Byzantine Empire
| |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1081–1185 | |||||||||||||
 The Byzantine Empire at the death ofManuel I Komnenos in 1180. | |||||||||||||
| Capital | Constantinople | ||||||||||||
| Common languages | Greek,Armenian,Aromanian,Old Bulgarian,Old Anatolian Turkish and otherSouth Slavic languages | ||||||||||||
| Religion | Eastern Orthodox Church | ||||||||||||
| Government | Semi-feudal monarchy | ||||||||||||
| Emperor | |||||||||||||
• 1081–1118 | Alexios I | ||||||||||||
• 1118–1143 | John II | ||||||||||||
• 1143–1180 | Manuel I | ||||||||||||
• 1180–1183 | Alexios II | ||||||||||||
• 1183–1185 | Andronikos I | ||||||||||||
| History | |||||||||||||
| 26 August 1071 | |||||||||||||
• Coronation ofAlexios I | 4 April 1081 | ||||||||||||
• TheFirst Crusade is declared | 27 November 1095 | ||||||||||||
| 17 September 1176 | |||||||||||||
• Deposition ofAndronikos I | 12 September 1185 | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Part ofa series on the |
|---|
| History of the Byzantine Empire |
 |
| Preceding |
| Early period (330–717) |
| Middle period (717–1204) |
| Late period (1204–1453) |
| Timeline |
| By topic |
 Byzantine Empire portal |
TheByzantine Empire was ruled by emperors of theKomnenos dynasty for a period of 104 years, from 1081 to about 1185. TheKomnenian (also spelledComnenian) period comprises the reigns of five emperors,Alexios I,John II,Manuel I,Alexios II andAndronikos I. It was a period of sustained, though ultimately incomplete, restoration of the military, territorial, economic and political position of the Byzantine Empire.
Byzantium under the Komnenoi played a key role in the history of theCrusades in theHoly Land, while also exerting enormous cultural and political influence in Europe, the Near East, and the lands around the Mediterranean Sea. The Komnenian emperors, particularly John and Manuel, exerted great influence over the Crusader states ofOutremer, whilst Alexios I played a key role in the course of theFirst Crusade, which he helped bring about.
Moreover, it was during the Komnenian period that contact between Byzantium and the 'Latin' Christian West, including the Crusader states, was at its most crucial stage.Venetian and other Italian traders became resident in Constantinople and the empire in large numbers (60–80,000 'Latins' in Constantinople alone), and their presence together with the numerous Latin mercenaries who were employed by Manuel in particular helped to spread Byzantine technology, art, literature and culture throughout theRoman Catholic west. Above all, the cultural impact ofByzantine art on the west at this period was enormous and of long lasting significance.
The Komnenoi also made a significant contribution to the history ofAsia Minor. By reconquering much of the region, the Komnenoi set back the advance of the Turks inAnatolia by more than two centuries. In the process, they planted the foundations of the Byzantine successor states ofNicaea,Epirus andTrebizond. Meanwhile, their extensive programme of fortifications has left an enduring mark upon the Anatolian landscape, which can still be appreciated today.[1]
The Komnenian era was born out of a period of great difficulty and strife for the Byzantine Empire. Following a period of relative success and expansion under theMacedonian dynasty (c. 867–c. 1054), Byzantium experienced several decades of stagnation and decline, which culminated in a vast deterioration in the military, territorial, economic and political situation of the Byzantine Empire by the accession of Alexios I Komnenos in 1081.
