain more. Copper was torn from the domes
of the churches and other public buildings to be converted into coin.
Empty houses were pulled down to supply fuel. The sacred relics, which
in the eyes of the Crusaders constituted not only the most valuable
treasures of the city but the talisman of its safety, were sold to meet
pressing needs. The Sacred Crown of Thorns had been pledged for a sum
of about seven thousand pounds, and when the time came for redeeming
it, the Latins were not able to find the money. A Venetian endeavoured
to obtain it in order to add to the prosperity of the Bride of the
Seas, but Baldwin, possibly out of gratitude to Saint Louis of France,
and with the object of obtaining a larger sum, preferred that it should
be sent to France. After considerable difficulty and many negotiations,
the sacred relic was redeemed and taken with solemn procession from
Venice to Paris, where the king himself, clothed in penitential
garments and barefoot, went out to meet it and to accompany it to its
temporary resting-place. This was in 1239. Baldwin received from Louis,
in recompense of his labour to obtain so valuable a prize, the sum of
ten thousand marks.
Nor was this the only relic which the crusading empire was obliged
to convert into money. A large portion of the true cross, the lance,
the sponge, and other objects, the parting with which must have cost
Baldwin and his barons many a regret, were also sent to France in order
to raise money.[16]
[Sidenote: Prosperity of Nicene empire.]
By July 1239 Baldwin had collected in the West all the money and forces
available and started for Constantinople. The number of his army was
greatly exaggerated by the rumours which preceded it and greatly
alarmed the Greeks at Nicaea. He arrived at Constantinople at the end
of December. John Vataces, in consequence of these rumours and as
a precaution, allied himself with the Bulgarians. The armies of the
two states attacked Constantinople. The Venetians saved the city by
arriving in time to make it necessary to raise the siege. Then the
Bulgarians made friends with the Latins and allowed a band of Comans
(or Tur-comans) who had been driven over the Danube by the Mongols to
pass through Bulgaria and take service with the Latins. The emperor of
Nicaea could, however, play a similar game, and he induced a band of
the same race, who formed excellent light cavalry, to settle on the
banks of the Meander and in Phrygia.
John Vataces succeeded, partly by force, partly by persuasion, in
inducing the despot of Salonica to abandon the title of emperor and to
recognise Nicaea as the true representative of the former empire of
Constantine. Vataces thereupon became acknowledged ruler of the kingdom
of Salonica from the Aegean to the Adriatic.
[Sidenote: Decay of Constantinople.]
Meantime the wealth and population of Constantinople were diminishing
every day. Its commerce had almost gone. What was left was in the hands
of the Venetians. No taxes could be levied on the poverty-stricken
population. The Greeks of the country around Constantinople, who had
been the food-producers and the source of revenue to the merchants of
the capital, fled from the constant harass of war and invasions, now by
Latins, now by Bulgarians, and now by Greeks, into Asia Minor, where
they could labour in the fields or trade in peace and quietness.
The population in other parts of the country were in like straits. The
continual money difficulties among the Latin knights and the Crusaders
generally caused a widespread spirit of lawlessness. Necessity
compelled them to live on the country they were passing through, and
wherever they were under the command of a weak ruler, pillage was
common and almost unchecked. Before men thus lawless, poor peasants
fled in alarm across the Marmora to be not only among their own people
but where life and property were secure.
As illustrating the lawlessness among the Latin nobles, a story told of
the Emperor Robert himself is significant. He was engaged to marry the
daughter of Vataces, a marriage which promised obvious advantages to
the Latin empire. He preferred, however, a lady who was affianced to a
knight of Burgundy. Her mother had acquiesced in her throwing over her
_fiancé_ in favour of the young emperor. The Burgundian and his friends
forced their way into the palace, threw the mother into the sea, and
brutally disfigured the face of the girl. The barons approved of the
deed, and the king went whining to the pope to condemn the wrong-doers,
since he himself was powerless to avenge the insult offered to him.
