Nevertheless, in the first period of confusion which
followed
the taking
of Constantinople, the Latins met with success everywhere.
of Constantinople, the Latins met with success everywhere.
Cambridge Medieval History - v4 - Eastern Roman Empire
They elected
Theobald (Thibaut) III, Count of Champagne, as leader. The suggested
expedition coincided so entirely with the desires of Pope Innocent III
that he encouraged it with all his might. At his call, Fulk, parish priest
of Neuilly in France, and Abbot Martin of Pairis in Germany, began a
series of sermons, which by their fervour easily persuaded the mass of the
faithful to enlist in the Crusade. No doubt the Western sovereigns inter-
vened only indirectly in the preparation and direction of the expedition,
Philip Augustus being engaged in his struggle with John Lackland, and
Philip of Swabia entirely engrossed in disputing the Empire with Otto
of Brunswick; the Crusade was essentially a feudal enterprise, led by an
oligarchy of great barons, and, even at first, partly inspired by worldly
aspirations and material interests. In this particular the fourth Holy
War differed greatly from the previous ones. “For many of the crusaders,”
says Luchaire, “it was above all a business matter. ” And this consideration
will perhaps help us to a better understanding of the character which
this undertaking quickly assumed.
For the transport of the crusaders to the East a fleet was necessary.
In February 1201 the barons sent delegates, of whom Villehardouin was
one, to Venice to procure the requisite naval force from the mighty re-
public. After somewhat troublesome negotiations, recorded for us by
Villehardouin, a treaty was concluded in April 1201, whereby in return
for a sum of 85,000 marks of silver the Venetians agreed to supply the
crusaders by 28 June 1202 with the ships and provisions necessary for
the transport of their army overseas ;. Venice moreover joined in the
enterprise, astutely realising the advantage to be gained by guiding and
directing the expedition. The Doge, Enrico Dandolo, solemnly assumed
the Cross at St Mark's, and in return the crusaders promised to assign
half of their conquests to Venice.
Most of the knights regarded Syria as the goal of the expedition and
cherished the ambition of reconquering the Holy Land. The great
barons, on the other hand, wished to strike at the heart of the Muslim
power, i. e. Egypt. And this divergence of views heavily handicapped the
whole Crusade. It has been asserted that the Venetians, who were bound
1
CH. XIV.
## p. 416 (#458) ############################################
416
The Crusaders and Venice
by treaties with the Sultan of Egypt and did not wish to compromise
their commercial interests, were from the first hostile to the expedition,
and sought means of diverting the crusaders from their path, thus be-
traying Christendom. There is nothing to prove that they planned this
deliberately, but it is obvious that the stiff contract of April 1201
rendered the Christian army dependent on the republic.
The crusaders slowly prepared to cross the Alps. Meanwhile the
death of Theobald of Champagne had obliged them to find another
leader. On the recommendation of the King of France, an Italian baron
was chosen, Boniface, Marquess of Montferrat, whose brothers had played
a great part in the East, both Latin and Byzantine. At Soissons on
16 August 1201 he was acclaimed by the barons, after which he betook
himself to Germany, where he spent part of the winter with Philip of
Swabia, his intimate friend; and to this visit great importan
ultimate fate of the Crusade has sometimes been attributed. Meanwhile
the army was mustering at Venice, where it was assembled in July-
August 1202. But the crusaders had only paid the Venetians a small
part of the sum agreed upon as payment for the voyage, and it was im-
possible for them to collect the remainder. Interned in the island of
St Niccolò di Lido, harassed by demands from the Venetian merchants
and threats that their supplies would be cut off if the money were not
forthcoming, the crusaders were finally obliged to accept the doge's
proposal that they should be granted a respite if they helped the republic
to reconquer the city of Zara, which had been taken by the Hungarians.
In spite of the indignant protests of Innocent III and his legate at an
attack directed against a Christian city and a crusading ruler, the enter-
prise had to be undertaken in order to satisfy the Venetian demands. The
barons unwillingly agreed to engage in it (September 1202); and on 8
November 1202 the fleet sailed amidst general rejoicings. On 10 November
Zara was attacked, and surrendered in five days, when the Venetians
destroyed it utterly. It was in vain that Innocent III threatened and ex-
communicated the Venetians. The crusaders were now preoccupied by
considerations of greater importance, which diverted the Crusade to a
new objective. It had been undertaken with the object of delivering
Jerusalem, or attacking Egypt; it ended in the conquest of Constantinople.
For over a century the West had for many reasons been casting looks
of hate and envy towards Byzantium. The Norman Kings of Sicily and
their German successor, the Emperor Henry VI, had several times
directed their dreams of conquest towards the Greek Empire. The
leaders of the various crusades, indignant at the treachery and ill-will of
the Byzantines, had more than once contemplated taking Constantinople
and destroying the monarchy. Finally the Venetians, who had for a
century been masters of the commerce with the Levant and were anxious
to keep for themselves the fine markets of the East, were becoming un-
easy, both at the increasing animosity displayed by the Greeks, and at
## p. 417 (#459) ############################################
The diversion of the Crusade to Constantinople
417
the rivalry of the other maritime cities of Italy. In the course of the
twelfth century they had several times been obliged to defend their posi-
tion and privileges by force of arms; therefore their politicians, and
especially the Doge Enrico Dandolo, were considering whether the easiest
way of resolving the problem and securing the commercial prosperity of
the republic in the East would not be to conquer the Byzantine Empire
and establish on its ruins a colonial Venetian empire. All these various
causes, unrealised ambitions of conquest, old accumulated grudges against
the Greeks, threatened economic interests, almost inevitably led to the
diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople; all that was necessary
was that an opportunity should offer itself.
This opportunity occurred in the course of 1202. The Basileus
reigning in Constantinople, Alexius Angelus, had dethroned his brother
Isaac in 1195, and had cast the deposed monarch and his young son
Alexius into prison. The latter succeeded in escaping and came to
Germany, either at the end of 1201 or else in the spring of 1202,
to seek the help of his brother-in-law, Philip of Swabia, husband of
his sister Irene. But Philip had no means of giving direct support to
the young prince. Did he arrange with Boniface of Montferrat, or with
the Venetians, who were interested in re-opening the Eastern question,
that the crusading army, then inactive at Venice, should be utilised
against Byzantium? Scholars of to-day have devoted much discussion to
this very obscure historical point. It has been suggested that Philip of
Swabia, deeply interested in his young brother-in-law, and moreover
cherishing, like his brother Henry VI, personal ambitions with regard to
the East, immediately on the arrival of Alexius agreed with Boniface of
Montferrat that the Crusade should be diverted to Constantinople. It
has been suggested that he hoped by this means to checkmate the Papacy,
and, by threatening to ruin the projected Crusade, force Innocent III to
seek a reconciliation with him. The question has also been raised whether
the Venetians had long premeditated their attack on Zara, and whether
or not they had agreed with the Marquess of Montferrat that the fleet
should next set sail for Byzantium; in a word, whether the diversion of
the Crusade sprang from fortuitous causes, or was the result of deep
intrigues and premeditated designs. “This," says Luchaire wisely, “will
never be known, and science has something better to do than interminably
to discuss an insoluble problem. ” All that can be said is that the arrival
of young Alexius in the West suited the policy of the Doge Enrico
Dandolo admirably, and that the latter used it with supreme ability to
insist on an attempt upon Byzantium against the wishes of some of the
crusaders, thereby ensuring enormous advantages to his country.
Even before leaving Venice in September 1202 the leaders of the
Crusade had received messengers from the Greek claimant, and had
entered into negotiations with Philip of Swabia. After the capture of
Zara, envoys from the German king and his young brother-in-law brought
27
C. MED. H. VOL. IV, CA, XIV.
## p. 418 (#460) ############################################
418
Arrival at Constantinople
them much more definite proposals. In return for the help to be given
him in recapturing Constantinople, Alexius promised the crusaders
to pay the balance still owing to the Venetians, to provide them with
the money and supplies necessary for conquering Egypt, to assist them
by sending a contingent of 10,000 men, to maintain five hundred
knights to guard the Holy Land, and, finally, to bring about religious
reunion with Rome. It was a tempting offer, and, under pressure from
the Venetians and Montferrat, the leading barons decided to accept it.
No doubt a certain number of knights protested and left the army,
starting for Syria direct. It was represented to the majority that the
expedition to Constantinople in no way superseded the original plan,
that, in fact, it would facilitate its execution, that moreover it would be
a meritorious act and one pleasing to God to restore the legitimate heir
to the throne; it is also clear that at this time no one contemplated the
destruction of the Greek Empire. Whatever their real wishes, the majority
allowed themselves to be persuaded. On 25 April 1203 Alexius joined
Montferrat and Dandolo at Zara, and at Corfù in May was signed the
definitive treaty which established the diversion of the great enterprise.
The Pope, solicitous as always that the Crusade should not fall to pieces,
allowed matters to go their own way. On 25 May the crusading fleet
left Corfù, and on 24 June 1203 it appeared outside Constantinople.
Every one knows the celebrated passage in which Villehardouin
describes the impressions which the crusaders experienced at first sight
of the great Byzantine city. “Now wit ye well that they gazed at
Constantinople, those who had never seen it; for they had not dreamed
that there was in all the world so rich a city, when they beheld the high
walls and the mighty towers by which she was enclosed all round, and
those rich palaces and those great churches, of which there were so many
that none might believe it if he had not seen it with his own eyes, and
the length and breadth of the city, which was sovereign among all. And
wit ye well that there was no man so bold that he did not tremble; and
this was not wonderful ; for never was so great a matter undertaken by
any man since the world was created. ”ı
The crusaders had expected that the Greeks would welcome with
enthusiasm the monarch whom they had come to restore. But on the
contrary every one rallied round Alexius III, who was regarded as the
defender of national independence. The Latins were therefore obliged to
resort to force. They stormed the tower of Galata, forced the chain
across the harbour, and entered the Golden Horn; then on 17 July 1203
they assaulted the town by land and sea. Alexius III, realising his
defeat, fled ; his victims, Isaac and the young Alexius, were restored to
the throne; on 1 August they were solemnly crowned at St Sophia in
the presence of the Latin barons.
1 Villehardouin, ed. Wailly, N. de, ch. 128.
## p. 419 (#461) ############################################
Breach with the Byzantine government
419
pass
The new sovereigns received the Latins “as benefactors and preservers
of the Empire"; they hastened to carry out the promises they had made,
and lavished on them the wealth of the capital, thereby only increasing
the covetousness of the crusaders, which was already excited. This
friendship did not last long. Torn between the demands of his allies and
the hostility of the national party, which accused him of having betrayed
Byzantium to aliens, the young Alexius IV was soon unable to fulfil his
promises. Urged by the Venetians, the Latins had decided to the
winter season in Constantinople, but they had made the mistake of
evacuating the capital after an occupation of a few days, and the insolence
of the Greeks had been thereby greatly increased. Finally Dandolo, who
during the temporary absence of Montferrat was in command, seized the
opportunity of multiplying difficulties and preparing a breach by his
unreasonableness. In these circumstances a catastrophe was inevitable.
There were affrays and riots, followed by a revolution. In February 1204
the son-in-law of the Emperor Alexius III, Alexius Ducas, nicknamed
Mourtzouphlos, the leader of the national party, caused the downfall of
the two weak Emperors who were incapable of resisting the demands of
the crusaders; and a few days later Alexius IV was strangled in prison.
Henceforth any agreement was impossible. The only means of realising
the great hopes inspired by the capture of Constantinople, ensuring the
success of the Crusade, and attaining the union of the Churches, was to
seize Constantinople and keep it. The Venetians especially insisted on
the necessity of finishing the work and founding a Latin Empire; and
in the month of March 1204 the crusaders agreed on the manner in
which they should divide the future conquest. The French and the
Venetians were to share equally in the booty of Constantinople. An
assembly of six Venetians and six Frenchmen were to elect the Emperor,
to whom was to be assigned a quarter of the conquered territory. The
other three quarters were to go, half to the Venetians, half to the crusaders.
Dandolo succeeded in arranging everything to the advantage of Venice.
The city of St Mark obtained a promise that she should receive the lion's
share of the booty by way of indemnity for what was due to her, that all
her commercial privileges should be preserved, and that the party which
did not provide the Emperor (a privilege to which Venice attached no
importance) should receive the Patriarchate of Constantinople and should
occupy St Sophia. Moreover the doge arranged matters so that the new
Empire, feudally organised, should be weak as opposed to Venice. Having
thus ordered all things “to the honour of God, of the Pope, and of
the Empire,” the crusaders devoted themselves to the task of taking
Constantinople.
The first assault on 9 April 1204 failed. The attack on 12 April was
more successful. The outer wall was taken, and while a vast conflagration
broke out in the town, Mourtzouphlos, losing courage, fled. On the morrow,
the leaders of the army established themselves in the imperial palaces
CH. XIV.