The problems the empire faced were partially caused by the growing influence and power of the aristocracy, which weakened the empire's military structure by undermining thetheme system that trained and administered its armies. Beginning with the death of the successful soldier-emperorBasil II in 1025, a long series of weak rulers had disbanded the large armies which had been defending the eastern provinces from attack; instead, gold was stockpiled in Constantinople, ostensibly in order to hiremercenaries should troubles arise.[2] In fact, most of the money was given away in the form of gifts to favourites of the emperor, extravagant court banquets, and luxuries for the imperial family.[3]
Meanwhile, the remnants of the once-formidable armed forces were allowed to decay, to the point where they were no longer capable of functioning as an army. Elderly men with ill-maintained equipment mixed with new recruits who had never participated in a training exercise.[2]
The simultaneous arrival of aggressive new enemies –Turks in the east andNormans in the west – was another contributory factor. In 1040, the Normans, originally landless mercenaries from northern parts of Europe in search ofplunder, began attacking Byzantine strongholds in southern Italy. In order to deal with them, a mixed force of mercenaries and conscripts under the formidableGeorge Maniakes was sent to Italy in 1042.[3] Maniakes and his army conducted a brutally successful campaign, but before it could be concluded he was recalled to Constantinople. Angered by a series of outrages against his wife and property by one of his rivals, he was proclaimed emperor by his troops, and led them across theAdriatic to victory against a loyalist army. However, a mortal wound led to his death shortly afterwards. With opposition thus absent in theBalkans, the Normans were able to complete the expulsion of the Byzantines from Italy by 1071.[3]
Despite the seriousness of this loss, it was in Asia Minor that the empire's greatest disaster would take place. TheSeljuk Turks, although mainly concerned with defeating theFatimids ofEgypt, nevertheless conducted a series of damaging raids intoArmenia and easternAnatolia – the main recruiting ground for Byzantine armies. With imperial armies weakened by years of insufficient funding and civil warfare, EmperorRomanos Diogenes realised that a time of re-structuring and re-equipment was necessary. Consequently, he attempted to lead a defensive campaign in the east until his forces had recovered enough to defeat the Seljuks. However, he suffered a surprise defeat at the hands ofAlp Arslan (Sultan of the Seljuk Turks) at theBattle of Manzikert in 1071. Romanos was captured, and although the Sultan's peace terms were fairly lenient, the battle in the long term resulted in the total loss of Byzantine Anatolia.[2]
On his release, Romanos found that his enemies had conspired against him to place their own candidate on the throne in his absence. After two defeats in battle against the rebels, Romanos surrendered and suffered a horrific death by torture. The new ruler,Michael Doukas, refused to honour the treaty that had been signed by Romanos. In response, the Turks began to move into Anatolia in 1073; the collapse of the old defensive system meant that they met no opposition. To make matters worse, chaos reigned as the empire's remaining resources were squandered in a series of disastrous civil wars. Thousands ofTurkoman tribesmen crossed the unguarded frontier and moved into Anatolia. By 1080, an area of 30,000 square miles (78,000 km2) had been lost to the empire.[3]
After Manzikert, a partial recovery was made possible due to the efforts of the Komnenian dynasty. This is sometimes referred to as theKomnenian restoration.[4] The first emperor of this royal line wasAlexios I Komnenos (whose life and policies would be described by his daughterAnna Komnene in theAlexiad). Alexios's long reign of nearly 37 years was full of struggle. At his accession in 1081, the Byzantine Empire was in chaos after a prolonged period of civil war resulting from the defeat at Manzikert.[5]
At the very outset of his reign, Alexios had to meet the formidable threat of theNormans underRobert Guiscard and his sonBohemond of Taranto, who tookDyrrhachium andCorfu, and laid siege toLarissa inThessaly (seeBattle of Dyrrhachium). Alexios led his forces in person against the Normans, yet despite his best efforts his army was destroyed in the field. Alexios himself was wounded, but the death of Robert Guiscard in 1085 led to the Norman danger receding for a time.[4]
However, Alexios's problems were only just beginning. At a time when the Emperor urgently needed to raise as much revenue as possible from his shattered empire, taxation and the economy were in complete disarray.Inflation was spiralling out of control, the coinage was heavily debased, the fiscal system was confused (there were six differentnomismata in circulation), and the imperial treasury was empty. In desperation, Alexios had been forced to finance his campaign against the Normans by using the wealth of theEastern Orthodox Church, which had been put at his disposal by the Patriarch of Constantinople.[6]
