From a Groom to an Emperor – Part IV – Basil the Noble.

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886) showed during his two decades of reign that he was worthy of the crown of the Byzantine emperor. With skillful and prudent policy, both internal and external, he had greatly improved the Empire. 

In order to somewhat mitigate Basil’s dark and violent rise to the throne of Constantinople, his descendant – son Leo VI the Wise (886-912) and grandson Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (912-959) – and almost the entire official historiography of the Macedonian dynasty with them, reached for fictional genealogy. 

In Basil, on one hand, they saw a distant descendant of Arsacid, known Parthian royal house that was in the 3rd century BC founded by Arsaces I, and later, with kindred, connected to Persian Sassanid Empire, as well as young Armenian state. From his mother’s side, Basil was allegedly associated with Constantine the Great, and by some with Alexander the Great. 

It is interesting to note that the later Byzantine writers have, in different ways, accepted these incredible assumptions. For example, in the 11th century, John Skylitzes gives them, without any intellectual doubt, an unconditional trust. Unlike Skylitzes, John Zonaras (first half of the 12th century) dismisses the whole story of Basil’s ancient nobility and notes that the founder of the Macedonian dynasty comes from Macedonia, from insignificant and unknown fathers, regardless the fact that some of those who wrote about him made up that he was a descendant of Arsacid.

Another legend, that sounds tempting but suffers from a lack of historical credibility, contributes to a new mystery around Basil I the Macedonian. It is a famous word BECLAS, an acronym of Basil’s closest family -  in the first place Basil himself, then his wife Eudokia, and, finally, his sons Constantine, Leo, Alexander and Stephen. This acrostic is recorded by Patriarch Photius (858-867, 877-886) who wrote many stories about Basil’s “nobility”. 

As written by the Byzantine writer Niketas David Paphlagon, the genealogy of the founder of Macedonian dynasty was put together by Photius, who, with the help of some priest, wrote a great number of lies with Alexandrian literate on the oldest paper, to imitate an ancient manuscript.  He then put an ancient cover on it that he took from some ancient book, and secretly placed his work among other books in the royal library.

Leaving aside the veracity of this interesting story by Niketas David Paphlagon, it is probably possible that the Byzantines themselves were well aware that genealogy could be forged, and that many of them are indeed forged.

Invention of legends is not typical just for Byzantine Empire, but also for a number of other states of the medieval world. Furthermore, it is not exaggeration if we say that false genealogies are being created even in our time. Unfortunately, a great number of people is blindly convinced in such forged genealogies.

Whatever the case, the assumption that Basil I the Macedonian, man who was capable and discerning enough to become emperor from a groom, was not familiar with the compilation of "fabricated" genealogy that celebrates antiquity of his imperial home, seems unlikely.

To return to Part III – „The one who sleeps beside”, click HERE.

To return to Part I – A boy named Basil, click HERE.

read more...

From a Groom to an Emperor – Part III – „The one who sleeps beside”.

It took ten years before Empress's prophetic words were fulfilled. In the meantime, Basil steadily climbed the Byzantine hierarchical ladder, mostly because a favorable combination of circumstances allowed it.

The most powerful man in Byzantium at that time was Emperor’s uncle Bardas. Bardas was a man of luxurious administrative abilities. In 865, he removed the parakoimōmenos Damian whose influence he was afraid of, and appointed Basil on his place.

Parakoimōmenos (Greek word for “The one who sleeps beside”) was the head of royal nuptial bed, something like a “guardian” of emperor’s bedroom who, due to the fact that he stayed close to the emperor, had the opportunity to be at the source of valuable information. This position was usually reserved for eunuchs, but in Basil’s case, they made an exception. Very soon, Bardas regretted for promoting Basil on such high position, and he expressed that with these words: “I got rid of the fox; but in his place I have put a lion who will end by devouring us all.”

The emperor’s uncle and former emperor’s groom were now worst enemies. In April 866, during the campaign for Crete, an island that the Arabs captured from the Byzantines, Basil and his men killed Bardas.

Still enchanted, a month after Basil’s return to Constantinople, Michael III gave the crown of co-emperor to his little pet. The stranger from Thrace officially became the second man of the empire and just one step behind the throne.

