CONDITION OF AND DIFFICULTIES IN RECONSTRUCTING THE EMPIRE:
DIFFICULTIES ARISING (A) FROM ATTEMPTS BY LATINS TO RECOVER
THE EMPIRE, (B) FROM CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.
[Sidenote: Condition of capital on Baldwin’s flight.]
When Constantinople was captured by the Crusaders and Venetians it was
adorned with the accumulated wealth of centuries and decorated with
art treasures for which not only Greece but the whole Roman Empire
had been ransacked. When the city was recaptured by the Greeks it was
a desolation. Houses, churches, and monasteries were in ruins; whole
quarters were deserted. Heaps of rubbish marked where extensive fires
had consumed houses which no one cared to rebuild. The imperial palace
itself was in so disorderly and filthy a condition that it was some
time before it could be occupied. In place of a large population of the
most educated and highly civilised people in Europe, was a miserably
small number of Greeks who had been reduced to poverty with a number
of foreign and principally French colonists. While the foreign captors
had plundered the city and carried off the bronze horses of Lysippus
and innumerable other objects of art and value to Western Europe, they
and their successors during the fifty-eight years of occupation had,
in their contemptuous ignorance of the art of a conquered people,
destroyed probably more than had been taken away as plunder.
The Queen City, which during many centuries had preserved her
inviolability and had largely for that reason become the treasure-house
of the empire and even of a large part of the Western world, had lost
her reputation as a place of safety. Amid the devastation in Egypt, in
Syria, and in Asia Minor, marked and mainly caused by the advances of
the Saracens and Seljukian Turks, by the struggles of the Crusaders,
and the destruction of the ancient civilisations of Eastern Asia Minor
occasioned by the westward movements of Asiatic hordes, the merchant
had known only of one city where his merchandise was safe and where he
could trade in security.
[Sidenote: Loss of its commerce.]
The stream of commerce between the East and the West which had flowed
through the Bosporus had been diverted into other channels, and the
great _emboloi_ and warehouses were lying empty or in ruins. Tana or
the Azof, which had been the starting-point of a great caravan route
through Bokhara, Samarcand, and Balkh, now no longer contributed
largely to the commerce of Constantinople. Such of its trade as was
not sent overland to Western Europe was held by the Venetians, and at
a somewhat later period by the Genoese or other Italians, and scarcely
contributed at all to the wealth of the capital. The Danube became
during the thirteenth century the highway between the Black and the
North Seas. The city which had been the great centre for the collection
and distribution of the furs, the hides, the caviare and dried fish,
the honey, wax, and other produce which the Russian merchants collected
and stored for the use of the West, was now studiously avoided. The
Western traders who had met those from Novgorod, Tchernigov, and Kief
at Constantinople now found their way to the mouth of the Dnieper and
arranged for the transit of their goods so as to avoid the pirates
whom the Latin rulers of Constantinople were unable to suppress, or
the exactions levied upon their merchandise if they came within the
power of the ancient capital. Trade which had come to Constantinople
along the ancient roads through Asia Minor had either ceased to exist
or had been diverted into other channels. The confidence arising from
a sense of security which through a long series of years had attracted
commerce could not be restored and in fact was never regained. The
loss of her trade took from Constantinople the only external source
of revenue. The restored empire had thus to depend almost exclusively
upon the contributions which it could levy upon the long harassed and
impoverished peoples who recognised its rule.
The recapture of the capital, though an epoch-marking event, was
only one step towards the restoration of the empire. It never really
was restored. It never recovered the commanding position which it
had occupied during even the worst periods of its history since
Constantine. Its existence from 1261 to its capture by the Turks in
1453 is one long struggle.
[Sidenote: Difficulties of restored empire.]
The capital had been a centre which had kept well in touch with
even the remote corners of the empire. In it had been the seat of
government, the highest law courts presided over by the ablest jurists,
the continuators of the work of Justinian, whose labour had formulated
the law of all continental Europe. There also was the centre of the
theological and religious life of the empire and the seat of the
administration. Unhappily, during the sixty years of Latin rule the
whole framework of this administration had been broken up. A new plan
of government had to be devised. The new officials of the emperors were
called upon to govern without rules, without experience, and without
traditions. The forms of provincial and municipal government were
hardly remembered, and there were no men trained in affairs to breathe
life into them.
The influences at work in the capital had bound the empire together,
but they had been exercised through local administrations. The result
now was that the government became centralised: that is, that matters
which previously would have been dealt with in the provinces by men
with local knowledge had to be dealt with in the capital by men who
were necessarily under many disadvantages. The effort of its rulers
after the city was recaptured was not merely to restore to it the
territory which had acknowledged its sway, but to administer good
government directly from its capital.
Unfortunately, the desolation wrought in Constantinople was reproduced
throughout every portion of what had been the empire before the
Latin conquest. The country had been everywhere impoverished and the
population diminished by successive raids of Crusaders or pretenders.
[Sidenote: From foreign states.]
Nor were the external difficulties of the restored empire less
alarming. When Michael the Eighth entered the recaptured city he found
anarchy throughout his European territory and neighbouring states
eager to enlarge their boundaries at his expense. The Bulgarians were
a formidable power, whose dominions were not divided from his own by
any natural boundary. The Serbians had utilised the period of the
Latin occupation to gather strength and were rising once again to
importance. The crusading families who had obtained fiefs in Greece and
the southern portion of Macedonia still retained their independence.
Genoese and Venetians, while struggling against each other for the
favour of the emperor, were each on the alert to obtain territory as
well as trading privileges at his expense.
[Sidenote: From hostility towards Roman Church.]
One of the most serious evils inflicted on the empire by the Latin
occupation was the fierce antagonism it had created in the Orthodox
Church towards that of the elder Rome. We have seen that Innocent had
foreseen this result, but even he, great statesman though he was, could
hardly have anticipated that the hatred aroused would be of so long a
duration. When the city had been captured a Latin patriarch had been
appointed, the union of the Churches had been forced upon clergy and
people, and the Church, which had always considered itself the equal if
not the superior of Rome, was relegated to a position of inferiority.