27-2
## p. 420 (#462) ############################################
;)
420
Sack of Constantinople
and allowed their soldiers to pillage Constantinople for three days. The
crusaders treated the city with appalling cruelty. Murder, rape, sacrilege,
robbery, were let loose. “These defenders of Christ,” wrote Pope
Innocent III himself, “who should have turned their swords only against
the infidels, have bathed in Christian blood. They have respected neither
religion, nor age, nor sex. They have committed in open day adultery,
fornication, and incest. Matrons and virgins, even those vowed to God,
were delivered to the ignominious brutality of the soldiery. And it was
not enough for them to squander the treasures of the Empire, and to rob
private individuals, whether great or small. They have dared to lay their
hands on the wealth of the churches. They have been seen tearing from
the altars the silver adornments, breaking them in fragments over which
they quarrelled, violating the sanctuaries, carrying away the icons, crosses,
and relics. ” St Sophia was the scene of disgraceful proceedings: a drunken
soldiery might be seen destroying the sacred books, treading pious images
underfoot, polluting the costly materials, drinking from the consecrated
vessels, distributing sacerdotal ornaments and jewels torn from the altars
to courtesans and camp-followers; a prostitute seated herself on the throne
of the Patriarch and there struck up a ribald song. The most famous
works of art were destroyed, bronze statues melted down and used for
coinage, and, among so many horrors, the Greek historian Nicetas, who
in an eloquent lament described and mourned the ruin of his country,
declared that even the Saracens would have been more merciful than
these men, who yet claimed to be soldiers of Christ.
The Latins themselves at last experienced some feelings of shame.
The leaders of the army took severe measures to restore order. But
pillage was followed by methodical and organised extortion. Under pain
of excommunication all stolen objects must be brought to a common
store; a systematic search for treasure and relics was instituted, and the
spoils were divided between the conquerors. “The booty was so great,"
writes Villehardouin, “ that no man could give you a count thereof, gold
and silver, plate and precious stones, samite and silks, and garments
of fur, vair and silver-gray and ermine, and all the riches ever found
on earth. And Geoffrey de Villehardouin, marshal of Champagne, truly
bears witness, according to his knowledge and in truth, that never, since
the world was created, was so much taken in a city. " The total share of
the crusaders—three-eighths-seems to have amounted to 400,000 marks
of silver. The churches of the West were enriched with sacred spoils
from Constantinople, and the Venetians, better informed than the rest
as to the wealth of Byzantium, knew very well how to make their
choice.
After the booty, there was still the Empire to be divided. On 9 May
1204 the electoral college assembled to elect the new sovereign. One
man seemed destined to occupy the throne: the leader of the Crusade,
1 Villehardouin, ch. 259.
:
## p. 421 (#463) ############################################
Partition of the Empire
421
the Marquess Boniface of Montferrat, who was popular with the Lombards
because of his nationality, with the Germans because of his relationship
to Philip of Swabia, and even with the Greeks because of the marriage
he had recently contracted with Margaret of Hungary, widow of Isaac
Angelus. But for these very reasons, Montferrat was likely to prove too
powerful a sovereign, and consequently a source of uneasiness to Venice,
which meant to derive great advantages for herself from the Crusade.
Boniface was therefore passed over in favour of a less important noble,
Baldwin, Count of Flanders. On 16 May the latter was crowned with
great pomp in St Sophia. And those who admired the magnificent
ceremonial displayed in these festivities might well believe that nothing
had changed in Byzantium since the glorious days of the Comneni.
But this was only a semblance, as was obvious a little later when the
final division of the Empire took place. As his personal dominions, the
new Emperor was awarded the territory which stretched west and east of
the sea of Marmora, from Tzurulum (Chorlu) to the Black Sea in Europe;
and, in Asia Minor, Bithynia and Mysia to the vicinity of Nicaea ; some
of the larger islands of the Archipelago were also assigned to him, Samo-
thrace, Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Cos. This was little enough, and even
in his capital the Emperor was not sole master. By a somewhat singular
arrangement he only possessed five-eighths of the city; the remainder,
including St Sophia, belonged to the Venetians, who had secured the
lion's share of the gains. They took everything which helped them to
maintain their maritime supremacy, Epirus, Acarnania, Aetolia, the
Ionian islands, the whole of the Peloponnesus, Gallipoli, Rodosto, Hera-
clea in the sea of Marmora and Hadrianople in the interior, several of
the islands in the Archipelago, Naxos, Andros, Euboea, and finally
Crete, which Boniface of Montferrat relinquished to them. The doge
assumed the title of “despot”; he was dispensed from paying homage to
the Emperor, and proudly styled himself “lord of one fourth and a half
of the Greek Empire. ” A Venetian, Thomas Morosini, was raised to the
patriarchate, and became the head of the Latin Church in the new Empire.
Venice, indeed, was not to hold in her own hand all the territory granted
to her. In Epirus she was content to hold Durazzo, and, in the Pelopon-
nesus, Coron and Modon ; she granted other districts as fiefs to various
great families of her aristocracy; Corfù and most of the islands of the
Archipelago thus became Venetian seigniories (the duchy of Naxos,
marquessate of Cerigo, grand-duchy of Lemnos, duchy of Crete, etc. ).
But, by means of all this and the land she occupied directly, she secured
for herself unquestioned supremacy in the Levantine seas. The Empire
was very weak compared with the powerful republic.
Nor was this all. Some compensation had to be given to Boniface of
Montferrat for having missed the imperial dignity. He was promised
Asia Minor and continental Greece, but finally, despite the Emperor, he
CH. XIV.
## p. 422 (#464) ############################################
422
Assises of Romania
exchanged Asia Minor for Macedonia and the north of Thessaly,
which formed the kingdom of Thessalonica held by him as vassal of
the Empire. The counts and barons had next to be provided for, and
a whole crop of feudal seigniories blossomed forth in the Byzantine
world. Henry of Flanders, the Emperor's brother, became lord of
Adramyttium, Louis of Blois was made Duke of Nicaea, Renier of Trit
Duke of Philippopolis, and Hugh of St Pol lord of Demotika. On one
day, 1 October 1204, the Emperor knighted six hundred and distributed
fiefs to them. Some weeks later other seigniories came into being in
Thessaly and the parts of Greece conquered by Montferrat. The Palla-
vicini became marquesses of Boudonitza, the La Roche family first barons,
and subsequently dukes, of Athens; Latin nobles settled in Euboea, over
whom Venice quickly established her suzerainty; finally, in the Pelopon-
nesus, William of Champlitte and Geoffrey of Villehardouin, the historian's
nephew, founded the principality of Achaia.
In this new society, the crusaders introduced all the Western institu-
tions to the Byzantine East. The Latin Empire was an absolutely feudal
State, whose legislation, modelled on that of the Latin kingdom of
Jerusalem, was contained in the Assises of Romania. Elected by the
barons, the Emperor was only the foremost baron, in spite of the cere-
mony with which he had surrounded himself and the great officers of his
court. To render the Empire, thus born of the Crusade, living and
durable, a strong government and a perfectly centralised State were
necessary, whereas Baldwin was almost powerless. Boniface of Montferrat
in particular was a most unruly subject, and, to impose on him the
homage due to his suzerain, Baldwin was obliged to make war on him
and to occupy Thessalonica for a while (August 1204); and in these civil
disorders there was danger, for, as is said by Villehardouin,“if God had
not been pitiful, all that had been gained would have been lost, and
Christendom would have been exposed to the peril of death. ” Matters
were arranged more or less satisfactorily; but the emergency had clearly
demonstrated the Emperor's weakness. As to the vassals of the outlying
parts of Greece, the dukes of Athens and princes of Achaia, they gener-
ally took no interest in the affairs of the Empire. The position with
the Venetians was even more difficult, engrossed as they were in their own
economic interests and impatient of all control. Romania was their
chattel, and they meant to keep the Emperor dependent on them. By
the agreement of October 1205, a council was established, in which
sat the Venetian podestà and the great Frank barons, to assist the
Emperor; it combined the right of superintending military operations
with judicial powers, and had the privilege of controlling the sovereign's
decisions. A High Court of Justice composed of Latins and Venetians
similarly regulated everything which affected the relations between
vassals and suzerain. Furthermore the Venetians were exempted from all
taxation.
## p. 423 (#465) ############################################
Weakness of the Latin Empire
423
Thus the “new France," as it was called by the Pope, which had
come into being in the East, was singularly weak owing to the differences
between the conquerors, and Innocent III, who at first hailed with
enthusiasm “the miracle wrought by God to the glory of His name, the
honour and benefit of the Roman See, the advantage of Christendom,"
very soon experienced a grave disillusion. Many other difficulties, indeed,
endangered the new Empire. The manner in which the Latins had
treated Constantinople was ill adapted to gain the friendship of the
Greeks; the fundamental misunderstanding between victors and van-
quished could not fail to become intensified. It was impossible to
establish agreement between the two races, the two Churches, the two
civilisations. The brutal methods of conquest and the inevitable confisca-
tions (from the first the Latins had seized all the property of the Greek
Church) did not conduce to settle difficulties and to quell hatred.
There were, indeed, some Latin princes of greater political insight,
-Montferrat in Thessalonica, Villehardouin in Achaia, and Baldwin's
successor, Henry of Flanders—who sought to conciliate the vanquished
by assuring them that their rights and property would be respected,
But, except in the Peloponnesus, the results obtained were disappointing.
With the exception of some great nobles, such as Theodore Branas, who
adhered to the new government, the great mass of the Greek nation
remained irreconcilable, and the patriotic party felt deep contempt for
those “servile souls whom,” as Nicetas wrote, “ambition armed against
their country, for those traitors, who to secure some territory, had sub-
mitted to the conquerors,” when they should have wished to remain
eternally at war with the Latins.
The principal effect of the taking of Constantinople by the crusaders
was to arouse patriotic sentiment in the Greeks and to re-awaken in
them the sense of nationality. Round the son-in-law of the Emperor
Alexius III, Theodore Lascaris, had collected any of the Byzantine aristo-
cracy and leading Orthodox clergy that had escaped disaster, and in 1206
the Greek prince caused himself to be solemnly crowned as Emperor of
the Romans. Other Greek states rose from the ruins of the Empire.
Some princes of the family of the Comneni founded an Empire at
Trebizond, which lasted until the fifteenth century. In Epirus, a bastard
of the house of Angelus, Michael Angelus Connenus, established a
Despotat” which reached from Naupactus to Durazzo; and other
seigniories were founded by Gabalas at Rhodes, by Mankaphas at Phila-
delphia, and in Greece by Leo Sgouros. Of these States, two were specially
formidable, Epirus which threatened Thessalonica, and Nicaea which
aspired to conquer Asia Minor preparatory to regaining Constantinople.
Herein were many sources of weakness for the Latin Empire. The
Bulgarian peril added yet another cause for uneasiness. Since the end
of the twelfth century an independent state had arisen in Bulgaria, at
whose head was the Tsar Kalojan, or Johannitsa (1197–1207), who styled
CH. XIV.
## p. 424 (#466) ############################################
424
Defeat and death of the Emperor Baldwin I
himself Tsar of the Wallachians and the Bulgars. He was hostile to the
Byzantines and quite disposed to be friendly with the Latins. He was
also on good terms with Rome, and had even been crowned by a legate
of Innocent III. When, therefore, he heard of the taking of Constanti-
nople, he was quite ready to come to terms with the crusaders. But they
took a high hand, and summoned the Bulgarian Tsar to restore the
“portion of the Greek Empire unjustly retained by him. ” This was a
grave mistake, and was recognised as such by Pope Innocent III. Had
the Latins been on peaceful terms with the Bulgars, they might have
had some chance of opposing the Greeks, but their methods were such as
to unite all their adversaries against them.
Without money, without authority, almost without an army, what
could the weak sovereign of the new Latin Empire do, when faced by the
hostility of his Greek subjects and of the external enemies, Byzantines
and Bulgars, who were threatening him ? It was in vain that he posed
as the successor of the Basileus, and sometimes caused uneasiness to the
Pope by his daring claims on Church property; his position was pre-
carious. The Latin Empire, offspring of the Fourth Crusade, lasted
barely half a century (1204–1261), and this short-lived and fragile crea-
tion embittered yet more the antagonism which separated the Greeks
and the Latins.
Nevertheless, in the first period of confusion which followed the taking
of Constantinople, the Latins met with success everywhere. Boniface of
Montferrat made a magnificent sally across Thessaly and Central Greece
which carried him to Athens and to the very walls of Corinth and
Nauplia (the end of 1204-May 1205). About the same time Henry of
Flanders undertook the conquest of Asia Minor (November 1204). With
the assistance of the Comneni of Trebizond, who were jealous of the
new Empire of Nicaea, he defeated the troops of Theodore Lascaris at
Poimanenon (December 1204), and seized the most important cities
of Bithynia—Nicomedia, Abydos, Adramyttium, and Lopadium. The
barely-established Greek State seemed on the point of destruction, when
suddenly the Frank troops were recalled to Europe by a grave emergency,
and Theodore Lascaris was saved.
The Greek population of Thrace, discontented with the Latin rule,
had revolted, and, at their call, the Bulgarian Tsar Johannitsa had
invaded the Empire. The Emperor Baldwin and the aged Doge Dan-
dolo advanced boldly with the weak forces at their disposal to meet the
enemy. On 14 April 1205, in the plains of Hadrianople, the Latin
army was defeated. Baldwin, who was taken prisoner by the Bulgars,
disappeared mysteriously a few weeks later, and Dandolo led all that
remained of the army back to Constantinople, where he died and was
buried with solemnity in St Sophia, his conquest. It seemed as though
in this formidable crisis the Empire must perish, but it was saved by the
energetic measures of Henry of Flanders, Baldwin's brother.