Afraid of Emperor’s capricious and sometimes unbalanced nature, Basil left nothing to chance. He devised a plot. In the night between September 23 and 24, 867, after a feast on the court, his men killed a drunken Emperor in his bedroom. 

Phrygian Dynasty was succeeded by new Macedonian dynasty. This new dynasty will become the most famous Byzantine dynasty that ruled almost for two centuries over the Roman Empire (867-1056).

Staggering rise of ambitious and ruthless newcomer, crowned with legends that are not deprived of historical background, is convincing testimony to the fact that the path to the Byzantine throne was open to everyone and that the biggest “nobody” could have climbed on the very top of the Roman Empire.

This was typical for early (4-7 century) and middle Byzantine (7-11 century).  In the late Byzantine Empire (11-15 century), just a member of some of the most prominent noble families could have become an emperor.  

To read Part IV – Basil the Noble, click HERE.

To return to Part II – Little Theophilus and Big Basil, click HERE.

read more...

From a Groom to an Emperor – Part I – A boy named Basil.

If you thought that only in fairytales some groom could become an emperor, you were wrong. History teaches us that such things are possible even in real life, and the best example of that is Byzantine emperor Basil I the Macedonian.

In one Thracian village, in the home of a poor peasant, possibly an  Armenian immigrant, a boy was borne whom they named Basil. History knows him as Basil the Macedonian, because, at the time of his birth, this part of Thrace belonged to theme, or military-administrative unit, called Macedonia. Some scientists believe that Basil was born in 830 or 835, while others say that he was born on May 25, 836.

Several strange events suggested that this newborn boy would have a bright future. 

On one warm summer day, his parents went to work on the field, and they left their son in the shade where he fell asleep. Then an eagle showed up and, flying around him, sheltered him with the shadow of his wings. Basil’s mother was scared at first and tried to chase away the bird. But the eagle came back. That is when she accepted this as a sign of God.  In addition, she allegedly had a dream in which from her womb came out a golden tree full of golden flowers and fruit, and this tree grew so big that it threw a shadow over the entire house.

Another time, again in a dream, Prophet Elijah spoke to Basil’s mother. This tall old man with white beard from whose mouth a flame was burning, foretold success and happiness to her son. 

His father’s death affected his family greatly, and Basil, who had to take care of his mother and sisters, realized that from agriculture they could only live a difficult and meager life. He decided to try his luck and went to Constantinople.

On a late Sunday afternoon, he entered the "Queen of Cities" through the Golden Gate. Sources say that he was poorly dressed and had just a bundle and a stick. At first, he watched with amazement wide streets and large buildings of the city on the Bosphorus, but, when the night came, he had to seek some place to sleep.

Since he knew no one in Byzantine capital, and was already exhausted from a long journey and the tide of unusual impressions that splashed him on arrival in Constantinople, he lay under the porch of the famous monastery of Saint Diomedes and fell asleep. 

To read Part II – Little Theophilus and Big Basil, click HERE.

read more...

Great Byzantine defeats - Part VI - Battle of Pelekanon

Battle of Pelekanon (1329)

After the civil war in Byzantium that occurred between 1321 - 1328, a younger generation of nobles came to power, led by Emperor Andronicus III Palaeologus (Ruled from 1328-1341) and his best friend and collaborator, and later emperor, John Cantacuzenus. 

The new emperor, and his close associates, have properly assessed that the Ottomans are the greatest threat and that the territory of Asia Minor will determine the fate of the Empire.

In the late spring of 1329, that is, the first war season after the takeover, they led a not so large army to Nicaea, the glorious Byzantine city in which two ecumenical councils were held, and which was then under the Turkish siege.

This was the first time that some Byzantine emperor goes into direct conflict with the Ottoman ruler, and in this case, it was Orhan I (ruled from 1324-1361). This heroic endeavor, worthy of all praise, ended unsuccessfully for the Romans.

First, in the skirmish near Pelekanon, one arrow hit Andronicus III in the leg. He was immediately dispatched to Constantinople, and thus, he did not participate in the decisive battle, which took place the next day.

On June 11, 1329, the Turkish troops, situated near Pelekanon, a city on the east coast of the Marmara Sea, encouraged by the confusion among the Byzantines caused by emperor injury, inflicted a heavy defeat to Byzantine troops. John Cantacuzenus remarkable composure didn’t help at all, and he barely saved the rest of the army. He scarcely saved his own head.