All attempts at reunion were henceforward regarded not merely from
the point of view of religion, but from that of patriotism. Union was
part of the heritage of bondage. Union meant voluntary submission to
the foreign Church which had been able to impose its rule during two
generations. Union, therefore, in the minds of a majority of both
clergy and laity had to be resisted as a badge of slavery.
Though the Latin empire had perished, there still remained a Latin
emperor or pretender, and he and his descendants, with the support of
successive popes and aided by adventurers from France, Italy, and
Spain, made many and constant attempts to regain the position which
had been lost. For upwards of a century after the city’s recapture
there was a general scramble by the European neighbours of the empire
and Western powers for adjacent territory. The dominions of the
emperor were large and sparsely populated, and offered an irresistible
temptation to neighbouring states. More formidable, however, than all
other enemies were the Turks. Though they had been attacked in the rear
and were for a while rent by internal dissensions, they were steadily
increasing: adding constantly by conquests to the territory over which
their emirs ruled, and increasing in numbers by the never-failing
stream of immigrants and born warriors coming into Asia Minor from
Central Asia.
[Sidenote: From Michael’s usurpation.]
Among the first difficulties encountered in the reconstruction of the
empire must be noted that arising from the irregularity of Michael’s
own position. It is worthy of note, not merely as a difficulty, but as
showing the independent spirit of the Orthodox Church. The reader will
have ample evidence of the inflexibility of its resistance on questions
of dogma, but the very commencement of the reign of Michael illustrates
how it was prepared to make a vigorous stand even against the deliverer
of the empire on the simple ground of righteousness. We have seen that
Michael had no legal claim to the throne. The _de jure_ heir was John,
a child of eight years when his father, Theodore Lascaris, died. His
guardians were Michael, who had been made Grand Duke, and Arsenius the
Patriarch. When a year afterwards, in 1261, the city was recaptured,
it was expected by some persons of influence that Michael would either
simply act as regent or associate John with him as co-emperor as soon
as he became of age. Michael, however, in the same year, blinded
the boy, so as to render him incapable of ascending the throne.[21]
Arsenius the Patriarch, as soon as the cruel deed became known, called
a meeting of the bishops and boldly pronounced against the emperor
a formal sentence of excommunication. None of the bishops opposed.
They did not attempt to depose him. One can only conjecture why they
hesitated. Possibly it was because they considered it expedient that
he should remain on the throne, or it may be that they regarded such a
step as beyond their jurisdiction. The emperor was alarmed, feared the
consequences of excommunication among the troops, but feared probably
still more the spiritual penalties which would follow the sentence. He
preferred, says Pachymer,[22] to die rather than to live burdened with
the anathemas of the Church. He sought out friends of the patriarch and
begged them to use all their influence to have the penalties removed.
He urged that penance should be imposed, and professed himself ready to
undergo any which might be deemed necessary to atone for his fault. The
patriarch replied that, even if he were threatened with death, he would
never remove the excommunication. The emperor went himself to visit
Arsenius, and in the conversation asked whether it was his wish that
he should abdicate, unbuckling his sword as he did so. When, however,
the patriarch stretched out his hand to receive it, the emperor put it
back. The patriarch remained firm. The emperor complained bitterly to
his friends of the conduct of Arsenius, and threatened that, as his
own Church would not grant him absolution, he would have recourse to
the pope, who would be more conciliatory. Years passed and Arsenius
constantly refused to give way. Every means thought of by the emperor
of conciliating him had failed, and he at length determined to have
him deposed. But threats and promises were equally unavailable. He had
called together the bishops on several occasions and complained that
it was impossible for him to govern the country unless he was relieved
of so heavy a burden.[23] On the last of these occasions he claimed
that by the law of the Church every Christian had a right to absolution
on doing penance, and he asked whether such laws were to be construed
less favourably for princes than for other sinners. He submitted that
the patriarch had treated him not only unjustly but illegally, and
concluded by inviting the bishops to depose Arsenius.
Once more he sent to ask the patriarch whether or not he would grant
absolution, and once more Arsenius refused. Upon this, as the bishops
would not consent to declare that he was not justified in maintaining
the anathema, the emperor had Articles of Accusation drawn against him.
The charges were not altogether of a trivial character. He accused
him of having shortened the prayer for the emperor in matins; of
having ordered the omission of the Trisagion; of having conversed in
a friendly manner with the sultan of the Seljukian Turks; of having
allowed him and other Mahometan companions to bathe in a bath belonging
to the Church, where there were crosses; of having ordered a monk to
administer the Sacrament to the sultan’s children, although he was not
certain that they had been baptised.
An assembly of bishops was convoked to examine the charges. The
patriarch replied by objecting to the meeting of the court in the
palace, refused to appear, and promised to send his answer to the
charges in writing. Pachymer recounts in some detail how the emperor
endeavoured to obtain absolution by a trick, and how Arsenius on
discovering it asked him if he thought he could deceive God. The
emperor in reply insisted that some of the charges should be pressed
on to hearing and obtained a majority of votes condemning the
patriarch.[24]
The patriarch was thereupon exiled.
His successor, Germanus, removed the anathema, but doubts arose in
the emperor’s mind whether the removal was valid. After a few months
Germanus was persuaded by the emperor to retire, and in his place the
nominee of Michael, a certain Joseph, was named. The new patriarch
was a courtier, and probably knew that the principal reason for his
election was that absolution might be effectively and publicly given.
The emperor allowed Joseph a month within which to consider the best
means of granting him absolution, and then all was arranged. On
the great feast of Candlemas, February 2, 1267, there was a notable
function in Hagia Sophia for the removal of the anathema. The
ceremony was a long and solemn one, the patriarch and the bishops,
and probably the emperor and his suite, having had to pass the whole
night in the church. The great church was crowded with worshippers or
spectators. When the liturgy was completed the emperor, who had thus
far remained standing surrounded by his guards and senators, drew near
the Holy Gates[25] behind which stood the bishops. Then, uncovered,
he prostrated himself to the ground at the feet of the patriarch,
publicly confessed his sin, and humbly demanded pardon. While he was
thus prostrate, the patriarch, and after him each of the bishops, read
the formula by which he was absolved from the crime committed against
the young emperor. When all had thus given absolution, the emperor
rose, was admitted to Holy Communion, and, says Pachymer, henceforward
treated John with every kindness. The point, however, to be noted is
that even the emperor, strong-willed usurper as he was, was not merely
afraid of the terrors of the Church, but found it extremely difficult
to bend it to his will so as to obtain the removal of its sentence for
an unjust act, although there were many obvious advantages to the state
in complying with the emperor’s wish.
