No More Learning

Among the conspirators we find generals
like the Armenian Ariebes and the Norman leader Humbertopulus
(c. 1090), besides members of the imperial family such as the Emperor's
nephew John Connenus, son of the Sebastocrator Isaac and governor
of Durazzo, who engaged in an intrigue with the Serbs (c. 1092). But
soon a much more serious conspiracy came to light. Alexius, after the
birth of his son in 1088, had gradually deprived the young Constantine
Ducas of his prerogatives, and had finally forbidden him to wear the
purple buskins which were an essential part of the imperial costume. For
some time Alexius remained sole Emperor, and it was only in 1092, after
his victories over the Patzinaks, that he felt strong enough to associate
his son John with him in the imperial dignity, and to have him recog-
nised as heir to the throne. These measures greatly irritated the Ducas


## p. 333 (#375) ############################################

The First Crusade
333
family and their supporters. The discontented drew together round the
Empress Maria, mother of Constantine, and a plot was formed with the
object of assassinating the Emperor. The conspirators occupied the
highest posts about the Court. Their leaders were Nicephorus, a son of
the Emperor Romanus Diogenes, Catacalon Cecaumenus, and Michael
Taronites, brother-in-law of Alexius. The Emperor escaped on several
occasions when attempts were made upon his life, and in February 1094,
during his expedition against the Serbs, he decided to have Nicephorus
Diogenes, Catacalon, and Taronites arrested at his camp at Seres. As
to the other culprits, he chose to ignore them, whether because he was
unwilling to compromise the Empress Maria, or because they were too
highly placed for him to touch them without endangering himself.
It was just when the victories won by Alexius over domestic as well
as foreign enemies seemed to promise a breathing-space to the Empire,
that the First Crusade came to plunge it into fresh uncertainties, by the
complete change which it brought about in the position of the states of
the East.
For long years historians have indulged in cheap denunciations of the
ingratitude and perfidy of Alexius Connenus, who, after having (par-
ticularly by a letter addressed to Robert, Count of Flanders) solicited
help from the Western nations against the Turks, ceased not, throughout
the Crusade, to throw all kinds of obstacles in their way, so that his false
and treacherous conduct was the cause of all the evils which fell upon
the first crusaders. A closer examination of the sources allows us, par-
tially at least, to acquit the Emperor of the charges brought against
him, and to assert that Urban II in preaching the Crusade by no means
did so in response to a desire expressed by Alexius Comnenus. The Pope's
action, in fact, had not been suggested to him by anyone, and had been
inspired solely by a wish to secure the safety of Christianity in the East.
It is no doubt true that during the early part of his reign Alexius
had sought for allies in the West. At the time of the Norman invasion
he had entered into diplomatic relations with Gregory VII; later, in
1089, in connexion with the measures taken against the Latin inhabitants
of Constantinople, Pope Urban II had had some correspondence with
the Emperor. The relations between Rome and Constantinople had
been becoming less strained, as is proved by the “Discourse upon the
Errors of the Latins” by Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, which
was composed about this time. Embassies had been exchanged, the re-
union of the Churches had been discussed, the Pope had relieved the
Emperor from the sentence of excommunication, so that in 1090 or 1091,
during the struggle with the Patzinaks, Alexius begged Urban II to help
him to raise mercenaries in Italy. About the same time he addressed a
similar request to Robert, Count of Flanders, praying him to despatch to
Constantinople the corps of cavalry which Robert had promised to send
him when, on his way back from the Holy Land in 1087, he had had a
сн. XI.


## p. 334 (#376) ############################################

334
Relations between Latins and Greeks
meeting with Alexius at Eski-Sagra? . It was in these requests that the
legend originated according to which the Crusade was preached in
response to the demands for help made to the Western princes by Alexius
Comnenus. The letter supposed to have been addressed with this object
to the Count of Flanders is admittedly to a great extent apocryphal. It
was very possibly composed with the help of the letter written by Alexius
to Robert about 1089, at a time when no Crusade was in contemplation.
The legend circulated rapidly. The fact is that when the Western
peoples came to know the difficulties of every kind which the crusaders
had had to overcome, when they saw how few returned of those who had
gone forth in such numbers, when they learned how large a proportion
had left their bones strewn along the road to Palestine, they refused to be-
lieve that incapacity and rivalry on the part of the leaders and total lack
of generalship had been the cause of all the evils encountered by the
army, and preferred to cast the whole responsibility on the head of the
Greek Emperor. The relations between the Latins and the Greeks, having
been on the whole unfriendly, contributed to the growth of a tradition
damaging to the Emperor. This notion of Byzantine perfidy fitted in
quite easily with all that was known of what had passed between the
Emperor and the Westerns, and of the support lent him by the Pope
and the Count of Flanders in previous years. From thence to the idea of
ingratitude there was but a step, and it was soon taken.
From the very beginning violent disputes took place between the
Latins and the Greeks, and it may fairly be said that neither side was
blameless. The undisciplined masses of crusaders, above all those who
accompanied Peter the Hermit, behaved on their journey through the
imperial territory like mere brigands, plundering, burning, and sacking
wherever they went. Thus the Greeks looked upon them much as they
did upon the Patzinaks or the Cumans who, a few years before, had
devastated the European provinces. The object of the expedition and its
character as a religious undertaking were completely overlooked by the
Byzantines, who only saw its political side. To them it seemed an attempt
at conquest much like that of Guiscard. The crusaders themselves went
out of their way to justify this estimate. “There were two parties among
the crusaders, that of the religiously-minded, and that of the politicians. ”
This statement of Kugler's” is absolutely true. There is no denying that
religious feeling played a large part in the First Crusade, but it was to be
found chiefly among the rank and file, among humbler knights, among
the less important leaders. If the principal barons were concerned for
the interests of religion at the outset, such feelings had disappeared as
1 According to H. Pirenne, A propos de la lettre d'Alexis Comnène à Robert le
Frison, comte de Flandre, in the Revue de l'instruction publique en Belgique, Vol. L.
(Brussels, 1907, p. 224), this interview did not take place before 1089.
Kugler, Kaiser Alexius und Albert von Aachen, Forsch. z. deutsch. Geschicht.
XXII. p. 486.
2