However, comparing this defeat with the Byzantine disaster at Manzikert in 1071, that is often done in the scientific writings, in spite of certain similarities that are very appealing, is somewhat unjustified. The collapse of Romanos IV Diogenes and Byzantine troops, like it was said, was an event of global and historic significance, while the failure of Andronicus III Palaeologus and John Cantacuzenus is just one of the final forms of long-weaned historical flows, and as such, it doesn’t have nearly the weight of Manzikert collapse.

It turned out that the campaign from 1329 was, in fact, the last serious effort of the Byzantines on the eastern front. The remaining Byzantine cities in Asia Minor where left to their own fate and temperament the Islamic invaders.

Great Byzantine defeats - Part I - The Battle of Adrianople

read more...

Great Byzantine defeats - Part III - Battle of Vărbitsa Pass

Battle of Vărbitsa Pass (July 26,  811)

When Charlemagne destroyed the Avar state in Pannonia, at the beginning of the 9th century, the Bulgarians gained their freedom. Soon, the head of Pannonian Bulgars - warlike Krum, took the Bulgarian throne. In 809, he attacked Byzantine Serdica (Sofia), destroyed the fortress and killed everyone who served there.

Emperor Nicephorus I (ruled from 802-811) immediately replied – he penetrated to the Bulgarian capital Pliska, and then restored the destroyed fortifications. However, the main campaign came after two years of extensive preparation, in the spring of 811.

As reported by the chronicler Theophanes, confident emperor ignored the advices of astrologers who warned him that the arrangement of stars is not favorable. With his army, he entered Bulgaria through the mountain passes in July 20, at the time of unfortunate ascent of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky and the main star in the constellation of The Great Dog, when she can be seen at the east, at dawn.

However, the way the campaign was developing, the emperor had every right to think that this time he will completely destroy the Bulgarian state. Frightened Krum begged for peace, but Byzantine emperor refused the offer. He concentrated on the capital Pliska, which he destroyed, and then he took all the valuables from Khan Krum’s court and then burned it. Nicephorus was totally convinced that he holds everything in his hands and that it was now only a matter of time before he breaks the Bulgarian resistance. Therefore, with arrogant disdain he once again rejected Krum’s peaceful offer and moved on.

While the Byzantines were busy devastating their country, the Bulgarians retreated to the canyons of the mountain Balkan. Aware that it could be hard to withstand Roman attack in the open field, they made an ambush in the Vărbitsa Pass and waited quietly.

Byzantine army progressed confidently, not expecting that the Bulgarians would dare get in the battle. However, on July 26, 811, a very fast and sudden attack in Vărbitsa Pass occurred. 

When he saw what happened, emperor Nicephorus, in panic and desperation, allegedly said: "Even if we have had wings we could not have escaped from peril!"

In the chaos that swept of the Byzantines ranks, a horrific massacre occurred. Almost the entire Roman army was killed, the Byzantine nobility elite, and the emperor himself.

Byzantine chronicler Theophanes dejectedly and bitterly concluded that "the flower of Christianity was destroyed!" Let me remind you that, at that time, the Bulgarians were still pagans, and that they received Christianity half a century later.

Krum chopped the head of the dead emperor, put it on the long stick and for days ostentatiously and triumphantly showed it to the tribes that came to him. Then he took the emperor's skull, cleaned it to the bone, lined with silver on the outside and made a cup from which he drank at his feasts.

It was the first time since the battle of Adrianople and Valens' death - after over almost four and a half centuries! - that a Byzantine emperor lost his life in a war battle. Moreover, the king's son and heir, Staurakios, was badly wounded and immediately transferred to Edirne, but it was obvious that he will not recover. He died several months later, on January 11, 812, in Constantinople, but before that, on October 1, 811, he had to relinquish the throne and receive monastic vows.

This was followed by three difficult years for the Byzantine Empire, filled with anxiety and restlessness.

And just when he was preparing to attack Constantinople, the Bulgarian Khan Krum died suddenly from a stroke, in April 814.

Great Byzantine defeats - Part IV - Battle of Manzikert

Great Byzantine defeats - Part I - The Battle of Adrianople

read more...

