No More Learning

Atsiz was roused to fresh endeavours in spite of the defeat which he
had sustained. Rallying his army and collecting fresh forces, he attacked
Sulaimān and forced him to abandon his post and flee to Sanjar, leaving
Khwārazm open to the mercy of Atsiz. Finally, in 1142 Sanjar led a
second expedition against this rebellious vassal and besieged him. Atsiz,
reduced to despair, sent envoys to Sanjar with presents and promises of
fidelity if spared. The Sultan, who was of a benevolent disposition, and,


## p. 313 (#355) ############################################

The Ghuzz: death of Sanjar
313
in addition, was sensible of the debt of gratitude which he owed Atsiz,
again accepted his submission and left him in possession of his office.
But again was his generosity ill requited. On all sides reports reached
Sanjar that Atsiz was fomenting disloyalty and preparing trouble. In
order to find out the truth he sent a notable poet, 'Adib şābir of Tirmidh,
to make enquiries in Khwārazm. He found that Atsiz was despatching a
band of assassins to kill Sanjar. He succeeded in sending warning, for
which act he paid with his life, and the plot was detected at Merv; the
traitors were executed. So, in the end, Sanjar had to march against Atsiz
for the third time(1147),and again exercised his forbearance and generosity
when Atsiz was nearly in his power. Hereafter Atsiz remained loyal,
though practically independent. He extended his empire as far as Jand
on the Jaxartes, and died in 1156.
In 1149 Sanjar recovered the credit which his defeat by the Khațà had
lost him. He gained a great victory over Husain ibn Hasan Jahānsūz,
Sultan of Ghūr, who had invaded Khurāsān. Husain was joined by Falak-
ad-Dīn 'Ali Chatrī, Sanjar's chamberlain; both were taken captive and
the latter executed. Ultimately, Husain was sent back to his post by
Sanjar as a vassal.
In 1153 came the invasion of the Ghuzz Turkomans. An interesting
account, to which allusion has been made above, is that of Benjamin of
Tudela, almost a contemporary visitor to the East. These tribes were
goaded into rebellion by the exactions of one of Sanjar's officers. When
the Sultan marched against them, they were seized with fear and offered to
submit. Unfortunately Sanjar was persuaded to refuse terms and give
battle, in which he was utterly defeated and captured. The Ghuzz came
to Merv, plundered it, and killed many of the inhabitants. Then they
marched to Nīshāpūr, where they massacred a large number of persons in
the
mosque.
The chief mosque was burned and the learned men put to
death. All over Khurāsān the Ghuzz ranged, killing and burning where-
ever they went. Herat alone was able to repulse their attack. Famine
and plague followed them to add to the misery of the land. For two
years Sanjar was a prisoner, and was then rescued by some friends. He
reached the Oxus, where boats had been prepared, and returned to Merv,
but he died soon after reaching his capital, of horror and grief (1156).
Sanjar was the last of the Seljūqs to enjoy supreme imperial power.
For a considerable time previously the various provincial governors had
acquired practical independence, and if, after the time of Sanjar, the reins
of central authority were loosened, this change was effected by no violent
rupture. It was the outcome, first of the steady rise on the part of the
vassals and viceroys to autonomy, and, secondly, the necessary consequence
of the Atābeg system. A certain ambiguity in the method of succession
frequently caused strife between uncle and nephew for the right of inheri-
tance. Often, as for example in the case of Nizām-al-Mulk, the office of
Vizier was practically hereditary. Hence the Vizier developed into the
сн. х.