## p. 425 (#467) ############################################
Accession of Henry of Flanders: his early successes 425
Chosen by the barons first as regent of Romania, then crowned as
Emperor on 21 August 1206, Henry of Flanders, by his courage, energy,
and intelligence, was quite equal to the task imposed on him. He was
able not only to encounter the Bulgarian invasion and repel it, but also
to restore unity among the Latins, and even to secure the submission of
the Greeks; during his ten years' reign (1206-1216) he was the real
founder of the Latin Empire.
The Greeks, indeed, began to be uneasy at the violence and brutality
of their terrible Bulgarian ally. Johannitsa pillaged everything, burnt
everything, and massacred every one, in his path. He longed to avenge
the defeats which in bygone days Basil II had inflicted on his nation,
and, just as the Byzantine Emperor had styled himself the “ slayer of
Bulgars ” (Bulgaroctonos), so he proudly flaunted the title of “ slayer of
Romans” (Romaioctonos). The horrified Greeks therefore soon reverted
to the side of the Latins. The Emperor Henry knew how to profit by
these sentiments. He secured the assistance of Theodore Branas, one of
the great Byzantine leaders, by granting him Demotika and Hadrianople
as fiefs (October 1205). In person he waged victorious warfare with the
Bulgars. He relieved Renier of Trit, who was besieged in Stenimachus,
and retook Hadrianople (1206). Finally, to the great advantage of the
Empire, he became reconciled with Boniface of Montferrat, whose
daughter Agnes was betrothed to him. Undoubtedly the death of the
marquess-king, killed in battle in 1207, and the Bulgarian attack on
Thessalonica, were fresh causes of disquietude. Fortunately for the Latin
Empire, Johannitsa was assassinated outside the city he was besieging
(October 1207). The Greek legend assigns the credit for his death to
the saintly patron of the city, St Demetrius, who, mounted on his war-
horse and armed with his invincible spear, is said to have stricken down
the terrible enemy of Hellenism in his own camp. It is unnecessary to
add that it happened in a less miraculous manner. But the death of the
Bulgarian Tsar delivered the Empire from a great danger. His successor,
Boril, after his defeat in 1208 at Philippopolis, soon made peace, which
was sealed in 1215 by the marriage of the Emperor Henry with the
Tsar's daughter.
About the same time matters improved in Asia Minor. In 1206, at
the instigation of David Comnenus, Emperor of Trebizond, who was
uneasy at the aggrandisement of Theodore Lascaris and wrathful at the
imperial title recently assumed by the Despot of Nicaea, the Latins
resumed the offensive in Asia Minor and seized Cyzicus and Nicomedia,
which they retained until 1207. But the Bulgarian danger necessitated
the concentration of all the forces of the Empire; in order to be able to
recall all his troops from Asia Minor, Henry concluded a two years'
armistice with Lascaris. The struggle was resumed as soon as the Bul-
garian peril had been averted. Lascaris, having vanquished the Turks
on the Maeander (1210), became a source of uneasiness to the Latins, as
CH. XIV.
## p. 426 (#468) ############################################
426
Henry's internal government
he contemplated attacking Constantinople. The Emperor boldly took
the offensive, crossed to Asia, and on 13 October 1211 overwhelmingly
defeated the Nicaean sovereign on the river Luparkos (Rhyndakos). Las-
caris determined to make peace. By the treaty of 1212 he relinquished
to the Latins the north-west of Asia Minor, all the western part of Mysia
and Bithynia.
While Henry thus waged victorious warfare with his external enemies,
he also strengthened the imperial authority at home. On the death of
Boniface of Montferrat, the throne of Thessalonica passed to his infant
son Demetrius, in whose name the government was carried on by the
Queen-regent, Margaret of Hungary, and Count Hubert of Biandrate,
Baile or guardian of the kingdom. The Lombard party, whose leader
Hubert was, was unfriendly to the queen-regent, and even more hostile to
the French and the Emperor, whose suzerainty they wished to repudiate.
Henry had no hesitation in marching on Thessalonica, and in spite of
Biandrate's resistance he succeeded in occupying the city; then, sup-
ported by the queen-regent, he enforced the recognition of his suzerainty,
settled the succession which had been left open by the death of Boniface,
and caused the young Demetrius to be crowned (January 1209). Henry,
indeed, had still much to do in combating the intrigues of Biandrate,
whom he arrested, and in neutralising the hostility of the Lombard
nobles of Seres and Christopolis, who intended to bar the Emperor's
return to Constantinople. He had, however, solidly established the
prestige of the Empire in Thessalonica. Thence he proceeded to Thessaly,
and, after having crushed the resistance of the Lombard nobles at Larissa,
at the beginning of 1209 in the parliament of Ravennika he received
the homage of the French barons of the south, above all of the Megaskyr
of Athens and of the Prince of Achaia, who since the death of Boni-
face wished to be immediate vassals of the Empire because of their
hatred of the Lombards. Henry displayed no less energy in religious
matters, and his anti-clerical policy, whereby he refused to return ecclesi-
astical property seized by laymen, caused displeasure to Innocent III
more than once. The concordat signed at the second parliament of
Ravennika (May 1210) seemed for a time to have arranged matters.
The barons undertook to return any Church property illegally detained
by them; the clergy promised to hold these from the civil State, and to
pay the land-tax for them. But this attempt at an agreement led to no
lasting results. Henry also insisted on opposing the claims of the
Patriarch Morosini to govern the Latin Church despotically, and at
Morosini's death in 1211 he secured the election to the patriarchate of
a candidate chosen by himself. He was equally careful to protect his
Greek subjects against the demands of the Latin Church. Unfortunately
this monarch, the best of the Emperors whom fate gave to the Latin
Empire of Constantinople, died, perhaps of poison, on 11 June 1216, when
he was still under forty. This was an irreparable loss for the Empire;
## p. 427 (#469) ############################################
Decline of the Empire after Henry's death
427
henceforward, under the weak successors of the Emperor Henry, the
State founded by the crusaders moved slowly towards its ruin.
Yolande, sister of the two first Latin Emperors, was married to
Peter of Courtenay, Count of Auxerre, and he was elected Emperor by
the barons in preference to Andrew, King of Hungary, a nephew by
marriage of Baldwin and Henry. Peter set out for Constantinople. But
in the course of an expedition which he undertook in Epirus, with the
object of re-conquering Durazzo which had been taken from the Venetians
by the Greeks, he was betrayed into the hands of Theodore Angelus,
Despot of Epirus, and died soon afterwards in his prison (1217). The
Empress Yolande, who had reached the shores of the Bosphorus in
safety, then assumed the regency provisionally in the name of the missing
Emperor, and, with the help of Conon of Béthune, one of the heroes of
the Crusade, she governed for two years (1217–1219). But a man was
needed to defend the Empire. The barons elected Philip, the eldest son
of Peter and Yolande, who declined the honour offered to him. His
younger brother, Robert of Courtenay, was then chosen in his place; he
set out in 1220, and was crowned by the Patriarch on 25 March 1221.
He reigned for seven years (1221–1228); after him his throne passed to
his brother, Baldwin II, a boy of eleven, during whose minority (1228-
1237) the government was entrusted to John of Brienne, formerly King
of Jerusalem, a brave knight but an absolutely incapable statesman.
Under these feeble governments which succeeded each other for twenty
years, Greeks and Bulgars found an easy victim in the exhausted Latin
Empire.
In 1222 a grave event took place. The Latin kingdom of Thessa-
lonica succumbed to the attacks of the Despot of Epirus. Theodore
Ducas Angelus had succeeded his brother Michael in 1214, and by a
series of successful undertakings he had, at the expense of both the
Greeks and Bulgars, greatly augmented the State he had inherited. He
had retaken Durazzo (1215) and Corfù from the Venetians, and occupied
Ochrida and Pelagonia; he appeared to the Greeks as the saviour and
restorer of Hellenism. In 1222 he attacked Thessalonica, where the
youthful Demetrius, son of Boniface of Montferrat, was now reigning;
he took the city easily, and was then crowned Emperor by the Metro-
politan of Ochrida. In the ensuing years (1222–1231) the new Basileus
extended his sway at the expense of the Bulgars to Macedonia and
Thrace, to the neighbourhood of Hadrianople, Philippopolis, and Christo-
polis. In 1224 he attacked the Latin Empire, and defeated Robert of
Courtenay's troops at Seres.
At the very time when the peril which threatened it in Europe was
thus increasing, the Latin Empire lost Asia Minor. When Theodore
Lascaris (1206-1222), first Emperor of Nicaea, died, he left a greatly
increased and solidly established State to his son-in-law, John Vatatzes.
CH. XIV.
## p. 428 (#470) ############################################
428
Wars with Greeks and Bulgarians
He had, by victories over the Comneni of Trebizond and over the Seljūq
Turks, advanced his frontiers to the upper streams of the Sangarius
and the Maeander. Vatatzes, who was as good a general as he was an
able administrator, during his long reign (1222-1254) completed the
work of Lascaris, and bestowed a final period of prosperity on Greek
Asia Minor. By 1224 he had recaptured from the Latins almost all the
territory they still held in Anatolia, and in a fierce battle at Poimanenon
he defeated their army commanded by Macaire of St Menehould. At the
same time his fleet seized Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Icaria, and Cos, and
compelled the Greek ruler of Rhodes to recognise Vatatzes as suzerain.
Before long the Emperor of Nicaea, who was jealous of the success of
the new Greek monarch of Thessalonica and suspicious as to his aims,
despatched troops to Europe; Madytus and Gallipoli were taken and
sacked, and, at the call of the revolted Greeks in Hadrianople, the army
of the Nicaean sovereign occupied the city for a time (1224). There
they encountered the soldiers of the Emperor of Thessalonica, to whom
they had to yield the city. Unfortunately, the Latins were incapable of
profiting by the quarrels of the two Greek Emperors, who fell out over
their spoils.
They were no better able to profit by the chances offered them by
Bulgaria. Since 1218 John Asên had been Tsar at Trnovo (1218_1241).
He had married a Latin princess related to the Courtenay family, and,
like Johannitsa in bygone days, was quite disposed to side with the
Latins against the Greeks; when the Emperor Robert was deposed in
1228, he would gladly have accepted the office of regent during the
minority of Baldwin II, as many wished, and he promised to help the
monarchy to regain from Theodore Angelus all that had been lost in
the West. The foolish obstinacy of the Latin clergy, who were violently
opposed to an Orthodox prince, wrecked the negotiations. Thus vanished
the last chance of salvation for the Latin Empire.
The Bulgarian Tsar, justly indignant, became a relentless enemy to
the Latins, to the great advantage of the Greeks of Nicaea, to whom
he rendered yet another service; he conquered their European rival, the
Emperor of Thessalonica, whose ambition was becoming a source of
uneasiness to Bulgaria. In 1230 he attacked Theodore Angelus, defeated
him, and took him prisoner in the battle of Klokotinitza, forcing him to
renounce the throne. As is recorded in a triumphal inscription engraved
in this very year 1230 on the walls of the cathedral of Trnovo, he
annexed “all the country from Hadrianople to Durazzo, Greek territory,
Albanian territory, Serbian territory. ” The Empire of Thessalonica
was reduced to modest proportions (it only included Thessalonica itself
and Thessaly), and devolved on Manuel Angelus, Theodore's brother.
Thus all-powerful in Europe, John Asên joyfully accepted the pro-
posals of an alliance against the Latins made by John Vatatzes (1234).
The two families were united by the marriage of John Asen's daughter
## p. 429 (#471) ############################################
Reign of Baldwin II
429
to Vatatzes' son; and the two sovereigns met at Gallipoli, which the
Nicaean Emperor had taken from the Venetians in 1235, to arrange the
division of the Frank Empire. Encompassed on all sides, Constantinople
nearly succumbed in 1236 to the combined attack of its two adversaries.
But this time the West was roused by the greatness of the danger.
The Pisans, Genoese, and Venetians all sent their fleets to succour the
threatened capital; Geoffrey II, Prince of Achaia, brought a hundred
knights and eight hundred bowmen, and lent an annual subsidy of
22,000 hyperperi for the defence of the Empire. Thanks to these aids,
Constantinople was saved, and the Latin Empire survived another quarter
of a century. But it was a singularly miserable existence. During the
twenty-five years of his personal reign (1237–1261), Baldwin II, last Latin
Emperor of Constantinople, who had already visited Rome and Paris
in 1236, had to beg all over the Western world for help in men and
money, which he did not always get. To raise funds he was reduced
to pawning the most famous jewels in Constantinople, the crown of
thorns, a large piece of the true cross, the holy spear, the sponge, which
St Louis bought from him. And such was the distress of the wretched
Emperor that for his coinage the lead roofing had to be used, and to
warm him in winter the timbers of the imperial palace were chopped up.
Some rare successes indeed prolonged the life of the Empire. The Greco-
Bulgarian alliance was dissolved ; in 1240 Baldwin II recaptured Tzu-
rulum from the Greeks, and thus cleared the approaches to the capital
to a certain degree; in 1241 the death of John Asên began the decay
of the Bulgarian Empire. Nevertheless the days of the Latin State
were numbered. One question remained : would the Greek Empire of
Epirus or that of Nicaea have the honour of reconquering Constan-
tinople?