## p. 335 (#377) ############################################

Alexius Comnenus and the crusaders
335
soon as the various bands of crusaders were united. Then Bohemond
as well as Baldwin, the Count of Toulouse and Godfrey of Bouillon alike,
forgot the religious side of their enterprise to dwell solely on their private
interests. One idea alone remained in their minds, that of carving out
principalities for themselves. One need only recall Baldwin's settlement
at Edessa and Tancred's at Tarsus, the rivalries of Bohemond and
Raymond of Toulouse at Antioch, and finally Godfrey's refusal to con-
tinue the march upon Jerusalem, "conduct very little deserving of the
laurels that have been wreathed for him. ”
Face to face with the powerful forces which from every side streamed
in upon the territories of the Empire, Alexius found the part he had to
play all the more difficult, inasmuch as at that moment the Greek troops
were dispersed along the frontiers and could not be recalled without
danger. Constantinople was absolutely ungarrisoned. Moreover, the
whole Byzantine army would have been quite unable to make head
against the innumerable multitude of crusaders. Thus incapable of re-
pelling the Latins by force, Alexius sought to turn them to account as
mercenaries for the recovery of the Asiatic provinces which the Empire
had lost. He made no difference between the Latin princes and those
barons who had come on various occasions to serve with their troops in
his army. It was natural that this should be his opinion of them, when
he found Bohemond, one of the chief leaders of the Crusade, asking for
the office of Grand Domestic of the Scholae.
Alexius shared with his subjects the belief that anything might be
obtained of the Latins by plying them with money, their obedience
being merely a matter of barter and sale. He had greatly at heart the
recovery of the former provinces of the Empire in Asia, and the restora-
tion of Byzantine authority as far as Antioch. Chance had supplied him
with an army the like of which the Empire had never seen; the only
question was, by what means he could attach it to his service. To induce
the Latins to acknowledge him as their lord, and to make use of them as
mercenaries, such was the Emperor's plan. In order to bind the Latins
more closely to him, the Emperor adopted their customs and caused
them to take the oath of fealty to him. It is fair to state, besides, that
Alexius believed that by the considerable sums which he disbursed for
the crusaders he had acquired certain rights over them, and the be-
haviour of the leaders encouraged him in this belief. The haughtiest
of the chiefs gave an eager welcome to Byzantine gold, which soon over-
came their early reluctance to comply with the Emperor's wishes. Their
submission was rendered the easier by the conviction which very soon
took possession of them, that their undertaking could not possibly
succeed unless by the help of the Emperor.
In order to carry out his designs, Alexius employed all his skill as a
politician; to attain his ends he took advantage of all the faults and
weaknesses of the Latins; and to bring them over to his views he spared
сн. XI.
-


## p. 336 (#378) ############################################

336
The first crusaders at Constantinople
neither money nor promises. But once the treaty was concluded, by
which he promised his support and a supply of provisions, on condition
that the leaders of the Crusade did homage and swore fealty to him
and engaged to restore to the Empire any towns which had formerly
belonged to it, Alexius observed his engagements. The Latins made
it a special reproach against him that he did not follow up the Crusade
with an army as he had pledged himself to do. This complaint is not
justified ; Alexius did march upon Antioch, and if he stopped short
it was because he had been dissuaded from continuing his advance by
those crusaders who, thinking all lost at the time of the attack on the
town by the Turks, had shamefully taken to flight and informed the
Emperor that the Christian army had been wiped out. On looking into
the question more closely, we find that all the difficulties arose from
Bohemond's refusal to restore Antioch to the Emperor as he had
promised. Bohemond was the only crusader with whom Alexius broke
off friendly relations; we can see that he remained on the best of terms
with others of the leaders, notably with Raymond of Toulouse. But
the purely political dispute which Alexius carried on with the Prince
of Antioch resulted in the Emperor appearing to Western eyes as the
enemy of the crusaders in general, for it was thus that Bohemond,
on his visit to France in 1106, represented him to the knights who
thronged to take service under him. By making out the Greek Emperor
to be the enemy of all Latins, instead of what he really was, his own
private enemy, Bohemond, more than anyone else, helped to create a
tradition adverse to Alexius.
The first of the crusaders to reach Greek territory were the com-
panions of Peter the Hermit. Having quitted Cologne in the latter half
of April 1096, these undisciplined bands gained the Greek frontier towards
the end of June. At Niš a collision took place with the Byzantine troops
despatched to keep down the excesses of the crusaders, who, having
acquired a taste for plunder by the sack of Semlin, were ravaging in all
directions. In excuse for the Latins it must be said that pillage was
almost forced upon them. For as a matter of fact no measures had
been taken for the victualling of this multitude, and they were obliged
to live upon the districts through which their march lay. After the
encounter at Niš, Peter the Hermit entered into communications with
the envoys of Alexius, and the crusaders resumed their march upon
Constantinople, where they arrived by 1 August 1096. Peter the
Hermit had an interview with the Emperor, who recommended him to
wait outside Constantinople for the other crusaders and caused money
and provisions to be distributed to the Latins. But at the sight of the
pillage in which the crusaders indulged in the neighbourhood of the
capital, Alexius changed his mind and determined to transport them
across the Bosphorus. The passage began on 5 August. Instead of
remaining at Civitot to await the arrival of the bulk of the crusading