## p. 314 (#356) ############################################

314
The Atabegs and local Seljūg dynasties
position of tutor or guardian to the royal heir, thereby acquiring much
influence and consolidating his position for the next reign. The name
Atăbeg or Atabey (“Father Bey") denotes this office. In many cases the
Atābeg forcibly secured the succession and displaced the prince. The
reason for their employment and power—which is comparable to that of
the Egyptian Mamlūks—was the desire of the kings to possess, as their
ministers, such officials as could be trusted implicitly, for reasons not
only of loyalty, a quality not invariably present, but also of self-interest.
So slaves and subordinates were raised to high positions, in lieu of the
nobility. The Seljūq public life was a carrière ouverte aux talents. A
Vizier chosen from the grandees might have so much influence through
descent, wealth, or family as to make his allegiance to the king a matter
of choice. In the case of a slave or subordinate, loyalty was a matter of
necessity, for such an official could not possibly stand on his own merits.
If, on the other hand, the subordinate supplanted his master, as was often
the case, this was due to the lack of discrimination displayed by the
latter in the choice of his instruments. Frequently also an official who
had been kept in check by a strong Sultan succeeded, if the Sultan's
successor were weak, in becoming more powerful than his master and
ultimately in displacing him. The Atābeg system was only possible when
the head of the State was a strong man. By the end of Sanjar's reign
the weakness of this policy became manifest. From this time onward the
history of the Seljūqs becomes that of the groups into which the empire
was now split: four of these groups need attention.
(I) In Kirmān a line of twelve rulers (including contemporary rivals)
held
sway from 1041 to 1187. This province, which lies on the eastern side
of the Persian Gulf, was one of the first occupied by the Seljūqs. 'Imād-
ad-Dīn Qāwurd, who was the son of Chaghrī Beg and thus great-grandson
to Seljūq, was the first ruler, and from him the dynasty descended. Qāwurd
carried on war with Malik Shāh, at whose hands he met his death (1073).
For a century the province was tolerably peaceful until the death of
ľughril Shāh in 1167, when his three sons, Bahrām, Arslān, and Tūrān
brought havoc to the land by their disputes and warfare. Muḥammad II
was the last of his line; the invading hosts of Ghuzz Turkomans and the
Khwārazm Shāhs displaced the Seljūq rulers in Kirmān.
(II) The Seljūqs of Syria are chiefly important for their relations
with the Crusaders, on which subject more will be said later. The period
of their independence was from 1094 to 1117. Tutush, the first of this
branch, was the son of Alp Arslān, the second Great Seljūq. He died in
1094 at Rai, being defeated by his nephew Barkiyāruq. His two sons
Ridwān and Duqāq ruled at Aleppo and Damascus respectively. They
were succeeded by Ridwān's sons Alp Arslān Akhras (1113) and Sultan
Shāh (1114). After this the dynasty was broken up and the rule passed
into the hands of the Būrids and the Urtugids. The former dynasty
were Atābegs of Damascus and were descended from Țughtigin, a slave


## p. 315 (#357) ############################################

The Seljūqs of Rūm
315
of Tutush, who rose to power and was appointed Atābeg of Duqaq.
From Būrī, the eldest son and successor of Tughtigīn, the line takes its
name. Eventually the Būrids were supplanted by the Zangids. Of the
Urtuqids more will be said hereafter.
(III) The Seljūqs of 'Irāq and Kurdistān consisted of a dynasty of
nine rulers, and were descended from Muḥammad ibn Malik Shāh. Four
of Muḥammad's five sons, four of his grandsons, and one great-grandson,
formed this line of rulers, beginning with Maḥmūd in 1117, and ending
with Țughril II in 1194, after which the Khwārazm Shāhs became supreme.
(IV) The Seljūqs of Rūm or Asia Minor are perhaps the most im-
portant to the Western historian, on account of their relations with the
Crusaders and the Eastern Emperors, and their influence on the Ottoman
Empire. The first of these rulers was Sulaimān ibn Qutalmish, a son of
Arslān ibn Seljūq. This branch of the Seljūq family is thus distinct from
the Great Seljūqs, the Seljūqs of 'Irāq, Syria, and Kirmān. From the
time of Sulaimān I (1077) until the period of the Ottoman Turks (1300)
seventeen monarchs ruled, subject at certain periods to the dominion of
the Mongols. The second of this line, Qilij Arslān ibn Sulaimān (1092–
1106), made Nicaea his capital, and defeated the earliest crusaders under
Walter the Penniless (1096). In the next year he was twice defeated by
Godfrey of Bouillon, and Nicaea was captured. Iconium then became the
Seljūq capital. In 1107 he marched to the help of Mosul, which was
besieged by a rebel ; after raising the siege he met with an accident
while crossing the Khabur and was drowned. But the dynasty was con-
solidated by his successors and played an important part in the Crusades,
for, in addition to the bravery of their forces, the Seljūqs possessed
sufficient political skill to take advantage of the mutual animosity ex-
isting between the Greeks and the Crusaders and to utilise it for their
own purposes. They also succeeded in supplanting the Dānishmand, a
minor Seljūq dynasty of obscure origin. It is said that the founder,
Mahomet ibn Gumishtigīn, was a schoolmaster, as the title Dānishmand
denotes, but everything connected with this line, which ruled from about
1105–1165, is doubtful. Their territory lay in Cappadocia and included
the cities of Sīwās (Sebastea), Qaişarīyah (Caesarea), and Malațīyah (Meli-
tene). Mahomet defeated and captured Bohemond in 1099, as the
latter was marching to help Gabriel of Melitene against him. When
Bohemond ransomed himself and became tributary to Mahomet, the
two rulers formed an alliance against Qilij Arslān and Alexius, the
Emperor of Constantinople, one of the instances which shew that political
considerations were more important than religious differences, not only
among the Crusaders but also among the Muslims.
Besides the Seljūqs proper, mention must be made of their officers, the
Atābegs, whose functions have been described. The power wielded by
these vassals was very great, and in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries many established themselves in virtual independence. The most
CH. X.