It was secured by Nicaea. While the Latin Empire was in its last
agony, John Vatatzes was succeeding in restoring Byzantine unity against
the aliens. He drove the Latins from their last possessions in Asia
Minor (1241); he gained the powerful support of the Western Emperor
Frederick II, whose daughter Constance he married (1244), and who,
out of hatred for the Pope, the protector of the Latin Empire, un-
hesitatingly abandoned Constantinople to the Greeks; he deprived the
Franks of the support of the Seljūq Sultan of Iconium (1244); and
he seized the Mongol invasion of Asia Minor as an opportunity of en-
larging his state at the expense of the Turks. He was specially active
in Europe. Since the year 1237, when Michael II Angelus (1237–1271)
had founded the despotat of Epirus in Albania at the expense of the
Empire of Thessalonica, anarchy had prevailed in the Greek States of
the West. In 1240, with the help of John Asên, the aged Theodore
Angelus had taken Thessalonica, overthrown his brother Manuel, and
caused his son John to be crowned as Emperor (1240-1244). Vatatzes took
advantage of this weakness. In 1242 he appeared outside Thessalonica
CH. XIV.
## p. 430 (#472) ############################################
430
Gradual advance of the Greeks
and forced John to renounce the title of Emperor, to content himself
with that of Despot, and to become vassal of Nicaea. In 1246 he
returned to the attack; this time he seized Thessalonica and expelled
the Despot Demetrius. Then he fell on the Bulgarians and took from
them a large part of Macedonia—Seres, Melnik, Skoplje, and other
places—and the following year he deprived the Latins of Vizye and Tzu-
rulum; finally, a family alliance united him to the only Greek prince
who still retained his independence in the West, Michael II, Despot of
Epirus. This ambitious and intriguing prince was doubtless about to
go to war with Nicaea in 1254. Nevertheless, when on 30 October 1254
Vatatzes died at Nymphaeum, the Empire of Nicaea, rich, powerful, and
prosperous, surrounded the poor remnants of the Latin Empire on all
sides. Only Constantinople remained to be conquered.
The final catastrophe was delayed for seven years by discords between
the Greeks. Theodore II Lascaris (1254-1258) had at one and the same
time to carry on war with the Despot of Epirus and to fight with the
Bulgars, who after the death of Vatatzes had considered the time
favourable for avenging their defeats. Theodore Lascaris routed them
at the pass of Rupel (1255); but it was only after the assassination of
their King Michael (1257) that he succeeded in imposing peace on
them. On the other hand, in spite of his great military and political
qualities, the new Greek Emperor was of a delicate constitution. The
field was therefore clear for the intrigues of ambitious men, and
especially for Michael Palaeologus, who, having married a princess of
the imperial family, openly aspired to the throne.
When by Theodore's premature death the throne passed to a child,
Michael had no difficulty in seizing the real power after the assassina-
tion of Muzalon the regent, nor a little later in superseding the
legitimate dynasty by causing himself to be crowned Emperor at Nicaea
on 1 January 1259. He soon justified this mean usurpation by the
victories he achieved.
He first brought the war with Michael II, Despot of Epirus, to a
successful conclusion. Michael II was a formidable enemy: he was the
ally of Manfred, King of Sicily, and of William of Villehardouin, Prince
of Achaia, who had both married daughters of the despot; he was
supported by the Albanians and the Serbs, and was very proud of the
successes he had secured; since the capture of Prilep (1258) he was
master of the whole of Macedonia, and was already threatening
Thessalonica. Michael Palaeologus boldly took the offensive, reconquered
Macedonia, and invaded Albania. In spite of the help brought by the
Prince of Achaia to his father-in-law, the army of Michael II was over-
whelmingly defeated at Pelagonia (1259). William of Villehardouin
himself fell into the hands of the Byzantines; and the Emperor seized
the opportunity to recover a part of the Peloponnesus. Henceforth the
despotat of Epirus was swallowed up by the Empire of Nicaea. The
## p. 431 (#473) ############################################
End of the Latin Empire
431
time had come when Michael Palaeologus was to restore Hellenism by
reconquering Constantinople.
In 1260 he crossed the Hellespont, took Selymbria and the other
strongholds still retained by the Latins outside the capital, and threatened
Galata. At the same time he very astutely utilised the rivalry of the
Venetians and Genoese to gain the alliance of the latter. On 13 March
1261, by the Treaty of Nymphaeum, he promised that, in return for
their help against Venice and their support against his other enemies, he
would grant them all the privileges enjoyed by the Venetians in the East.
The Genoese secured counting-houses at Thessalonica, Adramyttium,
Smyrna, Chios, and Lesbos ; they were to have the reversion of the
Venetian banks at Constantinople, Euboea, and Crete; the monopoly of
commerce in the Black Sea was assigned to them. At this price they
consented to betray Western Christendom.
Venice had realised, rather late in the day, the necessity of defending
the Latin Empire; since 1258 she had maintained a fleet of some im-
portance at Constantinople. But in July 1261 it happened that the
fleet had temporarily left the Golden Horn to attack the neighbouring
town of Daphnusia. One of Michael Palaeologus' generals, the Caesar
Alexius Strategopulus, seized the opportunity; on 25 July 1261, by a
lucky surprise, he captured the capital of the Latin Empire, almost
without resistance. Baldwin II had no alternative but to take to flight,
accompanied by the Latin Patriarch, the podestà, and the Venetian
colonists; on 15 August 1261 Michael Palaeologus made his solemn
entry into Constantinople, and placed the imperial crown on his head
in St Sophia.
Thus, after an existence of half a century, fell the State established
in Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade. Even though the Empire
had only an ephemeral existence, yet the East remained full of Latin
settlements. Venice, in spite of the efforts of her enemies, retained the
essential portions of her colonial empire in the Levant, Negropont, and
Crete, and the strong citadels of Modon and Coron; her patrician
families kept most of their seigniories in the Archipelago. So also did
the other Latin States in Greece born of the Crusade. Under the
government of the La Roche family, the duchy of Athens lasted until
1311; and although the disastrous battle of the Cephisus then transferred
it to the hands of the Catalans (1311-1334), who were superseded by
the Florentine family of Acciajuoli (1334-1456), the Byzantines never
regained possession of it. The principality of Achaia, under the govern-
ment of the three Villehardouins (1204–1278), was even more flourishing.
These settlements were really the most lasting results, within the Latin
Empire of Constantinople, of the Crusade of 1204.
CH. XIV.
## p. 432 (#474) ############################################
432
CHAPTER XV,
GREECE AND THE AEGEAN UNDER FRANK
AND VENETIAN DOMINATION (1204–1571).
At the time of the Latin conquest of Constantinople, the Byzantine
Empire no longer comprised the whole of the Balkan peninsula and the
Archipelago. A Serbian state, a Bosnian banat, and a revived Bulgarian
Empire had been recently formed in the north, while two of the Ionian
Islands - Cephalonia and Zante-already owned the Latin sway of
Matteo Orsini, an Apulian offshoot of the great Roman family, and
Corfù was threatened by the Genoese pirate, Leo Vetrano. In the
Levant, Cyprus, captured from the Greeks by Richard I, was already
governed by the second sovereign of the race of Lusignan, while Rhodes,
amidst the general confusion, was seized by a Greek magnate, Leo
Gabalâs. All the rest of South-Eastern Europe—Thrace, Macedonia,
Epirus, Greece proper, Crete and the islands of the Aegean-remained
to be divided and, if possible, occupied by the Latin conquerors of
Byzantium.
While the newly-created Latin Empire was formed almost wholly
outside the limits of Greece, the Greek lands in Europe were partitioned,
with the exception of three islands, between the Crusaders, whose leader
was Boniface, Marquess of Montferrat, and the Venetian Republic. The
marquess received Salonica, the second city of the Byzantine world, with
the title of king; and his kingdom, nominally dependent upon the Latin
Empire, embraced Macedonia, Thessaly, and much of continental Greece,
including Athens. The Venetians, with a keen eye to business, managed
to secure a large part of the Peloponnese and Epirus, the Cyclades and
Euboea, the Ionian Islands, and those of the Saronic Gulf, and had pur-
chased from the marquess on 12 August 1204 the great island of Crete,
which had been "given or promised ” to him by Alexius IV in the
previous year. Such was, on paper, the new arrangement of the classic
countries which it now remained to conquer.
The King of Salonica set out in the autumn of 1204 to subdue his
Greek dominions and to parcel them out, in accordance with the feudal
system, among the faithful followers of his fortunes. In northern
## p. 433 (#475) ############################################
Conquest of Athens and the Morea
433
Greece he met with no resistance, for the only man who could have
opposed him, Leo Sgourós the archon of Nauplia, fled from Thermo-
pylae before the harnessed Franks, and retreated to the strong natural
fortress of Acrocorinth. Larissa with Halmyrus became the fief of a
Lombard noble, Velestino that of a Rhenish count; while the com-
manding position of Boudonitza above the pass of Thermopylae was
entrusted to the Marquess Guido Pallavicini, whose ruined castle still
reminds us of the two centuries during which Italians were wardens of
the northern March of Greece. Another coign of vantage at the pass
of Graviá was assigned to two brothers of the famous Flemish house of
St Omer, while on the ruins of classic Amphissa Thomas de Stromoncourt
founded the barony of Sálona, so called from the city which had given
to Boniface his royal title.
Neither Thebes nor Athens resisted the
invaders; the patriotic Metropolitan, Michael Acominatus, unable to
bear the sight of Latin schismatics defiling the great cathedral of Our
Lady on the Acropolis, withdrew into exile ; a Latin archbishop ere
long officiated in the Parthenon ; a Burgundian noble, Othon de la
Roche, who was a trusted comrade of Boniface, became Sire, or, as his
Greek subjects called him, Megaskyr or “Great Lord,” of both Athens
and Thebes, with a territory that would have seemed large to the
Athenian statesmen of old. Then the King of Salonica and the Sire of
Athens proceeded to attack the strongholds that still sheltered Sgouros
in the Peloponnese.
A large portion of that peninsula had been assigned, as we saw, to the
Venetians. But, with two exceptions," the Morea,” as it had begun to
be called a century earlier, was destined to fall into the hands of the
French. A little before the capture of Constantinople, Geoffrey de
Villehardouin, nephew of the delightful chronicler of the conquest, had
been driven by stress of weather into the Messenian port of Modon.
During the winter of 1204 he had employed himself by aiding a local
magnate in one of those domestic quarrels which were the curse of medi-
eval Greece, and thus paved the way for a foreign occupation.
Struck
by the rich and defenceless character of the land upon which a kind
fortune had cast him, Villehardouin no sooner heard of Boniface's
arrival in the peninsula than he made his way across country to the
Frankish camp at Nauplia, and confided his scheme of conquest to his
old friend, William de Champlitte, whose ancestors came from his own
province of Champagne. He promised to recognise Champlitte as his
liege lord in return for his aid; and the two comrades, with the approval
of Boniface, set out with a hundred knights and some men-at-arms to
conquer the Morea. One pitched battle decided its fate in that unwar-
like
age, when local jealousies and the neglect of arms had weakened the
power of resistance, and a tactful foreigner, ready to guarantee local
privileges, was at least as acceptable a master as a native tyrant and a
Byzantine tax-collector. One place after another surrendered; the little
יי
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. XV.
28
## p. 434 (#476) ############################################
434
Corfù and Crete
בל
Frankish force completely routed the Moreote Greeks and their Epirote
allies in the Messenian olive-grove of Koundoura ; here and there
some warrior more resolute than his fellows held out-Doxapatrês,
the romantic defender of an Arcadian castle; John Chamáretos', the
hero of Laconia; Sgouros in his triple crown of fortresses, Corinth,
Nauplia, and the Larissa of Argos; and the three hereditary archons
of the Greek Gibraltar, isolated and impregnable Monemvasia ; but
Innocent III could address Champlitte, ere the year was up, as
Prince
of all Achaia. " The prince rewarded Villehardouin, the real author of
his success, with the Messenian seaport of Coron. But Venice, if she was not
strong enough to occupy the rest of the Peloponnese, was determined
that neither that place nor Modon, stepping-stones on the route to the
East, should fall into other than Venetian hands. In 1206 a Venetian fleet
captured both stations from their helpless garrisons, and the republic
thus obtained a foothold at the extreme south of the peninsula which
she retained for well-nigh three centuries. In the same year the seizure
and execution of Vetrano enabled her to make good her claim to Corfù,
where ten Venetian nobles were settled in 1207 as colonists. At this
the Count of Cephalonia and Zante thought it prudent to recognise her
suzerainty, for fear lest she should remind him that his islands had been
assigned to her in the partition treaty.
In the rest of the scattered island-world of Greece, Venice, as became
an essentially maritime state, acquired either actual dominion or what
was more profitable--influence without expensive administrative respon-
sibility. Crete furnished an example of the former system ; Euboea, or
Negropont, and the Cyclades and northern Sporades were instances of
the latter. “
For “the great Greek island " the Venetians had to contend
with their rivals, the Genoese, who had already founded a colony there,
and at whose instigation a bold adventurer, Enrico Pescatore, landed
and forced the isolated Venetian garrison to submit. It was not till
1212 that Pescatore's final defeat and an armistice with Genoa enabled
the Venetians to make their first comprehensive attempt at colonising
Crete. The island was partitioned into 132 knights' fiefs-a number
subsequently raised to 230—and 408 sergeants’ fiefs, of which the former
class was offered to Venetian nobles, the latter to Venetian burgesses.
The administrative division of Crete into six provinces, or sestieri, was
based on the similar system which still exists at Venice, and local
patriotism was stimulated by the selection of colonists for each Cretan
sestiere from the same division of the metropolis. The government of
the colony was conducted by a governor, resident at Candia, with the
title of duke, who, like most colonial officials of the suspicious republic,
held office for only two years, by two councillors, and by a greater and
lesser council of the colonists.