## p. 337 (#379) ############################################

Hugh of Vermandois. Godfrey of Bouillon
337
army, Peter the Hermit's bands penetrated into the interior of the
country and began ravaging. When they had pillaged all around them,
they were obliged to extend the scope of their operations and advanced
as far as Nicaea. They there came into collision with the Turks who,
after defeating them at Xerigordon, on the banks of the Dracon, pursued
them to Civitot itself. Here the Hermit's companions met with a fearful
disaster; the greater number of them perished, and few indeed re-crossed
the Bosphorus in the ships sent by the Emperor to bring them help. The
wretched remains of these first bands awaited the arrival of the rest of
the crusaders at Constantinople, which had been fixed upon as the point
of concentration by the Pope's legate, Ademar of Puy.
With regard to the Crusade under the leadership of the barons,
Alexius took steps to secure some measure of order. He sent officers to
meet each band, with promises of supplies during its march through the
European provinces, and at the same time he posted troops so as to forin
as it were a channel to drain off the crusading torrent upon Constanti-
nople. Thus the pilgrims, it was hoped, would be prevented from straying
from the route marked out for them, and so from pillaging. Between
these Greek troops and the Latins fighting several times occurred, and
in spite of the precautions taken the districts traversed suffered severely.
Hugh, Count of Vermandois, brother of Philip I, King of France, was
the first of the leaders to reach Constantinople. Having come through
Italy, he landed at Durazzo, after losing the greater part of his vessels.
He was received with the more honour because the sorry plight in which
he arrived made him less of a danger. Alexius, notwithstanding, detained
him for some time as a hostage.
At the end of 1096 Godfrey of Bouillon arrived at Constantinople
with a numerous following. We have no precise information as to his
journey through the European provinces of the Empire, for the narrative
of Albert of Aix, our only authority, is on many points of a biased
and legendary nature. Alexius opened communications with Godfrey
through the mediation of the Count of Vermandois. From the very
first, however, relations were unsatisfactory. The Emperor, whose great
fear was lest the crusaders should concentrate outside his capital, did his
utmost to persuade them to cross the Bosphorus. Godfrey, on the other
hand, was at first quite determined to wait at Constantinople for
Bohemond, who was on his way from Italy. He remained encamped in
front of the capital up to the beginning of April 1097. To overcome
the resistance of the Duke of Lorraine to his will, Alexius several times
tried to cut off the food-supply which he furnished to the crusaders.
But nothing had any effect until the Emperor succeeded in inducing
Godfrey of Bouillon to take the oath of fealty.
Some time after the departure of Godfrey's troops, Bohemond, son of
Guiscard, reached Constantinople. Since the death of his father, Bohemond
had found Italy too restricted a field for his ambition. He enthusiastically
C. MED. A. VOL. IV. CH. XI.
22


## p. 338 (#380) ############################################

338
Bohemond and Alexius Comnenus
welcomed the idea of the Crusade, and set out with the plan of creating
a principality for himself in the East, but at first he designed to do this
with the help of the Greeks. Bohemond's army landed at Avlona, and
on its way to Constantinople was guilty of a certain amount of violence
which was avenged by the Greek troops. On arriving at Rusa, Bohemond,
leaving his nephew Tancred in command, went forward alone to Alexius.
He took the oath of fealty, was loaded with presents, and asked to be
appointed Grand Domestic for the East. When Raymond of Saint-Gilles,
Count of Toulouse, arrived at Constantinople by way of Dalmatia and
Serbia and refused to take the oath of fealty, Bohemond acted the part
of mediator. Raymond persisted in his refusal, and would only consent to
swear not to undertake anything against the life or honour of the
Emperor. Alexius, much irritated, bestowed few presents on him. With
the other leaders Alexius experienced no kind of difficulty; Tancred
alone crossed into Asia unfettered by any oath.
A formal treaty was concluded between the Emperor and the crusad-
ing chiefs. Alexius pledged himself to take the Cross and place himself
at the head of the crusaders, to protect the pilgrims during their journey
through his dominions, and to furnish a body of troops to the expedition.
The crusaders in return promised to restore to Alexius any towns they
should take which had formerly made part of the Greek Empire. This
treaty was concluded in May 1097 through the mediation of Bohemond,
who had for this purpose remained behind while the bulk of the crusading
army, as early as the month of April, had set out to besiege Nicaea.
On the surrender of Nicaea, the crusaders faithfully carried out the
treaty and left the town to the Emperor. Alexius then had a fresh
interview at Pelecanum with the leaders, who, Tancred excepted, renewed
their oaths. The expedition then resumed its march towards Jerusalem,
accompanied by a corps of Greek troops under the command of Taticius.
Once Iconium was reached, the greater part of the army pressed on to-
wards Antioch by way of Caesarea and Maríash (Germanicea), while
Tancred and Baldwin reached Cilicia, where they disputed for the posses-
sion of Tarsus, which they ought to have handed over in due course to
the Emperor.
As far as Antioch the Greek troops had remained in company with
the Latins. It was during the siege of that town, begun at the end of
October 1097, that the rupture between them took place. This was due to
the machinations of Bohemond, who, displeased at having failed to obtain
the help of Alexius in carrying out his projects, did not scruple in order
to get possession of Antioch to intrigue with Taticius, whom he per-
suaded to withdraw. Once the Greek contingent was gone, Alexius was
accused of having failed to keep his engagements, and on the fall of
Antioch the town was handed over to Bohemond, to the great displeasure
of the Count of Toulouse, who had been ambitious of securing it for
himself.