Under such conditions of lawlessness, capital fled the country. The
Latin government had once more to resort to every possible device for
raising money, and the ornaments of the churches and other public
buildings were sent to the melting-pot or to auction.
While disaster and decay marked the condition of things in
Constantinople, Nicaea continued to increase in prosperity. The city
itself, in a healthy situation on the beautiful lake of Ascanius, had
under the rule of John Vataces already become wealthy. Taxes were light
because the revenue was not squandered, and the emperor had carried
into the public expenditure the same habits of carefulness which he
displayed in the management of his own private estates. It is recorded
of him, as an illustration of his thrift, that on presenting the
empress with a coronet decked with jewels he explained to her that it
had been bought with money exclusively obtained from the sale of eggs
produced on his own estates. He paid especial attention to agriculture,
and, though distinguished as a warrior, set the example of attending
personally to his farm, his flocks and herds, the cultivation of his
fields, and the welfare of his labourers. We may excuse his sumptuary
laws for the reason that the object was to check the luxury of the
nobles and to encourage home manufactures. When he died, in 1254,
after a reign of thirty-three years, Nicaea had deservedly obtained
the reputation of being the chief city of all Greek-speaking people,
whether in Europe or in Asia, the city to which the people lifted up
their eyes in confidence of a speedy return to the queen city on the
shores of the Bosporus.
[Sidenote: Theodore II. of Nicaea, 1254–1258.]
The reign of Theodore Lascaris the Second, son of John Vataces, lasted
only four years, and though he lacked the ability of his father,
and was a sufferer from epilepsy, the empire of Nicaea continued to
prosper. His military administration was able and successful. He
continued the policy of Vataces in endeavouring to induce or to compel
all the Greeks in the Balkan peninsula to come under his rule. It may
be fairly said of him that on his death, in 1258, the position of
Nicaea was stronger than on his accession.
During these two prosperous reigns in the Greek empire that of the
Crusaders had continued to go from bad to worse. In spite of the
anathemas of the popes against those who should attack Constantinople,
the Bulgarians and the Greeks made war upon it whenever they thought
the opportunity favourable. In spite of the exhortation of the popes to
Western Europe to furnish men and money, and of the fact that both were
furnished, the empire grew weaker in men and its financial situation
became worse.
[Sidenote: Second visit of Baldwin to West.]
We have seen that Baldwin returned to Constantinople with an army
which is said to have numbered 30,000 men, and which in any case
was sufficiently large to alarm the Nicene emperor. But these
reinforcements seem to have been a burden rather than an advantage,
and the chief of the crusading empire had to shock Christian Europe
by consenting to give his niece in marriage to the sultan of Konia
in order to secure an alliance with him against the Greek emperor.
Baldwin’s necessities again compelled him to visit France. He was once
more received with honour, and at the Council of Lyons, in 1245, he was
given the position of supreme honour, and was placed on the right hand
of the pope. All, indeed, that the sovereign pontiff could accomplish
in favour of his guest in this Council was done. An alliance which
the Emperor Frederick had made with John Vataces was denounced, and
the head of the Holy Roman Empire was solemnly excommunicated. While
nothing was said about the alliance with the Seljukian Turk, Frederick
was condemned for allowing his daughter to be married to a schismatic
Greek. Large sums were ordered to be contributed by the dignitaries of
the Church and by the religious orders for the succour of the empire.
St. Louis again gave Baldwin a welcome, and entertained him at his
court during nearly two years while aid was being collected. The pope
gave power to absolve from sins those who should join the Crusade or
contribute to the support of the empire. But, as Matthew Paris says,
his empire nevertheless daily decayed. It was not till 1248 that
Baldwin returned to his impoverished capital. Perhaps the lowest depth
of degradation was attained by him when in 1259 his necessity was so
great that he was obliged to put his only son in pledge to certain
Venetian nobles as security for the payment of what he had borrowed.