Theobald (Thibaut) III, Count of Champagne, as leader. The suggested
expedition coincided so entirely with the desires of Pope Innocent III
that he encouraged it with all his might. At his call, Fulk, parish priest
of Neuilly in France, and Abbot Martin of Pairis in Germany, began a
series of sermons, which by their fervour easily persuaded the mass of the
faithful to enlist in the Crusade. No doubt the Western sovereigns inter-
vened only indirectly in the preparation and direction of the expedition,
Philip Augustus being engaged in his struggle with John Lackland, and
Philip of Swabia entirely engrossed in disputing the Empire with Otto
of Brunswick; the Crusade was essentially a feudal enterprise, led by an
oligarchy of great barons, and, even at first, partly inspired by worldly
aspirations and material interests. In this particular the fourth Holy
War differed greatly from the previous ones. “For many of the crusaders,”
says Luchaire, “it was above all a business matter. ” And this consideration
will perhaps help us to a better understanding of the character which
this undertaking quickly assumed.
For the transport of the crusaders to the East a fleet was necessary.
In February 1201 the barons sent delegates, of whom Villehardouin was
one, to Venice to procure the requisite naval force from the mighty re-
public. After somewhat troublesome negotiations, recorded for us by
Villehardouin, a treaty was concluded in April 1201, whereby in return
for a sum of 85,000 marks of silver the Venetians agreed to supply the
crusaders by 28 June 1202 with the ships and provisions necessary for
the transport of their army overseas ;. Venice moreover joined in the
enterprise, astutely realising the advantage to be gained by guiding and
directing the expedition. The Doge, Enrico Dandolo, solemnly assumed
the Cross at St Mark's, and in return the crusaders promised to assign
half of their conquests to Venice.
Most of the knights regarded Syria as the goal of the expedition and
cherished the ambition of reconquering the Holy Land. The great
barons, on the other hand, wished to strike at the heart of the Muslim
power, i. e. Egypt. And this divergence of views heavily handicapped the
whole Crusade. It has been asserted that the Venetians, who were bound
1
CH. XIV.
## p. 416 (#458) ############################################
416
The Crusaders and Venice
by treaties with the Sultan of Egypt and did not wish to compromise
their commercial interests, were from the first hostile to the expedition,
and sought means of diverting the crusaders from their path, thus be-
traying Christendom. There is nothing to prove that they planned this
deliberately, but it is obvious that the stiff contract of April 1201
rendered the Christian army dependent on the republic.
The crusaders slowly prepared to cross the Alps. Meanwhile the
death of Theobald of Champagne had obliged them to find another
leader. On the recommendation of the King of France, an Italian baron
was chosen, Boniface, Marquess of Montferrat, whose brothers had played
a great part in the East, both Latin and Byzantine. At Soissons on
16 August 1201 he was acclaimed by the barons, after which he betook
himself to Germany, where he spent part of the winter with Philip of
Swabia, his intimate friend; and to this visit great importan
ultimate fate of the Crusade has sometimes been attributed. Meanwhile
the army was mustering at Venice, where it was assembled in July-
August 1202. But the crusaders had only paid the Venetians a small
part of the sum agreed upon as payment for the voyage, and it was im-
possible for them to collect the remainder. Interned in the island of
St Niccolò di Lido, harassed by demands from the Venetian merchants
and threats that their supplies would be cut off if the money were not
forthcoming, the crusaders were finally obliged to accept the doge's
proposal that they should be granted a respite if they helped the republic
to reconquer the city of Zara, which had been taken by the Hungarians.
In spite of the indignant protests of Innocent III and his legate at an
attack directed against a Christian city and a crusading ruler, the enter-
prise had to be undertaken in order to satisfy the Venetian demands. The
barons unwillingly agreed to engage in it (September 1202); and on 8
November 1202 the fleet sailed amidst general rejoicings. On 10 November
Zara was attacked, and surrendered in five days, when the Venetians
destroyed it utterly. It was in vain that Innocent III threatened and ex-
communicated the Venetians. The crusaders were now preoccupied by
considerations of greater importance, which diverted the Crusade to a
new objective. It had been undertaken with the object of delivering
Jerusalem, or attacking Egypt; it ended in the conquest of Constantinople.
For over a century the West had for many reasons been casting looks
of hate and envy towards Byzantium. The Norman Kings of Sicily and
their German successor, the Emperor Henry VI, had several times
directed their dreams of conquest towards the Greek Empire. The
leaders of the various crusades, indignant at the treachery and ill-will of
the Byzantines, had more than once contemplated taking Constantinople
and destroying the monarchy. Finally the Venetians, who had for a
century been masters of the commerce with the Levant and were anxious
to keep for themselves the fine markets of the East, were becoming un-
easy, both at the increasing animosity displayed by the Greeks, and at
## p. 417 (#459) ############################################
The diversion of the Crusade to Constantinople
417
the rivalry of the other maritime cities of Italy. In the course of the
twelfth century they had several times been obliged to defend their posi-
tion and privileges by force of arms; therefore their politicians, and
especially the Doge Enrico Dandolo, were considering whether the easiest
way of resolving the problem and securing the commercial prosperity of
the republic in the East would not be to conquer the Byzantine Empire
and establish on its ruins a colonial Venetian empire. All these various
causes, unrealised ambitions of conquest, old accumulated grudges against
the Greeks, threatened economic interests, almost inevitably led to the
diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople; all that was necessary
was that an opportunity should offer itself.
This opportunity occurred in the course of 1202. The Basileus
reigning in Constantinople, Alexius Angelus, had dethroned his brother
Isaac in 1195, and had cast the deposed monarch and his young son
Alexius into prison. The latter succeeded in escaping and came to
Germany, either at the end of 1201 or else in the spring of 1202,
to seek the help of his brother-in-law, Philip of Swabia, husband of
his sister Irene. But Philip had no means of giving direct support to
the young prince. Did he arrange with Boniface of Montferrat, or with
the Venetians, who were interested in re-opening the Eastern question,
that the crusading army, then inactive at Venice, should be utilised
against Byzantium? Scholars of to-day have devoted much discussion to
this very obscure historical point. It has been suggested that Philip of
Swabia, deeply interested in his young brother-in-law, and moreover
cherishing, like his brother Henry VI, personal ambitions with regard to
the East, immediately on the arrival of Alexius agreed with Boniface of
Montferrat that the Crusade should be diverted to Constantinople. It
has been suggested that he hoped by this means to checkmate the Papacy,
and, by threatening to ruin the projected Crusade, force Innocent III to
seek a reconciliation with him. The question has also been raised whether
the Venetians had long premeditated their attack on Zara, and whether
or not they had agreed with the Marquess of Montferrat that the fleet
should next set sail for Byzantium; in a word, whether the diversion of
the Crusade sprang from fortuitous causes, or was the result of deep
intrigues and premeditated designs. “This," says Luchaire wisely, “will
never be known, and science has something better to do than interminably
to discuss an insoluble problem. ” All that can be said is that the arrival
of young Alexius in the West suited the policy of the Doge Enrico
Dandolo admirably, and that the latter used it with supreme ability to
insist on an attempt upon Byzantium against the wishes of some of the
crusaders, thereby ensuring enormous advantages to his country.
Even before leaving Venice in September 1202 the leaders of the
Crusade had received messengers from the Greek claimant, and had
entered into negotiations with Philip of Swabia. After the capture of
Zara, envoys from the German king and his young brother-in-law brought
27
C. MED. H. VOL. IV, CA, XIV.
## p. 418 (#460) ############################################
418
Arrival at Constantinople
them much more definite proposals. In return for the help to be given
him in recapturing Constantinople, Alexius promised the crusaders
to pay the balance still owing to the Venetians, to provide them with
the money and supplies necessary for conquering Egypt, to assist them
by sending a contingent of 10,000 men, to maintain five hundred
knights to guard the Holy Land, and, finally, to bring about religious
reunion with Rome. It was a tempting offer, and, under pressure from
the Venetians and Montferrat, the leading barons decided to accept it.
No doubt a certain number of knights protested and left the army,
starting for Syria direct. It was represented to the majority that the
expedition to Constantinople in no way superseded the original plan,
that, in fact, it would facilitate its execution, that moreover it would be
a meritorious act and one pleasing to God to restore the legitimate heir
to the throne; it is also clear that at this time no one contemplated the
destruction of the Greek Empire. Whatever their real wishes, the majority
allowed themselves to be persuaded. On 25 April 1203 Alexius joined
Montferrat and Dandolo at Zara, and at Corfù in May was signed the
definitive treaty which established the diversion of the great enterprise.
The Pope, solicitous as always that the Crusade should not fall to pieces,
allowed matters to go their own way. On 25 May the crusading fleet
left Corfù, and on 24 June 1203 it appeared outside Constantinople.
Every one knows the celebrated passage in which Villehardouin
describes the impressions which the crusaders experienced at first sight
of the great Byzantine city. “Now wit ye well that they gazed at
Constantinople, those who had never seen it; for they had not dreamed
that there was in all the world so rich a city, when they beheld the high
walls and the mighty towers by which she was enclosed all round, and
those rich palaces and those great churches, of which there were so many
that none might believe it if he had not seen it with his own eyes, and
the length and breadth of the city, which was sovereign among all. And
wit ye well that there was no man so bold that he did not tremble; and
this was not wonderful ; for never was so great a matter undertaken by
any man since the world was created. ”ı
The crusaders had expected that the Greeks would welcome with
enthusiasm the monarch whom they had come to restore. But on the
contrary every one rallied round Alexius III, who was regarded as the
defender of national independence. The Latins were therefore obliged to
resort to force. They stormed the tower of Galata, forced the chain
across the harbour, and entered the Golden Horn; then on 17 July 1203
they assaulted the town by land and sea. Alexius III, realising his
defeat, fled ; his victims, Isaac and the young Alexius, were restored to
the throne; on 1 August they were solemnly crowned at St Sophia in
the presence of the Latin barons.
1 Villehardouin, ed. Wailly, N. de, ch. 128.
## p. 419 (#461) ############################################
Breach with the Byzantine government
419
pass
The new sovereigns received the Latins “as benefactors and preservers
of the Empire"; they hastened to carry out the promises they had made,
and lavished on them the wealth of the capital, thereby only increasing
the covetousness of the crusaders, which was already excited. This
friendship did not last long. Torn between the demands of his allies and
the hostility of the national party, which accused him of having betrayed
Byzantium to aliens, the young Alexius IV was soon unable to fulfil his
promises. Urged by the Venetians, the Latins had decided to the
winter season in Constantinople, but they had made the mistake of
evacuating the capital after an occupation of a few days, and the insolence
of the Greeks had been thereby greatly increased. Finally Dandolo, who
during the temporary absence of Montferrat was in command, seized the
opportunity of multiplying difficulties and preparing a breach by his
unreasonableness. In these circumstances a catastrophe was inevitable.
There were affrays and riots, followed by a revolution. In February 1204
the son-in-law of the Emperor Alexius III, Alexius Ducas, nicknamed
Mourtzouphlos, the leader of the national party, caused the downfall of
the two weak Emperors who were incapable of resisting the demands of
the crusaders; and a few days later Alexius IV was strangled in prison.
Henceforth any agreement was impossible. The only means of realising
the great hopes inspired by the capture of Constantinople, ensuring the
success of the Crusade, and attaining the union of the Churches, was to
seize Constantinople and keep it. The Venetians especially insisted on
the necessity of finishing the work and founding a Latin Empire; and
in the month of March 1204 the crusaders agreed on the manner in
which they should divide the future conquest. The French and the
Venetians were to share equally in the booty of Constantinople. An
assembly of six Venetians and six Frenchmen were to elect the Emperor,
to whom was to be assigned a quarter of the conquered territory. The
other three quarters were to go, half to the Venetians, half to the crusaders.
Dandolo succeeded in arranging everything to the advantage of Venice.
The city of St Mark obtained a promise that she should receive the lion's
share of the booty by way of indemnity for what was due to her, that all
her commercial privileges should be preserved, and that the party which
did not provide the Emperor (a privilege to which Venice attached no
importance) should receive the Patriarchate of Constantinople and should
occupy St Sophia. Moreover the doge arranged matters so that the new
Empire, feudally organised, should be weak as opposed to Venice. Having
thus ordered all things “to the honour of God, of the Pope, and of
the Empire,” the crusaders devoted themselves to the task of taking
Constantinople.
The first assault on 9 April 1204 failed. The attack on 12 April was
more successful. The outer wall was taken, and while a vast conflagration
broke out in the town, Mourtzouphlos, losing courage, fled. On the morrow,
the leaders of the army established themselves in the imperial palaces
CH. XIV.