In 1087, Alexios faced a new invasion. This time the invaders consisted of a horde of 80,000Pechenegs from north of theDanube, and they were heading for Constantinople. Without enough troops to repel this new threat, Alexios used diplomacy to achieve a victory against the odds. Having bribed theCumans, another barbarian tribe, to come to his aid, he advanced against the Pechenegs, who were caught by surprise and annihilated at theBattle of Levounion on 28 April 1091.[4]
With stability at last achieved in the west, Alexios now had a chance to begin solving his severe economic difficulties and the disintegration of the empire's traditional defences. In order to reestablish the army, Alexios began to build a new force on the basis of feudal grants (próniai) and prepared to advance against the Seljuks, who had conqueredAsia Minor and were now established atNicaea.[7]
Despite his improvements, Alexios did not have enough manpower to recover the lost territories in Asia Minor. Having been impressed by the abilities of the Norman cavalry at Dyrrhachium, he sent ambassadors west to ask for reinforcements from Europe. This mission was deftly accomplished – at theCouncil of Piacenza in 1095,Pope Urban II was impressed by Alexios's appeal for help, which spoke of the suffering of the Christians of the east and hinted at a possible union of the eastern and western churches. Pope Urban was concerned with increasing restlessness of the martial nobility in Western Europe, who, currently deprived of major enemies, were causing chaos throughout the countryside. Alexios's appeal offered a means not only to redirect the energy of the knights to benefit the Church, but also to consolidate the authority of the Pope over allChristendom and to gain the east for theSee of Rome.[8]
On 27 November 1095, Urban II called together theCouncil of Clermont in France. There, amid a crowd of thousands who had come to hear his words, he urged all present to take up arms under the banner of the Cross and launch a holy war to recover Jerusalem and the east from the 'infidel'Muslims. Indulgences were to be granted to all those who took part in the great enterprise. Many promised to carry out the Pope's command, and word of theCrusade soon spread across western Europe.[8]
Alexios had anticipated help in the form of mercenary forces from the West, and was totally unprepared for the immense and undisciplined hosts which soon arrived, to his consternation and embarrassment. The first group, underPeter the Hermit, he sent to Asia Minor, ordering them to stay close to the coast and await reinforcements. However, the unruly crusaders refused to listen and began looting and pillaging the local Christian inhabitants. As they marched onNicaea in 1096, they were caught by the Turks and massacred almost to the man.[6]
The second, "official" host of knights, led byGodfrey of Bouillon, Alexios also sent into Asia, promising to supply them with provisions in return for an oath of loyalty. They were accompanied by the Byzantine generalTatikios. By their victories, Alexios was able to recover for the Byzantine Empire a number of important cities and islands: Nicaea,Chios,Rhodes,Smyrna,Ephesus,Philadelphia,Sardis, and in fact much of westernAsia Minor (1097–1099). This is ascribed by his daughter Anna to his policy and diplomacy, but good relations were not to last. The crusaders believed their oaths were made invalid when Alexios did not help them during the siege of Antioch (he had in fact set out on the road toAntioch, but had been persuaded to turn back byStephen of Blois, who assured him that all was lost and that the expedition had already failed). Bohemund, who had set himself up as Prince of Antioch, briefly went to war with Alexios, but agreed to become Alexios's vassal under theTreaty of Devol in 1108.[8]
Despite his many successes, during the last twenty years of his life Alexios lost much of his popularity. This was largely due to the harsh measures he was forced to take in order to save the embattled empire.Conscription was introduced, causing resentment among the peasantry, despite the pressing need for new recruits to the imperial army. In order to restore the imperial treasury, Alexios took measures to tax the aristocracy heavily; he also cancelled many of the exemptions from taxation that the church had previously enjoyed. In order to ensure that all taxes were paid in full, and to halt the cycle of debasement and inflation, he completely reformed thecoinage, issuing a new goldhyperpyron (highly refined) coin for the purpose. By 1109, he had managed to restore order by working out a proper rate of exchange for the whole coinage. His new hyperpyron would be the standard Byzantine coin for the next two hundred years.[5]
The final years of Alexios's reign were marked by persecution of the followers of thePaulician andBogomil heresies—one of his last acts was toburn at the stake the Bogomil leader,Basil the Physician, with whom he had engaged in a theological controversy; by renewed struggles with the Turks (1110–1117); and by anxieties as to the succession, which his wife Irene wished to alter in favour of her daughter Anna's husbandNikephorus Bryennios, for whose benefit the special titlepanhypersebastos ("honored above all") was created. This intrigue disturbed even his dying hours.[5]
