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.
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.
Cambridge Medieval History - v4 - Eastern Roman Empire
On the other side of the Adriatic,
Croatia succeeded in gaining her independence, which was formally con-
secrated on the day when the legates of Gregory VII set the crown upon
the head of Svinimir. Dalmatia, too, profited by the course of events to
secure practical independence, while soon afterwards the town of Ragusa
was to ally itself with Robert Guiscard.
Serbia was endeavouring to shake off Byzantine suzerainty, and the
great rising of 1071 reduced Greek authority there to a very precarious
position. In Bulgaria, which was only half subdued, the Greeks and the
natives were violently at enmity. Here again the Normans were to find
support in their attempt to conquer the Empire.
On the Northern frontier, the Hungarians took advantage of the
difficulties with which the Emperors had to struggle, to begin those
profitable incursions into Greek territory whence they used to return
loaded with spoil. The wandering tribes along the Danube also went
back to their old custom of making expeditions across the river, and their
undisciplined bands even advanced as far as the suburbs of the capital.
The Uzes and the Patzinaks took their share of the spoils of the Empire,
which, in order to purchase peace, was forced to pay them a tribute.
In Asia, the situation was far more seriously compromised by the
conquests of the Turks. From 1062 onwards, the Musulmans made steady
progress. The Byzantine Empire lost Armenia and the Eastern provinces,
while Syria was threatened. The Turks, already masters of Ani, Melitene,
and Sebastea, ravaged the region about Antioch. To attempt to check
their advance, Eudocia Macrembolitissa, widow of Constantine Ducas, sent
against them her co-regent Romanus Diogenes, whom she had just
married. Despite the low level to which the Byzantine army had sunk,
the Emperor at first succeeded in driving back the enemy, but the Turks
retaliated, and in the disastrous battle of Manzikert (1071) his forces were
destroyed. Thereupon, from all quarters arose pretenders to the imperial
purple. Eudocia, who had shared her office with her son Michael VII,
looked on helplessly at the ruin of the Empire. The forward movement
of the Muslims became irresistible, and soon the conquerors reached the
western shores of Asia Minor.
Nor was the situation within the Empire any more hopeful. The
army, neglected by the government, was discontented; the aristocracy
bore with impatience its exclusion from power. Thence arose a whole
series of outbreaks. Never, perhaps, were attempts at a pronunciamento
CH. XI.
## p. 326 (#368) ############################################
326
Anna Dalassena
more numerous, but the nobility of Europe and that of Asia Minor,
between whom was a deadly hatred, so neutralised each other as to
hinder the majority of these attempts from coming to any result.
It was at this moment, when the whole structure of the State seemed
to be cracking in every direction and on the point of falling in ruins,
that Alexius, nephew of Isaac Comnenus, acquired supreme power.
After the abdication of his brother, John Comnenus had retired into
obscurity. By his prudent conduct he was able to avoid the perils which
in Constantinople usually threatened the members of a family which had
occupied the throne. He died about 1067, leaving five sons and three
daughters by his marriage with Anna Dalassena. This lady had seen
with regret her husband's refusal of the crown, and when the responsibility
for the family interests fell upon her she used every effort to obtain a
repetition of the lost opportunity. In her eyes the Ducas family, who had
profited by the retirement of Isaac Comnenus, were the enemies of her
house; her hatred of them dictated her political attitude. A friend and
relation of the Empress Eudocia Macrembolitissa, Anna Dalassena
attached herself to the fortunes of Romanus Diogenes, whose son Con-
stantine married her daughter Theodora. Manuel, the eldest of the
children of John Comnenus, received a command in the army. On the
fall of Romanus Anna's position was shaken, and she was for a short
time exiled; but she regained favour under Michael VII, who perhaps
stood in dread of the support which the Comneni, with their large estates in
Asia Minor, might furnish to the Turks. Her son Isaac, now become the
eldest by the death of his brother Manuel, married an Alan princess, a
cousin of the Empress Maria, wife of Michael VII. The Comneni then
found themselves supported in their position by the eunuch Nicephoritza,
who relied upon their help to destroy the influence of the Caesar John
Ducas, uncle of Michael VII. Isaac was employed in the war against the
Turks and in suppressing the insurrection raised by the Norman leader,
Roussel de Bailleul. His brother Alexius made his first essay in war
under his command, winning great distinction. Being charged a little
later with the task of resisting Roussel, Alexius succeeded in making him
prisoner. The fortunes of the Comneni rose steadily; honours and dignities
fell to their share. The Caesar John Ducas, by this time fallen into dis-
grace and become a monk, realising the advantages which an alliance
with this powerful family would procure for his house, arranged a marriage
between his grand-daughter Irene and Alexius Comnenus. The court
opposed the match, which by uniting two of the most powerful families
of the aristocracy would make their interests thenceforth identical. The
marriage nevertheless took place about the end of 1077 or the beginning
of 1078.
On the abdication of Michael VIÍ, Alexius Comnenus, being charged
with the defence of the capital, made his submission to the new Emperor,
Nicephorus Botaniates, who rewarded him by appointing him Domestic
## p. 327 (#369) ############################################
Accession of Alexius Comnenus
327
of the Scholae and by entrusting him with the suppression of the revolts
of Bryennius and Basilaces.