Great Byzantine defeats - Part II - The Battle of Yarmouk

The Battle of Yarmouk (August, 636)

Until the first decades of the 7th century, Arabs, who have been neighbors of the Byzantine Empire for centuries, were not a very significant political factor. But then, Muhammad united this large group of people, made them a state and brought them Islam. On the wings of the new faith, Arabs have, several years after the prophet's death, started their conquests.

First to be affected were Byzantine Empire and Persia, who just emerged from a long and exhausting war with each other. While Persia succumbed quickly, the Byzantine Empire resisted the invasion of Arabs for a long time.

The fact remains that since their first conflict, in 634, and all the way to the Arabian siege of Constantinople (674-678), therefore almost half a century, Byzantium didn’t have any significant victory.

One of the most important events in that period was the famous battle near the Yarmouk River in August 636, in which the Arabs completely crushed Byzantine army.

After several defeats suffered by Theodore, brother of emperor Heraclius (ruled from 610-641), the emperor sent great but diverse army led by Theodore Trithyrius. In this army there were Armenians, Persians, even Arabian mercenaries.

According to the chronicler Theophanes, each of the two armies had 40,000 troops, but some modern researchers, after reading all the available resources, claim that the Byzantines and their allies were much more: apparently, about 100,000.

The day was warm, a real summer day. The humidity was pressing down while the wind carried the clouds of sand and dust to the one of the driest places in the desert that Arabian military leaders have cleverly chosen.

Aware that, for the first time, they are facing numerous and serious army, the Arabs have shown that they are up for it. Leaving aside the former mutual rivalry, the military leaders have chosen the most competent person among them to be their Commander in Chief of the Muslim army. They have chosen Khalid ibn al-Walid, who, with his intellect and courage, proved to be better than the others were. 

The Battle of Yarmouk was one of the bloodiest in history of Arabian wars.

Under pressure from the Byzantine cavalry, the Muslims had to withdraw three times, but they always returned to the battle because the women who stood behind them didn’t allowed them to flee.

Eventually, Khalid managed to cut the enemy's cavalry from the infantry, and strike with all forces the Byzantine camp, set between the river and nearby hills. With unstoppable rush and thunderous cry "Allahu Akbar" (Allah is the Greatest), which echoed all around, "the sons of the desert" completely shattered the Byzantine troops.

Neither crosses nor chants of Byzantine priests, who were singing church hymns, helped raising the morale of Roman soldiers. Some sources mention and disunity in the colorful Byzantine army, and that in the decisive moment the Arabian mercenaries changed sides.

Christians defeat was complete, since one part of their soldiers drowned in the river, while others were killed by Muslim sword.

With the victory that was won on the Yarmouk river, the Arabs have secured success in the subsequent conquest.

Heraclius, who was already in his sixties and didn’t participate in this battle, was aware of what this defeat means. This confrontation with the Arabs was in fact a battle for Syria, one of the most important Byzantine provinces. With dignity in defeat, in the moments when he saw that his life's work is breaking apart –  just a few years before he succeeded to recover the province from the Persians – the emperor Heraclius had enough strength to utter the proud pathos " Farewell, a long farewell to Syria, my fair province. Thou art an infidel's (enemy's) now. Peace be with you, O Syria – what a beautiful land you will be for the enemy"

Soon most Syrian cities surrendered themselves to the victorious Arabian troops, almost without a struggle, and the very capital Antioch fell into the hands of a new master.

The greatest temptations of Byzantium begin from here.

Great Byzantine defeats - Part III - Battle of Vărbitsa Pass

 
Great Byzantine defeats - Part I - The Battle of Adrianople

read more...

Great Byzantine defeats - Part I - The Battle of Adrianople

Byzantium is the only state that continuously survived from ancient times to the dawn of the modern age. Byzantium existed for more than a thousand years, and experienced great rises and deep crisis.

In this vast period, Byzantium has undergone a long way, from world force that was spread across three continents - Europe, Asia and Africa – to the dwarf state in the eastern Mediterranean, which can be compared to a infirm organism with a huge head - Constantinople.

In comparison to the surrounding nations, the Persians, Goths, Avars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Russians, Arabs, Cumans, Ugrians, Serbs, Turks (Seljuks and Ottomans), Byzantine history knew many victories, but also a fair number of heavy defeats ...