Nevertheless, despite the unpopularity of some of his measures, Alexios's efforts had been vital to the survival of the empire. Financially and militarily bankrupt, and facing wave after wave of foreign invasion, the empire he inherited had been on the point of collapse. His long struggle to protect and restore the strength of the empire had been exhausting, but Alexios's successors inherited a viable state with both the internal stability and the military restoration but also a lot of financial resources, to expand in the future.[3]
Alexios's sonJohn II Komnenos succeeded him in 1118, and was to rule until 1143. On account of his mild and just reign, he has been called the ByzantineMarcus Aurelius. John was unusual for his lack of cruelty—despite his long reign, he never had anyone killed or blinded. He was loved by his subjects, who gave him the name 'John the Good'. He was also an energetic campaigner, spending much of his life in army camps and personally supervising sieges.[7]
During John's reign, Byzantium faced many difficulties: enemies confronted the empire on all sides. An invasion of nomadic horsemen from the north threatened Byzantine control in the Balkans, and the Turks were harassing Byzantine territory in Asia Minor. However, John soon proved himself just as determined and energetic as his predecessor. At theBattle of Beroia, John personally led the imperial armies against the Pecheneg invaders. With the aid of the emperor's elite troops, theVarangian Guard, the tribal horsemen were decisively crushed. The emperor's victory was so emphatic that the Pechenegs soon disappeared as an independent people.[7]
John's marriage to the Hungarian princessPiroska involved him in the dynastic struggles of theKingdom of Hungary. In giving asylum to Álmos, a blinded claimant to the Hungarian throne, John aroused the suspicion of the Hungarians. The Hungarians, led byStephen II, then invaded Byzantium's Balkan provinces in 1127, with hostilities lasting until 1129[9] The Hungarians attackedBelgrade,Nish andSofia; John, who was nearPhilippopolis in Thrace, counterattacked, supported by a naval flotilla operating on theDanube.[10] After a challenging campaign, the details of which are obscure, the emperor managed to defeat the Hungarians and theirSerbian allies at the fortress ofHaram or Chramon, which is the modernNova Palanka.[11] Following this the Hungarians renewed hostilities by attacking Braničevo, which was immediately rebuilt by John. Further Byzantine military successes, Choniates mentions several engagements, resulted in a restoration of peace. The Danube frontier had been definitively secured.[9][12]
John was then able to concentrate on Asia Minor, which became the focus of his attention for most of his reign. The Turks were pressing forward against the Byzantine frontier, and John was determined to drive them back. Thanks to John's energetic campaigning, Turkish attempts at expansion in Asia Minor were halted, and John prepared to take the fight to the enemy. In order to restore the region to Byzantine control, John led a series of campaigns against the Turks, one of which resulted in the reconquest of the ancestral home of the Komneni at Kastamonu. He quickly earned a formidable reputation as a wall-breaker, taking stronghold after stronghold from his enemies. Regions which had been lost to the empire in the aftermath ofManzikert were recovered and garrisoned. Yet resistance, particularly from theDanishmends of the north-east, was strong, and the difficult nature of holding down the new conquests is illustrated by the fact thatKastamonu was recaptured by the Turks whilst John was back in Constantinople celebrating its return to Byzantine rule. John persevered, and Kastamonu soon changed hands once more. He advanced into north-eastern Anatolia, provoking the Turks to attack his army. Unlike Romanos Diogenes, John's forces were able to maintain their cohesion, and the Turkish attempt to inflict a second Manzikert on the emperor's army backfired when the Sultan, discredited by his failure, was murdered by his own people.[7]
John, likeBasil II before him, was a slow but steady campaigner. His armies made careful, measured gains over time, rarely exposing themselves to excessive risks, but nevertheless advancing inexorably towards their objectives. However, the Turks were resilient, and they did not allow themselves to be decisively defeated in any one engagement. They knew that it was difficult for the emperor to remain in one theatre of war for a long time, as events elsewhere often intervened that required his attention.[7]
John consolidated his conquests and the existing Byzantine holdings in Asia by the building of a series of forts. HistorianPaul Magdalino explains this process in his bookThe empire of Manuel Komnenos by placing it in the context of the Komnenian restoration of the Byzantine empire as a whole; he points out that while John's father Alexios had fortified places on the coast, John now expanded Byzantine control into the interior by fortifying places such asLopadion,Achyraous andLaodicea, which guarded the approaches to the valleys and coastlands of Asia Minor. This restoration of order under John enabled agricultural prosperity to begin a recovery that would eventually restore these war torn regions to their former status as a productive and valuable part of the Byzantine empire.[13]