The methods of government employed by the two ministers, Borilus
and Germanus, to whom Nicephorus handed over the exercise of power,
aroused general discontent. The treasury was empty; the Varangian
guard, being unpaid, mutinied; the army was dissatisfied and protested
against having the eunuchs of the palace set over it. Among the people
the Emperor was unpopular, for he had come into collision with the
generally accepted ideas of legitimism by not associating with himself in
his office Constantine, the son of Michael VII. Besides this he caused
great scandal by contracting a third marriage with Maria, wife of Michael
VII who was still alive.
Alexius Comnenus, who had become popular on account of his suc-
cesses, was exposed to the dislike and distrust of the party in power. On
the other hand, besides his own family connexions, he had the support
of the Ducas family, which brought with it that of the clergy. He him-
self had contrived to gain the favour of the Empress, who was perhaps
in love with him. In her eyes he appeared as the champion of Michael
VII's son Constantine, and he succeeded in persuading her to adopt him.
Thenceforward his rights and Constantine's were merged.
It was not without disquiet that the Court watched the progress made
by the Comnenian party. The situation became more and more strained,
and soon it was apparent to everyone that the breaking-point must before
long be reached. Alexius determined to be first in the field, and under the
pretext of repelling the Turks, who were occupying Cyzicus, he assembled
troops at Chorlu (Tzurulum) on the road to Hadrianople. Divining the
intentions of the Comneni, the ministers of Botaniates resolved on their
arrest. Alexius, informed of their design through the Empress, hastily
fled from the capital (14 February 1081). At Chorlu he was joined by
his partisans, chief among them the Caesar John Ducas, who had quitted
his monastery. Once assembled, the rebels seem to have been doubtful
as to what their course should be. It is almost certain that rivalries arose,
and that a party among them wished to proclaim, not Alexius but his
brother Isaac. If, finally, Alexius carried the day, he owed it to the
intervention of the Ducas family in his favour.
Alexius, having been proclaimed by the army, marched upon Con-
stantinople, the gates of which were opened to him by treachery. The
victorious army pillaged the capital, while Nicephorus Botaniates, not
seeking to prolong a useless struggle, divested himself of the imperial
robes and put on the monastic habit. Soon after, an agreement made
between the new Emperor and Nicephorus Melissenus, who had been
proclaimed by the troops in Asia Minor, left Alexius sole occupant of
the throne.
The early days of the new reign were taken up with intrigues which
are only imperfectly known to us. The Ducas family, to whom Alexius
cH. K.
## p. 328 (#370) ############################################
328
Alexius and the Ducas family
largely owed his success, were fearful for a moment that the Emperor
would repudiate his wife. And indeed it appears that for a short time
he entertained this project, and had decided to marry the Empress Maria.
The firmness of Cosmas, the Patriarch, prevented the Emperor from
carrying out his purpose. In her hostility to the house of Ducas, Anna
Dalassena urged his resignation, in order that Eustratius Garidas might be
chosen in his place. Cosmas refused to retire until he had crowned Irene.
It was found impossible to overcome his resistance, and Irene was crowned
seven days later than her husband. There is no doubt that Alexius' in-
clinations were all in favour of Maria, but from the point of view of
policy it would have been ill-judged to alienate a faction so powerful as
that of the Ducas. Cosmas prevented Alexius from committing this
blunder. The Empress Maria was obliged to leave the palace. She took
care first to have her son Constantine appointed joint Emperor. The
young prince, who was betrothed later on to Anna Comnena, daughter
of Alexius, remained heir presumptive until in 1088 the birth of the
Emperor's son John enabled Alexius to set him aside.
At the time of his accession Alexius was about thirty-three years old.
In person he was short and rather stout, deep-chested and broad-
shouldered. Of cultivated mind and supple intellect, he had been very
thoroughly educated. Passionately fond of philosophy and theology, he
enjoyed taking part in the discussions on these subjects which were so
frequent during his reign. Accustomed to court life from his youth, he
was well acquainted with men and knew how to make use of them. Very
steady in pursuing his ends, he gave all possible care to elaborating his
plans and made a point of never leaving anything to chance. Of a mild
disposition, his reign was not stained by cruelties. With regard to religion,
the Emperor looked upon himself as entrusted with the duty of safeguard-
ing the orthodox faith handed down to him, which he felt bound to hand
on intact to his successors, and more than once he personally took a share
in the conversion of heretics. Comnenus was perfectly aware of the general
decadence of the Empire. He exerted himself to remedy it by reforming
the clergy, secular and regular, by founding and encouraging schools, and
by re-organising the army and the fleet. In addition to this, it must be
said that Alexius was a diplomatist of the first order. Thoroughly con-
versant with the political state of the surrounding countries, he knew how
to profit by their divisions, and had a peculiar gift for inducing the
enemies of his enemies to enter into alliance with him.