27-2
## p. 420 (#462) ############################################
;)
420
Sack of Constantinople
and allowed their soldiers to pillage Constantinople for three days. The
crusaders treated the city with appalling cruelty. Murder, rape, sacrilege,
robbery, were let loose. “These defenders of Christ,” wrote Pope
Innocent III himself, “who should have turned their swords only against
the infidels, have bathed in Christian blood. They have respected neither
religion, nor age, nor sex. They have committed in open day adultery,
fornication, and incest. Matrons and virgins, even those vowed to God,
were delivered to the ignominious brutality of the soldiery. And it was
not enough for them to squander the treasures of the Empire, and to rob
private individuals, whether great or small. They have dared to lay their
hands on the wealth of the churches. They have been seen tearing from
the altars the silver adornments, breaking them in fragments over which
they quarrelled, violating the sanctuaries, carrying away the icons, crosses,
and relics. ” St Sophia was the scene of disgraceful proceedings: a drunken
soldiery might be seen destroying the sacred books, treading pious images
underfoot, polluting the costly materials, drinking from the consecrated
vessels, distributing sacerdotal ornaments and jewels torn from the altars
to courtesans and camp-followers; a prostitute seated herself on the throne
of the Patriarch and there struck up a ribald song. The most famous
works of art were destroyed, bronze statues melted down and used for
coinage, and, among so many horrors, the Greek historian Nicetas, who
in an eloquent lament described and mourned the ruin of his country,
declared that even the Saracens would have been more merciful than
these men, who yet claimed to be soldiers of Christ.
The Latins themselves at last experienced some feelings of shame.
The leaders of the army took severe measures to restore order. But
pillage was followed by methodical and organised extortion. Under pain
of excommunication all stolen objects must be brought to a common
store; a systematic search for treasure and relics was instituted, and the
spoils were divided between the conquerors. “The booty was so great,"
writes Villehardouin, “ that no man could give you a count thereof, gold
and silver, plate and precious stones, samite and silks, and garments
of fur, vair and silver-gray and ermine, and all the riches ever found
on earth. And Geoffrey de Villehardouin, marshal of Champagne, truly
bears witness, according to his knowledge and in truth, that never, since
the world was created, was so much taken in a city. " The total share of
the crusaders—three-eighths-seems to have amounted to 400,000 marks
of silver. The churches of the West were enriched with sacred spoils
from Constantinople, and the Venetians, better informed than the rest
as to the wealth of Byzantium, knew very well how to make their
choice.
After the booty, there was still the Empire to be divided. On 9 May
1204 the electoral college assembled to elect the new sovereign. One
man seemed destined to occupy the throne: the leader of the Crusade,
1 Villehardouin, ch. 259.
:
## p. 421 (#463) ############################################
Partition of the Empire
421
the Marquess Boniface of Montferrat, who was popular with the Lombards
because of his nationality, with the Germans because of his relationship
to Philip of Swabia, and even with the Greeks because of the marriage
he had recently contracted with Margaret of Hungary, widow of Isaac
Angelus. But for these very reasons, Montferrat was likely to prove too
powerful a sovereign, and consequently a source of uneasiness to Venice,
which meant to derive great advantages for herself from the Crusade.
Boniface was therefore passed over in favour of a less important noble,
Baldwin, Count of Flanders. On 16 May the latter was crowned with
great pomp in St Sophia. And those who admired the magnificent
ceremonial displayed in these festivities might well believe that nothing
had changed in Byzantium since the glorious days of the Comneni.
But this was only a semblance, as was obvious a little later when the
final division of the Empire took place. As his personal dominions, the
new Emperor was awarded the territory which stretched west and east of
the sea of Marmora, from Tzurulum (Chorlu) to the Black Sea in Europe;
and, in Asia Minor, Bithynia and Mysia to the vicinity of Nicaea ; some
of the larger islands of the Archipelago were also assigned to him, Samo-
thrace, Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Cos. This was little enough, and even
in his capital the Emperor was not sole master. By a somewhat singular
arrangement he only possessed five-eighths of the city; the remainder,
including St Sophia, belonged to the Venetians, who had secured the
lion's share of the gains. They took everything which helped them to
maintain their maritime supremacy, Epirus, Acarnania, Aetolia, the
Ionian islands, the whole of the Peloponnesus, Gallipoli, Rodosto, Hera-
clea in the sea of Marmora and Hadrianople in the interior, several of
the islands in the Archipelago, Naxos, Andros, Euboea, and finally
Crete, which Boniface of Montferrat relinquished to them. The doge
assumed the title of “despot”; he was dispensed from paying homage to
the Emperor, and proudly styled himself “lord of one fourth and a half
of the Greek Empire. ” A Venetian, Thomas Morosini, was raised to the
patriarchate, and became the head of the Latin Church in the new Empire.
Venice, indeed, was not to hold in her own hand all the territory granted
to her. In Epirus she was content to hold Durazzo, and, in the Pelopon-
nesus, Coron and Modon ; she granted other districts as fiefs to various
great families of her aristocracy; Corfù and most of the islands of the
Archipelago thus became Venetian seigniories (the duchy of Naxos,
marquessate of Cerigo, grand-duchy of Lemnos, duchy of Crete, etc. ).
But, by means of all this and the land she occupied directly, she secured
for herself unquestioned supremacy in the Levantine seas. The Empire
was very weak compared with the powerful republic.
Nor was this all. Some compensation had to be given to Boniface of
Montferrat for having missed the imperial dignity. He was promised
Asia Minor and continental Greece, but finally, despite the Emperor, he
CH. XIV.
## p. 422 (#464) ############################################
422
Assises of Romania
exchanged Asia Minor for Macedonia and the north of Thessaly,
which formed the kingdom of Thessalonica held by him as vassal of
the Empire. The counts and barons had next to be provided for, and
a whole crop of feudal seigniories blossomed forth in the Byzantine
world. Henry of Flanders, the Emperor's brother, became lord of
Adramyttium, Louis of Blois was made Duke of Nicaea, Renier of Trit
Duke of Philippopolis, and Hugh of St Pol lord of Demotika. On one
day, 1 October 1204, the Emperor knighted six hundred and distributed
fiefs to them. Some weeks later other seigniories came into being in
Thessaly and the parts of Greece conquered by Montferrat. The Palla-
vicini became marquesses of Boudonitza, the La Roche family first barons,
and subsequently dukes, of Athens; Latin nobles settled in Euboea, over
whom Venice quickly established her suzerainty; finally, in the Pelopon-
nesus, William of Champlitte and Geoffrey of Villehardouin, the historian's
nephew, founded the principality of Achaia.
In this new society, the crusaders introduced all the Western institu-
tions to the Byzantine East. The Latin Empire was an absolutely feudal
State, whose legislation, modelled on that of the Latin kingdom of
Jerusalem, was contained in the Assises of Romania. Elected by the
barons, the Emperor was only the foremost baron, in spite of the cere-
mony with which he had surrounded himself and the great officers of his
court. To render the Empire, thus born of the Crusade, living and
durable, a strong government and a perfectly centralised State were
necessary, whereas Baldwin was almost powerless. Boniface of Montferrat
in particular was a most unruly subject, and, to impose on him the
homage due to his suzerain, Baldwin was obliged to make war on him
and to occupy Thessalonica for a while (August 1204); and in these civil
disorders there was danger, for, as is said by Villehardouin,“if God had
not been pitiful, all that had been gained would have been lost, and
Christendom would have been exposed to the peril of death. ” Matters
were arranged more or less satisfactorily; but the emergency had clearly
demonstrated the Emperor's weakness. As to the vassals of the outlying
parts of Greece, the dukes of Athens and princes of Achaia, they gener-
ally took no interest in the affairs of the Empire. The position with
the Venetians was even more difficult, engrossed as they were in their own
economic interests and impatient of all control. Romania was their
chattel, and they meant to keep the Emperor dependent on them. By
the agreement of October 1205, a council was established, in which
sat the Venetian podestà and the great Frank barons, to assist the
Emperor; it combined the right of superintending military operations
with judicial powers, and had the privilege of controlling the sovereign's
decisions. A High Court of Justice composed of Latins and Venetians
similarly regulated everything which affected the relations between
vassals and suzerain. Furthermore the Venetians were exempted from all
taxation.
## p. 423 (#465) ############################################
Weakness of the Latin Empire
423
Thus the “new France," as it was called by the Pope, which had
come into being in the East, was singularly weak owing to the differences
between the conquerors, and Innocent III, who at first hailed with
enthusiasm “the miracle wrought by God to the glory of His name, the
honour and benefit of the Roman See, the advantage of Christendom,"
very soon experienced a grave disillusion. Many other difficulties, indeed,
endangered the new Empire. The manner in which the Latins had
treated Constantinople was ill adapted to gain the friendship of the
Greeks; the fundamental misunderstanding between victors and van-
quished could not fail to become intensified. It was impossible to
establish agreement between the two races, the two Churches, the two
civilisations. The brutal methods of conquest and the inevitable confisca-
tions (from the first the Latins had seized all the property of the Greek
Church) did not conduce to settle difficulties and to quell hatred.
There were, indeed, some Latin princes of greater political insight,
-Montferrat in Thessalonica, Villehardouin in Achaia, and Baldwin's
successor, Henry of Flanders—who sought to conciliate the vanquished
by assuring them that their rights and property would be respected,
But, except in the Peloponnesus, the results obtained were disappointing.
With the exception of some great nobles, such as Theodore Branas, who
adhered to the new government, the great mass of the Greek nation
remained irreconcilable, and the patriotic party felt deep contempt for
those “servile souls whom,” as Nicetas wrote, “ambition armed against
their country, for those traitors, who to secure some territory, had sub-
mitted to the conquerors,” when they should have wished to remain
eternally at war with the Latins.
The principal effect of the taking of Constantinople by the crusaders
was to arouse patriotic sentiment in the Greeks and to re-awaken in
them the sense of nationality. Round the son-in-law of the Emperor
Alexius III, Theodore Lascaris, had collected any of the Byzantine aristo-
cracy and leading Orthodox clergy that had escaped disaster, and in 1206
the Greek prince caused himself to be solemnly crowned as Emperor of
the Romans. Other Greek states rose from the ruins of the Empire.
Some princes of the family of the Comneni founded an Empire at
Trebizond, which lasted until the fifteenth century. In Epirus, a bastard
of the house of Angelus, Michael Angelus Connenus, established a
Despotat” which reached from Naupactus to Durazzo; and other
seigniories were founded by Gabalas at Rhodes, by Mankaphas at Phila-
delphia, and in Greece by Leo Sgouros. Of these States, two were specially
formidable, Epirus which threatened Thessalonica, and Nicaea which
aspired to conquer Asia Minor preparatory to regaining Constantinople.
Herein were many sources of weakness for the Latin Empire. The
Bulgarian peril added yet another cause for uneasiness. Since the end
of the twelfth century an independent state had arisen in Bulgaria, at
whose head was the Tsar Kalojan, or Johannitsa (1197–1207), who styled
CH. XIV.
## p. 424 (#466) ############################################
424
Defeat and death of the Emperor Baldwin I
himself Tsar of the Wallachians and the Bulgars. He was hostile to the
Byzantines and quite disposed to be friendly with the Latins. He was
also on good terms with Rome, and had even been crowned by a legate
of Innocent III. When, therefore, he heard of the taking of Constanti-
nople, he was quite ready to come to terms with the crusaders. But they
took a high hand, and summoned the Bulgarian Tsar to restore the
“portion of the Greek Empire unjustly retained by him. ” This was a
grave mistake, and was recognised as such by Pope Innocent III. Had
the Latins been on peaceful terms with the Bulgars, they might have
had some chance of opposing the Greeks, but their methods were such as
to unite all their adversaries against them.
Without money, without authority, almost without an army, what
could the weak sovereign of the new Latin Empire do, when faced by the
hostility of his Greek subjects and of the external enemies, Byzantines
and Bulgars, who were threatening him ? It was in vain that he posed
as the successor of the Basileus, and sometimes caused uneasiness to the
Pope by his daring claims on Church property; his position was pre-
carious. The Latin Empire, offspring of the Fourth Crusade, lasted
barely half a century (1204–1261), and this short-lived and fragile crea-
tion embittered yet more the antagonism which separated the Greeks
and the Latins.
Nevertheless, in the first period of confusion which followed the taking
of Constantinople, the Latins met with success everywhere. Boniface of
Montferrat made a magnificent sally across Thessaly and Central Greece
which carried him to Athens and to the very walls of Corinth and
Nauplia (the end of 1204-May 1205). About the same time Henry of
Flanders undertook the conquest of Asia Minor (November 1204). With
the assistance of the Comneni of Trebizond, who were jealous of the
new Empire of Nicaea, he defeated the troops of Theodore Lascaris at
Poimanenon (December 1204), and seized the most important cities
of Bithynia—Nicomedia, Abydos, Adramyttium, and Lopadium. The
barely-established Greek State seemed on the point of destruction, when
suddenly the Frank troops were recalled to Europe by a grave emergency,
and Theodore Lascaris was saved.
The Greek population of Thrace, discontented with the Latin rule,
had revolted, and, at their call, the Bulgarian Tsar Johannitsa had
invaded the Empire. The Emperor Baldwin and the aged Doge Dan-
dolo advanced boldly with the weak forces at their disposal to meet the
enemy. On 14 April 1205, in the plains of Hadrianople, the Latin
army was defeated. Baldwin, who was taken prisoner by the Bulgars,
disappeared mysteriously a few weeks later, and Dandolo led all that
remained of the army back to Constantinople, where he died and was
buried with solemnity in St Sophia, his conquest. It seemed as though
in this formidable crisis the Empire must perish, but it was saved by the
energetic measures of Henry of Flanders, Baldwin's brother.
## p. 425 (#467) ############################################
Accession of Henry of Flanders: his early successes 425
Chosen by the barons first as regent of Romania, then crowned as
Emperor on 21 August 1206, Henry of Flanders, by his courage, energy,
and intelligence, was quite equal to the task imposed on him. He was
able not only to encounter the Bulgarian invasion and repel it, but also
to restore unity among the Latins, and even to secure the submission of
the Greeks; during his ten years' reign (1206-1216) he was the real
founder of the Latin Empire.