The unfortunate lad was taken to Venice, and his father was unable to
redeem him until after the recapture of Constantinople.
[Sidenote: John Ducas Emperor of Nicaea, 1258–1260.]
[Sidenote: Michael Palaeologus.]
Before the death, in 1258, of Theodore Lascaris the Second, the ruler
of Nicaea was acknowledged emperor, not merely throughout the northern
part of Asia Minor, but in the kingdom of Macedonia, and even in a
considerable portion of Thrace. His successor, John, was a boy. John’s
guardian was Michael Palaeologus, who was proclaimed emperor in January
1259–60. Seeing that there was some disorder in Nicaea, occasioned by
the disputes between those in favour of the boy, who, in the ordinary
course of succession, would have been emperor, and those who had
recognised that the times were too critical to allow him to reign, and
had consequently followed Michael, the Latin emperor, Baldwin, judged
the moment opportune to stipulate for concessions. Accordingly he
sent a mission to Nicaea to learn what Michael would give in order to
avoid war. The historian Acropolitas, who was at Nicaea at the time,
records what passed. The emperor mocked the ambassadors. They asked
that he should surrender Salonica. The reply was that that city was
the emperor’s birthplace; how could he part with it? They suggested
Seres. The emperor responded that what they were asking was neither
just nor decent, since he had received it from his father. ‘Give us,
then, Bolero.’ But that was the emperor’s hunting-ground, and could not
be spared. ‘What, then, will you give us?’ ‘Nothing whatever,’ replied
the emperor. ‘But if you want peace with me, it is well, because you
know me, and that I can fight. Pay me part of the tribute collected at
Constantinople, and we shall be at peace.’ No better terms were to be
had, and the ambassadors left.
Michael probably understood that his refusal would be followed by war.
He therefore visited the fortifications already gained in Thrace by the
Greeks, strengthened them, and within a few months the Latin empire was
reduced to the occupation of Constantinople and a small strip around
it. In the following year, 1260, Michael’s general, Strategopulus, was
entrusted with the command in Thrace. He stormed Selymbria (the modern
Silivria), and tried but failed to capture Galata, which was already in
the occupation of the Genoese. Thereupon a truce was made for one year.
Seeing that the Venetians, whose great power in the Levant dates
from the fall of Constantinople in 1204, in which they had played so
important a part, still maintained their connection with the empire
on the Bosporus and, indeed, continued to be the principal source of
such strength as it possessed, Michael, to the great indignation of the
pope and the West, made an alliance with their rivals, the Genoese, an
alliance which was the foundation of their supremacy in trade in the
Black Sea.
[Sidenote: Capture of Constantinople by the Greeks.]
It is not impossible that Strategopulus had been sent into Thrace
in 1260 rather to form a judgment of the chances of capturing the
city than of making war. It is quite possible, as suggested even by
Pachymer, that the attempt on Galata was a mere feint in order that he
might get into communication with friends in the capital. In consenting
to give a year’s truce, however, Michael seems to have been sincere.
Accordingly, when, in 1261, he again sent Strategopulus into Thrace
it was with instructions that he was not to attack the city. He had
with him only 800 men, but as he passed through the country behind
Constantinople the Greek settlers (Volunteers, as they are called,
(Θεληματάριοι), who had friends in the city, flocked to him, and urged
that he would never have a better chance of capturing it than at that
time. The last detachment of troops which had come from France had left
the city, with the Venetian fleet, upon an expedition into the Black
Sea to capture Daphnusia. Constantinople might be surprised in their
absence. In spite of the imperial orders, the chance was too good to
be missed. He brought his men to the neighbourhood of the capital, and
hid them near the Holy Well of Baloukli, situated at about half a mile
from the Gate of the Fountain,[17] one of the important entrances into
the city through the landward walls. His volunteers had not deceived
him when they stated that they had friends in the city. Probably every
Greek was a secret sympathiser.