Immediately upon his accession Alexius had to meet a formidable
danger, even more pressing than the Turkish peril. The Normans of Italy
were preparing to invade the imperial territory, and the Duke of Apulia,
Robert Guiscard, meditated no less an enterprise than an advance upon
Constantinople itself. As early as the capture of Bari, which marked
the definitive expulsion of the Byzantines from Italy, Guiscard had con-
ceived the idea of assuming the imperial crown. Amid the dangers that
## p. 329 (#371) ############################################
War with the Normans of Italy
329
threatened the Empire, Michael VII had thought of a Norman alliance,
and a daughter of Guiscard had been sent to Constantinople to marry
Constantine, the heir to the throne. When Botaniates became Emperor,
Guiscard took up the role of champion of the deposed ruler, and in order
to win the goodwill of the Greek populations he spread abroad the
rumour that Michael had come to seek help of him. A Greek named
Rector posed as the dethroned Emperor. At the same time the Duke
of Apulia was seeking to win over supporters, even in Constantinople.
The invaders were already at work when Alexius ascended the throne, and
Bohemond, Guiscard's son, had occupied Avlona, Canina, and Hiericho.
In May 1081 the bulk of the Norman army crossed the Adriatic and
concentrated at Avlona. Guiscard began by reducing Corfù, and thence
proceeded to the siege of Durazzo.
Though without money or troops, Alexius contrived to meet the
danger. He came to an understanding with certain Norman lords, who
had been driven from Italy by Guiscard and had taken refuge at Con-
stantinople, and sent them to Italy to re-kindle the spirit of revolt
among the vassals of the Duke of Apulia. At the same time Alexius
tried, but in vain, to treat with Gregory VII, and entered into negotia-
tions with Henry IV of Germany. To the latter he promised enormous
subsidies if he would make a descent upon Apulia and attack Guiscard.
The support of the Venetian fleet was secured by a commercial treaty,
opening a long series of Greek ports to the merchants of the republic.
Finally, a treaty of peace was concluded with Sulaimān, who in the name
of the Seljūq Sultan, Malik Shāh, was leading the Musulman troops to
the conquest of Asia Minor, and had obtained possession of Nicaea. This
allowed the Emperor to devote his whole attention to the war with the
Normans.
The campaign began with a victory won by the Venetian fleet over the
Normans at Cape Palli, but the Greek army under the Emperor's command
was beaten before Durazzo (Oct. 1081), and Guiscard shortly afterwards
became master of the whole of Illyria, for Durazzo fell into his hands.
Recalled to Italy in the spring of 1082 by a revolt among his vassals,
engineered by the agents of Alexius, Guiscard handed over the command
of the expeditionary force to his son Bohemond, who occupied Castoria,
besieged Joannina, and defeated Alexius. Ochrida, Scopia (Skoplje), Veria,
Servia, Vodena, Moglena, and Trikala thus fell into the hands of the
Normans, who pushed on into Thessaly as far as Larissa.
Reduced to the necessity of confiscating Church treasure in order
to raise money, Alexius with indefatigable patience got together a new
army, and while his allies the Venetians were retaking Durazzo, he suc-
ceeded in driving the enemy from Thessaly, and recaptured Castoria
(October or November 1083). Negotiations with Bohemond, begun
through the mediation of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Euthymius, led to
no result.
cH. XI.
## p. 330 (#372) ############################################
330
The Patzinaks and Cumans
The year 1084 brought a fresh endeavour on the part of the Duke of
Apulia, who, having restored order in his own dominions, renewed opera-
tions against Constantinople. He completely defeated the Venetian fleet
off Corfù, and in the beginning of 1085 despatched his son Robert to
take Cephalonia. He himself was about to take the field, when he was
suddenly overtaken by death. The disturbances which consequently broke
out in Italy for a time diverted the Norman danger from the Byzantine
frontier.
Hardly was the Empire freed from the presence of the Normans, when
a new peril arose in the neighbourhood of the Danube. The military
contingents supplied by the Manichaean colony of Philippopolis having
proved treacherous during the campaign against Guiscard, Alexius had
attempted to punish the offenders. A mutiny had broken out, the leader
of which, Traulus, appealed for help to the Patzinak tribes. Though at
first repulsed (1086), the Patzinaks returned to the charge the following
year. Again defeated, they were pursued by the Greek army, which, how-
ever, they put to rout near Dristra (Silistria). It was only by a war
which broke out between the Cumans and the Patzinaks that the latter
were prevented from profiting by their victory to invade the imperial
territory. And, in fact, the struggle was merely postponed. During the
years 1088–1090 the Patzinaks settled down on Greek territory and
occupied the country between the Danube and the Balkans. Thence they
spread into the region around Philippopolis and Hadrianople. It took
Alexius several years before he could set on foot an army capable, with
any chance of success, of undertaking the struggle with the barbarous
tribes which threatened Constantinople. Finally, in the spring of 1091,
the Emperor, having called in the help of the Cumans, inflicted a severe
defeat upon the Patzinaks by the river Leburnium, which for a time
freed the Empire from barbarian incursions (29 April 1091).
However, Alexius had not done with the nomad tribes living to the
north of the Danube, and in 1094-1095 he was obliged to repel an attack
by his late allies the Cumans, who under the command of a self-styled son
of Romanus Diogenes named Leo, had advanced as far as Hadrianople.
Leo was taken prisoner and blinded.