[Sidenote: Difficulties arising from attempts by Latins to recover the
Empire.]
From the first year of his accession Michael the Eighth set himself
the task of diverting from the empire the attacks of Western states.
It was not to be expected that Baldwin and the statesmen of the West
would settle down resignedly to the loss of a Latin empire. During
many years their attempts to regain the city constituted the most
pressing danger to the empire and contributed more than any other
cause during Michael’s reign to render it unable to hold its own
against the encroachments of the Turks. To Michael, as to all other
statesmen in Europe, the representative of the West was the pope.
To satisfy the pope was to appease Western Europe, to divert attacks
from the empire, and to cause aid to be sent against the Moslems. But
the pope, on the accession of Michael, was doubly offended: first,
because the Latin empire had been overthrown, and second, because the
prospect of union between the two Churches was put back. Several years
had to pass and many struggles had to be borne before the pontiffs
reconciled themselves to the final disappearance of that Latin empire
the foundation of which the great statesman Pope Innocent the Third had
dreaded.
[Sidenote: Attempts at reconciliation with Roman Church.]
Michael, while resisting all attacks made or favoured by the pope, saw
the desirability of being reconciled with him so as, if possible, to
induce him not to lend his support to the efforts of Baldwin to recover
the city. With this object he never lost an opportunity, even at the
cost of alienating the sympathies of his own people and being denounced
by his own ecclesiastics, of endeavouring to gain the pontifical favour
by attempting to bring about the Union of the Churches.
It is remarkable that from his accession until the end of his reign
these attempts fill a part of all contemporary histories quite
disproportionate to what at first sight appears their importance. It is
even more remarkable that during the whole period between the capture
of the city by Michael and the Moslem siege in 1453 the dominant
question of interest was that of the Union of the Churches. The fact
that the representative of Western Europe was the sovereign pontiff
accounts to a great extent, though not altogether, for the prominent
part played by the religious question in nearly all the negotiations
between the later emperors and the West. Not even the constant and
almost unceasing struggle with the Turks occupies so much attention as
do the negotiations with Rome, the embassies, the Councils, and the
ever-varying tentatives to bring the two Churches into reconciliation.
No true conception of the life of the empire can be formed unless
it is realised how completely its citizens were occupied with these
semi-religious, semi-political questions. On one side the popes were
almost constant in their attempts, now to compel the Eastern Church to
come in, now to persuade it; on the other, the emperors, while fully
cognisant of the importance of diverting Western attacks and, at a
later period, of receiving aid against the common enemy of Christendom,
had constantly to meet with the dogged and unceasing opposition and
bitter hostility of the great mass of their subjects to purchasing help
at the price of union with the Latin Church.
A struggle began immediately on the accession of Michael and soon
became a curiously complicated strife. The pope in 1262 proclaimed
a Crusade against him and against the Genoese, who still remained
allied with him. The pontiff characterised Michael as a usurper and
a schismatic, and granted the same indulgences to those who took up
arms or contributed to the expenses of the expedition against him as
to those who fought for the deliverance of the Holy Land. He urged
St. Louis to collect tithes for the same purpose.[26] Michael, on the
other hand, while preparing to resist invasion and strengthening the
city walls, increasing his fleet, and raising new levies, yet sought
to satisfy the pope by offering to do his utmost to bring about the
Union of the Churches. Possibly owing to the emperor’s representations,
Urban the Fourth countermanded the proposed expedition, diverting it
against the Tartars who were then invading Palestine. He sent friars
to Constantinople to exhort the emperor to carry out his proposal for
reunion. His successor, Clement, was, however, a man of a different
spirit and replied to the promises of Michael that they were only fair
words intended to prevent him from aiding the dethroned Baldwin. While
Michael had undoubtedly this object in view, he seems to have been
sincere in his desire for Union. One of his objections to the patriarch
Arsenius was that he would have nothing to do with the Latins. The
Greek priests clamoured to such an extent against the patriarch who
succeeded Arsenius, because he was believed to be willing to follow
the emperor’s example in working for Union, that he was compelled to
resign.
As time went on, the Venetians, whose influence in the city had
fallen with the Latin empire, began to lose hope of seeing Baldwin
re-established on the throne, and in 1267 sent to make peace with
Michael. Gregory the Tenth threatened the doge with anathema if he even
made a truce with him. The emperor endeavoured, though in vain, to
appease the wrath of the pope by obtaining the intervention of Louis of
France. Gregory, whom Michael had congratulated on his accession upon
the death of Clement, was more conciliatory. He sent legates to the
capital to treat once more on Union. Pachymer gives a vivid account of
the negotiations which followed, an account from which it is difficult
to doubt the sincerity of the emperor’s wish for reconciliation or the
persistence of the opposition which he had to encounter. He states[27]
that the emperor followed the example of John Ducas of Nicaea, that he
sent many embassies to Rome, and that his real object was to obtain
from the popes protection for the Greeks. Gregory assured him that
no time was so favourable as the present for putting an end to the
Greek schism. The emperor on his side did his utmost to persuade the
patriarch and the bishops to aid him. The Latin delegates themselves
were men of piety who showed every possible respect for the Greek rite.
They were invited to discuss the differences between the dogmas of the
two Churches. In their interviews with the bishops they claimed that
the _Filioque_ clause which constituted the great point of discussion
was a divine mystery which was impenetrable, that while the difference
between the Latin formula which declared that the Holy Ghost proceeds
from the Father and the Son was not really at variance with the Greek
that He proceeded from the Father by the Son, they ought to be content
with the reasons which the Latins adduced for inserting it in the
Creed. The bishops met these observations with a rugged _non possumus_.
Their Creed was what had been consecrated by the usage of centuries.
It was dangerous for any one Church to add to the Symbols even words
which were not contrary to the Catholic faith. The bishops openly
declared that, whatever the threats of the emperor might be, they would
hold to the ancient formula.