## p. 316 (#358) ############################################

316
Coming of the Crusaders
powerful of these were the Zangids or descendants of Zangī, and the
Khwārazm Shāhs. They deserve attention for their relations with the
Crusaders, but details of their history, apart from this connexion, cannot
be given here.
It now remains to deal with the relations between the Seljūqs and
the Crusaders. In no small degree the origin of the Holy Wars was due
to the expansion of the Seljūq Empire, for as long as the Arabs held
Jerusalem the Christian pilgrims from Europe could pass unmolested.
The Christians were, to all intents, left undisturbed and the pilgrimages
continued as before. The outbreak of persecution (1010) under the insane
Egyptian Caliph, Hākim, was temporary and transitory, and but for
the coming of the Seljüqs popular indignation in Europe would have
slumbered and the Crusades might never have taken place.
The first of the Syrian Seljūqs, Tutush the son of Alp Arslān, who
ruled at Damascus, captured Jerusalem and appointed as its governor
Urtug ibn Aksab, who had been one of his subordinate officers. Urtuq
was the founder of the Urtuqid dynasty. His sons Sukmān and Il-Ghāzi
succeeded him. The Seljūq. power, which had been growing rapidly until
the Caliph was completely in their hands, was somewhat weakened. After
the death of Malik Shāh the Great Seljūq in 1092, in the dissension
which ens
nsued, Afdal, the Vizier of the Egyptian Fățimid Caliph, was
enabled to capture Jerusalem from Sukmān (1096), who retired to Edessa
while his brother returned to 'Irāq. During the Seljūq domination,
the Christians, both native and foreign, had suffered greatly, and the
reports of their ill-treatment and of the difficulties placed in the way
of pilgrimages, kindled the zeal which so largely stimulated the Crusades.
When however the first band of Christian warriors reached Asia Minor
after leaving Constantinople, they were completely routed by Qilij Arslan
on the road to Nicaea (1096). It has already been described how the
Seljūqs pushed forward, step by step, until their expansion brought
them into conflict with the Byzantine Empire. It was only the enmity
between East and West and the scandalous behaviour of the Crusaders
that hindered a combined attack on the Seljūqs. Although the Seljüqs
and the Emperor were mutually hostile, and for the best of reasons,
there was less ill-feeling between them than between the Christian hosts,
which, nominally allies, in reality regarded each other with scarcely con-
cealed suspicion. When Godfrey of Bouillon reached Constantinople in
1096, he found a cold welcome at the court; no sooner had he crossed
the Bosphorus than the feuds developed into open antagonism. When
Nicaea was invested (1097) and it was found that no hope remained for
the city, the garrison succeeded in surrendering to Alexius rather than to
the Crusaders, and thus avoided a massacre. Qilij Arslān retired to rouse
the Seljūq princes to their danger.
At the capture of Antioch, interest is centred on Qawwām-ad-Daulah
Karbuqā or Kerbogha, Prince of Mosul, who, in 1096, had wrested Mosul