## p. 339 (#381) ############################################

Siege of Antioch
339
While these events were taking place, Alexius was preparing to march
to the help of the crusaders. A preliminary expedition, commanded on
land by John Ducas and on sea by Caspax, was winning back for the
Empire Smyrna, Ephesus, and the whole territory belonging to the
ancient Thracesian theme. Alexius himself was setting out for Antioch
at the head of considerable forces. He had reached Philomelium when he
was joined by a certain number of crusaders, among whom were men of
importance, such as William of Grantmesnil and Stephen of Blois. These m
leaders, on the occasion of the Emir Karbuqā's attack upon Antioch, had
judged it prudent to take to flight. The picture which they drew for
Alexius of the state of the crusading army was no doubt made more
gloomy to provide some reasonable excuse which their conduct needed.
They convinced the Emperor of the uselessness of the succour which he
was bringing to the besieged, and Alexius ordered a retreat to Constan-
tinople.
The fugitives' forebodings were not realised, and the Emir Karbuqā
was defeated by the crusaders. Alexius received the news in a letter from
the leaders brought to him by Hugh of Vermandois. The message must
have caused the Emperor keen annoyance, for, from the moment that he
learned that the town had been handed over to Bohemond, he cannot
have been under much illusion as to the manner in which the crusaders
would fulfil their promises. Alexius immediately made advances to the
Caliph of Egypt, and tried also to arrange an understanding with
Raymond, Count of Toulouse, who had been openly at feud with Bohe-
mond since the failure of his designs upon Antioch. Apparently the
alliance between Alexius and the Count of Toulouse was brought about
during the autumn of 1098. It first came to light when in November
of the same year Raymond demanded of the council of the crusaders
that Antioch should be handed over to the Emperor. The proposal was
rejected. At the beginning of 1099 the Count of Toulouse transferred
to the Greeks the towns of Laodicea, Maraclea, and Bulunyās (Balanea)
on the Syrian coast which had been occupied by his troops.
In the early months of 1099 Alexius replied to the message which
the Count of Vernandois had brought him, by a letter which reached
the council of the crusaders about Easter (10 April). The Emperor
announced that he would arrive by St John's Day (24 June) and that
he was ready to keep his engagements provided that Antioch was
surrendered to him. In spite of the Count of Toulouse, the crusaders, who
had just wasted six months in barren discussions, refused to wait for the
Greek army, and resumed their march upon Jerusalem without concerning
themselves about Alexius. The rupture was thus definite and complete,
It is noteworthy that the Emperor held Bohemond alone responsible for
this breach of plighted faith. The latter, moreover, as early as the summer
of 1099, was to begin hostilities against the Greeks by attacking Laodicea.
He was assisted by a Pisan fleet, on its way to the Holy Land under the
CH. .
22-2
1


## p. 340 (#382) ############################################

340
Alexius and the crusaders of 1101
command of Daimbert, Archbishop of Pisa. During the voyage the Pisans
attacked and pillaged several islands, dependencies of the Greek Empire.
The Byzantine fleet pursued them in vain. However, they were repulsed
from Cyprus, where they had attempted to land by force in spite of its
duke, Eumathius Philocales. One of the commanders of the Greek fleet,
Eustathius, then occupied the Isaurian towns of Gorigos and Seleucia, and
perhaps also Tarsus, Adana, and Mamistra.
After the fall of Jerusalem, the rapprochement between Alexius and
Raymond grew still more pronounced. The Count of Toulouse, who,
since the army left Antioch, had been the real leader of the Crusade, not
only failed to obtain the crown as he had hoped, but was also refused
Ascalon by Godfrey of Bouillon. No other means remained to him of
forming a principality for himself in the East than to ask help of Alexius.
And this course he took, making a journey to Constantinople during the
summer of 1100. He there learned that Godfrey of Bouillon had died
(18 July 1100) and that Bohemond, who had been made prisoner by the
Dānishmandite Emir Malik Ghāzī, was temporarily replaced at Antioch
by his nephew Tancred.
Alexius was unable to turn these incidents to account, for he was
detained at Constantinople by the coming of fresh bodies of crusaders.
At the news that Jerusalem had been taken, the impulse which was
carrying the West towards the East had become stronger than ever, and
during the winter of 1100-1101 the Lombard crusade, its numbers
presently swelled by the followers of Stephen of Blois, exposed the Greeks
to the same dangers that had resulted from the first expeditions. With
regard to these new crusaders, Alexius took up the same attitude as he
had towards the bands under Godfrey of Bouillon. He exacted the oath
of fealty from the leaders, and in exchange he furnished them with pro-
visions. The same untoward incidents occurred between the Greeks and
the crusaders, the same acts of violence were committed as in 1096. The
Emperor would have preferred that this expedition should take the same
road as the first. The crusaders refused, and marched towards the do-
minions of the Great Seljūq, wishing, they said, to liberate Bohemond.
They were shattered on the way between Amasia and Sebastea. Their de-
feat was not due to the treachery of the Count of Toulouse who had taken
the command, nor, as some have claimed, to Alexius. The real cause of their
ill-success must be sought for elsewhere. The arrival of these fresh bands
of crusaders brought about that union among the Turks which up to
then had proved impossible of attainment. The Musulmans understood
that, if they suffered these reinforcements to reach Syria, their own power
there would be at an end. The united forces of Malik Ghāzī, Qilij
Arslān, and the Emir of Aleppo, Ridwān, cut the crusaders to pieces.
The survivors of the expedition reached Constantinople with difficulty
in 1101. The failure of this expedition caused Alexius to be gravely
suspected in the West, although he was not responsible, since the leaders


## p. 341 (#383) ############################################

Bohemond Prince of Antioch
341
had refused to follow out his plans. In 1102, at the Council of Benevento,
very unfavourable reports were for the first time circulated with regard
to him.
The expedition of William, Count of Nevers, who was on the best of
terms with Alexius while he was passing through Constantinople, proved
no more fortunate.
The Latins, attacked by Qilij Arslān and Malik
Ghāzī, met with a crushing defeat at Heraclea. A similar fate awaited
William IX of Aquitaine and Welf, Duke of Bavaria, who were defeated
by Qilij Arslān and Qāraja, the Emir of Harrān, as they were en-
deavouring to reach Cilicia.
In 1102 Constantinople saw the arrival of a new expedition, that of
the Scandinavians under Eric the Good, and in the same year Alexius
despatched the remains of the Lombard contingent to the port of Antioch
(Saint-Simeon), with Raymond of Toulouse at their head.
At this time there was perfect harmony between the Count of Toulouse
and the Emperor, and it was with the help of the Duke of Cyprus that
Raymond (as soon as he had been set free by Tancred, who on his landing
kept him for some time a prisoner) undertook the siege of Tripolis.
About the same time Bohemond returned from his captivity. Being
again called upon by Alexius to fulfil the treaties which had been con-
cluded, he declined. Alexius then decided upon an open struggle. He
sent to Cilicia Monastras and Butumites who occupied Marʻash, but next
year this place was taken from the Greeks by Joscelin, Count of Edessa.
The disaster which the crusaders met with at Harrān (1104) gave the
Greeks an opportunity of occupying Tarsus, Adana, and Mamistra.
Bohemond, busy with the struggle against the Turks, was unable to
hinder the advance of the Byzantines. The commanders of Alexius?
fleet, Cantacuzene and Landolf, in a short time took Laodicea and the
places along the coast as far as Tripolis.
Closely hemmed in between the Turks and the Greeks, Bohemond
saw that he could not escape from the double pressure. To defend
Antioch against the Turks, he would need to be free from molestation
by the Greeks; while to crush Alexius he would need to strike, not in
the East, but at Constantinople itself. The Prince of Antioch therefore
decided on a journey to Europe to ask for help and to organise an
expedition against the Byzantine Empire. In January 1105 he landed
in Apulia, and soon after, accompanied by a papal legate, he passed
through Italy and France preaching a crusade against Alexius, whom he
painted in the darkest colours.
The Emperor attempted to prove to the Latins by his actions that
Bohemond's representations were unworthy of credence. He wrote to the
Republics of Pisa, Genoa, and Venice to put them on their guard against
the son of Robert Guiscard. At the same time he was negotiating with
the Caliph of Egypt for the ransom of the Latin captives.
During the two years spent by Bohemond in preparing for his
CA. XI.