News of an expedition to restore the Latin empire came pouring in, and
the emperor determined to have his own way and to conciliate the pope.
In an assembly in which the patriarch, bishops, and other ecclesiastics
took part he spoke at great length in favour of reconciliation.
The patriarch appointed Veccus, a man famous for his eloquence and
learning, to reply to him. His reply is summed up by Pachymer: ‘There
are heretics who are so called. There are some who are not heretics and
are not so called. There are some who are called but are not heretics,
and lastly there are others who are not called but are heretics, and it
is in this latter class that the Latins must be placed.’
The emperor dismissed the assembly and was violently angry against
Veccus, whom he accused of having acted with bad faith. Having failed
in substantiating a formal charge, he arbitrarily sent him prisoner to
the Tower of Anemas. While in prison, however, Michael furnished him
with books which favoured the Latin case, and, says Pachymer, as he
was a man of singular simplicity and of sincere love for the truth he
became disposed towards reconciliation. He was released. The emperor
pressed the patriarch and the bishops to find a _modus vivendi_ with
the Latins, and was now aided by Veccus, who had discovered that the
sole fault of the Western Church was that it had solely upon its own
authority added the obnoxious clause to the Creed. The patriarch
and the bishops, however, were obdurate. By dint of persecution,
by requiring them to pay arrears of rent for their monasteries and
houses, he sought to force them to come to an arrangement. He called
another assembly and finally succeeded in obtaining a declaration
from them with which for the time he was forced to be content. In
this very assembly, however, one of the aged bishops besought him
not to press the Union, assuring him that even if the dignitaries
signed no one else would accept it. The Arsenites and the Josephites,
as the followers of the two ex-patriarchs who would not comply with
the emperor’s wish were called, had with them the great mass of the
citizens, and the aged dignitary was probably right when he stated[28]
that if the emperor persisted, civil war would be the consequence.
Meantime the emperor, who could not or would not understand this bitter
opposition to his desires, was aware that negotiations were going on
between Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily (whose daughter had married
the son and heir of Baldwin, the ex-emperor), and the Venetians for an
attack upon his territories and the restoration of the Latin empire.
Michael sent costly presents to the pope, and once more declared his
determination to bring about Union, and asked his indulgence. Once
more he sent delegates to the pope, who in return ordered Charles
to facilitate their passage through his dominions and to postpone
hostilities. The emperor insisted on Union, and in the following
year, 1274, he and some of the bishops sent other delegates to Lyons
to complete a formal reconciliation. On their arrival in that city
they pronounced during the celebration of Mass the obnoxious clause.
Gregory the Tenth declared that they had come voluntarily to submit
themselves, to make the Roman confession of faith, and to recognise his
supremacy. After George Acropolitas had read the emperor’s profession,
and the envoy of the bishops theirs, a _Te Deum_ was sung and the Union
proclaimed. But whatever the pope or the emperor might wish or even do,
the Eastern Church was not prepared to ratify a reconciliation. The
patriarch still refused to yield. He had gone as far as he intended to
go and declared that he would abdicate if the Union were accomplished.
Thereupon he was deposed by the synod. Immediately afterwards the
pope’s name was introduced into the public prayers, but with the result
that the breach between those in favour of Union and those opposed to
it became wider. The emperor pertinaciously persevered, and with his
consent Veccus, who had now gone over to the emperor’s side, was named
patriarch.
On the return of the delegates from Lyons, preaching friars were sent
to Constantinople by Innocent the Fifth. On his death, in 1276, his
successor, John the Twenty-fifth, sent nuncios, who were received with
great honour, and Michael, in return, together with the patriarch sent
delegates to confirm the Union. They arrived, however, in Rome after
the death of John. In 1277 Michael and his son Andronicus, the heir to
the throne, who was now of full age, formally confirmed the Union of
the Churches. Thereupon there began a struggle with those who opposed
it. The patriarch Veccus excommunicated its adversaries, mentioning the
leaders by name. John the Bastard, the despot of Epirus, who was the
foremost, at once called a Council and submitted the question to its
decision. This Council anathematised alike the emperor, the pope, and
the patriarch. Some of the nobles and officers sent against John openly
declared for him as the defender of the ancient faith.
The new pope was convinced that the emperor was doing his utmost to
bring about Union, and in consequence refused permission to Charles
of Anjou to send an expedition against him. When his nuncios arrived,
in 1279, in the capital, they learned that, in spite of the emperor
and the patriarch, the clergy and people would not accept Union. The
nuncios were taken to the prisons and saw nobles, even of the emperor’s
own family, as well as many others, loaded with chains on account of
their opposition on this question to the imperial wish. They were
convinced of the emperor’s good faith, but no definite statement could
be obtained from the bishops. _Non possumus_ remained the expression of
their attitude.
When, however, Martin the Fourth learned from the nuncios what was
the position in Constantinople, he seems either to have lost all hope
of bringing about Union by persuasion, or possibly to have thought
that his predecessor had been deceived by Michael; for in 1281 he
excommunicated the emperor and all the Greeks as schismatics. By
so doing he became free to assist in organising the long-threatened
expedition for the restoration of the Latin empire. Michael in reply
simply contented himself with the omission of the pope’s name from the
prayers.
Martin followed up his excommunication by joining in a league with
Charles of Anjou and the Venetians in order to replace Michael by
Philip, the son of Baldwin the Latin emperor. In the following year
the pope in renewing his excommunication gave the emperor until May 1,
1282, within which to submit himself under pain of being deposed.
Michael’s position was desperate. He had alienated his own subjects;
he had risked his throne, imprisoned his nearest relations, had tried
bribes, intrigues, flattery, and force. Worse than all, he had been
forced to allow the various hordes of Moslems in Asia Minor--Turks,
Kurds, and Tartars--to encroach on the territory of the empire at a
time when, if he had had a free hand, a serious check might have been
put to their progress. All was in vain. His failure with the popes was
now as complete as with his own people. The threat of an expedition
under Charles of Anjou was so serious that he sent thirty thousand
ounces of gold to Peter of Aragon to assist him in defeating Charles
and diverting his expedition from the Bosporus. He became irritable
and melancholy at the obstinacy of his subjects and punished them with
unreasonable severity and great cruelty.[29]
[Sidenote: Death of Michael VIII.]