A little before the time of the Cuman invasion, Alexius had suc-
ceeded in asserting his authority over the Serbs. Theoretically these
were vassals of the Empire, to which they were obliged to furnish certain
military contingents. At the time of Guiscard's expedition, the Serbian
prince, Constantine Bodin, had deserted Alexius, and had drawn off with
his troops just as battle was joined. Since that date he had made use of
the difficulties with which the Emperor had to struggle to extend his
borders and make himself independent. His example had been followed
by Bolkan, the Župan of Rascia. In 1091 and 1094 Alexius was
obliged to interfere in Serbia, but the mountainous character of the country
made military operations difficult, and the Emperor, having taken hos-
## p. 331 (#373) ############################################
The Empire and the Turks in Asia Minor
331
tages, contented himself with a submission which was rather apparent
than real.
In Europe Alexius had successfully beaten off the attacks of the
enemies of the Empire. In Asia Minor the state of things was also im-
proved, although the last remnants of the Byzantine possessions in the
Antioch province had fallen into the hands of Malik Shāh. The death
of Sulaimān (1085) left Asia Minor divided between a number of emirs,
whose rivalries made them likely to play into the Emperor's hands.
Sulaimān's dominions had been partitioned between Abu'ī-Qāsim, Emir
of Nicaea, Tzachas, Emir of Smyrna, formerly a favourite of Nicephorus
Botaniates, and Pulchas, Emir of Cappadocia. Alexius tried to profit by
the internal dissensions of the Mohammedan rulers to re-open the struggle
in Asia, and to protect the last remaining possessions of the Empire.
He built the fortress of Civitot on the gulf of Nicomedia, placing in it
as garrison a body of soldiers of English origin. At some unspecified
period Nicomedia again fell into the power of the Greeks.
The relations between Constantinople and the Turkish emirs are very
confusing. It appears that a common fear of Tzachas, Emir of Smyrna,
drew together Alexius and Abu'l-Qāsim. As to Tzachas, who had suc-
ceeded in creating a fleet, he dreamt of no less an enterprise than the
conquest of Constantinople, and with this end in view had allied himself
with the Patzinaks. The battle on the Leburnium destroyed his hopes,
and he was himself defeated by Constantine Dalassenus, an officer of
Alexius. When Malik Shāh sent his captain, Būzhān, to reduce the
emirs of Asia Minor to obedience, this general began negotiations with
Alexius. The Emperor, while continuing the discussions till they were
interrupted by the death of Malik Shāh, remained constant to his alliance
with Abu'l-Qāsim. When the latter had been defeated and slain by Būzhān,
Alexius allied himself with his successor, Qilij Arslān, son of Sulaiman,
and together they fought against Tzachas. The Emperor profited by the
general scramble which took place among all the vassals of Sulaimān to
attempt the recapture of Apollonia and Cyzicus, which the Greek general
Opus succeeded in taking. At this time, with the exception of the coast
towns, Alexius possessed nothing in Asia Minor besides the region lying
between the Sangarius, the Black Sea, the Bosphorus, and the Propontis.
Towards the south a natural frontier was supplied by Lake Sophon and by
a wide fortified fosse which supplied Nicomedia with water from the lake.
While he was still fighting with the Turks, Alexius was called on to
suppress a dangerous insurrection. Fiscal burdens had led to simultaneous
revolts in Cyprus and in Crete, and two chiefs, Charices and Rapsomates,
declared their independence. Order was restored by the Grand Drun-
garius Ducas, and Alexius formed in Cyprus a base of operations for the
Greek fleets. The Stratopedarch Eumathius Philocales was entrusted
with the carrying out of the Emperor's plans.
For the first eighteen years of his reign, Alexius had been obliged to
CH, x.
## p. 332 (#374) ############################################
332
Unpopularity of Alexius
?
maintain incessant warfare, and during the same period the situation in
the interior had also presented great difficulties.
Alexius, being held responsible for the complications bequeathed him
by his predecessors, was for a time extremely unpopular. A large section
of the clergy, in spite of the penance afterwards imposed on him, had
never forgiven him the pillage of the churches which had followed the
capture of the metropolis at the time of the fall of Botaniates. While
the Norman war was in progress, Anna Dalassena, who acted as regent
during the absence of Alexius with the army, had, in order to replenish
the imperial treasury, confiscated the wealth of the churches. This
measure caused universal discontent, which was utilised by the enemies of
the dynasty for their own purposes. In order to pacify public opinion,
Alexius was obliged to pledge himself to make reparation, and assured to
the churches a certain sum of money, to be a yearly charge upon the
revenue. In 1086, at the time of the struggle with the Patzinaks, Alexius
attempted to have recourse to a similar measure to relieve the pressure on
the imperial exchequer. But a considerable body of the clergy, strong in
the support of public opinion, with Leo the Metropolitan of Chalcedon
at their head, prevented the Emperor from carrying out his project.
Alexius never forgave the leader of the resistance, and soon afterwards
contrived to have him deposed. However, the affair did not end there,
and in 1089, at a time when the exterior enemies of the Empire were
becoming bolder than ever, the Emperor was obliged in some sort to
make the amende honorable for the way in which he had dealt with
Church property. He promulgated a Novel forbidding his successors
to dip their hands into the Church treasuries. It is probable that the
Emperor's action was dictated not only by genuine scruples but also by
the necessity of satisfying public opinion, which looked upon the Byzan-
tine defeats as a chastisement from Heaven for the sacrilegious acts which
had been committed.
Persons with their own interests to serve attempted to profit by the
unpopularity of Alexius to overthrow him, and the Emperor had a whole
series of plots to circumvent. 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.