The Greeks, indeed, began to be uneasy at the violence and brutality
of their terrible Bulgarian ally. Johannitsa pillaged everything, burnt
everything, and massacred every one, in his path. He longed to avenge
the defeats which in bygone days Basil II had inflicted on his nation,
and, just as the Byzantine Emperor had styled himself the “ slayer of
Bulgars ” (Bulgaroctonos), so he proudly flaunted the title of “ slayer of
Romans” (Romaioctonos). The horrified Greeks therefore soon reverted
to the side of the Latins. The Emperor Henry knew how to profit by
these sentiments. He secured the assistance of Theodore Branas, one of
the great Byzantine leaders, by granting him Demotika and Hadrianople
as fiefs (October 1205). In person he waged victorious warfare with the
Bulgars. He relieved Renier of Trit, who was besieged in Stenimachus,
and retook Hadrianople (1206). Finally, to the great advantage of the
Empire, he became reconciled with Boniface of Montferrat, whose
daughter Agnes was betrothed to him. Undoubtedly the death of the
marquess-king, killed in battle in 1207, and the Bulgarian attack on
Thessalonica, were fresh causes of disquietude. Fortunately for the Latin
Empire, Johannitsa was assassinated outside the city he was besieging
(October 1207). The Greek legend assigns the credit for his death to
the saintly patron of the city, St Demetrius, who, mounted on his war-
horse and armed with his invincible spear, is said to have stricken down
the terrible enemy of Hellenism in his own camp. It is unnecessary to
add that it happened in a less miraculous manner. But the death of the
Bulgarian Tsar delivered the Empire from a great danger. His successor,
Boril, after his defeat in 1208 at Philippopolis, soon made peace, which
was sealed in 1215 by the marriage of the Emperor Henry with the
Tsar's daughter.
About the same time matters improved in Asia Minor. In 1206, at
the instigation of David Comnenus, Emperor of Trebizond, who was
uneasy at the aggrandisement of Theodore Lascaris and wrathful at the
imperial title recently assumed by the Despot of Nicaea, the Latins
resumed the offensive in Asia Minor and seized Cyzicus and Nicomedia,
which they retained until 1207. But the Bulgarian danger necessitated
the concentration of all the forces of the Empire; in order to be able to
recall all his troops from Asia Minor, Henry concluded a two years'
armistice with Lascaris. The struggle was resumed as soon as the Bul-
garian peril had been averted. Lascaris, having vanquished the Turks
on the Maeander (1210), became a source of uneasiness to the Latins, as
CH. XIV.
## p. 426 (#468) ############################################
426
Henry's internal government
he contemplated attacking Constantinople. The Emperor boldly took
the offensive, crossed to Asia, and on 13 October 1211 overwhelmingly
defeated the Nicaean sovereign on the river Luparkos (Rhyndakos). Las-
caris determined to make peace. By the treaty of 1212 he relinquished
to the Latins the north-west of Asia Minor, all the western part of Mysia
and Bithynia.
While Henry thus waged victorious warfare with his external enemies,
he also strengthened the imperial authority at home. On the death of
Boniface of Montferrat, the throne of Thessalonica passed to his infant
son Demetrius, in whose name the government was carried on by the
Queen-regent, Margaret of Hungary, and Count Hubert of Biandrate,
Baile or guardian of the kingdom. The Lombard party, whose leader
Hubert was, was unfriendly to the queen-regent, and even more hostile to
the French and the Emperor, whose suzerainty they wished to repudiate.
Henry had no hesitation in marching on Thessalonica, and in spite of
Biandrate's resistance he succeeded in occupying the city; then, sup-
ported by the queen-regent, he enforced the recognition of his suzerainty,
settled the succession which had been left open by the death of Boniface,
and caused the young Demetrius to be crowned (January 1209). Henry,
indeed, had still much to do in combating the intrigues of Biandrate,
whom he arrested, and in neutralising the hostility of the Lombard
nobles of Seres and Christopolis, who intended to bar the Emperor's
return to Constantinople. He had, however, solidly established the
prestige of the Empire in Thessalonica. Thence he proceeded to Thessaly,
and, after having crushed the resistance of the Lombard nobles at Larissa,
at the beginning of 1209 in the parliament of Ravennika he received
the homage of the French barons of the south, above all of the Megaskyr
of Athens and of the Prince of Achaia, who since the death of Boni-
face wished to be immediate vassals of the Empire because of their
hatred of the Lombards. Henry displayed no less energy in religious
matters, and his anti-clerical policy, whereby he refused to return ecclesi-
astical property seized by laymen, caused displeasure to Innocent III
more than once. The concordat signed at the second parliament of
Ravennika (May 1210) seemed for a time to have arranged matters.
The barons undertook to return any Church property illegally detained
by them; the clergy promised to hold these from the civil State, and to
pay the land-tax for them. But this attempt at an agreement led to no
lasting results. Henry also insisted on opposing the claims of the
Patriarch Morosini to govern the Latin Church despotically, and at
Morosini's death in 1211 he secured the election to the patriarchate of
a candidate chosen by himself. He was equally careful to protect his
Greek subjects against the demands of the Latin Church. Unfortunately
this monarch, the best of the Emperors whom fate gave to the Latin
Empire of Constantinople, died, perhaps of poison, on 11 June 1216, when
he was still under forty. This was an irreparable loss for the Empire;
## p. 427 (#469) ############################################
Decline of the Empire after Henry's death
427
henceforward, under the weak successors of the Emperor Henry, the
State founded by the crusaders moved slowly towards its ruin.
Yolande, sister of the two first Latin Emperors, was married to
Peter of Courtenay, Count of Auxerre, and he was elected Emperor by
the barons in preference to Andrew, King of Hungary, a nephew by
marriage of Baldwin and Henry. Peter set out for Constantinople. But
in the course of an expedition which he undertook in Epirus, with the
object of re-conquering Durazzo which had been taken from the Venetians
by the Greeks, he was betrayed into the hands of Theodore Angelus,
Despot of Epirus, and died soon afterwards in his prison (1217). The
Empress Yolande, who had reached the shores of the Bosphorus in
safety, then assumed the regency provisionally in the name of the missing
Emperor, and, with the help of Conon of Béthune, one of the heroes of
the Crusade, she governed for two years (1217–1219). But a man was
needed to defend the Empire. The barons elected Philip, the eldest son
of Peter and Yolande, who declined the honour offered to him. His
younger brother, Robert of Courtenay, was then chosen in his place; he
set out in 1220, and was crowned by the Patriarch on 25 March 1221.
He reigned for seven years (1221–1228); after him his throne passed to
his brother, Baldwin II, a boy of eleven, during whose minority (1228-
1237) the government was entrusted to John of Brienne, formerly King
of Jerusalem, a brave knight but an absolutely incapable statesman.
Under these feeble governments which succeeded each other for twenty
years, Greeks and Bulgars found an easy victim in the exhausted Latin
Empire.
In 1222 a grave event took place. The Latin kingdom of Thessa-
lonica succumbed to the attacks of the Despot of Epirus. Theodore
Ducas Angelus had succeeded his brother Michael in 1214, and by a
series of successful undertakings he had, at the expense of both the
Greeks and Bulgars, greatly augmented the State he had inherited. He
had retaken Durazzo (1215) and Corfù from the Venetians, and occupied
Ochrida and Pelagonia; he appeared to the Greeks as the saviour and
restorer of Hellenism. In 1222 he attacked Thessalonica, where the
youthful Demetrius, son of Boniface of Montferrat, was now reigning;
he took the city easily, and was then crowned Emperor by the Metro-
politan of Ochrida. In the ensuing years (1222–1231) the new Basileus
extended his sway at the expense of the Bulgars to Macedonia and
Thrace, to the neighbourhood of Hadrianople, Philippopolis, and Christo-
polis. In 1224 he attacked the Latin Empire, and defeated Robert of
Courtenay's troops at Seres.
At the very time when the peril which threatened it in Europe was
thus increasing, the Latin Empire lost Asia Minor. When Theodore
Lascaris (1206-1222), first Emperor of Nicaea, died, he left a greatly
increased and solidly established State to his son-in-law, John Vatatzes.
CH. XIV.
## p. 428 (#470) ############################################
428
Wars with Greeks and Bulgarians
He had, by victories over the Comneni of Trebizond and over the Seljūq
Turks, advanced his frontiers to the upper streams of the Sangarius
and the Maeander. Vatatzes, who was as good a general as he was an
able administrator, during his long reign (1222-1254) completed the
work of Lascaris, and bestowed a final period of prosperity on Greek
Asia Minor. By 1224 he had recaptured from the Latins almost all the
territory they still held in Anatolia, and in a fierce battle at Poimanenon
he defeated their army commanded by Macaire of St Menehould. At the
same time his fleet seized Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Icaria, and Cos, and
compelled the Greek ruler of Rhodes to recognise Vatatzes as suzerain.
Before long the Emperor of Nicaea, who was jealous of the success of
the new Greek monarch of Thessalonica and suspicious as to his aims,
despatched troops to Europe; Madytus and Gallipoli were taken and
sacked, and, at the call of the revolted Greeks in Hadrianople, the army
of the Nicaean sovereign occupied the city for a time (1224). There
they encountered the soldiers of the Emperor of Thessalonica, to whom
they had to yield the city. Unfortunately, the Latins were incapable of
profiting by the quarrels of the two Greek Emperors, who fell out over
their spoils.
They were no better able to profit by the chances offered them by
Bulgaria. Since 1218 John Asên had been Tsar at Trnovo (1218_1241).
He had married a Latin princess related to the Courtenay family, and,
like Johannitsa in bygone days, was quite disposed to side with the
Latins against the Greeks; when the Emperor Robert was deposed in
1228, he would gladly have accepted the office of regent during the
minority of Baldwin II, as many wished, and he promised to help the
monarchy to regain from Theodore Angelus all that had been lost in
the West. The foolish obstinacy of the Latin clergy, who were violently
opposed to an Orthodox prince, wrecked the negotiations. Thus vanished
the last chance of salvation for the Latin Empire.
The Bulgarian Tsar, justly indignant, became a relentless enemy to
the Latins, to the great advantage of the Greeks of Nicaea, to whom
he rendered yet another service; he conquered their European rival, the
Emperor of Thessalonica, whose ambition was becoming a source of
uneasiness to Bulgaria. In 1230 he attacked Theodore Angelus, defeated
him, and took him prisoner in the battle of Klokotinitza, forcing him to
renounce the throne. As is recorded in a triumphal inscription engraved
in this very year 1230 on the walls of the cathedral of Trnovo, he
annexed “all the country from Hadrianople to Durazzo, Greek territory,
Albanian territory, Serbian territory. ” The Empire of Thessalonica
was reduced to modest proportions (it only included Thessalonica itself
and Thessaly), and devolved on Manuel Angelus, Theodore's brother.
Thus all-powerful in Europe, John Asên joyfully accepted the pro-
posals of an alliance against the Latins made by John Vatatzes (1234).
The two families were united by the marriage of John Asen's daughter
## p. 429 (#471) ############################################
Reign of Baldwin II
429
to Vatatzes' son; and the two sovereigns met at Gallipoli, which the
Nicaean Emperor had taken from the Venetians in 1235, to arrange the
division of the Frank Empire. Encompassed on all sides, Constantinople
nearly succumbed in 1236 to the combined attack of its two adversaries.
But this time the West was roused by the greatness of the danger.
The Pisans, Genoese, and Venetians all sent their fleets to succour the
threatened capital; Geoffrey II, Prince of Achaia, brought a hundred
knights and eight hundred bowmen, and lent an annual subsidy of
22,000 hyperperi for the defence of the Empire. Thanks to these aids,
Constantinople was saved, and the Latin Empire survived another quarter
of a century. But it was a singularly miserable existence. During the
twenty-five years of his personal reign (1237–1261), Baldwin II, last Latin
Emperor of Constantinople, who had already visited Rome and Paris
in 1236, had to beg all over the Western world for help in men and
money, which he did not always get. To raise funds he was reduced
to pawning the most famous jewels in Constantinople, the crown of
thorns, a large piece of the true cross, the holy spear, the sponge, which
St Louis bought from him. And such was the distress of the wretched
Emperor that for his coinage the lead roofing had to be used, and to
warm him in winter the timbers of the imperial palace were chopped up.
Some rare successes indeed prolonged the life of the Empire. The Greco-
Bulgarian alliance was dissolved ; in 1240 Baldwin II recaptured Tzu-
rulum from the Greeks, and thus cleared the approaches to the capital
to a certain degree; in 1241 the death of John Asên began the decay
of the Bulgarian Empire. Nevertheless the days of the Latin State
were numbered. One question remained : would the Greek Empire of
Epirus or that of Nicaea have the honour of reconquering Constan-
tinople?