The pope’s expedition was, however, put an end to by the Sicilian
Vespers in March 1282. The forces of Charles of Anjou found other
employment than an expedition to Constantinople. In December of the
same year Michael died.[30]
[Sidenote: Reign of Andronicus II., 1282–1328.]
During the long reign of Andronicus the Second (1282 to 1328), the
son and successor of Michael, the party which the latter had headed
in favour of Union with Rome fell to pieces. The older emperor’s
disappointment probably hastened his death. Veccus the patriarch within
a few months was forced to withdraw to a monastery. His writings in
favour of Union were burned. He was put upon his trial before a synod
and saved himself by signing a declaration against further attempts
at reconciliation with the Latin Church. The ex-patriarch Joseph was
brought back in triumph, and a persecution at once commenced of those
who had favoured the emperor’s plans.
This hostility to the Unionist party was contemporaneous with a short
period during which the fear of an attack to reestablish a Latin
empire had lessened. The attention of the pontiff was directed towards
sending aid to the king of Armenia, who had been for years making
a brave defence against his Moslem assailants. But the attempt at
Union and the re-establishment of a Latin empire was not forgotten.
In 1287 Nicholas the Fourth endeavoured to accomplish these objects
while allowing the Greek emperor to remain on the throne. He favoured,
and perhaps suggested, a marriage between Michael, the eldest son of
Andronicus, and Catherine of Courtenay, the granddaughter of Baldwin.
Her other grandfather, Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily, claimed the
imperial throne on her behalf.[31] The proposal of marriage had much
to recommend it to the emperor, because it appeared to be a means of
putting an end to the attempts to regain the imperial throne by the
deposed family. The arrangements were broken off because Andronicus
would not agree to recognise the pope’s supremacy, without which the
pontiff refused his consent. Considering the attitude of the Greek
ecclesiastics, there can be little doubt that if the emperor had
agreed to the pope’s demand the already strained relations between
the Orthodox and the Roman parties would have become dangerous to the
state, would have probably brought about civil war, and might have
cost Andronicus his throne. The question after long negotiations was
settled in 1295 by the marriage of Michael with the sister of the king
of Armenia.
[Sidenote: Popes favour project for reestablishing Latin empire.]
The popes thereupon took a bolder course. They had seen the futility of
the efforts to obtain Union by negotiation with the emperor, and now
supported a series of attempts to recapture Constantinople and to place
upon the throne a descendant of the last Latin emperor, Baldwin the
Second. If the recapture could be accomplished, the Union so dear to
Rome could be brought about by force.
In 1301 Catherine of Courtenay married Charles of Valois, brother of
the king of France.[32] The marriage was a political one, its object
being to give the hand of Catherine to a Western prince of sufficient
standing to arouse an enthusiasm in all the West in favour of the
restoration of the Latin empire. Charles at once entered into a treaty
with the Venetians for the conquest of Constantinople, and arranged
to recognise the assignment of certain portions of the empire which
had already been made to other descendants of Baldwin. A Venetian was
designated by the pope as Latin patriarch of Constantinople. Eighteen
Venetian ships went to the capital, and were sufficiently powerful to
force the emperor to grant trading concessions. Charles of Anjou and
Frederic of Aragon bound themselves to aid in the attempts to recapture
Constantinople.
It was in presence of this threatened attack, which appeared to be
far the most serious which had been contemplated since the city’s
recapture, that the emperor invited a certain Roger de Flor and his
band of Spanish mercenaries, who came to be known as the Catalan Grand
Company, to come to his aid.
Within the city itself great efforts were made, in presence of the
common danger, to unite the theological factions. The patriarch, who
had pronounced an anathema against the emperor, consented to withdraw
it. The truce, however, between the ecclesiastics was unfortunately of
short duration. As time passed, and the much-vaunted expedition did not
present itself, the old rancours again showed themselves.
Indeed, the expedition to place Charles of Valois on the imperial
throne made slow progress. In 1305 his brother, the king of France,
gave it his support. Once more the pontiff invited the Venetians to
follow the example of Dandolo and aid in the conquest of the city.
It was not, however, till the end of 1306 that a treaty of alliance
was made between them and Charles. The result which might have been
anticipated followed when the news was received in the capital. The
Latin monks, who up to this time had been tolerated within the city,
were expelled, and the party in favour of Union almost entirely
disappeared. Meantime the preparations for the expedition continued.
In 1308 its titular head, Charles of Valois, allied himself with the
Servians. Charles himself was ready, but apparently not eager, for the
enterprise. The Venetians desired speedy action; but the Western nobles
only feebly responded to the pope’s demand, although it was supported
by the king of France. Charles of Anjou was not ready. In the course of
the next year Catherine of Courtenay died, and partly on account of her
death, and probably also because he despaired of leading a successful
enterprise, Charles of Valois abandoned the design of capturing
Constantinople. He, however, transferred what he considered his rights
to the throne to his son-in-law, Philip of Tarentum.
The Venetians resigned themselves to a position which would allow them
once more to trade with the empire, and in 1310 concluded a truce with
its ruler for ten years.
Philip now prepared to organise an attempt against Constantinople,
and once more the pope, in 1313, weakened the position of the Latin
party in Constantinople by calling upon Frederic, king of Sicily, to
aid the new pretender. The king of France undertook to furnish five
hundred men-at-arms, and money to pay them for a year, and called
upon Louis of Burgundy to furnish another hundred. The undertaking,
however, languished, and when Philip of France died, in 1314, no one,
except Philip of Tarentum, seemed to have any further interest in it.
He leagued himself with the king of Hungary in 1318, and two years
later purchased certain rights in the principality of Achaia and what
was still spoken of in the West as the kingdom of Thessalonica. But
no favourable opportunity came to him, and in 1324 the doge of Venice
notified the emperor that the princes of the West had no intention of
attacking the imperial city. The notification turned out correct, for,
until his dethronement, in 1328, Andronicus was no longer troubled with
tidings of expeditions against Constantinople from Western Europe.
[Sidenote: The Catalan Grand Company. Expedition Against
Constantinople.]