Towards the end of his reign, John made a concerted effort to secureAntioch. On the way, he captured the southern coast of Asia Minor andCilicia. He advanced intoSyria at the head of his veteran army, which had been seasoned by a lifetime of campaigning. Although John fought hard for the Christian cause in the campaign in Syria, there was a famous incident where his allies, PrinceRaymond of Antioch and CountJoscelin II of Edessa, sat around playingdice while John pressed theSiege of Shaizar. These Crusader Princes were suspicious of each other and of John, and neither wanted the other to gain from participating in the campaign, while Raymond also wanted to hold on to Antioch which he had agreed to hand over to John if the campaign was successful.[14] Ultimately, Joscelin and Raymond conspired to keep John out of Antioch, and while he was preparing to lead apilgrimage to Jerusalem and a further campaign, he accidentally grazed his hand on a poison arrow while out hunting. The poison set in and shortly afterwards he died.[8]
Historian J. Birkenmeier has recently argued that John's reign was the most successful of the Komnenian period. In "The development of the Komnenian army 1081–1180", he stresses the wisdom of John's approach to warfare, which focused on siege warfare rather than risky pitched battles. Birkenmeier argues that John's strategy of launching annual campaigns with limited, realistic objectives was a more sensible one than that followed by his sonManuel I. According to this view, John's campaigns benefited the Byzantine Empire because they protected the empire's heartland from attack while gradually extending its territory in Asia Minor. The Turks were forced onto the defensive, while John kept his diplomatic situation relatively simple by allying with theWestern Emperor against theNormans of Sicily.[7]
Overall, John II Komnenos left the empire a great deal better off than he had found it. Substantial territories had been recovered, and his successes against the invadingPetchenegs,Serbs andSeljuk Turks, along with his attempts to establish Byzantine suzerainty over the Crusader States inAntioch andEdessa, did much to restore the reputation of his empire. His careful, methodical approach to warfare had protected the empire from the risk of sudden defeats, while his determination and skill had allowed him to rack up a long list of successful sieges and assaults against enemy strongholds. By the time of his death, he had earned near universal respect, even from the Crusaders, for his courage, dedication and piety. His early death meant his work went unfinished; historian Zoe Oldenbourg speculates that his last campaign might well have resulted in real gains for Byzantium and the Christian cause.[14]
John's chosen heir was his fourth son,Manuel I Komnenos. According to Niketas Choniates, a historian of Byzantium, Manuel was chosen over his elder surviving brother because of his ability to listen carefully to advice. Manuel was known for his lively and charismatic personality; he was known for his love for all things from Western Europe. Manuel arrangedjousting matches, even participating in them, an unusual experience for the Byzantines. Manuel himself is generally considered the most brilliant of the four emperors of the Komnenos dynasty; unusual for a Byzantine ruler, his reputation was particularly good in the west and the Crusader states, especially after his death. The Latin historianWilliam of Tyre described Manuel as "beloved of God... a great-souled man of incomparable energy", [whose] "memory will ever be held in benediction". Manuel was further extolled by Robert of Clari as a "generous and worthy man".[8]
Manuel dedicated himself to restore the glory of his empire and to regaining superpower status. His foreign policy was both ambitious and expansive, reaching out to all corners of the Mediterranean world. He made several alliances with thePope and Western Christian kingdoms, and successfully handled the passage of the potentially dangerousSecond Crusade through his empire, establishing a Byzantine protectorate over the Crusader kingdoms ofOutremer.[13]
Manuel campaigned aggressively against his neighbours both in the west and in the east; facing Muslims inPalestine, he allied himself with the CrusaderKingdom of Jerusalem and sent a large fleet to participate in a combined invasion ofFatimid Egypt. In an effort to restore Byzantine control over the ports of southern Italy, he sent an expedition to invade Italy in 1155. Operating as part of a coalition of Byzantine, rebel, and Papal forces, Manuel's armies achieved initial success. However, disputes within the coalition led to the expedition's eventual failure. Despite this military setback Manuel was undeterred, and his armies successfully invaded theKingdom of Hungary in 1167, defeating the Hungarians at theBattle of Sirmium. He was highly successful in the Balkans and Hungary; historian Paul Magdalino argues that no emperor had dominated the region so effectively sinceLate Antiquity.[13]