Croatia succeeded in gaining her independence, which was formally con-
secrated on the day when the legates of Gregory VII set the crown upon
the head of Svinimir. Dalmatia, too, profited by the course of events to
secure practical independence, while soon afterwards the town of Ragusa
was to ally itself with Robert Guiscard.
Serbia was endeavouring to shake off Byzantine suzerainty, and the
great rising of 1071 reduced Greek authority there to a very precarious
position. In Bulgaria, which was only half subdued, the Greeks and the
natives were violently at enmity. Here again the Normans were to find
support in their attempt to conquer the Empire.
On the Northern frontier, the Hungarians took advantage of the
difficulties with which the Emperors had to struggle, to begin those
profitable incursions into Greek territory whence they used to return
loaded with spoil. The wandering tribes along the Danube also went
back to their old custom of making expeditions across the river, and their
undisciplined bands even advanced as far as the suburbs of the capital.
The Uzes and the Patzinaks took their share of the spoils of the Empire,
which, in order to purchase peace, was forced to pay them a tribute.
In Asia, the situation was far more seriously compromised by the
conquests of the Turks. From 1062 onwards, the Musulmans made steady
progress. The Byzantine Empire lost Armenia and the Eastern provinces,
while Syria was threatened. The Turks, already masters of Ani, Melitene,
and Sebastea, ravaged the region about Antioch. To attempt to check
their advance, Eudocia Macrembolitissa, widow of Constantine Ducas, sent
against them her co-regent Romanus Diogenes, whom she had just
married. Despite the low level to which the Byzantine army had sunk,
the Emperor at first succeeded in driving back the enemy, but the Turks
retaliated, and in the disastrous battle of Manzikert (1071) his forces were
destroyed. Thereupon, from all quarters arose pretenders to the imperial
purple. Eudocia, who had shared her office with her son Michael VII,
looked on helplessly at the ruin of the Empire. The forward movement
of the Muslims became irresistible, and soon the conquerors reached the
western shores of Asia Minor.
Nor was the situation within the Empire any more hopeful. The
army, neglected by the government, was discontented; the aristocracy
bore with impatience its exclusion from power. Thence arose a whole
series of outbreaks. Never, perhaps, were attempts at a pronunciamento
CH. XI.
## p. 326 (#368) ############################################
326
Anna Dalassena
more numerous, but the nobility of Europe and that of Asia Minor,
between whom was a deadly hatred, so neutralised each other as to
hinder the majority of these attempts from coming to any result.
It was at this moment, when the whole structure of the State seemed
to be cracking in every direction and on the point of falling in ruins,
that Alexius, nephew of Isaac Comnenus, acquired supreme power.
After the abdication of his brother, John Comnenus had retired into
obscurity. By his prudent conduct he was able to avoid the perils which
in Constantinople usually threatened the members of a family which had
occupied the throne. He died about 1067, leaving five sons and three
daughters by his marriage with Anna Dalassena. This lady had seen
with regret her husband's refusal of the crown, and when the responsibility
for the family interests fell upon her she used every effort to obtain a
repetition of the lost opportunity. In her eyes the Ducas family, who had
profited by the retirement of Isaac Comnenus, were the enemies of her
house; her hatred of them dictated her political attitude. A friend and
relation of the Empress Eudocia Macrembolitissa, Anna Dalassena
attached herself to the fortunes of Romanus Diogenes, whose son Con-
stantine married her daughter Theodora. Manuel, the eldest of the
children of John Comnenus, received a command in the army. On the
fall of Romanus Anna's position was shaken, and she was for a short
time exiled; but she regained favour under Michael VII, who perhaps
stood in dread of the support which the Comneni, with their large estates in
Asia Minor, might furnish to the Turks. Her son Isaac, now become the
eldest by the death of his brother Manuel, married an Alan princess, a
cousin of the Empress Maria, wife of Michael VII. The Comneni then
found themselves supported in their position by the eunuch Nicephoritza,
who relied upon their help to destroy the influence of the Caesar John
Ducas, uncle of Michael VII. Isaac was employed in the war against the
Turks and in suppressing the insurrection raised by the Norman leader,
Roussel de Bailleul. His brother Alexius made his first essay in war
under his command, winning great distinction. Being charged a little
later with the task of resisting Roussel, Alexius succeeded in making him
prisoner. The fortunes of the Comneni rose steadily; honours and dignities
fell to their share. The Caesar John Ducas, by this time fallen into dis-
grace and become a monk, realising the advantages which an alliance
with this powerful family would procure for his house, arranged a marriage
between his grand-daughter Irene and Alexius Comnenus. The court
opposed the match, which by uniting two of the most powerful families
of the aristocracy would make their interests thenceforth identical. The
marriage nevertheless took place about the end of 1077 or the beginning
of 1078.
On the abdication of Michael VIÍ, Alexius Comnenus, being charged
with the defence of the capital, made his submission to the new Emperor,
Nicephorus Botaniates, who rewarded him by appointing him Domestic
## p. 327 (#369) ############################################
Accession of Alexius Comnenus
327
of the Scholae and by entrusting him with the suppression of the revolts
of Bryennius and Basilaces.