## p. 317 (#359) ############################################

Conclusion
317
from the ‘Uqailids and founded a Seljūq principate there. He and Qilij
Arslān were the most noteworthy of the earlier opponents of the Crusaders.
The line of Urtuq ibn Aksab produced many heroes beginning with his
sons Sukmān and Il-Ghāzī; the former, who founded the Kaifā branch
of the Urtuqids (1101-1231), was famous for his wars with Baldwin and
Joscelin. This branch became subject to Saladin and was ultimately
merged in the Ayyübid Empire. Il-Ghāzī was made governor of Baghdad
by the Great Seljūq Muḥammad in 1101, and captured Aleppo in 1117.
His descendants were the Urtugids of Māridin (1108-1312).
Several of the officers of the Great Seljūq Malik Shāh rose to fame
during the Crusades. Of these the most important were Tutush and
'Imād-ad-Dīn Zangi. The latter was made governor of 'Irāg, and after
conquering his Muslim neighbours became a dreaded foe to the Christians.
He found the Muslims dispirited and completely prostrate. At his death
he had changed their despair to triumph. He took Aleppo in 1128,
Hamāh in 1129, and then began his wars against the Franks. In 1130
he took the important fortress of Atharib, and in 1144 achieved
his greatest glory by capturing Edessa. He followed this up by taking
many important towns in Northern Mesopotamia, but in 1146 he was
murdered. He had turned the tide of victory against the Franks, and
his capture of Edessa called forth the Second Crusade. His son Nūr-ad-
Din succeeded to his Syrian dominions and was also prominent in the
battles against the Crusaders. Among his officers was Ayyūb (Job),
whose son Şalāḥ-ad-Dīn (Saladin) became the great protagonist of the
Crescent against the Cross.
The Seljūq power began and ended gradually. Seven Great Seljūqs
are usually reckoned as constituting the dynasty, ruling over a united
empire in Persia, Transoxiana, Mesopotamia, and Syria; after Sanjar
disintegration set in, but although the empire was split into small parts
the separate kingdoms preserved in many cases their power and authority.
The empire of the Khwārazm Shāhs encroached on the east and gradu-
ally absorbed the Seljūq territory. The centre was divided among the
Atābegs, whose various destinies cannot be treated here, and in the west
the Seljūqs of Rūmn remained in power until the rise of the Ottomans.
CH, X.


## p. 318 (#360) ############################################

318
CHAPTER XI.
THE EARLIER COMNENI.
ISAAC I (1057-1059). ALEXIUS I (1081-1118).
Among the great families of the aristocracy whose names recur on
every page of Byzantine history in the eleventh century, that of the
Comneni was destined to be the most illustrious. In all probability we
should reject the comparatively recent hypothesis connecting the family
with an ancient Roman house which had followed Constantine to By-
zantium, and abide by the testimony of the Byzantine chroniclers who
represent the Comneni as coming originally from the little village of
Comne, in the valley of the Tunja, close to Hadrianople. At a later
time large possessions acquired in Asia Minor in the Castamon district
secured to the Comneni an important place among the nobility of Asia
Minor.
The name Comnenus makes its first appearance in the writings of the
Byzantine historians during the reign of Basil II (976–1025). Two
personages bearing the name are mentioned by the chroniclers, Nicephorus,
governor of Vaspurakan (i. e. district of Van), and Manuel. The latter,
the servant and friend of Basil II, is often spoken of under the name of
Eroticus. He left two sons, Isaac and John, the former of whom was
to lay the foundations of the future greatness of his house.
In order to understand the causes of the military revolution which
in 1057 raised Isaac Comnenus to the Byzantine throne, it is necessary
to go back to the events which followed the death of Basil II. His
successor Constantine VIII (1025–1028) dismissed the greater number
of the imperial officials, and put the administration in the hands of a new
set of functionaries, chosen from among the companions of his debauches,
freedmen, eunuchs, and foreigners. Thenceforward the whole business of
governing was in the hands of the palace officials, who retained a position
of preponderating importance up to the end of the eleventh century.
Two classes were equally hateful to the new staff of administrators, the
heads of the aristocratic families and the military leaders, whose ambition
they feared, and both found themselves entirely excluded from the
government. The ministers were enabled the more easily to carry out
this definitely anti-militarist policy, as for a considerable time the Empire
had had no attacks to fear from its neighbours. Besides, when the latter


