Chapter 18 - Decline and Fall of the Byzantine Empire - Part 01

Chapter 18 - Decline and Fall of the Byzantine Empire

Once he conquered Macedonia, Basil II made her into a Byzantine province and sub-divided her into themes. He then installed a large army to keep the peace. After Samoil’s death, the Archbishopric of Ohrid was subordinated to Byzantine authority and incorporated into the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad. Macedonia was reorganized into thirty-two eparchies. The Bulgarian, Serbian and Albanian eparchies were also incorporated into the Ohrid Archbishopric. An Archbishop and the Church Synod were given supreme authority over the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Synod met in Ohrid once a year to elect new bishops and discipline clergy accused of various breaches and misconduct.

The Archbishop of Ohrid was no longer elected by the Synod, as it had been under Samoil’s rule, but was appointed by Tsari Grad and confirmed by the Byzantine Emperor. The Archbishop remained autocephalous but was subject to the Byzantine state and church authorities. He was a member of the principal administration of the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad, attended its sittings, defended the interests and prestige of the Byzantine Church and participated in the resolution of disagreements with the western Church. Basil II allowed the higher clergy of the Archbishopric to retain some privileges. By doing so he gained their support in strengthening Byzantine rule in Macedonia. To appear sympathetic he also appointed John of Debar, a Macedonian, head of the Archbishopric. After Basil II’s death in 1025 his successor Leo attempted to tighten control over the Macedonian church by replacing the Slavonic language with Koine. Having encountered opposition, in 1037 he removed John of Debar, one of the strongest supporters of the Macedonian language. Henceforth the Archbishops of Ohrid and the bishops of the churches in the Ohrid Archbishopric were regularly elected from the ranks of the Koine speaking clergy. The lower clergy remained Slavonic speakers because they were closer to the people. When Ohrid came under Byzantine control the Koine speaking hierarchs began to eradicate all documents written in Slavonic. Many manuscripts which had been preserved in Ohrid were destroyed. In the churches Slavonic liturgy began to be preached in adaptations translated from Koine. The Slavonic names of rivers, towns, etc. were also replaced by either classical Koine or Latin names. The Archbishopric of Ohrid was slowly becoming a Koine speaking institution designed to destroy the Macedonian traditions, which had been nurtured over the years. Slavonic literacy could not, however, be totally destroyed. The adaptation of Koine did not succeed in taking any deep roots among the people who continued to communicate in their native Slavonic language. As soon as Macedonia came under Byzantine control the development of feudal relations was again accelerated. Excessive recruitment of men from the ranks of the peasantry, for the Byzantine army, weakened communities and made them easier to fall into feudal hands. Also, for their security from pillaging invaders, peasants had no choice but to join feudal holdings and pay the feudal lords protection money. Remaining communities who held common lands such as meadows, woodlands, rivers, etc. also became feudal possessions. Feudal lords were not the only ones after land grabs in Macedonia. The church, in attempting to increase its own holdings, also played its part in the dissolution of the free rural communities. Besides land gifts received from the Byzantine rulers, the church also established patronage over the free rural communities. Over time the church converted free peasants into feudally tied ones. This was done mostly through land confiscations where peasants were found guilty of heresy, polygamy, or unlawful marriage. In time the church too became a large-scale feudal property-owner.

Besides feudal holdings, the Byzantines also set aside lands in support of military needs. Entire villages or several village groupings were set aside purely for providing soldiers for the draft. The majority of the Macedonian population after Samoil’s death became subservient to the feudal lords. Serfs formed the basic category of the tied feudal population. Serfs were allowed to retain their hereditary holdings but under the authority of the feudal lords. Below the serfs were the landless people. They lived and worked on feudal estates or on land set aside for them by the community. Below the landless people were the servants of the feudal lords. Their property was part of the feudal lord’s personal demesne and they were personally bound to their lords who had the authority to sell them together with their land. Below the servants were the slaves. Unlike classical slaves who had no rights at all, with time and services rendered, these slaves gradually received small holdings as well as certain rights from their feudal lords. The slave class consisted almost exclusively of those who either could not pay-up the state taxes or those who had rebelled against their exploiters or the state. The churchmen, on the other hand, were a separate class of people. The churchmen who owned land enjoyed certain privileges which had been granted to the church by the state. Like the churchmen, the artisans who were employed on feudal estates were a distinct and more privileged class of the tied population. With regard to taxation, the Byzantines had instituted three types of feudal rent known as work or corvee, kind and monetary. Unfortunately the Macedonian population was burdened with all three types. The work rent or corvee was applicable to the entire population tied to or obliged to work for a feudal lord. The proportion of this unpaid labour was not defined so in times of need, particularly in the summer months, several days of a person’s workweek were devoted to it. The majority of this corvee was dedicated to repairing or building fortresses, constructing roads and bridges, building boats and baking bread for the army. The rent in kind, which varied from individual to individual, was paid with a variety of “finished products” made for the state and for the feudal lords. The customary practice of giving gifts to officials was a particularly heavy burden on the population. Taxes in kind were also exacted by the church. The Ohrid Church, according to its established canon, exacted taxes in kind from the entire population, including the Vlachs and others. Monetary rent was also exacted on a large scale during this period. After the tax reforms of 1040, regular state taxes were required to be paid with money. With the growing need to pay monetary taxes, a strong stimulus was induced to trade goods for money. This, in many ways, was good for the economy and development of feudalism. Unfortunately the transition became another burden on the Macedonian peasant population. After the feudal lords were awarded rights to collect state taxes, abuse was not far behind. Many took advantage of