Here are some of those great defeats.

The Battle of Adrianople (August 9, 378)

In 375, the Huns have started an invasion on the area between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea, and suppressed the Goths, who then lived on that territory (present southern Russia).  Western Goths (Thervings) arrived on the borders of the Roman Empire, and Emperor Valens (ruled from 364-378) allowed them to settle in the Thracian diocese.

Due to constant abuses by the Romans, they soon started an uprising.  Eastern Goths (Greutungs) and a group of Huns joined with the Western Goths, and the whole Thrace was flooded with barbarians.

In those dangerous moments, Emperor Valens left the eastern battlefield, where he was in war with Persia, and rushed to the Balkan Peninsula.

The battle with the barbarians occurred near Adrianople (Edirne), on August 9, 378.  The Roman army was completely defeated.

Ammianus Marcellinus, the best historian of the fourth century, gives an exciting description of this battle: 

“And while arms and missiles of all kinds were meeting in fierce conflict, and (Goddess) Bellona, blowing her mournful trumpet, was raging more fiercely than usual, to inflict disaster on the Romans… Then the two lines of battle dashed against each other, like the beaks (or rams) of ships, and thrusting with all their might, were tossed to and fro, like the waves of the sea. And by this time such clouds of dust arose that it was scarcely possible to see the sky, which resounded with horrible cries… while with mutual blows of battle-axes, helmets and breastplates were dashed in pieces. The plain was covered with carcases, strewing the mutual ruin of the combatants; while the groans of the dying, or of men fearfully wounded, were intense, and caused great dismay all around.”

Valens himself, who lacked no courage, died on that battlefield.  According to some, an arrow dangerously wounded him, and caused his death, but his body was never found. Some say that he was burned in a farmhouse that the Goths put on fire, not knowing that the wounded emperor was inside.

Ammianus Marcellinus compared this defeat with the Roman defeat in the battle of Cannae, the famous battle in ancient history, when on August 2, 216 BC, Hannibal defeated the Romans.

Great Byzantine defeats - Part II - The Battle of Yarmouk

read more...

Fourth Crusade - Twilight of Byzantium (Part five: The Consequences of The Fall of Constantinople.)

After the conquest of Constantinople, the Crusaders will share the lands of Byzantium with Venetians and establish short-lived Latin Empire, which will disappear after just a few decades. Although restored with its return to Constantinople in 1261 the Roman Empire will never be the same. Until the fall by the hand of Turks, Constantinople will just be a shadow of its shadow. And the emperor and autocrat of Romans will remain just in name only. Constantinople, in reality,  will no longer play a leading political role, even in the Balkans, but the Byzantine civilization will once again, like a dying star, shine at the time of "Renaissance Palaeologus" in the 14th century, and then fold like a dark dwarf - Empire reduced to the area of a city. Like being in agony, Constantinople will provide a last, desperate, heroic resistance to Turkish attacker in 1453, and then immerse in the eternal silence from which will emerge Turkish Istanbul.

Equally serious consequences the fall of Constantinople had on relations between the two Christian churches - Orthodox and Catholic. Although for more than a century the official division of the Christian Church dominated ("Schism" from 1054), only the wanton violence of Catholic Christians against the Orthodox Constantinople finally deepened the gap between the two churches, which has not yet been overcome. To this is certainly contributed and the conduct of Pope Innocent III, who, after the conquest of Constantinople, confirmed the election of a new, "Latin", or the Catholic Patriarch, and thus become subsequent complicit in the foray on Constantinople, something to which he previously opposed. Pope’s pressure on the eastern "schismatic" did not, however, have any results. Pope John Paul II, eight hundred years later, during his visit to Athens, in May 2001, asked on behalf of the Catholic Church for forgiveness - for everything the Latins committed eight centuries earlier in Constantinople.

In addition to material damages, the conquest of Constantinople had and other consequences on international and regional relations of that period. Instead of one empire, in its place it was created a larger number of countries, whether Latin, or Greek, "empires", "Despotates", "Kingdoms" and "principalities"... and finally, in the Balkans and Asia Minor many Latin and Greek states waged war for the succession of Byzantium.

To read Part one: Angels of Vanity, click HERE.

read more...