## p. 319 (#361) ############################################

End of the Macedonian dynasty
319
grew too presumptuous, the central authority always preferred to buy a
peace rather than encounter the risks of a war which might enable some
military leader to increase his prestige and popularity.
The generals, drawn for the most part from the nobility of Asia
Minor, whose power had been markedly increased by the war with the
Muslims, endured for many years the ill-will shewn them by the imperial
court. The reason for their patience may be found in the fact that
legitimist ideas were rapidly making way in the public mind. The people
of Constantinople were deeply attached to the Macedonian family; because
she was the legitimate heiress the Empress Zoë was suffered to place the
supreme power in the hands of her three husbands successively-Romanus
Argyrus (1028–1034), Michael IV the Paphlagonian (1034-1041), Con-
stantine IX Monomachus (1042-1054)--and in those of her adopted
son Michael V Calaphates (1041–1042). When the last attempted a
sudden overthrow of the aged Empress by force, and sent her into exile
in one of the Princes Islands, after having caused her to take the veil,
rebellion thundered through the streets of the capital, nor were the
people pacified until the legitimate heiress was recalled. The state of
feeling which this reveals made it particularly difficult for the military
chiefs to attempt a revolt.
During the brief reign of Zoë's sister, Theodora (1054–1056), the
influence of the palace functionaries grew even greater, and with it
their fear that the army would become too powerful. While engaged on
an expedition, Isaac Comnenus received letters from the Court ordering
him to halt and recommending him to be on his guard against the
arrogance of a victorious army. The future Emperor, then Domestic of
the Scholae of the East (i. e. Commander-in-Chief of the troops in Asia),
found himself deprived of this post by the suspicious advisers of the
Empress.
The Macedonian dynasty came to an end with Theodora. Michael
Stratioticus, her successor, was appointed heir by the Empress on her
death-bed. Before being chosen, he was obliged to bind himself by a
solemn oath to do nothing against the will and counsel of the ministers
and other advisers of the Empress.
The new Emperor, who was much advanced in years, was not long in
making himself unpopular by the unfortunate measures which he adopted,
and also in raising up powerful enemies for himself, chief among whom
must be placed the Patriarch, Michael Cerularius. The Patriarch, whose
prestige had been enormously increased by the events of 1054, had only
sought in the breach with Rome the means of rendering the Church
independent. He now dreamed of placing the State under the yoke of
the Church. Around him, drawn together by common interests and
forming a powerful party, stood the clergy and the monks. Theodora
had already had reason to dread the secret influence of Cerularius. She
had not dared to attack him openly, but had attempted to destroy his
T
CH. XI.


## p. 320 (#362) ############################################

320
Revolt of Isaac Comnenus
popularity by throwing suspicion upon his orthodoxy, and by having some
of his most notorious partisans proceeded against for heresy. Michael VI
and his counsellors continued to exclude him from the business of the
state. The Patriarch did not forgive the Emperor for adopting this
attitude, and on a favourable opportunity shortly afterwards presenting
itself, he determined to make his power felt.
The number of the discontented was increased by the fact that men
of senatorial rank found themselves excluded from the greater and more
lucrative financial posts, which were thenceforward reserved for profes-
sional officials. But it was the openly anti-militarist position taken up
by the Emperor and his advisers which brought about the catastrophe
in which his power finally disappeared. Angry at having had no part
in the shower of favours which had followed the accession of the new
sovereign and sore at seeing the palace officials preferred to them in the
distribution of high commands, the leaders of the army, during the
Easter festival of 1057, tried the effect of making united representations
to the Emperor. Chief among them were Catacalon Cecaumenus, the
Duke of Antioch, Isaac Comnenus, Constantine and John Ducas, and
Michael Burtzes. Admitted by the Emperor to an audience, the generals
made their wishes known. The Emperor refused all their requests
and violently denounced Catacalon Cecaumenus. The latter's comrades
having attempted to raise their voices in his defence, the Emperor silenced
them with an intemperance of language in which he spared nobody.
The chief officers of the Byzantine army went out from the interview
with bitterly wounded feelings. Nevertheless, before proceeding to an
open breach, they tried the effect of an application to the Patriarch's
vicar, Leo Paraspondylus, the chief counsellor of Michael VI. This
step had no better success than the former. On this fresh failure the
generals decided upon enforcing their demands by violence and over-
throwing the Emperor. Supported in secret by Michael Cerularius, who
thought the opportunity favourable for attempting to carry out his
ambitious projects, the military leaders met in the church of St Sophia,
and, after the crown had been offered in vain to Catacalon, the choice
of the assembly fell upon Isaac Comnenus. As soon as the final arrange-
ments had been made, the conspirators left Constantinople and crossed
over into Asia Minor. The arrest and execution of one of their number,
Nicephorus Bryennius, after he had been suddenly deprived of his com-
mand in Cappadocia, accelerated the course of events. Hastily, and in
fear lest their conspiracy had been discovered, the plotters gathered their
contingents together and joined Isaac Comnenus, who had fled for refuge
to his estates in Paphlagonia. On 8 June 1057 on the plain of Gunaria
Isaac Comnenus was proclaimed Emperor, and soon after, the rebel forces
having been increased by the arrival of Catacalon and his troops, the
usurper set out on his march towards the Bosphorus. He captured
Nicaea without much difficulty, and his authority was promptly recog-