## p. 342 (#384) ############################################

342 Bohemond's expedition against the Byzantine Empire
expedition (1105–7), Alexius, while organising the defence of his domin-
ions, did not lose sight of affairs in Asia. Thus, Raymond of Toulouse
having died in February 1105, the Emperor made great efforts to win
over to his side William-Jordan, Count of Cerdagne, who was disputing
the succession with Raymond's illegitimate son, Bertrand. In another
quarter Comnenus gained an important advantage, getting into his power
Gregory Taronites, Duke of Trebizond, who had broken out into revolt,
and was now made prisoner just as he was turning for help to Malik Ghāzī.
At about the same time Alexius discovered that a vast plot was
brewing at Constantinople, to take advantage of the difficulties created
for him by Bohemond and to depose him. At the head of the conspirators
were the brothers Anemas, of Turkish origin, and also the representatives
of a large number of noble families, Castamunites, Curticius, Basilacius,
Sclerus, and Xerus, who was then Prefect of Constantinople, as well as
Solomon, one of the leaders in the Senate. All the culprits were arrested
and condemned to be blinded, but were pardoned at the intercession of
the Empress.
In the autumn of 1107 Bohemond's preparations were complete,
and on 9 October the disembarkation of his army, which was 34,000
strong, began at Avlona. The plan of campaign adopted was that of
Guiscard, but on this occasion the fate of the expedition was to be very
different.
When the enemy appeared, Alexius was ready. Having learned
experience by the earlier warfare, he had determined not to fight a battle.
He contented himself with enclosing the Norman army in a ring of steel,
while at the same time the Byzantine fleet prevented their obtaining
supplies by sea. Bohemond succeeded in holding out up to the spring
of 1108, but by that time the sufferings of his army were so severe
that, after having vainly attempted at Hiericho and at Canina to break
through the circle which confined him, he was forced to admit himself
worsted. Divisions were also rife in his ranks, for Alexius had arranged
that certain compromising letters should fall into the hands of the
Prince of Antioch which might be understood as replies addressed by
Alexius to overtures from the principal Norman commanders. Thence-
forward Bohemond was suspicious of everyone. At the interview which
he had with Alexius at Deabolis he was forced to accept very hard terms.
In the first place, the compact of 1097 was annulled, and Bohemond,
recognising himself the liegeman of Alexius and his son, bound himself not
to take arms against them, to serve them personally or by deputy against
all their enemies, to undertake nothing against the imperial dominions,
and to retain for himself only certain districts enumerated below. He
promised to restore to the Empire all such of his conquests as had
formerly belonged to it, not to make any treaty engagements detrimental
to the Emperor or the Empire, to send back any subjects of Alexius who
should desire to enter his service, and to cause any barbarians whom he


## p. 343 (#385) ############################################

Peace with Bohemond
343
should subdue to take the oath of allegiance to the Emperor and his son.
All conquests which he might make from the Turks or Armenians, though
not formerly belonging to the Empire, should be held by him in fief
from the Emperor. All his vassals were to take the oaths to Alexius, and,
in case of treason on his part, should have the right, after forty days, of
going over to the Emperor. The Patriarch of Antioch was to be of the
Greek Church, and to be chosen by the Emperor from among the clergy
of St Sophia. Alexius, on his part, made over to Bohemond Antioch,
Suetius, Cauca, Lulum, Teluseh, Maríash, Baghras, and Balitza, a part of
the Amanus mountains, and the valley of the Orontes. On the other
hand, the following were restored to the Empire: the theme of Podandus,
Tarsus, Adana, Mamistra, Anazarbus, Laodicea, Gabala, Bulunyās,
Maraclea, and Tortosa. The Emperor also promised to Bohemond two
hundred talents in michaelites, and granted him a certain number of
towns in the interior of Syria and in the neighbourhood of Edessa.
Finally, Bohemond obtained the right of naming his heir.
As soon as the treaty had been signed the Emperor loaded Bohemond
with gifts and named him Sebastos, but the Prince of Antioch was crushed
by the failure of his hopes. He left abruptly for Italy, where he died not
long after (1111 ? ).
The treaty which ended the Norman war was a substantial victory
for the Emperor. The principality of Antioch was no longer a danger to
the Empire, for the passes of the Amanus and Cilicia were now in the
hands of the Greeks, who also commanded the sea-ports. Thus, for the
future, assistance from Europe could only reach Antioch by permission of
the Greeks. The treaty, however, was only of value in so far as its pro-
visions were duly carried out; and when, upon the death of Bohemond,
Alexius called upon Tancred to observe the convention made with his uncle,
the Prince of Antioch refused. The Emperor either would not or could not
embark upon a war with Tancred; he confined himself to attempting to
win over the Latin princes of Syria to support his cause. Butumites,
despatched with large supplies of money, negotiated fruitlessly with
Bertrand, Count of Tripolis, and later with his son Pons. Nor was he
more successful with King Baldwin. But, in spite of everything, the treaty
of 1108 remained of essential importance, for it was the standard by
which the relations of Antioch and Constantinople were regulated, and
it was to securing its observance that all the efforts of Alexius, his son,
and his grandson, were directed.
The last years of Alexius were to be occupied with fresh struggles
against the Turks. The latter had for some years ceased to invade Greek
territory, for nearly all the emirs were engaged in the struggle which took
place between the two sons of Malik Shāh, Barkiyāruq and Muhammad.
Upon the victory of Muḥammad, the country gradually settled down, and
when one of the sons of Qilij Arslān, Malik Shāh, had obtained possession
of Iconium, war again began between the Turks and the Greeks.
CH. XI.