Fourth Crusade - Twilight of Byzantium (Part four: A Tragedy Had Several Acts.)

The first act began on 17 July 1203 when the Crusader and Venetian army, led by the blind Doge, managed to penetrate through walls, burn one part of the city and instead of Alexius III give the throne to the blind Isaac II and his airy son who will be crowned as Emperor Alexius IV. The Crusaders and the Venetians weren’t satisfied with mere change on the throne, and they remained outside the city in anticipation of a rich reward from the new Emperor - and that reward was supposed to be so big that even the entire Byzantine Empire was not able to satisfy them.

Interact of the tragedy occurred on 25 January, 1204, when the administrator of the castle, Alexios Murzuflos, with the support of the people, who were bitter with crusaders presence, took the throne under the name of Alexius V. Previous rulers, father and son, were strangled, and the new Emperor tried, helter-skelter, to strengthen the walls in order to defend against Crusaders expected attack.

The last act of the drama occurred on April 9, 1204, or 6712, when Venetian-Crusader army, for the second time in a year, won the walls, and finally occupied Constantinople. For the first time in eight centuries since its founding, the city that has withstood countless sieges and attacks – from the Goths, Slavs, Arabs, Russians, Normans – has fallen. Capturing of Constantinople was the introduction of perhaps the greatest robbery that was remembered throughout the history of Europe. For three days lasted robberies, murders, assaults, burning of the city...The destruction was such that it petrified the very Pope Innocent III who threw anathema on the Venetians.

Coeval of events, Nikita Choniates, writes how conquerors were "breaking the sacred images and throwing holy relics of the martyrs to places that I am ashamed to mention, scattering everywhere the flesh and blood of the Savior. These messengers of Antichrist drew the church vessels and plucked jewelry and ornaments in order to use them as containers for drinking... In the Great Church they destroyed the holy altar, a work of art the whole world admired, and split between them its own parts... and they brought horses and mules into the Church to help them take the screed parts of wealth... Prostitute was placed on the throne of the Patriarch, screaming slanders, awkwardly singing and dancing... On the streets, in homes and churches you could only hear screams and cries."

The Fourth Crusade was one of the darkest moments of Christianity. Never, since the days of the barbarian invasions centuries ago, Europe has seen such an orgy of brutality and vandalism, never in the whole history so many beautiful, so many magnificent works of art were destroyed in such a short time. It is believed that with the burning of Constantinople in 1204 it was forever lost more written works of classical Greek and Roman culture than what happened during the robbery of Rome in the fifth century, or when fire engulfed the Library of Alexandria in the seventh century. What we have now left is only a small part of the vast collection of classical Greek philosophy and literature that is irretrievably lost in the fires of Constantinople.

What wasn’t destroyed was stretched throughout Western Europe - from artistic works, such as horses on St. Mark's Cathedral and many other valuables that can be seen today in Venice and elsewhere - to the countless holy relics, such as those which are located in the Holy Chapel (Ste Chapelle) in Paris, built only for this occasion. Just one collector of holy relics, Robert de Claria, brought home forty relics including: pieces of the Holy Cross, several thorns from Christ’s crown, a part of the Virgin clothes, pot and sponge used during the crucifixion, the hand of St. Mark, St. Helena finger, a piece of clothing Christ wore on the crucifixion… On the other hand, a large number of ancient works made of bronze and copper were easily melted down for the treasury of the Latin masters of Constantinople. The Byzantine chronicler Nikita Choniates from memory has made a list of destroyed ancient works on which is listed Lysippos’es Heracles statue, a magnificent statue of Juno taken from the temple of Samos, incomparable statue of beautiful Helen and many others.

To read Part one: Angels of Vanity, click HERE.

To read Part five: The Consequences of The Fall of Constantinople, click HERE.

read more...

Fourth Crusade - Twilight of Byzantium (Part three: Crusader Galleys Under Constantinople)

In July of a 1203, or  a year of 6711 of the Byzantine era, the guards on the towers of the city of Constantinople saw hundreds of Venetian galleys approaching the other coast of Golden Horn bay, the merchant suburb called Galata. Galleys were carrying army of crusader knights, mostly French and Fleming, who, while not clearly understood themselves how, instead of the walls of Jerusalem, the holy city, found themselves in front of Christian Constantinople. The first Crusader attack was directed on the Tower of Galata. In this tower was end of a huge chain of Constantinople walls, over the whole bay, which was preventing the entrance of ships into the Golden Horn, and thus the attacks on the city from the sea.