## p. 321 (#363) ############################################

Fall of Michael VI
321
nised throughout the eastern part of the Empire. The pretender made
steady progress, the discipline and order which he always maintained
among his troops winning him many supporters. The soldiers, though in
revolt, never behaved like revolutionaries, and, as it has been said with
perfect justice, the proclamation of the new Emperor was generally
regarded not as a usurpation but as the setting up of a genuine imperial
government basing itself upon the support of the army in contra-
distinction to the civil elements of the capital.
To make head against the rebels, Michael VI hastily collected all the
troops at his disposal in the European provinces of the Empire, and
despatched them to Asia Minor under the command of the eunuch
Theodore and Aaron the Bulgarian.
On 20 August 1057 at Hades,
not far from Nicaea, the imperial troops were defeated by those of Isaac
Comnenus. The news of the disaster soon reached the Sacred Palace,
where it spread terror. Michael VI, panic-stricken, exacted from the
Senators a written promise never to recognise Isaac Comnenus as Emperor.
At the same time he himself opened negotiations with him.
The history of the negotiations is chiefly known to us through the
deliberately obscure account left by one of the ambassadors, Michael
Psellus. One thing alone seems certain, that from the very beginning
of the transaction Michael VI was betrayed. The imperial ambassadors,
who reached Nicomedia, where Isaac Comnenus then was, on 24 August,
were charged to offer him the title of Caesar with the promise of suc-
ceeding to the throne. The better to hoodwink his opponent and give
time for his own partisans to take action in Constantinople, Isaac spun
out the negotiations tediously, and then pretended to accept the pro-
posals of Michael VI, to whom the ambassadors returned to give an
account of their mission. During their stay at Constantinople they
came to an understanding with the partisans of the pretender, among
the most important of whom were the Patriarch and a certain number of
great personages. When Psellus and his colleagues again set out bearing
fresh proposals from their master, the conspiracy had been fully organized.
On 30 August an outbreak took place at Constantinople. The ringleaders
complained of the conduct of Michael VI who, after having forced
them to take the oath not to acknowledge Isaac Comnenus, had turned
them into perjurers by his own offer in the negotiations. They seized
the Patriarch, who in reality was in sympathy with the leaders of the
movement, and demanded that he should reclaim the written oaths
which the Emperor had exacted from the Senators. Then soon after, by
the advice of Cerularius, the rioters burst out in acclamation of Isaac
Comnenus. In a few hours they were masters of the capital. The
Patriarch sent orders to the Emperor to cut off his hair and put on.
the monastic habit. Michael VI made no resistance, and thus, thanks to
the intervention of Cerularius, who had undertaken the direction of the
movement, the capital acknowledged Isaac Comnenus.
C. MED. H. v0L. II. CH. XI.
21