The methods of government employed by the two ministers, Borilus
and Germanus, to whom Nicephorus handed over the exercise of power,
aroused general discontent. The treasury was empty; the Varangian
guard, being unpaid, mutinied; the army was dissatisfied and protested
against having the eunuchs of the palace set over it. Among the people
the Emperor was unpopular, for he had come into collision with the
generally accepted ideas of legitimism by not associating with himself in
his office Constantine, the son of Michael VII. Besides this he caused
great scandal by contracting a third marriage with Maria, wife of Michael
VII who was still alive.
Alexius Comnenus, who had become popular on account of his suc-
cesses, was exposed to the dislike and distrust of the party in power. On
the other hand, besides his own family connexions, he had the support
of the Ducas family, which brought with it that of the clergy. He him-
self had contrived to gain the favour of the Empress, who was perhaps
in love with him. In her eyes he appeared as the champion of Michael
VII's son Constantine, and he succeeded in persuading her to adopt him.
Thenceforward his rights and Constantine's were merged.
It was not without disquiet that the Court watched the progress made
by the Comnenian party. The situation became more and more strained,
and soon it was apparent to everyone that the breaking-point must before
long be reached. Alexius determined to be first in the field, and under the
pretext of repelling the Turks, who were occupying Cyzicus, he assembled
troops at Chorlu (Tzurulum) on the road to Hadrianople. Divining the
intentions of the Comneni, the ministers of Botaniates resolved on their
arrest. Alexius, informed of their design through the Empress, hastily
fled from the capital (14 February 1081). At Chorlu he was joined by
his partisans, chief among them the Caesar John Ducas, who had quitted
his monastery. Once assembled, the rebels seem to have been doubtful
as to what their course should be. It is almost certain that rivalries arose,
and that a party among them wished to proclaim, not Alexius but his
brother Isaac. If, finally, Alexius carried the day, he owed it to the
intervention of the Ducas family in his favour.
Alexius, having been proclaimed by the army, marched upon Con-
stantinople, the gates of which were opened to him by treachery. The
victorious army pillaged the capital, while Nicephorus Botaniates, not
seeking to prolong a useless struggle, divested himself of the imperial
robes and put on the monastic habit. Soon after, an agreement made
between the new Emperor and Nicephorus Melissenus, who had been
proclaimed by the troops in Asia Minor, left Alexius sole occupant of
the throne.
The early days of the new reign were taken up with intrigues which
are only imperfectly known to us. The Ducas family, to whom Alexius
cH. K.
## p. 328 (#370) ############################################
328
Alexius and the Ducas family
largely owed his success, were fearful for a moment that the Emperor
would repudiate his wife. And indeed it appears that for a short time
he entertained this project, and had decided to marry the Empress Maria.
The firmness of Cosmas, the Patriarch, prevented the Emperor from
carrying out his purpose. In her hostility to the house of Ducas, Anna
Dalassena urged his resignation, in order that Eustratius Garidas might be
chosen in his place. Cosmas refused to retire until he had crowned Irene.
It was found impossible to overcome his resistance, and Irene was crowned
seven days later than her husband. There is no doubt that Alexius' in-
clinations were all in favour of Maria, but from the point of view of
policy it would have been ill-judged to alienate a faction so powerful as
that of the Ducas. Cosmas prevented Alexius from committing this
blunder. The Empress Maria was obliged to leave the palace. She took
care first to have her son Constantine appointed joint Emperor. The
young prince, who was betrothed later on to Anna Comnena, daughter
of Alexius, remained heir presumptive until in 1088 the birth of the
Emperor's son John enabled Alexius to set him aside.
At the time of his accession Alexius was about thirty-three years old.
In person he was short and rather stout, deep-chested and broad-
shouldered. Of cultivated mind and supple intellect, he had been very
thoroughly educated. Passionately fond of philosophy and theology, he
enjoyed taking part in the discussions on these subjects which were so
frequent during his reign. Accustomed to court life from his youth, he
was well acquainted with men and knew how to make use of them. Very
steady in pursuing his ends, he gave all possible care to elaborating his
plans and made a point of never leaving anything to chance. Of a mild
disposition, his reign was not stained by cruelties. With regard to religion,
the Emperor looked upon himself as entrusted with the duty of safeguard-
ing the orthodox faith handed down to him, which he felt bound to hand
on intact to his successors, and more than once he personally took a share
in the conversion of heretics. Comnenus was perfectly aware of the general
decadence of the Empire. He exerted himself to remedy it by reforming
the clergy, secular and regular, by founding and encouraging schools, and
by re-organising the army and the fleet. In addition to this, it must be
said that Alexius was a diplomatist of the first order. Thoroughly con-
versant with the political state of the surrounding countries, he knew how
to profit by their divisions, and had a peculiar gift for inducing the
enemies of his enemies to enter into alliance with him.
Immediately upon his accession Alexius had to meet a formidable
danger, even more pressing than the Turkish peril. The Normans of Italy
were preparing to invade the imperial territory, and the Duke of Apulia,
Robert Guiscard, meditated no less an enterprise than an advance upon
Constantinople itself. As early as the capture of Bari, which marked
the definitive expulsion of the Byzantines from Italy, Guiscard had con-
ceived the idea of assuming the imperial crown. Amid the dangers that
## p. 329 (#371) ############################################
War with the Normans of Italy
329
threatened the Empire, Michael VII had thought of a Norman alliance,
and a daughter of Guiscard had been sent to Constantinople to marry
Constantine, the heir to the throne. When Botaniates became Emperor,
Guiscard took up the role of champion of the deposed ruler, and in order
to win the goodwill of the Greek populations he spread abroad the
rumour that Michael had come to seek help of him. A Greek named
Rector posed as the dethroned Emperor. At the same time the Duke
of Apulia was seeking to win over supporters, even in Constantinople.