Meantime it is necessary to return to the invitation which Andronicus
had given to Robert de Flor to come to his aid. This aid was intended
nominally against the Turks, but really against the expedition which
Charles of Valois was preparing, with the sanction of the pope and the
help of the Venetians and of all men who would respond to the pope’s
exhortation, to assist in restoring a Latin emperor to Constantinople.
The invitation brought into the empire a band of auxiliaries from the
West which, in its weakened condition, was almost as mischievous and
ruinous to the empire as any expedition openly directed against its
existence could have been. The evil inflicted upon the empire by the
band of mercenaries invited for its defence was indeed so manifold that
the story deserves telling with considerable detail.
As already stated, Philip, the son of Baldwin, the last Latin emperor,
had married the daughter of Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily. Charles
promised, in 1278, to send an expedition to Constantinople, but the
pope, seeing the efforts which Michael continued to make for Union,
refused his sanction. Two years later, however, a new pope entered
into a treaty with Venice and Naples to attack the empire, and Charles
undertook to send eight hundred cavaliers to claim what he considered
the rights of his granddaughter. A body of troops was sent across
the Adriatic to assist the Albanians, who were fighting against the
emperor. The invaders were utterly defeated, and the empire was saved
from the attack of Charles by the disorganisation produced by the
Sicilian Vespers in 1283, a massacre in which 8,000 Frenchmen perished.
In the twenty years that followed, a body of Spanish mercenaries played
a prominent part in the Sicilian troubles. Spain had been engaged for
three hundred years in a long and almost continuous struggle against
the Moors. Fathers had dedicated their sons in successive generations
to the defence of Christianity and their country, and the result was
already to have formed a nation of brave and disciplined soldiers, such
as Western Europe had not seen since the best days of the Roman empire.
Peter of Aragon had supplied a band of such soldiers to fight against
France in Sicily and Calabria.
In 1301 the marriage of Catherine of Courtenay, daughter of Philip, and
granddaughter of Baldwin the Second, with Charles of Valois, son of
Philip the Second of France, and brother of the king, put an end to the
troubles in Sicily with the French.
Now that, in 1302, peace was concluded in Sicily, their employers
were anxious to be rid of the now useless mercenaries; for, though
their courage, their recklessness of danger, and their prowess were
indisputable, their lawlessness, their cruelty to the inhabitants of
the country where they were encamped, and their insubordination, even
to their own officers, were no less remarkable. Moreover, Frederic of
Sicily was unable to pay them, and they had already commenced to pay
themselves by general plunder. Unaccustomed to work, and used only to
a life of rapine, they were ready to take service under any leader who
appeared able to offer them good chances of pillage; but woe to the
country to which they were sent, and to the cause which they promised
to serve!
Among their leaders was a German named Robert Blum, whose name became
changed or translated to Roger de Flor. He was a typical instance of
the worst kind of soldier of fortune of the middle ages. He entered
the order of the Templars, but was degraded because he betrayed the
Christians in return for bribes from the Moslems. Then he turned
pirate, and sought foreign service. The French refused to have anything
to do with him. He had therefore gone over to the enemy, and the king
of Sicily made him vice-admiral. He robbed for his master wherever
he could find anything to steal. If he met an enemy, he took all he
could carry away, without acknowledgment; if a friend, he took what he
wanted, and gave acknowledgments of a very doubtful value, which were
to be paid by the king of Sicily at the end of the war.
When the Sicilian war was over, the Grand Master of the Temple urged
the pope to insist that Roger de Flor should be surrendered for
punishment. Roger learned that such a demand was about to be made[33]
and anticipated extradition by taking service with the Greek emperor,
nominally to fight against the Turks, promising to bring with him a
body of Spanish troops. The alarm of Andronicus at the report of the
expedition of Charles of Valois against him was great. It looked as
if all Western princes were about to enter upon a new crusade for the
recapture of Constantinople. Hence he was prepared to welcome aid from
any source.
In 1303 Roger de Flor arrived at Constantinople with a fleet of seven
ships and eight thousand men, who are described by Pachymer as Catalans
and Amogavares, the latter being adventurers from other parts of Spain
than Catalonia. This band was soon spoken of as the Catalan Grand
Company.
Roger was accompanied by Fernand Ximenes, who was also at the head of
a large body of retainers who were desirous of taking service under
the emperor. The reputation which Roger de Flor bore as the most
daring of soldiers caused him to be eagerly welcomed by the emperor,
who conferred upon him the title of Grand Duke and hoped much from his
services. His reckless followers knew only one virtue--that of courage.
Their first adventure showed, however, the spirit of lawlessness which
existed in his army. The emperor had borrowed a large sum of money
from the Genoese which Roger alleged that he had employed in raising
new troops. When the Genoese applied to Roger for payment it was
refused. The emperor sent a high official to arrange the difficulty,
and the Catalans cut him in pieces. The Grand Company were at this
time encamped outside the city walls in the neighbourhood of the
present Eyoub. They seized the monastery of St. Cosmas and held it as
a fortress. The Genoese erected barricades on the shore of the Golden
Horn, and a struggle took place between the two in which many were
killed on both sides.