In the east, however, Manuel's achievements are more ambiguous. He suffered a major defeat at theBattle of Myriokephalon in 1176 against the Turks. Manuel was marching againstKonya, the Turkish capital, when his forces were ambushed; the ensuing defeat has since entered the popular imagination as a legendary disaster. Exaggerated accounts of the battle often describe the destruction of the entireByzantine army, and with it the end of Byzantine power and influence. However, the modern consensus among Byzantine historians is that, while theBattle of Myriokephalon was a serious humiliation for the emperor, it was certainly not a catastrophe. Nor was it in any way equivalent to theBattle of Manzikert over a century earlier. In fact, much of the emperor's army emerged from the battle without serious damage.[7] Units involved in the battle are well documented as campaigning in Asia Minor the following year.[4] The imperial frontier remained unmoved for the remainder of Manuel's reign, a clear indication that the Turks were unable to gain any advantage from their victory.[4] In 1177, the Byzantines inflicted a major defeat on a large Turkish force atHyelion and Leimocheir in the Meander valley.[7]
Manuel's programme of fortification in Byzantine Asia, for which he was praised by Byzantine historian Niketas Choniates, is largely regarded as an important success. Manuel demanded tribute from the Turkmen of the Anatolian interior for the winter pasture in Imperial territory; he also improved the defenses of many cities and towns, and established new garrisons and fortresses across the region. As a result of the cumulative efforts of all three Komnenian emperors, Manuel's domination of Asia Minor was more effective than that of any emperor since before Manzikert. As historian Paul Magdalino makes clear, "by the end of Manuel's reign, the Byzantines controlled all the rich agricultural lowlands of the peninsula, leaving only the less hospitable mountain and plateau areas to the Turks."[13]
In the religious sphere, disputes between theRoman Catholic Church and theEastern Orthodox Church occasionally harmed efforts at cooperation with the Latins; however, Manuel was almost certainly the Byzantine emperor who came closest to healing the breach between the two churches.Pope Innocent III clearly had a positive view of Manuel when he toldAlexios III that he should imitate "your outstanding predecessor of famous memory the emperor Manuel... in devotion to the Apostolic See, both in words and in works".[13]
Manuel was very successful in expanding his influence, particularly over the Crusader states. As an example, he participated in the building and decorating of many of the basilicas and Greek monasteries in the Holy Land, including theChurch of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem where due to his efforts the Byzantine clergy were allowed to perform theGreek liturgy each day.[8] All this reinforced his position as overlord of the Crusader states, with his hegemony over Antioch and Jerusalem secured by agreement withRaynald, Prince of Antioch, andAmalric, King of Jerusalem.[8] This success in gaining influence and allies among the western states and the Pope is regarded one of the most impressive achievements of Manuel Komnenos's reign.
At the beginning of the Komnenian period in 1081, the Byzantine Empire had been reduced to the smallest territorial extent in its history. Surrounded by enemies, and financially ruined by a long period of civil war, the empire's prospects had looked grim. Yet, through a combination of determination, military reform, and years of campaigning,Alexios I Komnenos,John II Komnenos andManuel I Komnenos managed to restore the power of the Byzantine Empire.[13] An important factor in the success of the Komnenoi was their establishment of a reconstructed Byzantine army. The new military system which they created is known as theKomnenian army. From c. 1081 to c. 1180, the Komnenian army played an important role in providing the empire with a period of security that enabled Byzantine civilization to flourish.[7]
The new force was both professional and disciplined. It contained formidable guards units such as theVarangian Guard, the 'Immortals' (a unit of heavy cavalry) stationed in Constantinople and theArchontopouloi, recruited by Alexios from the sons of dead Byzantine officers, and also levies from the provinces.[7] These levies includedKataphraktoi cavalry from Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace, and various other provincial forces such asTrebizondArchers from the Black Sea coast ofAsia Minor and theVardariots, a cavalry unit recruited from Christianised Magyars from the Vardar valley.[7] Alongside troops raised and paid for directly by the state, the Komnenian army included the armed followers of members of the wider imperial family and its extensive connections. In this can be seen the beginnings of the feudalisation of the Byzantine military. The granting ofpronoia holdings, where land was held in return for military obligations, was beginning to become a notable element in the military infrastructure towards the end of the Komnenian period, though it became much more important subsequently. In 1097, the Byzantine Army numbered around 70,000 men altogether. By the closing years of the 1180-era, and the death of Manuel Komnenos, whose frequent campaigns had been on a grand scale the army was probably considerably larger. During the reign of Alexius I, the field army numbered around 20,000 men which was increased to about 30,000 men in John II's reign. By the end of Manuel I's reign the Byzantine field army had risen to 40,000 men.