their position of authority and exacted extra taxes for themselves above and beyond those prescribed by law. Besides regular taxes, Macedonians were also obliged to pay various supplementary taxes, like judicial fines, toll tax for crossing rivers, fishing tax, water-mill tax and marriage tax. As a marriage tax the groom was obliged to pay his bishop a gold piece and the bride twelve ells (15 meters) of linen. By 1040, discontent with Byzantine rule, the situation in Macedonia reached a boiling point and the population began to rebel. Leading the rebellion was Peter Delyan, Gabriel Radomir's son by his first wife, the daughter of the Hungarian king, mentioned earlier. The rebellion, supported by the Hungarian king, began in the regions of Belgrade and Morava near the Hungarian border and soon spread south to Skopje. With popular support and assistance from the local Macedonian population, the rebel army invaded and took Skopje. Tsari Grad quickly reacted by dispatching an army in pursuit. But instead of attacking, the Byzantine soldiers defected and proclaimed Tihomir, one of their own soldiers, as their emperor. Tihomir unfortunately died in battle leaving his army under Delyan’s command. After a long period of secure prosperity, the Byzantine Empire of the 11th century began to experience new pressures, which aggravated the latent tensions in its society. A division in the Byzantine ruling class began to take place, creating conflict between the military aristocracy of the provinces and the civilian aristocracy and bureaucracy of Tsari Grad. Each faction at any opportune moment would not hesitate to proclaim its own emperor, who was a rival of the other faction. The sophisticated urban aristocracy favoured non-military rulers who would expand the civil service and supply them and their families with lucrative offices and decorative titles. The military families, whose wealth lay not in the capital but in the provinces and who had been penalized by Basil II's legislation, favoured emperors who were soldiers, not civil servants. Towards the end of the 11th century it became clear that the empire's military strength was no longer sufficient to hold back its enemies. The landowners in the provinces appreciated the dangers more readily than the government in Tsari Grad. They made those dangers an excuse to enlarge their estates in defiance of all the laws passed in the 10th century. The theme system in Anatolia, which had been the basis of the empire's military power, was rapidly breaking down. On the other hand, the urban aristocracy of Tsari Grad, reacting against the evils of war, strove to make their city a center of culture and sophistication. For example, in 1045 Constantine IX endowed Tsari Grad University with a new charter. The law school was revived under the brilliant jurist John Xiphilinus. Not to be outdone, the school of philosophy thrived under the chairmanship of Michael Psellus, whose research into every field of knowledge earned him a reputation as the great educator of brilliant pupils. Psellus as an aristocrat, statesman, philosopher and historian was an example of the vigour of 11th century Byzantine society. What he and others like him failed to see, however, was that their empire was depleting the resources and living off the reputation built up by former Macedonian emperors.

Back in Macedonia, Delyan began a military campaign to recover his grandfather’s kingdom. He started by sending troops to Dyrrachium and, with the support of the local people, managed to take that theme. He then sent a large army to besiege Solun. At the sight of Delyan’s immense army, Emperor Michael IV, who at the time was waiting for him, fled in terror to Tsari Grad leaving Manuel Ivets in command of the Byzantine army. But instead of fighting, Ivets defected to Delyan’s side, joining forces with the rebels. Exploiting the panic which had risen in the ranks of the Byzantine army, Delyan dispatched armies in several directions. One, led by Anthimus, made its way south reaching as deep as the town Tiva, spreading the revolt into Epirus and conquering the theme of Naupactos. Another army took Demetrias (Volos in Thessaly) and so on. Soon Delyan was in possession of a large territory encompassing the greater part of Samoil’s kingdom. Dissatisfied with the situation in Macedonia, the higher echelons of Tsari Grad demanded that the Emperor do something. Not to disappoint them, the Emperor prepared for war and set out to meet Delyan in Macedonia. Unfortunately Delyan was not the emperor’s only problem. Aleutian, John Vladislav's second son who was a patrician and commander of Theodosiopolis in Armenia, had also joined the rebellion. Delyan not only accepted Aleutian's services, but also made him commander of his army of forty thousand soldiers and dispatched him to Solun. Unbeknownst to Aleutian, however, the Byzantine army stationed in Solun must have been aware of his plans and surprised him. A battle ensued and Aleutian lost about fifteen thousand men. His defeat led to discord in the ranks of the rebels and Aleutian was suspected of treason. Suspicion turned to tragedy when Aleutian turned against Delyan, blinding him in a fit of rage. He then fled to the Byzantines. Stripped of their leaders, the rebels were thrown into confusion and the insurrection was condemned to fail. In the spring of 1041 the Byzantine Emperor again prepared for war and set out for Ostrovo, the center of the revolt. There he captured Delyan and sent him to Solun. From Ostrovo the Emperor set out for the interior of Macedonia and met up with Manual Ivets in Prilep. Ivets and his troops fought bravely but they were no match for the mighty Byzantine army. Ivets was captured and the rebellion was extinguished. After his successful campaign, the Byzantine Emperor triumphantly returned to Tsari Grad with Delyan and Ivets as his trophies. Instead of bringing change for the better, the rebellion brought disaster to the Macedonian people. The Byzantine army, which consisted mainly of Norwegian mercenaries under the command of Harold Hardraga, devastated Macedonia. They enslaved most of the population and brought new state officials and feudal lords who, together with the army, introduced even more oppressive measures. Unable to cope, the people rose again, this time in Thessaly. In 1066 the Vlach population in Thessaly rebelled under the leadership of Nikulitsa Delphin, the Governor of Larissa, whose grandfather had governed the town during Samuel's reign. Even though the rebellion was entrusted to Nikulitsa, a