The invaders were already at work when Alexius ascended the throne, and
Bohemond, Guiscard's son, had occupied Avlona, Canina, and Hiericho.
In May 1081 the bulk of the Norman army crossed the Adriatic and
concentrated at Avlona. Guiscard began by reducing Corfù, and thence
proceeded to the siege of Durazzo.
Though without money or troops, Alexius contrived to meet the
danger. He came to an understanding with certain Norman lords, who
had been driven from Italy by Guiscard and had taken refuge at Con-
stantinople, and sent them to Italy to re-kindle the spirit of revolt
among the vassals of the Duke of Apulia. At the same time Alexius
tried, but in vain, to treat with Gregory VII, and entered into negotia-
tions with Henry IV of Germany. To the latter he promised enormous
subsidies if he would make a descent upon Apulia and attack Guiscard.
The support of the Venetian fleet was secured by a commercial treaty,
opening a long series of Greek ports to the merchants of the republic.
Finally, a treaty of peace was concluded with Sulaimān, who in the name
of the Seljūq Sultan, Malik Shāh, was leading the Musulman troops to
the conquest of Asia Minor, and had obtained possession of Nicaea. This
allowed the Emperor to devote his whole attention to the war with the
Normans.
The campaign began with a victory won by the Venetian fleet over the
Normans at Cape Palli, but the Greek army under the Emperor's command
was beaten before Durazzo (Oct. 1081), and Guiscard shortly afterwards
became master of the whole of Illyria, for Durazzo fell into his hands.
Recalled to Italy in the spring of 1082 by a revolt among his vassals,
engineered by the agents of Alexius, Guiscard handed over the command
of the expeditionary force to his son Bohemond, who occupied Castoria,
besieged Joannina, and defeated Alexius. Ochrida, Scopia (Skoplje), Veria,
Servia, Vodena, Moglena, and Trikala thus fell into the hands of the
Normans, who pushed on into Thessaly as far as Larissa.
Reduced to the necessity of confiscating Church treasure in order
to raise money, Alexius with indefatigable patience got together a new
army, and while his allies the Venetians were retaking Durazzo, he suc-
ceeded in driving the enemy from Thessaly, and recaptured Castoria
(October or November 1083). Negotiations with Bohemond, begun
through the mediation of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Euthymius, led to
no result.
cH. XI.
## p. 330 (#372) ############################################
330
The Patzinaks and Cumans
The year 1084 brought a fresh endeavour on the part of the Duke of
Apulia, who, having restored order in his own dominions, renewed opera-
tions against Constantinople. He completely defeated the Venetian fleet
off Corfù, and in the beginning of 1085 despatched his son Robert to
take Cephalonia. He himself was about to take the field, when he was
suddenly overtaken by death. The disturbances which consequently broke
out in Italy for a time diverted the Norman danger from the Byzantine
frontier.
Hardly was the Empire freed from the presence of the Normans, when
a new peril arose in the neighbourhood of the Danube. The military
contingents supplied by the Manichaean colony of Philippopolis having
proved treacherous during the campaign against Guiscard, Alexius had
attempted to punish the offenders. A mutiny had broken out, the leader
of which, Traulus, appealed for help to the Patzinak tribes. Though at
first repulsed (1086), the Patzinaks returned to the charge the following
year. Again defeated, they were pursued by the Greek army, which, how-
ever, they put to rout near Dristra (Silistria). It was only by a war
which broke out between the Cumans and the Patzinaks that the latter
were prevented from profiting by their victory to invade the imperial
territory. And, in fact, the struggle was merely postponed. During the
years 1088–1090 the Patzinaks settled down on Greek territory and
occupied the country between the Danube and the Balkans. Thence they
spread into the region around Philippopolis and Hadrianople. It took
Alexius several years before he could set on foot an army capable, with
any chance of success, of undertaking the struggle with the barbarous
tribes which threatened Constantinople. Finally, in the spring of 1091,
the Emperor, having called in the help of the Cumans, inflicted a severe
defeat upon the Patzinaks by the river Leburnium, which for a time
freed the Empire from barbarian incursions (29 April 1091).
However, Alexius had not done with the nomad tribes living to the
north of the Danube, and in 1094-1095 he was obliged to repel an attack
by his late allies the Cumans, who under the command of a self-styled son
of Romanus Diogenes named Leo, had advanced as far as Hadrianople.
Leo was taken prisoner and blinded.