## p. 344 (#386) ############################################

344
Alexius and the Turks
About 1109 Alexius ordered Eumathius Philocales, who was appointed
Governor of Attalia, to relieve Adramyttium and to drive out the Turkish
tribes from the neighbourhood. The governor attacked the Musulmans
settled in the region of Lampe, and immediately Hasan, Emir of Cappa-
docia, set out to ravage the Greek territories. Philadelphia, Smyrna,
Nymphaeum, Chliara, and Pergamus were threatened, and once again
the fruitful valleys along the coast of Rūm were traversed by the swift
Musulman squadrons dealing terror and destruction as they went.
Though repulsed, they soon returned. After 1112 their incursions become
continual. In that year Alexius awaited them at Adramyttium, Con-
stantine Gabras at Philadelphia, and Monastras at Pergamus and Chliara,
the Turks being defeated by Gabras. In 1113 Nicaea was besieged, and
Prusa, Apollonia, and Lopadium taken from the Greeks; the Emir
Manalugh ravaged Parium and Abydos, and the Greek troops with
difficulty drove back the enemy.
Next year, 1114, an invasion by the Cumans summoned Alexius to
the northern frontier. From Philippopolis, where he spent his leisure
time in discussions with the Manichaeans who were numerous in that
district, he kept watch upon the enemy and succeeded in driving them
back, but of the circumstances of his victory little is known.
Returning to Constantinople, Alexius again prepared to do battle
with the Musulmans, whose bands continued to harass the Greek frontiers.
Alexius gathered a considerable force, and decided on undertaking
police operations on a large scale and on driving off the Turkish tribes
as far as Iconium. Having repulsed the enemy, the Emperor pushed
on to Philomelium and Amorium. During his retreat the Sultan of
Iconium attacked the Greeks, but he was beaten near Ampûn, and
obliged to make peace. According to Anna Comnena, he conceded the
old frontier-line of the Empire as it had been in the time of Romanus
Diogenes. This is highly doubtful, and it does not appear that the Greek
possessions (with the exception of Trebizond and that part of the Armeniac
theme which bordered upon the Black Sea) included anything except the
country lying west of a line drawn along Smyrna, Gangra, Ancyra,
Amorium, and Philomelium. To this must be added the coast towns as
far as the borders of the principality of Antioch. The chief result of this
expedition of the Emperor was the liberation of a throng of captives,
whom he brought back to Greek territory.
The Musulman war did not monopolise the attention of Alexius during
the last years of his life, for we find him attempting to play a part in the
affairs of Italy. From this arose the treaty with Pisa in illi, by which
Alexius agreed no longer to interpose obstacles to the crusades set on
foot by the Pisans, and to present rich gifts every year to the Archbishop
and cathedral of Pisa. The Emperor also made important commercial
concessions to the Pisans, to whom were allotted a wharf and a residential
quarter at Constantinople.


## p. 345 (#387) ############################################

Alexius and the Papacy
345
It is very probable that this agreement with Pisa was part of a
project formed by Alexius to secure for Constantinople a preponderating
influence in Italian affairs. The death of Roger Borsa, Duke of Apulia,
left the Pope without a protector, just as he had embarked on a more
violent contest than ever with the Emperor Henry V. It will be remem-
bered that Paschal II, taken prisoner by the Emperor, conceded to him the
right of investiture, but repudiated his concession as early as March 1112,
acknowledging his weakness. In January 1112 Alexius wrote to Gerard,
Abbot of Monte Cassino, expressing his regret at the Pope's captivity, and
at the same time he entered into communication with the Romans, whom
he congratulated on their resistance to the Emperor. He informed them
that if they were still in the same mind as had been reported to him, he
would accept the imperial crown for himself or his son. In reply to this
message, the Romans in May 1112 despatched a numerous embassy to
the Emperor in order to arrange an agreement with him. Alexius had to
promise to come to Rome in the course of the summer, but he fell ill and
was unable to fulfil his engagement. It is evident that Paschal II only
continued these negotiations in the hope of bringing about the re-union
of the Churches and the ending of the schism. With regard to this, a
letter written to Alexius by the Pope towards the end of the year is of
the greatest importance. The Pope thanks Heaven which has inspired
Alexius with the idea of this much-desired union, but he does not conceal
the difficulties which the scheme will have to encounter; the Emperor,
however, has the easier task, for he is in a position to command both
clergy and laity. The Pope recognises with pleasure the good faith of
Alexius and of his envoy, Basil Mesimerius, but from the outset he makes
a point of stating that there is but one means of reconciling all differences,
and that is for the Patriarch of Constantinople to acknowledge the
primacy of the see of Rome, and for the metropolitan sees and provinces
which had formerly been subject to the Papacy to return to their obedi-
ence and place themselves at its disposal.
In conclusion, the Pope proposes the assembling of a Council, and makes
no allusion whatever to the projects of the Emperor regarding the imperial
crown. It is plain that in his mind these projects are dependent upon the
recognition by the Church of Constantinople of the primacy of Rome.
We know nothing of the further progress of these negotiations, which may,
in all probability, be connected with the journey of the Archbishop of
Milan, Peter Chrysolanus, to Constantinople in 1113. During his visit he
had a discussion with Eustratius, Bishop of Nicaea, on the subject of the
errors of the Greek Church. This attempt by Alexius to restore the unity
of the Empire, although we know so little of it, is none the less curious.
We shall find his idea taken up later by his grandson Manuel.
The last days of Alexius were saddened by quarrels and divisions in
his family. The Emperor at one time had reason to fear that his life-
work would be destroyed by his nearest relatives. In the early part of
сн. х.