It was secured by Nicaea. While the Latin Empire was in its last
agony, John Vatatzes was succeeding in restoring Byzantine unity against
the aliens. He drove the Latins from their last possessions in Asia
Minor (1241); he gained the powerful support of the Western Emperor
Frederick II, whose daughter Constance he married (1244), and who,
out of hatred for the Pope, the protector of the Latin Empire, un-
hesitatingly abandoned Constantinople to the Greeks; he deprived the
Franks of the support of the Seljūq Sultan of Iconium (1244); and
he seized the Mongol invasion of Asia Minor as an opportunity of en-
larging his state at the expense of the Turks. He was specially active
in Europe. Since the year 1237, when Michael II Angelus (1237–1271)
had founded the despotat of Epirus in Albania at the expense of the
Empire of Thessalonica, anarchy had prevailed in the Greek States of
the West. In 1240, with the help of John Asên, the aged Theodore
Angelus had taken Thessalonica, overthrown his brother Manuel, and
caused his son John to be crowned as Emperor (1240-1244). Vatatzes took
advantage of this weakness. In 1242 he appeared outside Thessalonica
CH. XIV.
## p. 430 (#472) ############################################
430
Gradual advance of the Greeks
and forced John to renounce the title of Emperor, to content himself
with that of Despot, and to become vassal of Nicaea. In 1246 he
returned to the attack; this time he seized Thessalonica and expelled
the Despot Demetrius. Then he fell on the Bulgarians and took from
them a large part of Macedonia—Seres, Melnik, Skoplje, and other
places—and the following year he deprived the Latins of Vizye and Tzu-
rulum; finally, a family alliance united him to the only Greek prince
who still retained his independence in the West, Michael II, Despot of
Epirus. This ambitious and intriguing prince was doubtless about to
go to war with Nicaea in 1254. Nevertheless, when on 30 October 1254
Vatatzes died at Nymphaeum, the Empire of Nicaea, rich, powerful, and
prosperous, surrounded the poor remnants of the Latin Empire on all
sides. Only Constantinople remained to be conquered.
The final catastrophe was delayed for seven years by discords between
the Greeks. Theodore II Lascaris (1254-1258) had at one and the same
time to carry on war with the Despot of Epirus and to fight with the
Bulgars, who after the death of Vatatzes had considered the time
favourable for avenging their defeats. Theodore Lascaris routed them
at the pass of Rupel (1255); but it was only after the assassination of
their King Michael (1257) that he succeeded in imposing peace on
them. On the other hand, in spite of his great military and political
qualities, the new Greek Emperor was of a delicate constitution. The
field was therefore clear for the intrigues of ambitious men, and
especially for Michael Palaeologus, who, having married a princess of
the imperial family, openly aspired to the throne.
When by Theodore's premature death the throne passed to a child,
Michael had no difficulty in seizing the real power after the assassina-
tion of Muzalon the regent, nor a little later in superseding the
legitimate dynasty by causing himself to be crowned Emperor at Nicaea
on 1 January 1259. He soon justified this mean usurpation by the
victories he achieved.
He first brought the war with Michael II, Despot of Epirus, to a
successful conclusion. Michael II was a formidable enemy: he was the
ally of Manfred, King of Sicily, and of William of Villehardouin, Prince
of Achaia, who had both married daughters of the despot; he was
supported by the Albanians and the Serbs, and was very proud of the
successes he had secured; since the capture of Prilep (1258) he was
master of the whole of Macedonia, and was already threatening
Thessalonica. Michael Palaeologus boldly took the offensive, reconquered
Macedonia, and invaded Albania. In spite of the help brought by the
Prince of Achaia to his father-in-law, the army of Michael II was over-
whelmingly defeated at Pelagonia (1259). William of Villehardouin
himself fell into the hands of the Byzantines; and the Emperor seized
the opportunity to recover a part of the Peloponnesus. Henceforth the
despotat of Epirus was swallowed up by the Empire of Nicaea. The
## p. 431 (#473) ############################################
End of the Latin Empire
431
time had come when Michael Palaeologus was to restore Hellenism by
reconquering Constantinople.
In 1260 he crossed the Hellespont, took Selymbria and the other
strongholds still retained by the Latins outside the capital, and threatened
Galata. At the same time he very astutely utilised the rivalry of the
Venetians and Genoese to gain the alliance of the latter. On 13 March
1261, by the Treaty of Nymphaeum, he promised that, in return for
their help against Venice and their support against his other enemies, he
would grant them all the privileges enjoyed by the Venetians in the East.
The Genoese secured counting-houses at Thessalonica, Adramyttium,
Smyrna, Chios, and Lesbos ; they were to have the reversion of the
Venetian banks at Constantinople, Euboea, and Crete; the monopoly of
commerce in the Black Sea was assigned to them. At this price they
consented to betray Western Christendom.
Venice had realised, rather late in the day, the necessity of defending
the Latin Empire; since 1258 she had maintained a fleet of some im-
portance at Constantinople. But in July 1261 it happened that the
fleet had temporarily left the Golden Horn to attack the neighbouring
town of Daphnusia. One of Michael Palaeologus' generals, the Caesar
Alexius Strategopulus, seized the opportunity; on 25 July 1261, by a
lucky surprise, he captured the capital of the Latin Empire, almost
without resistance. Baldwin II had no alternative but to take to flight,
accompanied by the Latin Patriarch, the podestà, and the Venetian
colonists; on 15 August 1261 Michael Palaeologus made his solemn
entry into Constantinople, and placed the imperial crown on his head
in St Sophia.
Thus, after an existence of half a century, fell the State established
in Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade. Even though the Empire
had only an ephemeral existence, yet the East remained full of Latin
settlements. Venice, in spite of the efforts of her enemies, retained the
essential portions of her colonial empire in the Levant, Negropont, and
Crete, and the strong citadels of Modon and Coron; her patrician
families kept most of their seigniories in the Archipelago. So also did
the other Latin States in Greece born of the Crusade. Under the
government of the La Roche family, the duchy of Athens lasted until
1311; and although the disastrous battle of the Cephisus then transferred
it to the hands of the Catalans (1311-1334), who were superseded by
the Florentine family of Acciajuoli (1334-1456), the Byzantines never
regained possession of it. The principality of Achaia, under the govern-
ment of the three Villehardouins (1204–1278), was even more flourishing.
These settlements were really the most lasting results, within the Latin
Empire of Constantinople, of the Crusade of 1204.
CH. XIV.
## p. 432 (#474) ############################################
432
CHAPTER XV,
GREECE AND THE AEGEAN UNDER FRANK
AND VENETIAN DOMINATION (1204–1571).
At the time of the Latin conquest of Constantinople, the Byzantine
Empire no longer comprised the whole of the Balkan peninsula and the
Archipelago. A Serbian state, a Bosnian banat, and a revived Bulgarian
Empire had been recently formed in the north, while two of the Ionian
Islands - Cephalonia and Zante-already owned the Latin sway of
Matteo Orsini, an Apulian offshoot of the great Roman family, and
Corfù was threatened by the Genoese pirate, Leo Vetrano. In the
Levant, Cyprus, captured from the Greeks by Richard I, was already
governed by the second sovereign of the race of Lusignan, while Rhodes,
amidst the general confusion, was seized by a Greek magnate, Leo
Gabalâs. All the rest of South-Eastern Europe—Thrace, Macedonia,
Epirus, Greece proper, Crete and the islands of the Aegean-remained
to be divided and, if possible, occupied by the Latin conquerors of
Byzantium.
While the newly-created Latin Empire was formed almost wholly
outside the limits of Greece, the Greek lands in Europe were partitioned,
with the exception of three islands, between the Crusaders, whose leader
was Boniface, Marquess of Montferrat, and the Venetian Republic. The
marquess received Salonica, the second city of the Byzantine world, with
the title of king; and his kingdom, nominally dependent upon the Latin
Empire, embraced Macedonia, Thessaly, and much of continental Greece,
including Athens. The Venetians, with a keen eye to business, managed
to secure a large part of the Peloponnese and Epirus, the Cyclades and
Euboea, the Ionian Islands, and those of the Saronic Gulf, and had pur-
chased from the marquess on 12 August 1204 the great island of Crete,
which had been "given or promised ” to him by Alexius IV in the
previous year. Such was, on paper, the new arrangement of the classic
countries which it now remained to conquer.
The King of Salonica set out in the autumn of 1204 to subdue his
Greek dominions and to parcel them out, in accordance with the feudal
system, among the faithful followers of his fortunes. In northern
## p. 433 (#475) ############################################
Conquest of Athens and the Morea
433
Greece he met with no resistance, for the only man who could have
opposed him, Leo Sgourós the archon of Nauplia, fled from Thermo-
pylae before the harnessed Franks, and retreated to the strong natural
fortress of Acrocorinth. Larissa with Halmyrus became the fief of a
Lombard noble, Velestino that of a Rhenish count; while the com-
manding position of Boudonitza above the pass of Thermopylae was
entrusted to the Marquess Guido Pallavicini, whose ruined castle still
reminds us of the two centuries during which Italians were wardens of
the northern March of Greece. Another coign of vantage at the pass
of Graviá was assigned to two brothers of the famous Flemish house of
St Omer, while on the ruins of classic Amphissa Thomas de Stromoncourt
founded the barony of Sálona, so called from the city which had given
to Boniface his royal title.
Neither Thebes nor Athens resisted the
invaders; the patriotic Metropolitan, Michael Acominatus, unable to
bear the sight of Latin schismatics defiling the great cathedral of Our
Lady on the Acropolis, withdrew into exile ; a Latin archbishop ere
long officiated in the Parthenon ; a Burgundian noble, Othon de la
Roche, who was a trusted comrade of Boniface, became Sire, or, as his
Greek subjects called him, Megaskyr or “Great Lord,” of both Athens
and Thebes, with a territory that would have seemed large to the
Athenian statesmen of old. Then the King of Salonica and the Sire of
Athens proceeded to attack the strongholds that still sheltered Sgouros
in the Peloponnese.
A large portion of that peninsula had been assigned, as we saw, to the
Venetians. But, with two exceptions," the Morea,” as it had begun to
be called a century earlier, was destined to fall into the hands of the
French. A little before the capture of Constantinople, Geoffrey de
Villehardouin, nephew of the delightful chronicler of the conquest, had
been driven by stress of weather into the Messenian port of Modon.
During the winter of 1204 he had employed himself by aiding a local
magnate in one of those domestic quarrels which were the curse of medi-
eval Greece, and thus paved the way for a foreign occupation.
Struck
by the rich and defenceless character of the land upon which a kind
fortune had cast him, Villehardouin no sooner heard of Boniface's
arrival in the peninsula than he made his way across country to the
Frankish camp at Nauplia, and confided his scheme of conquest to his
old friend, William de Champlitte, whose ancestors came from his own
province of Champagne. He promised to recognise Champlitte as his
liege lord in return for his aid; and the two comrades, with the approval
of Boniface, set out with a hundred knights and some men-at-arms to
conquer the Morea. One pitched battle decided its fate in that unwar-
like
age, when local jealousies and the neglect of arms had weakened the
power of resistance, and a tactful foreigner, ready to guarantee local
privileges, was at least as acceptable a master as a native tyrant and a
Byzantine tax-collector. One place after another surrendered; the little
יי
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. XV.
28
## p. 434 (#476) ############################################
434
Corfù and Crete
בל
Frankish force completely routed the Moreote Greeks and their Epirote
allies in the Messenian olive-grove of Koundoura ; here and there
some warrior more resolute than his fellows held out-Doxapatrês,
the romantic defender of an Arcadian castle; John Chamáretos', the
hero of Laconia; Sgouros in his triple crown of fortresses, Corinth,
Nauplia, and the Larissa of Argos; and the three hereditary archons
of the Greek Gibraltar, isolated and impregnable Monemvasia ; but
Innocent III could address Champlitte, ere the year was up, as
Prince
of all Achaia. " The prince rewarded Villehardouin, the real author of
his success, with the Messenian seaport of Coron. But Venice, if she was not
strong enough to occupy the rest of the Peloponnese, was determined
that neither that place nor Modon, stepping-stones on the route to the
East, should fall into other than Venetian hands. In 1206 a Venetian fleet
captured both stations from their helpless garrisons, and the republic
thus obtained a foothold at the extreme south of the peninsula which
she retained for well-nigh three centuries. In the same year the seizure
and execution of Vetrano enabled her to make good her claim to Corfù,
where ten Venetian nobles were settled in 1207 as colonists. At this
the Count of Cephalonia and Zante thought it prudent to recognise her
suzerainty, for fear lest she should remind him that his islands had been
assigned to her in the partition treaty.
In the rest of the scattered island-world of Greece, Venice, as became
an essentially maritime state, acquired either actual dominion or what
was more profitable--influence without expensive administrative respon-
sibility. Crete furnished an example of the former system ; Euboea, or
Negropont, and the Cyclades and northern Sporades were instances of
the latter. “
For “the great Greek island " the Venetians had to contend
with their rivals, the Genoese, who had already founded a colony there,
and at whose instigation a bold adventurer, Enrico Pescatore, landed
and forced the isolated Venetian garrison to submit. It was not till
1212 that Pescatore's final defeat and an armistice with Genoa enabled
the Venetians to make their first comprehensive attempt at colonising
Crete. The island was partitioned into 132 knights' fiefs-a number
subsequently raised to 230—and 408 sergeants’ fiefs, of which the former
class was offered to Venetian nobles, the latter to Venetian burgesses.
The administrative division of Crete into six provinces, or sestieri, was
based on the similar system which still exists at Venice, and local
patriotism was stimulated by the selection of colonists for each Cretan
sestiere from the same division of the metropolis. The government of
the colony was conducted by a governor, resident at Candia, with the
title of duke, who, like most colonial officials of the suspicious republic,
held office for only two years, by two councillors, and by a greater and
lesser council of the colonists.