Shortly afterwards the Spaniards were induced to cross the Marmora to
Cyzicus, and a quarrel ensued between them and the Alans, one of the
first of many Asiatic tribes who had pushed their way into the valley
of the Danube, and a band of whom had been taken into the imperial
service. The son of the leader of the Alans was killed, and his
soldiers vowed vengeance. Roger de Flor then pushed on to attack the
Turks. He was seen at his best when he met the enemy. He raised the
siege of Philadelphia and defeated the various armies sent against him,
killing, it is said, thirty thousand Turks and driving the rest of them
out of Lydia and Caria. But he was almost as terrible to the Christians
whom he had been sent to protect as he was to the Moslems. His progress
through Asia Minor was marked by constant plunder. Pachymer says that
those subjects of the emperor who fell into his hands after they had
escaped from the enemy had thrown themselves out of the smoke into
the fire. Those who gave up their property had difficulty in saving
their lives. The remark is made on the occasion of Roger’s visit to
Philadelphia, which he pillaged as if it had been an enemy’s city. He
treated Pergamos and Ephesus in the same way. His ships plundered the
islands of Chios, Lemnos, and Mytilene. The inhabitants of Magnesia
resisted his exactions, and he therefore laid siege to the city and did
his utmost to capture it. It was in vain that the emperor sent orders
to raise the siege and to attack Turks and not Christians. The Alans
who were with him urged obedience and withdrew when Roger refused. It
was only after a long siege that he recognised that he was unable to
capture the city and abandoned the attempt. In retreating he plundered
the Greeks as remorselessly as he did the Turks against whom he had
been sent. ‘Notwithstanding,’ says Pachymer, ‘that the emperor had
prepared all that was needed for the support of Roger and his army, the
peasants were robbed of everything they possessed and were left without
either seed-corn or oxen for ploughing. At the news of his coming many
abandoned their farms and took refuge in the islands. He appropriated
to his own use the tithes and other taxes which should have gone to the
emperor.’ Indeed there appears no reason to doubt the assertion that
this adventurer had now formed the intention of carving out a kingdom
for himself. It is possible indeed, and is in conformity with his
conduct, that from the first he had entertained such an intention. From
this time until his death he became the enemy of the emperor whom he
had come to aid.
When the Greek troops heard of the outrages on their countrymen they
asked the emperor to be led against the Catalans instead of against
the Turks. But the emperor himself was unwilling to break with Roger
and his army, or even that they should be distant from the city so
long as he expected the arrival of the great expedition intended for
its capture. He still also cherished the hope that the services of
the Grand Company might be employed against the Turks in case the
expedition from the West did not arrive. While he was hesitating,
Berenger of Catalonia arrived with new reinforcements in nine large
vessels, and soon he and Roger presented themselves at the imperial
court. Roger urged the emperor to subsidise Berenger, and in reply to
the question why the latter had come answered, because he had heard
of the liberality of the emperor’s payments. In a formal assembly
he reproached Roger with the lawlessness of his troops, with the
injury he had done to the Greeks, and especially with the burden of
expenses he had cast upon the empire. Finally, however, he consented to
receive Berenger and to assign to him a portion of the tithes for the
maintenance of the Catalan armies.
When, shortly after, a deputation of Catalans was sent to the emperor
demanding further pay, he replied by emptying in their presence sacks
full of letters complaining of exactions by the Spaniards. In spite
of these complaints and of the exactions and lawlessness of the Grand
Company, he appears to have been unwilling to lose their services. He
recounted the money payments he had made, but promised to give them
more than they had asked if only they would at once return to attack
the enemy in Asia. The deputation knew the emperor’s anxiety and
desire to keep his own troops for the defence of the city against the
expedition of Charles, and therefore refused to return without further
payment. All argument was useless. Berenger was dissatisfied with the
offers made to him personally and sailed away from the Golden Horn
during the night for Gallipoli, which city was held by his countrymen.
Roger pleaded in vain for more money to be paid at once. It was not
there to be given. The tension between the Spaniards and the emperor
became so great that the latter sent orders to his son Michael,
encamped near Apros, to be ready against an attack by the Catalans.
[Sidenote: Assassination of Roger de Flor.]
Some months later, in 1307, Roger went to Adrianople under pretence
that he wished to pay his respects to Michael at Apros and to take
leave of him, as he declared he was about to quit the country.
Pachymer, probably reflecting the popular belief, states that his real
object was to learn the number of men in the Greek army and what were
his chances in an attack upon it. Michael received him in a friendly
manner, but the Alans in his service had not forgotten the vengeance
they had vowed against him for having at Cyzicus killed the son of
George their leader, and as Roger was entering the audience chamber
he was stabbed by George himself. Upon news of the assassination, the
Catalans fled to Gallipoli, putting men, women, and children to the
sword during their flight. Michael followed them and laid siege to
the city, but Berenger persuaded the Emperor Andronicus to grant the
besieged time and so arranged matters that the Spaniards were able to
take ship and escape. They made their way once more across the Marmora
to Cyzicus, but the inhabitants stoutly resisted, and the besiegers
left for Perinthos, where they killed every man they could lay hands
on. When the news reached the capital the inhabitants demanded
vengeance on those of the Catalans who had remained there and, taking
the law into their own hands, burned their houses. The patriarch, who
had in vain attempted to check their fury, with difficulty saved his
own life.
[Sidenote: Outrages by the Grand Company.]
The Spaniards were now at open war with the Greeks, and even Andronicus
would have been glad to get rid of them. They attacked the seafaring
population at Rhegium, now called Buyuk Chekmeji, burnt several men,
impaled their children, and massacred those whom they had employed to
carry off their booty. Their progress was checked for a while by the
arrival of sixteen Genoese ships. As the Genoese had had trouble with
the emperor, the Spaniards were in hopes of their aid, but the former
sent secretly into the city from their fleet to learn the truth about
the situation, heard the Greek version of the differences, and then
declared for the emperor. The Genoese and imperial fleets attacked the
Spaniards, who were led by Berenger, defeated them, captured their
leader, and subsequently sent him prisoner to Italy.
[Sidenote: Turkish auxiliaries enter Europe.]
Gallipoli was, however, still in the hands of the Catalans and an
attempt to buy the aid of the Genoese to relieve it failed. Michael
endeavoured to capture it. Both armies had secured Turkish allies. A
decisive battle was fought near Apros, in which the Spaniards were
successful. They followed up their victory by ravaging the neighbouring
country, and in this they were joined by a band of Turks who had been
invited to join them and by Alans who had quitted the imperial service.
The country between Constantinople and Adrianople was laid waste,
all the inhabitants abandoning their houses to save their lives. The
garrison of Catalans in Gallipoli in like manner ravaged the western
part of Thrace; men were killed, women and children, flocks and herds
were carried off. The women and children were taken to be sold to, or
to be held as slaves by, the Turks.
