The Byzantino-Latin Principality of Adrianople and the Challenge of Feudalism (1204/06-1227/28). Empire, Venice and Local Autonomy (original) (raw)
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 68/2015
The principality of Adrianople functioned well as a feudal entity within the Empire of Constantinople for over two decades, meeting the two chief aspirations of the local elite: autonomy and security. A Latin on the throne of Constantinople as basileus ton Romaion apparently was not considered to be a fundamental problem. From the Latin emperor’s point of view the Adrianopolitan recognition of his emperorship substantiated his claim to be the legitimate Byzantine emperor vis-à-vis other claimants, first and foremost the emperors of Nicaea. Adrianople was not alone in this respect: other regions likewise ruled by Byzantine magnates also for some time recognized Latin imperial authority, among them Epiros (1209–1217), Paphlagonia (1206–1214/21?), and the Rhodope region (1208–1220/24?).111 Major geopolitical changes in the Byzantine space in the years 1224–1227/28 made it so that the Latin emperor could no longer fulfill his role as suzerain and the terms of the feudal contract, in concreto offering protection against external threats. In this context it was not surprising that the Adrianopolitans started to look for an alternative overlord. It is telling that in the years 1227/28–1246 the city and surrounding region would change hands four times (Constantinople–Nicaea [1227/28], Nicaea–Epiros/Thessalonike [1227/30], Epiros/Thessalonike–Bulgaria [1230], Bulgaria– Nicaea [1246]) without a single blow. Each time the Adrianopolitans simply surrendered their city to the prevailing power of the moment, no doubt on the condition that their local autonomy would be respected and that security would be provided for. Any other considerations must have been deemed to be of only secondary importance. For the Latin emperor the loss of Adrianople-Didymoteichon was another serious blow, as it was the last (Latin-) Byzantine principality that still recognized his imperial authority: his claim to be the legitimate basileus ton Romaion could now no longer be expected to carry much weight in the Byzantine arena.
Related papers
Claiming the Basileia ton Rhomaion: A Latin Imperial Dynasty in Byzantium
The Medieval History Journal, 2018
In April 1204, the army of the Fourth Crusade captured Constantinople. For the leading princes, it was self-evident that they would install an imperator of their own in the Queen of Cities. Their choice fell on Baldwin IX/VI, count of Flanders/Hainault. In this contribution, we aim to analyse how Baldwin and his successors saw their emperorship, and how they and their empire were seen by others in Byzantium and the West. The current historiographical term, 'Latin Empire of Constantinople', reflects the prevailing view that an entirely new political construct had been set up replacing the former Byzantine Empire. However, contemporaries, both the emperors themselves as well as outsiders, consistently referred to the empire using both Latin and Greek terms that, prior to 1204, had been commonly employed to refer to the Byzantine Empire. Yet eastern and western conceptions of the nature of the empire before 1204 differed greatly: it was 'Greek' in Latin eyes, 'Roman' in Byzantine eyes. The Constantinopolitan imperial crown having been placed on his head, Baldwin became heir to these conflicting traditions. Moreover, rival imperial claims soon arose within the Byzantine space in neighbouring Byzantine successor states. In the face of these challenges, the Latin emperors strove to formulate a political ideology legitimising their claim to imperial rule. We will argue that in essence the successive Latin emperors adopted, up to a point, the key tenets of Byzantine imperial theory (Roman character, universalism, emperors as vicars of Christ and autocracy). Their western background and their different relationship with the West led to certain changes, but whether these should be seen as fundamentally un-Byzantine is not self-evident. Conversely, the presence of the now Latin rulers on the Constantinopolitan throne also led to changes in the western perception of the eastern empire.
ИСТОРИЈСКИ ЧАСОПИС / The Historical Review, 2022
The impact of the Latin conquest of Constantinople has often been treated from either the perspective of the Western newcomers who established themselves in various Byzantine territories, or from the perspective of the Byzantines who left the regions that came under Latin control and who managed to establish themselves elsewhere (Nicaea, Epiros, Trebizond). In this contribution the momentous consequences of the Fourth Crusade are addressed from the perspective of those Byzantines that came under Latin rule. By zooming in on a selection of individuals and subgroups a picture is sketched of the varied Byzantine experience within the confines of the (Latin) Empire of Constantinople after 1204. Attention will be given to the various – political, religious, socio-economic and cultural – spheres of society. The focus is on the capital and the region around Constantinople, but other regions come into view as well (Thessaloniki, Adrianople, Philippopolis, Achaia/Morea, Attica, Beotia, Euobia, Crete, etc.). Chronologically this contribution is primarily limited to the period until the loss of Latin Constantinople in 1261).
In the course of the middle through the late twelfth century the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143-80), utilizing a combination of force and diplomacy, managed to restore and consolidate imperial power in the Balkans. In the western Balkans, the emperor successfully competed with Hungary, Byzantium's main rival for influence in the region, and gained control of Dalmatia and the district of Sirmium, thus significantly extending the empire's frontiers in the region. Upon the death of the Hungarian King Stephen III in 1172, Manuel installed his protégé, Béla-Alexios, on the Hungarian throne. Béla III (1172-96) had married the emperor's sisterin-law, Agnes of Antioch, and received the rank of caesar; he was therefore a member of the Byzantine court hierarchy and subject to his superior, the emperor. Having sworn an oath to uphold the interests of the Byzantine emperor, he was installed as king of Hungary in the presence of an imperial delegation that had accompanied him from Constantinople. At the same time, Manuel forced the troublesome grand župan of Serbia, Stefan Nemanja (1166-96), into submission. Nemanja was compelled to seek forgiveness in an orchestrated ritual of public humiliation and, subsequently, to take part in an imperial triumph staged in Constantinople as the emperor's doulos. 2 To the east, the regions of Macedonia, Thrace, and the Paradounavon remained trouble-free after the victory of John II Komnenos (1118-43) over the Cuman invaders who had crossed the Danube and plundered Thrace in 1122. The sources mention a further Cuman raid early in the reign of Manuel (1148) which fell upon the cities located on the shores of the Danube, but none thereafter. In fact, the surviving evidence paints a picture of tranquility in the Balkan interior throughout the twelfth century. 3
De Gruyter eBooks, 2024
After the capture of Constantinople by the armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204, the conquerors elected a new emperor to rule them. This paper aims at studying the relationships between this emperor and various collective institutions such as assemblies, parliaments and councils, which were frequently organised by the Latins in order to take decisions. I argue that political practice in the new Latin Empire of Constantinople was built on the fundamental principle of sharing power between the emperor and these collective institutions. A close reading of Geoffroy of Villehardouin's chronicle from a lexicographical point of view will show that this negotiation system was by no means a sign of political weakness on the part of Latin lords but a standard way of doing politics. Furthermore, by analysing the Latin Empire's constitutional treatises, we will see that this political concept of sharing power kept vivid a sense of public authority besides the traditional feudal paradigm built on private links. Actually, the emperor and the collective institutions were part of an imperial structure, and this imperium bound its subjects to public obedience. Lastly, this paper will focus on various strategies employed by the Latin Emperor in order to overtake the collective institutions and establish his own autocratic authority. This mix of public and private obedience created complex political configurations and structured aristocratic relationships in the Latin Empire.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.