## p. 322 (#364) ############################################

322
Isaac Comnenus
The news of the success of the rising was brought by messengers to the
camp of the rebels. Isaac Comnenus, who had reached Chrysopolis,
made his solemn entry into Constantinople and at St Sophia received the
imperial crown from the hands of the Patriarch (1 September 1057).
Born early in the eleventh century (c. 1005), the new Emperor was
about fifty years old when he mounted the throne. By his marriage with
Catherine, daughter of the Bulgarian prince, John Vladislav, he had had
two children who died before him.
There is little to be said as to the foreign policy of Isaac Comnenus ;
an attack by the Turks upon Melitene and Sebastea, uninterrupted pro-
gress made by the Normans in Italy, an attack by the Hungarians, a
Patzinak invasion which required the Emperor's presence on the Danubian
frontier (1059)---such are the principal external events of the reign, the
chief interest of which centres in home policy.
The reign of Isaac Comnenus, raised to the throne as he was by the
army, was a period of reaction against the reigns that had gone before it.
From his first reception of the great officials the Emperor treated them
with marked coldness, and instead of making them the usual speech
conveyed his orders to them by his secretaries. The army was hand-
somely rewarded for the help it had afforded the Emperor, who, however,
was careful to avoid committing affairs of state to his soldiers, and
hastened to send them back to their garrisons. To shew plainly the char-
acter which he intended to impress on his government, the Emperor
caused himself to be represented on the gold coinage holding in his hand
not the labarum (the imperial standard) but a drawn sword. Isaac Com-
nenus was not wanting in the qualities which go to make a ruler. “He
was prudent in conception” says an anonymous chronicler, “but more
prompt in action; he was devoid of credulity and desired to judge of
men rather by experience than by their flatteries. ” Psellus writes of him:
“Like a lofty and unshakeable column he, in a fashion hitherto unknown,
bore on his shoulders the burden of power committed to him.
Isaac brought to the business of State administration the military
methods to which he was accustomed. The situation of the Empire, the
treasury being exhausted by the preceding reigns, necessitated financial
measures of such a character that universal clamour quickly arose against
the new sovereign. The payment of taxes was exacted with merciless
rigour. The allowances attached to official posts were cut off, the
donations bestowed by the last Emperors were re-examined, and many
confiscations decreed. Finally, the convents were deprived of a large part
of their property. All these measures gave offence to so many
different
interests that they made the new Emperor thoroughly unpopular and
created a large body of disaffected subjects. These soon found a leader
in the Patriarch.
Michael Cerularius had taken a decisive part in the revolution which
raised Isaac Comnenus to the throne. The latter shewed himself grateful,
יי


## p. 323 (#365) ############################################

Michael Cerularius
323
and made an important concession to the Patriarch, giving up to him
the nomination of all the officials of St Sophia, which up to this time
the Emperors had kept in their own hands. By so doing the Emperor,
as Michael of Attalia expresses it, “ renounced all rights over the ecclesi-
astical affairs which up to then had come within the imperial province.
From thenceforth the Palace was completely excluded from ecclesiastical
administration. Neither the post of treasurer, nor the care and expenditure
of the Church's landed property, came for the future within the juris-
diction of the imperial agents; they depended on the will of the Patriarch,
who now obtained the right both of the nomination of persons and of
the administration of affairs. ” It would be impossible to lay too much
stress on the importance of these measures, for it was by means of them
that the Patriarch, " already the Emperor's superior from the spiritual
point of view, attained to temporal independence. ”
These advantages did not satisfy the Patriarch, who dreamed of uniting
the spiritual and temporal power in his own hands, of being at once
Patriarch and Emperor. The more Cerularius saw his position grow in
importance, the more he sought to interfere in the business of the State,
and the less he concealed his pretensions. Before long he openly pro-
claimed them by adopting the purple buskins which at Constantinople
formed a part of the imperial costume.
Isaac Comnenus was not a man to allow his rights to be encroached
upon and he pushed matters to the point of an open struggle with the
Patriarch. The relations between them soon became so strained that the
Emperor saw that he would risk his crown if he did not reduce Cerularius
to impotence. He therefore decided on the arrest of the Patriarch-a
measure not easy to carry out, for Michael had the support of a strong
party and was besides very popular. The Emperor was taxed with
ingratitude in thus persecuting the man to whom he owed his crown. It
was to be feared that the Patriarch's arrest would be the signal for a riot.
Isaac Comnenus accordingly waited until Cerularius had gone into
retreat in November 1058 at the convent of the Nine Orders, situated
outside the capital close to the gate of the Holy Angels, and then
caused him to be arrested by the Varangians of his body-guard. Michael
was at once imprisoned at Proconnesus in the Propontis and thence was
transferred to the island of Imbros. Despite his captivity he was still the
rightful Patriarch. A rising of the people of Constantinople in his favour
was always to be dreaded. Comnenus therefore endeavoured to induce
his adversary to abdicate. He failed, and Michael remained unshakable.
Isaac then determined to procure his deposition. Psellus was charged
with drawing up his indictment, which was to be read at a synod con-
voked to meet at a town in Thrace. The Patriarch was accused of the
heresies of Hellenism and Chaldaïsm, of tyranny, sacrilege, and finally of
unworthiness for his office. Michael never appeared before his judges,
for he died on the way at Madytus. The Emperor thus found himself
CH. XI.
21-2