## p. 346 (#388) ############################################

346
Intrigues of Anna Comnena
his reign Alexius had been under the influence of his mother Anna
Dalassena, but by degrees she had rendered herself unendurable to her
son, and perceiving this had not waited to be driven from court, but had
retired of her own accord to the monastery of Pantepoptes, where she died
(c. 1105 ? ). Her daughter-in-law Irene succeeded to her influence. She
had borne the Emperor seven children-four daughters, Anna, Maria,
Eudocia, and Theodora, and three sons, John, Andronicus, and Isaac. The
eldest of these children, Anna, a highly cultivated woman, mistress of all
the learning to be acquired in her day, to whom we owe the Alexiad,
having been for a moment heiress to the throne at the time of her
betrothal to the son of Michael VII, was inconsolable for the frustration
of her hopes by the birth of her brother John. Being very ambitious, she
succeeded, with the help of her mother and her brother Andronicus, in
forming a considerable party for herself at court, and strong in its support
she endeavoured to prepare the way for the succession to the throne of
her husband, the Caesar Nicephorus Bryennius, as soon as her father's
death should take place. John, whose rights were thus directly threatened,
made every effort to gain over the people and the Senate. For several
years an underground struggle went on between the two parties. The
Empress, whose influence over Alexius had grown to such a height that
she accompanied him even on his campaigns, worked unceasingly to
bring him to share her ill-opinion of her son John, whom she represented
as hopelessly dissolute. Alexius, however, held out against the insinua-
tions of his wife, though, by constantly postponing his decision, he led
her to hope that it might prove to be in accordance with her views.
In the beginning of 1118 the Emperor fell seriously ill, and the in-
triguing around him redoubled. In spite of all her efforts Irene could
not prevail upon her husband to sacrifice the son's rights to the daughter's.
The Emperor's dream had always been to found a dynasty, and he could
not but see that his work would be ephemeral, and that his house would
not long retain power, if he himself set the example of undermining the
right of succession. His sickness increasing, Alexius was carried to the
palace of Mangana. Feeling himself near his end, he summoned his son,
and giving him his ring charged him to have himself proclaimed Emperor.
John, in obedience to his father's orders, hastily had himself crowned in
St Sophia. Then, surrounded by his partisans, he occupied the Sacred
Palace, the thick walls of which would enable him to defy the outbreak
which his adversaries were likely to stir up. When the Empress and her
daughter learned what had happened, they gave way to an explosion of
wild rage. Irene renewed her efforts to wring from the dying Emperor
the recognition of Bryennius. She hoped that the news of John's action
would induce his father to disinherit him. But, far from shewing anger,
Alexius, on hearing of his son's success, lifted his hands to Heaven as
though to give thanks to God. On this Irene, perceiving that she had
been duped, overwhelmed her husband with reproaches. “All your life,"


## p. 347 (#389) ############################################

The Byzantine army and navy
347
she said, “you have done nothing but deceive and use words to conceal
your thoughts, and you have remained the same even on your death-bed. ”
Alexius expired during the night of 15-16 August 1118; his body,
abandoned by all, was hastily buried without the usual ceremonies at the
monastery of Christos Philanthropos.
Up to his last moments Comnenus had fought to defend the rights
of his son. Thanks to the resistance which he maintained to the will of
his wife and daughter, he succeeded in securing those rights, and all their
web of intrigue fell to pieces when confronted with the accomplished fact.
From the administrative point of view, the reign of Alexius is of real
importance. Comnenus, in fact, successfully carried out a heavy task by
reconstructing the fleet and the army which his predecessors had allowed
to fall into decay. We have hardly any information as to the navy.
When the reign began, the Byzantine fleet had ceased to exist, and in
order to repel the Normans Alexius had been obliged to appeal for help
to the naval force of the Venetians. Anna Comnena on several occasions
mentions the building of ships by her father's orders. As the history of
the reign proceeds, we can see the gradual development of the Greek fleet
and the part which it plays. In particular, we find it policing the
Archipelago, which was infested with Turkish pirates, and finally it took
its share in the war against Bohemond.
The re-organisation of the army always absorbed a large part of
Alexius' attention, for the position of the Empire, threatened as it was
on all its frontiers, demanded a strong and well-trained army. At the
same time the Emperor was always under the apprehension that the
weapon which he was forging might one day be turned against him.
Thus he always kept the command of important expeditions in his own
hands, and carefully avoided giving his generals any opportunity of
thrusting themselves into the foreground. Alexius made special efforts
to secure two main points. Firstly, he took every precaution that all those
who were under the obligation of military service should steadily fulfil
the duties laid upon them, and more than once he himself superintended
the checking of the military register, resisting all attempts of the great
landowners to absorb the small fiefs, granted on condition of service in
the army, and to reduce their holders to the status of coloni. In the
second place, the Emperor tried by constant manœuvring to train his
troops and to establish some degree of solidarity among the diverse ele-
ments of which they were formed. For at that time the Byzantine army
was an absolute mosaic. Alongside of the native troops furnished by the
themes and by the holders of military fiefs, we find contingents recruited
from among the barbarian peoples who had settled within the Empire,
and again from foreign mercenaries, Russians, Colbigni (Patzinaks or
Germans? ), Turks, Alans, Englishmen, Italian Normans, Germans, and
Bulgarians. Alexius' efforts were not thrown away, as the history of his
reign attests. At first his inexperienced and ill-organised army was almost
cH. XI.