The emperor, unable either to employ or to defeat the Spaniards and
being hard pressed by the Turks in Asia Minor, endeavoured now to buy
them off. An embassy was sent to them, but the conditions demanded were
impossible, and thereupon the scenes of violence were renewed. Bands
of Spaniards and their Turkish allies made incursions in the country
behind Constantinople as far as Chorlou, laid siege to Rodosto, and
killed all whom they found outside the walls. Those who could escape
took refuge in Constantinople. Pachymer states that the Spaniards
claimed to have killed five thousand of these peasants. Adrianople was
besieged and, though it was not captured, the army of the Alans, who
had once more joined the Greeks, was defeated, the vineyards around the
city were rooted up and the fertile country converted for the time into
a desert. When the emperor again made an effort to buy the Spaniards
off he found their terms higher than ever, on account of their success.
They not only demanded heavy payments for services never performed, but
that the Emperor should pay ransom for the towns, the fortresses and
prisoners captured by them.
The two divisions of Spaniards, one under Rocafert, who had been
appointed to succeed Roger, and the other under Fernand Ximenes,
were now acting separately, and while the negotiations were going on
the former set out for Constantinople. They were, however, resisted
by the imperial troops and compelled to retire. They continued under
Rocafert to devastate Thrace. As they themselves received no food from
abroad nor tilled the ground in Thrace and had already devastated the
country, they were at length forced to retreat from want of provisions
to Gallipoli.
[Sidenote: Dissension in the Grand Company.]
Happily, serious divisions arose between the Spaniards themselves.
A large number of them refused to recognise Rocafert who had been
named leader with the consent of Ximenes. On the other hand, Rocafert
declared that as he had conquered the country he had no intention of
abandoning the leadership. The influence of Guy, the nephew of the
king of Sicily, who had brought with him another detachment of foreign
freebooters in seven large ships and who counted upon utilising the
Grand Company for the re-establishment of the Latin empire in his own
family, was unable to settle the differences between the two parties,
and they were soon at open war with each other. On one side was
Rocafert, on the other were Guy, Ximenes, and Berenger, who had been
released by the Genoese.
In view of an attack by the imperial troops and of the necessity of
finding provisions, a peace was patched up between the two Spanish
factions, and they started in a body to attack Salonica and plunder
Macedonia. The six thousand Spaniards were accompanied by three
thousand Turks. Rocafert’s division led. The van of the second
division reached the camping ground of the first before it had been
completely evacuated, and the two armies at once began fighting each
other. Berenger hastened to put an end to the quarrel and was killed
by Rocafert’s brother. Ximenes was captured. Rocafert was now the sole
leader. He attempted to capture Salonica but failed. He then retreated
in order to return to Thrace: but his position was growing weak. He
appealed to a French admiral, who had arrived in the northern Aegean as
the precursor of the expected great expedition from the West, for his
intervention with the Spaniards who distrusted him, but the admiral
seized and carried him off to the king of Naples, where he was thrown
into prison and starved to death.
[Sidenote: Its end, 1315.]
When the partisans of Rocafert in the Grand Company learned of what
they regarded as the treachery of the French admiral, they murdered
their officers under the belief that they were parties to the capture.
They elected new leaders, marched into Thessaly, and took service with
the descendants of the crusading barons who had carved out territories
for themselves in that province and in Greece. It is unnecessary to
follow them there. It is sufficient to say that the Greek army had
dogged their movements, had fought well, had defeated them in many
engagements, and that what may be regarded as the last struggle with
the Grand Company took place in 1315.
[Sidenote: Disastrous results from attempts to restore empire.]
The devastation caused by the attempts from the West to re-establish
the Latin empire culminating in the disorders caused by the Grand
Company was such that the empire’s chances of recovering its strength
were enormously diminished. The fall of the city in 1204 had been
followed by the destruction of the organisation in Asia Minor for
resisting the progress of Asiatic hordes towards Europe. One may
conjecture that the great statesman Innocent the Third, who had
foreseen some of the evil effects which would inevitably follow
from the success of Dandolo and Montferrat, would have realised
the necessity of aiding Constantinople in making such resistance.
Unfortunately, Innocent’s successors were less statesmanlike. Instead
of seeking to strengthen the Greeks in Constantinople by condemning the
wild lawlessness of the Spaniards, their dominating idea was to restore
the Latin empire, so as to force the members of the Orthodox Church to
enter into Union. The results of all their attempts were altogether
disastrous. The empire was weakened on every side. Its component parts
had always been loosely bound together. Long distances in ages of badly
constructed roads had prevented the development of loyalty as a bond
of union. The traditional attachment to the autocrat at Constantinople
had been shaken by the change of dynasties. Peasants living far away
from the capital, who had no other desire than to till their lands in
peace, were ready to accept the rule of a Serbian or a Bulgarian, of
a powerful rebel against the empire or even of the Turks themselves,
provided they were undisturbed. Those who were in the neighbourhood of
the capital were in worse plight. The development of trade and commerce
had been hindered. Thrace had become a desolation. During five years
the Spaniards had lived on the country and only deserted it when there
remained nothing further to plunder. The thriving communities extending
along all the northern shores of the Marmora from the city to Gallipoli
were impoverished or destroyed. Flourishing vineyards and oliveyards
were abandoned. The fishing and shipping communities ceased to find
occupation. Great numbers of the inhabitants were exterminated.
The richest city in Europe had become poverty-stricken. The coinage,
which for centuries had served as the standard for the whole Western
world, had been debased in order to find money to pay foreign
mercenaries. Worse than all, while the empire had been employed in
resisting these invaders from the West, the Bulgarians, Serbians, and,
far more important than either, the Turks had gained strength and had
enormously enlarged their territories.
To the Catalan Grand Company must be attributed the introduction of
the first body of Turks into Europe. It might have been expected that
the traditions of Spaniards would have influenced them sufficiently to
have refused Moslem aid, that Western Europe would have raised the cry
of treason to Christendom when it learned that bands of Turks had been
engaged to fight against a Christian though a schismatic emperor; but
the filibusters who had been invited into the empire for the defence
of Christendom thought only of plunder, and Western Europe was either
indifferent or thought there was little to choose between schismatics
and Moslems.
The attempts to restore the Latin empire had failed, but the emperor
and his people were in presence of a much more formidable enemy
than the West had furnished. The Asiatic hordes whom the city had
successfully resisted for a century and a half before its capture were
now constantly encroaching on imperial territory. As these hordes were
destined to be the destroyers of the Empire, I propose next briefly to
notice their origin and history.