UnderJohn II, a Macedonian division was maintained, and new native Byzantine troops were recruited from the provinces.[7] As Byzantine Asia Minor began to prosper under John and Manuel, more soldiers were raised from the Asiatic provinces ofNeokastra,Paphlagonia and evenSeleucia (in the south east).[7] Soldiers were also drawn from defeated peoples, such as thePechenegs (cavalry archers), and the Serbs, who were used as settlers stationed atNicomedia. Native troops were organised into regular units and stationed in both the Asian and European provinces.[7] Komnenian armies were also often reinforced by allied contingents from Antioch, Serbia and Hungary, yet even so they generally consisted of about two-thirds Byzantine troops to one-third foreigners.[4] Units of archers, infantry and cavalry were grouped together so as to provide combined arms support to each other.[7] The emperor Manuel I was heavily influenced by Westerners (both of his queens were 'Franks') and at the beginning of his reign he re-equipped and retrained his native Byzantine heavy cavalry along Western lines.[4] It is inferred that Manuel introduced the couched lance technique, the close order charge and increased the use of heavier armour. Manuel personally took part in 'knightly' tournaments in the Western fashion, where his considerable prowess impressed Western observers. Permanent military camps were established in the Balkans and in Anatolia, these are first described during the reign of John II.[4] The main Anatolian camp was nearLopadion on theRhyndakos River near theSea of Marmora, the European equivalent was atKypsella inThrace, others were atSofia (Serdica) and atPelagonia, west ofThessalonica. These great military camps seem to have been an innovation of the Komnenian emperors and may have played an important part in the improvement in the effectiveness of the Byzantine forces seen in the period. The camps were used as transit stations for the movement of troops, as concentration points for field armies, for the training of troops and for the preparation of armies for the rigours of campaign.[4]
It has recently been argued that a '12th century renaissance' occurred in Byzantium.[13] Although the term does not enjoy widespread usage, it is beyond doubt that 12th century Byzantium witnessed major cultural developments, which were largely underpinned by rapid economic expansion.
The 12th century was a time of significant growth in the Byzantine economy, with rising population levels and extensive tracts of new agricultural land being brought into production. Archaeological evidence from both Europe and Asia Minor shows a considerable increase in the size of urban settlements, together with a 'notable upsurge' in new towns.[15] InAthens the medieval town experienced a period of rapid and sustained growth, starting in the eleventh century and continuing until the end of the twelfth century.[15]Thessaloniki, the second city of the Empire, hosted a famous summer fair which attracted traders from across the Balkans and even further afield to its bustling market stalls.[6] InCorinth, silk production fuelled a thriving economy.[15] In Asia Minor, some areas had become depopulated due toTurkish raiding in the late eleventh century. Yet as the Komnenian emperors built up extensive fortifications in rural areas during the twelfth century, repopulation of the countryside took place.[15]
Overall, given that both population and prosperity increased substantially in this period, economic recovery in Byzantium appears to have been strengthening the economic basis of the state. This helps to explain how the Komnenian emperors,Manuel Komnenos in particular, were able to project their power and influence so widely at this time.[15]
The new wealth being generated during this period had a positive impact on Byzantine cultural life. In artistic terms, the twelfth century was a very productive period in Byzantine history. There was a revival in themosaic art, and regional schools ofArchitecture began producing many distinctive styles that drew on a range of cultural influences.[16]
According to N. H. Baynes inByzantium, An Introduction to East Roman Civilization,[17]
Such was the influence of Byzantine art in the twelfth century, that Russia, Venice,southern Italy and Sicily all virtually became provincial centres dedicated to its production.
Manuel's death on 24 September 1180, marked a turning point in the fortunes of the Byzantine Empire. When Manuel died, he was succeeded by his young sonAlexios II Komnenos, who was under the guardianship of the empressMaria. Her conduct excited popular indignation, and the consequent disorders, amounting almost to civil war, gave an opportunity to the ambition of Manuel's estranged cousin,Andronikos I Komnenos (r. 1183–1185), son ofIsaac Komnenos. Andronikos left his retirement in 1182, and marched on Constantinople with an army that (according to non-Byzantine sources) included Muslim contingents.[18] His arrival was soon followed by amassacre of the Latin inhabitants, which was focused on theVenetian merchants who were settled in some numbers in Constantinople. He was believed to have arranged the poisoning of Alexios II's elder sisterMaria the Porphyrogenita and her husbandRenier of Montferrat, although Maria herself had encouraged him to intervene. The poisoner was said to be theeunuchPterygeonites. Soon afterwards he had the empress Maria imprisoned and then killed, by Pterygeonites and thehetaireiarchesConstantine Tripsychos. Alexios II was compelled to acknowledge Andronikos as colleague in the empire, but was then put to death; the killing was carried out by Tripsychos, Theodore Dadibrenos andStephen Hagiochristophorites.[19] Andronikos, by 1183 sole emperor, marriedAgnes of France, a child twelve years of age who had been formerly betrothed to Alexios II. Agnes was a daughter of KingLouis VII of France and his third wifeAdèle of Champagne. By November 1183, Andronikos associated his younger legitimate son John Komnenos on the throne.