Byzantine tower defense lasted only one day. Already the next morning, the chain has fallen and the entire Venetian fleet with the crusade army found itself under the walls of Constantinople. The last act of the tragedy of the Byzantine Empire could begin.

The Fourth Crusade was launched five years before by Pope Innocent III as soon as he was elected (1198). It took a long time for the crusaders from the north of Europe to gather together and go with hired Venetian galleys in the campaign to the Holy Land. But neither the pope nor did crusader leaders counted on a feature that will turn an entire campaign to achieve a completely other intentions. Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo was already very old and almost completely blind. Cunning leader and a skilled politician will use the inability of the Crusaders, to pay transport to the Holy Land, and will make them, for the account of Venice, to conquest Hungarian Zadar, and then Constantinople. Excuse for the arrival of the Crusaders under the walls of Constantinople was their alleged intention to return to the throne, the young Tsarevich Alexis and his father, the blind Isaac II, who was languishing in jail in which he was thrown by his brother Alexius III. Of course, doge Dandolo’s real goal was winning the Byzantine Empire so that Venice could freely trade in the Mediterranean and Black Sea.


To read Part one: Angels of Vanity, click HERE.

To read Part four: A Tragedy Had Several Acts, click HERE.

read more...

Byzantine Art of Persuasion (Part II)

Emperors and shepherds



The first example concerns the Khan of the Hunnish tribe Utigur and his message to Justinian “The Last of the Romans” (527-565), that, in the pages of its history, brings Procopius of Caesarea, and in which the barbarian leader is against the emperor’s insidious policy toward his people. What is this actually about?

Emperor Justinian, guided by the best traditions of Byzantine foreign policy, turned the two Hunnish tribes - Kutrigurs and Utigurs - against each other. Tribes lived in the steppes, one on the west and another on the east side of Don. Wishing to reward newcomers from Asia, the Byzantine emperor allowed two thousand Kutrigurs to settle in Thrace. In this way, supporting one group of Hunnish tribes and neglecting another, he hurt Utigurs feelings. Their Khan, to whose attention Justinian cunning political move didn’t slipped, in the state of resentment sent an envoy to Constantinople.

Hunnish emissary was supposed to file his master's complaint because of emperors fond to rival Kutrigurs. Since the Huns were illiterate, Khans oral complaint was recorded by Byzantine writer Procopius. It is permitted to assume that the historian of Justinian's era performed and her adept stylization. However the case, Khans words, in which the foreground is a simple and a great parable, reveal barbarian clarity and discernment:

"I know a proverb that I heard in my childhood, I haven’t forgotten it. Proverb goes something like this: a wild beast, a wolf, maybe, that’s how they say, can to some extent to change the color of his hair, but his mood does not change, since his nature does not allow him… One more thing I know, the experience taught me that, and it's one of those things that uncouth barbarian needs to learn: the shepherds take the dog while he is still sucking and carefully raise him so the beast is thankful to the one who feed him and it’s always returning them back with constant amiability. The shepherds probably do it for the following reason: when wolves attack the sheep, dogs will stop them, they’ll stand in front of sheep as guardians and saviors. I think this happens everywhere ... even in your empire, where almost all is in abundance, probably impossible things also, there is no denial from this rule... But if these things are by their nature, all permanent, then I think that it is not fair from you to hospitably meet Kutrigurs, make your self bad neighbors, and make a home for people who you until recently could not bear even beyond your borders ...While we barely live on wasted and infertile land, Kutrigurs have corn to spare, they are drunk in their wine cellars and they are managing easily to afford all the sweetness of this world. They certainly have access to bathrooms and they wear gold, and surely they do not miss beautiful embroidered clothes covered in gold."

It is not known what kind of impression these words have caused on Justinian I, known for his ruthlessness and infinite conceit, but they did not significantly affect the foreign policy of the government of Constantinople, which was often two-face harsh to somewhat diplomatically  naive barbarian tribes.

To read "Byzantine Art of Persuasion (Part III)", click HERE.

read more...