George Acropolitas, who died in 1282, and whose account, therefore,
must have been written while the events were fresh in his memory,
gives the most trustworthy version of what happened. He says: ‘But as
Strategopulus had some men near him who had come from the city and were
well acquainted with all that had passed there, from whom he learned
that there was a hole in the walls of the city through which an armed
man could easily pass, he lost no time and set to work. A man passed
through this hole; another followed, then others, until fifteen, and
perhaps more, had got into the city. But, as they found a man on the
walls on guard, some of them mounted the wall and, taking him by the
feet, threw him over. Others having axes in their hands broke the
locks and bolts of the gates, and thus rendered the entry easy for the
army. This is how the Cæsar Strategopulus, and all the men he had with
him, Romans and Scythians (for his army was composed of these two
peoples), made their entry into the city.’[18] Probably there were few
inhabitants in that quarter, and the advance to the principal part of
the city might be made in the dark. At dawn the invaders pushed on
boldly, met with a brave resistance from a few--a resistance which they
soon overcame--and the rest of the French[19] defenders were seized
with panic and fled. While the city was thus passing once more into
the hands of the Greeks, the French and Venetian ships were coming
straggling down the Bosporus, on their return from Daphnusia, which
they had failed to capture. Accordingly, the army of Strategopulus and
his volunteers set fire to the dwellings in the French and Venetian
quarters in the city and to their villas on the European shore of
the Bosporus near Galata. While the foreigners were occupied in
saving their own property and their women and children from the fire,
Strategopulus strengthened his position in the city.
[Sidenote: Flight of Baldwin II.]
The weak and incapable Baldwin was at the palace of Blachern when the
Greeks entered the city. Afraid to pass through the streets where the
fighting was going on, he entered a boat, made his way down the Golden
Horn, and took refuge among other fugitives with the Venetian fleet.
[Sidenote: End of Latin empire.]
His flight was on July 25, 1261, and with it ends the history of the
Latin empire in Constantinople. It had been established by perjured
Crusaders and filibustering Venetians who were justly anathematised by
Innocent the Third. It had always been a sickly plant in a foreign
and uncongenial soil, and, though popes and kings had made quite
remarkable exertions to make it grow, it never even gave a sign of
taking root. The empire had succeeded, as Innocent predicted that it
would, in making the Greeks loathe the members of the Latin Church
like dogs, and in rendering the union of the two Churches impossible.
The Crusaders, as Innocent had likewise foretold, had seized an empire
which they could not defend.[20] Their expedition had broken up the
great machine of Roman government which had been working steadily and,
in the main, well for nearly a thousand years. It had done irreparable
mischief unaccompanied by any compensatory good. In the course of
two generations, the barons who had taken part in the capture had
died, and though among those who, at the bidding of successive popes
and of St. Louis, replaced them there must have been many actuated
by worthy motives, none among them have left any evidence whatever
of statesmanship or of those qualities which have enabled nations to
conciliate or to assimilate the people whom they have conquered. In
sixty years the peasants might have become content to acknowledge a
change of rulers had they been allowed to till their fields in peace:
the traders might have forgotten the hostility of their fathers if they
had been permitted to exercise their industry in security; but the
continued and ever increasing exactions of their masters forbade them
to forget that they were under alien rulers. All that were worthy in
the city had sought refuge elsewhere: the priests, the students with
their priceless manuscripts, and the traders had escaped to Nicaea
or to Trebizond. The oppressors had seen themselves deserted and the
limits of the empire restricted almost to the boundaries of the city.
The Latin empire, which had never been formidable, had become an object
of contempt. When, however, its last emperor slunk away as a fugitive
from his imperial city, he was hardly more contemptible than when he
was present as a mendicant at the court of St. Louis or of Henry the
Third. His empire deserves only to be remembered as a gigantic failure,
a check to the progress of European civilisation, a mischievous
episode, an abortion among states, born in sin, shapen in iniquity, and
dying amid ignominy.