Andronikos Komnenos was a man of astounding contrasts.[20] Handsome and eloquent, the new emperor was at the same time known for his licentious exploits.[21] He was energetic, able and determined,[22] but also capable of terrifying brutality, violence and cruelty.[20]
Andronikos began his reign well; in particular, the measures he took to reform the government of the empire have been praised by historians. In the provinces, Andronikos' reforms produced a speedy and marked improvement.[23] Andronikos's fierce determination to root out corruption and many other abuses was admirable; under Andronikos, the sale of offices ceased; selection was based on merit, rather than favouritism; officials were paid an adequate salary so as to reduce the temptation of bribery. Every form of corruption was eliminated with ferocious zeal.[23]
The people, who felt the severity of his laws, at the same time acknowledged their justice, and found themselves protected from the rapacity of their superiors.[24] Andronikos's energetic efforts to rein in the oppressive tax collectors and officials of the empire did much to alleviate the lot of the peasantry. However, his efforts to check the power of the nobility were considerably more problematic. The aristocrats were infuriated with him, and to make matters worse, Andronikos seems to have become increasingly deranged; executions and violence became increasingly common, and his reign turned into a reign of terror.[25] Andronikos seemed almost to seek the extermination of the aristocracy as a whole. The struggle against the aristocracy turned into wholesale slaughter, as the emperor resorted to ever more ruthless measures to shore up his regime.[23]
There were several revolts, leading to an invasion by KingWilliam II of Sicily. On September 11, 1185, during his absence from the capital, Stephen Hagiochristophorites moved to arrestIsaac Angelos, whose loyalty was suspect. Isaac killed Hagiochristophorites and took refuge in the church ofHagia Sophia. He appealed to the populace, and a tumult arose which spread rapidly over the whole city.[26]
When Andronikos arrived, he found that his authority was overthrown: Isaac had been proclaimed emperor. The deposed Emperor attempted to escape in a boat with his wife Agnes and his mistress, but was captured.[26] Isaac handed him over to the city mob and for three days he was exposed to their fury and resentment. His right hand was cut off, his teeth and hair were pulled out, one of his eyes was gouged out, and, among many other sufferings, boiling water was thrown in his face.[27] At last, led to theHippodrome of Constantinople, he was hung up by the feet between two pillars, and two Latin soldiers competed as to whose sword would penetrate his body more deeply. He died on September 12, 1185. At the news of the emperor's death, his son and co-emperor, John, was murdered by his own troops in Thrace.
Andronikos I was the last of theKomnenoi to rule Constantinople, although his grandsonsAlexios andDavid founded theEmpire of Trebizond in 1204. Nevertheless, Andronikos's role in the collapse of the empire is controversial; historians disagree over the extent to which his brief reign influenced events after his death. Andonikos's coup, together with his violent death, had weakened the dynastic continuity and solidarity on which the strength of the Byzantine state had come to rely.[28] Furthermore, his so-called 'anti-Latin' policy has been criticised by some historians as a failure, in view of the increasing hostility it caused towards Byzantium in the west.[29] In particular, Andonikos's failure to prevent the massacre of Latins in Constantinople in 1182 has been seen as especially significant, since henceforth Byzantine foreign policy was invariably perceived as sinister and anti-Latin in the west.[30] It has even been argued that Andronikos's attempts to crush the aristocracy were damaging to the empire's military power, since the aristocracy had become indispensable to the defences of the state.[29] On the other hand, his reforms in the provinces were both wise and beneficial to the internal health and prosperity of the empire.[31]
With the death of Andronikos, the Komnenian dynasty, having lasted 104 years, had finally come to an end. The Komnenian period was followed by the dynasty of theAngeloi, who oversaw perhaps the most crucial period in theDecline of the Byzantine Empire.[13] The next quarter of a century would see Constantinople fall to an invading force for the first time in its history, and the final loss of the empire's 'great power' status.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)Byzantine Empire topics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