A little before the time of the Cuman invasion, Alexius had suc-
ceeded in asserting his authority over the Serbs. Theoretically these
were vassals of the Empire, to which they were obliged to furnish certain
military contingents. At the time of Guiscard's expedition, the Serbian
prince, Constantine Bodin, had deserted Alexius, and had drawn off with
his troops just as battle was joined. Since that date he had made use of
the difficulties with which the Emperor had to struggle to extend his
borders and make himself independent. His example had been followed
by Bolkan, the Župan of Rascia. In 1091 and 1094 Alexius was
obliged to interfere in Serbia, but the mountainous character of the country
made military operations difficult, and the Emperor, having taken hos-
## p. 331 (#373) ############################################
The Empire and the Turks in Asia Minor
331
tages, contented himself with a submission which was rather apparent
than real.
In Europe Alexius had successfully beaten off the attacks of the
enemies of the Empire. In Asia Minor the state of things was also im-
proved, although the last remnants of the Byzantine possessions in the
Antioch province had fallen into the hands of Malik Shāh. The death
of Sulaimān (1085) left Asia Minor divided between a number of emirs,
whose rivalries made them likely to play into the Emperor's hands.
Sulaimān's dominions had been partitioned between Abu'ī-Qāsim, Emir
of Nicaea, Tzachas, Emir of Smyrna, formerly a favourite of Nicephorus
Botaniates, and Pulchas, Emir of Cappadocia. Alexius tried to profit by
the internal dissensions of the Mohammedan rulers to re-open the struggle
in Asia, and to protect the last remaining possessions of the Empire.
He built the fortress of Civitot on the gulf of Nicomedia, placing in it
as garrison a body of soldiers of English origin. At some unspecified
period Nicomedia again fell into the power of the Greeks.
The relations between Constantinople and the Turkish emirs are very
confusing. It appears that a common fear of Tzachas, Emir of Smyrna,
drew together Alexius and Abu'l-Qāsim. As to Tzachas, who had suc-
ceeded in creating a fleet, he dreamt of no less an enterprise than the
conquest of Constantinople, and with this end in view had allied himself
with the Patzinaks. The battle on the Leburnium destroyed his hopes,
and he was himself defeated by Constantine Dalassenus, an officer of
Alexius. When Malik Shāh sent his captain, Būzhān, to reduce the
emirs of Asia Minor to obedience, this general began negotiations with
Alexius. The Emperor, while continuing the discussions till they were
interrupted by the death of Malik Shāh, remained constant to his alliance
with Abu'l-Qāsim. When the latter had been defeated and slain by Būzhān,
Alexius allied himself with his successor, Qilij Arslān, son of Sulaiman,
and together they fought against Tzachas. The Emperor profited by the
general scramble which took place among all the vassals of Sulaimān to
attempt the recapture of Apollonia and Cyzicus, which the Greek general
Opus succeeded in taking. At this time, with the exception of the coast
towns, Alexius possessed nothing in Asia Minor besides the region lying
between the Sangarius, the Black Sea, the Bosphorus, and the Propontis.
Towards the south a natural frontier was supplied by Lake Sophon and by
a wide fortified fosse which supplied Nicomedia with water from the lake.
While he was still fighting with the Turks, Alexius was called on to
suppress a dangerous insurrection. Fiscal burdens had led to simultaneous
revolts in Cyprus and in Crete, and two chiefs, Charices and Rapsomates,
declared their independence. Order was restored by the Grand Drun-
garius Ducas, and Alexius formed in Cyprus a base of operations for the
Greek fleets. The Stratopedarch Eumathius Philocales was entrusted
with the carrying out of the Emperor's plans.
For the first eighteen years of his reign, Alexius had been obliged to
CH, x.
## p. 332 (#374) ############################################
332
Unpopularity of Alexius
?
maintain incessant warfare, and during the same period the situation in
the interior had also presented great difficulties.
Alexius, being held responsible for the complications bequeathed him
by his predecessors, was for a time extremely unpopular. A large section
of the clergy, in spite of the penance afterwards imposed on him, had
never forgiven him the pillage of the churches which had followed the
capture of the metropolis at the time of the fall of Botaniates. While
the Norman war was in progress, Anna Dalassena, who acted as regent
during the absence of Alexius with the army, had, in order to replenish
the imperial treasury, confiscated the wealth of the churches. This
measure caused universal discontent, which was utilised by the enemies of
the dynasty for their own purposes. In order to pacify public opinion,
Alexius was obliged to pledge himself to make reparation, and assured to
the churches a certain sum of money, to be a yearly charge upon the
revenue. In 1086, at the time of the struggle with the Patzinaks, Alexius
attempted to have recourse to a similar measure to relieve the pressure on
the imperial exchequer. But a considerable body of the clergy, strong in
the support of public opinion, with Leo the Metropolitan of Chalcedon
at their head, prevented the Emperor from carrying out his project.
Alexius never forgave the leader of the resistance, and soon afterwards
contrived to have him deposed. However, the affair did not end there,
and in 1089, at a time when the exterior enemies of the Empire were
becoming bolder than ever, the Emperor was obliged in some sort to
make the amende honorable for the way in which he had dealt with
Church property. He promulgated a Novel forbidding his successors
to dip their hands into the Church treasuries. It is probable that the
Emperor's action was dictated not only by genuine scruples but also by
the necessity of satisfying public opinion, which looked upon the Byzan-
tine defeats as a chastisement from Heaven for the sacrilegious acts which
had been committed.
Persons with their own interests to serve attempted to profit by the
unpopularity of Alexius to overthrow him, and the Emperor had a whole
series of plots to circumvent. 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.