## p. 348 (#390) ############################################

348
Financial administration
invariably defeated, but as the organisation was gradually improved we
find victory returning to the Byzantine standards, and at his death Alexius
was to leave behind him the admirable machine which was to enable his
son to undertake his campaigns in Cilicia and Syria.
The reign of Alexius was a time of extreme wretchedness to the in-
habitants of the Empire. Setting aside the disasters which overwhelmed
the provinces of Asia Minor, where more than once the Turks carried off
whole populations, the material condition of the European provinces was
appalling. The rural districts were wasted by continual wars, and on
account of the insecurity there a continual movement towards the towns
went on among the peasants, who were anxious to escape from the taxes
and from military service. What was the pressure of the financial burdens
on the country parts will be understood when we learn that a standard
conversion-table, drawn up under Alexius, provides for the original sum
due by a taxpayer two years in arrear to be multiplied by 28 (56 nomis-
mata instead of 2). This increase is explained by the disturbance
in financial administration brought about by Alexius' debasement of
the coinage. Since the disaster of Manzikert (1071) the financial
difficulties of the Empire had led the sovereigns of Byzantium to issue
debased money. Alexius carried the new practice to extremes: Zonaras
tells how the Emperor struck copper coins which he used for his own
payments, while he insisted that the taxes should be paid mainly in gold,
accepting the copper money for only a part of the sums due. The
chronicler's evidence is confirmed by numismatics, for there are no less
than seven types of the nomisma struck by Alexius; some are of gold,
but the most common types are of bronze, of electrum, of billon, of silver
much debased, or of an alloy of gold and electrum or of gold and billon.
This variety of coins bearing the same name, although differing in standard
and value, brought confusion into business, as is shewn by the standard
conversion-table mentioned above.
The issue of debased coinage was not indeed peculiar to Alexius, and
his successors followed his example. If John Comnenus seems to have
made an effort to improve the coinage (three out of seven types of nomisma
bearing his effigy are usually of gold), Manuel Comnenus reverted to the
practices of his grandfather: not one of the types of nomisma struck by
him is of gold; out of the thirteen known types five are of bronze and
the others of a very pale electrum which is hard to distinguish from silver.
In dealing with the nobility and clergy, the government used equal
rigour in its endeavours to reform abuses. If we have but little informa-
tion as to the nobility, we have more as regards the clergy, and it is highly
probable that measures analogous to those taken against that class were
also adopted against the aristocracy. A large part of ecclesiastical property
was exempt from the land-tax, but in the imperial charters granting this
exemption care had usually been taken to stipulate the number of paroikoi
and klerikoi who were not to be subject to the tax. The clergy shewed


## p. 349 (#391) ############################################

Alexius and the Church
349
a marked tendency to attract to their estates a larger number of paroikoi
and klerikoi than they were entitled to, and the exchequer suffered in
proportion. To remedy these abuses Alexius had the number of Church
tenants and estates verified afresh with the utmost strictness. The treasury
then pitilessly exacted the tax from all men and lands not entitled to ex-
emption.
Another financial expedient, revived by Alexius, did considerable in-
justice to the monasteries. Not having money enough to reward those
who had been faithful to him, nor to provide the different members of
his family with large estates, Alexius had recourse to the lands of the
monasteries and bestowed them as though they had been fiefs. The
beneficiaries, who were called charistikarioi, enjoyed the monastic re-
venues, an infinitesimal part of which went to the support of the monks
and the convent. These donations to private persons brought great dis-
organization into the monastic life. No doubt the number of the convents
had at that time grown immensely, and the wealth of the monks was
excessive. Some intervention by the central power was a necessity.
Alexius, by these donations to lay persons, avoided the difficulty of regu-
lating the whole system anew.
But it would be wrong to conclude from what has been said that
Alexius was a persecutor of the clergy. The monastic system was at that
time declining rapidly; the monks were constantly quarrelling with their
superiors, or becoming tired of their convents and going off to wander
about the country or make visits to the capital or the great provincial
towns. These were abuses which Alexius undertook to correct both by
diminishing the wealth of the monasteries and by reforming the conduct
of the monks. This reform of the institution of monasticism was one of
the projects nearest to the Emperor's heart, and he gave special encourage-
ment to the great reformer St Christodulus, lavishing privileges on his
monastery at Patmos. In the same way the monks entrusted with the
care of the hospital and orphanage of St Paul at Constantinople restored
by Alexius were overwhelmed with imperial favours, but their adminis-
tration was narrowly supervised.
The same anxiety for the moral uplifting of the clergy is traceable in
the course which Comnenus took with regard to the seculars, whom he
accused of sloth and ignorance. To remedy these evils, Alexius limited
the number of the priests of St Sophia, and organised a whole system
of examinations dealing at once with morals and with learning. The
clergy were divided into classes, and were precluded from promotion
or from any share in the imperial bounty, except in so far as they satis-
fied the conditions laid down by Alexius. In order to avoid disputes
between the monks and the secular clergy, Alexius by a Novel defined
the rights of the Patriarch and bishops over the monasteries.
All these measures shew the interest which Alexius Comnenus felt in
religious questions. This interest was further shewn by his intervention
CH, X.


## p. 350 (#392) ############################################

350
Estimate of Alexius
in various controversies as to heresy in which he zealously played his
part as the defender of orthodoxy. Comnenus had, besides, a marked apti-
tude for theology, and Anna Comnena depicts her father and mother
holding discussions at table on the doctrine of the Fathers. In the
greater number of the religious controversies which agitated the Empire
during his reign Alexius took a share himself. He did so, for instance,
in 1082, in the case of Italus, “Consul of the Philosophers,” whose teaching,
inspired by Greek philosophy and especially by Platonist conceptions,
was solemnly condemned. In the same way Alexius intervened in the
condemnation of the heresy of Nilus, whose ideas, no doubt, on many
points were akin to the teaching of the Oriental sects at that time widely
diffused through the Empire. Not satisfied with combating heresy and
disputing with the Armenians and Bogomiles, whom he endeavoured down
to the end of his life to bring back to orthodox views, Alexius desired to
leave a permanent memorial of his theological zeal, and at his request
the monk Euthymius Zigabenus drew up a treatise, the Ilavonlía
dorypatikń, which in the Emperor's judgment contained all the scientific
proofs fitted to refute the arguments of the heretics and to shew their
emptiness.
Whoever desires to come to a fair estimate of Alexius Comnenus must
recognise that his reign marks a temporary arrest in the decline of Con-
stantinople. In Europe, as in Asia, he succeeded in beating back the
attacks of the enemies of the Empire.