## p. 324 (#366) ############################################

324
Constantine Ducas
delivered from the most formidable of his adversaries. Yet in spite of
all, the popularity of Cerularius still remained so great that Comnenus,
fearing an outbreak at Constantinople, expressed the profoundest venera-
tion for the dead man, going to weep before his tomb and to implore his
pardon for the rigorous measures which had been taken against him. The
successor of Cerularius was a creature of Isaac, Constantine Lichudes
(February 1059).
The victory of Isaac Comnenus over Cerularius led to no results, and
a few months after his adversary's death the Emperor was to lay down
his power under circumstances which have always remained full of
mystery.
In the early months of 1059 Isaac had set out on a march to drive
back the Hungarians who had invaded the imperial territory. Having
reached Sardica, he found their ambassadors there and peace was ar-
ranged. In the course of the summer he marched to the Danube to
fight against the Patzinaks who had crossed the river. The expedition
was not a fortunate one, and Isaac was obliged to return precipitately
to Constantinople on a false alarm that the Turks had made an attack
in Asia Minor. During November he fell ill after a hunting-party, and,
in spite of the Empress, resolved to abdicate in order to take the monastic
habit and retire to the convent of Studion. After having vainly offered
the crown to his brother John Comnenus, he named as his successor one
of his brother-officers, Constantine Ducas, President of the Senate.
Whatever were the reasons for this decision, we are absolutely
ignorant of them. Psellus, who had a considerable share in these oc-
currences, has thought fit not to leave us too precise information.
There is some reason to think that the opposition which Isaac Com-
nenus encountered did not come to an end on the disappearance of
Cerularius, and that the Emperor must have found himself unable to
cope successfully with the obstacles raised up against him. As has been
very truly said, “the situation was such that the different parties, ap-
plying pressure in different directions, paralysed one another and stopped
the wheels of the chariot of state. ” Seeing no way out of the difficulties
with which he was struggling, Comnenus preferred placing the imperial
power in other hands and succumbed to the opposition of the bureaucracy.
On the accession of Constantine Ducas (1059–1067) the civil element
regained all its old influence. The enterprise of Isaac Comnenus had laid
the army more than ever open to suspicion. Thus it became the policy
of the government systematically to diminish the military forces of the
Empire. The “army estimates ” were considerably reduced, the number
of effective troops was cut down, and it was soon known that a military
career no longer offered a man any chance of attaining to the higher
administrative posts. Under this régime the military system broke down,
and the army was soon thoroughly disorganised. The result of this
egregious experiment in statesmanship was quickly apparent, and under


## p. 325 (#367) ############################################

Situation of the Empire
325
Constantine Ducas and his successors, Romanus Diogenes (1067-1071),
Michael VII (1071-1078), and Nicephorus Botaniates (1078–1081), the
Empire, attacked all along its frontiers, was everywhere obliged to fall
back before its enemies.
In Italy, the Normans put a complete end to Byzantine influence.
With the fall of Bari in 1071 the Empire was to lose its last foothold
there, and before long Guiscard was to be powerful enough to meditate
the subjugation of Constantinople. 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.