descendent of rebels, he personally had no interest in a successful outcome. As a result, the revolt did not succeed in spreading as well as it could have and only extended to the towns of Larissa, Trikkala, Pharsala and the fortress of Cythros. The Byzantine Emperor Constantine X was quick to react and stopped the rebellion from spreading into the interior of Macedonia. Then, even before the year was over, with Nikulitsa's help, Constantine successfully put down the rest of the rebellion. In 1072, five years after the Thessalian rebellion, a new revolt broke out, this time inside Macedonia. The revolt, led by George Voyteh, took place in Skopje and was sparked by new and more oppressive financial policies introduced by the Byzantine authorities. The leaders of the revolt turned for help to Michael, the ruler of Zeta, who was related to Samuel. Michael sent his son Constantine Bodin along with three hundred of his elite troops. Voyteh and his rebels met Bodin at Prizren and immediately proclaimed him emperor under the name Peter, in honour of the fallen Peter Delyan. On receiving news that the rebels were headed for Skopje, the former and current Byzantine governors of that city, along with their armies, came out to stop them. A battle ensued at Prizren and the Byzantines were defeated. After taking the governor of Skopje prisoner, Bodin divided his army in two columns. One column he dispatched to Naissus while the second column, with Petrilo in command, he sent into the interior of Macedonia. Voyteh remained in Skopje. Petrilo’s first stop was Ohrid where he was greeted by the town’s people as a liberator. When Devol, the Byzantine governor, saw him coming he surrendered without a struggle. While the town’s people were running out to greet the rebel army, the feudal lords, administrators and Byzantine soldiers slipped out the back and fled to the fortified town of Kostur. There, they convinced the Kostur governor to organize a strong defense. Soon enough Petrilo arrived and indeed was met with strong resistance. Soon after Petrilo arrived a battle ensued. Combined, the Byzantine Ohrid and Kostur armies inflicted great damage on the insurgents. Petrilo just barely managed to escape and fled to Zeta. Bodin had a bit more luck and drove the Byzantines out of Naissus. However, hearing of Petrilo’s defeat in Kostur, deflated his enthusiasm. By now the main Byzantine army, led by Michael Saronit, was closing in on Skopje and the mere sight of its enormity frightened Voyteh. Outnumbered and outgunned, Voyteh agreed to surrender Skopje without a fight but secretly he sent for Bodin to come to his rescue. Unfortunately, once again the Byzantine spies did their job and Saronit set a trap for Bodin. Bodin’s army was intercepted and defeated at Kossovo Polye. Bodin was captured and sent to Tsari Grad, along with Voyteh, as Saronit’s prisoner. Voyteh unfortunately died on the way, probably from torture. Initially Bodin was imprisoned in Tsari Grad but later, at the intervention of Venetian mercenaries, he was returned to Zeta. In 1073 the Byzantines stepped up their campaign in Macedonia and brought additional forces in to rout the remaining pockets of rebel resistance. Unfortunately that was not all that they did. In pursuit of the rebels, the Byzantine army destroyed Samoil’s imperial palace in Prespa and looted the

churches in the vicinity. These acts further inflamed the situation and the rebels continued to resist, forcing the Byzantines to bring even more troops and take more drastic measures. Only by burning and razing everything, wherever opposition was offered, did the Byzantines succeeded in putting down the rebellion. By the end of 1073 it was all over. When all else failed the oppressed masses began to express their frustration by joining the Bogomil movement. They became particularly powerful at the end of the eleventh century and even more so during the course of the twelfth century. The struggle of the Bogomils was directed as equally against the feudal lords as it was against the Byzantine Emperor and his spiritual and ecclesiastical officials. The Byzantine appointed Archbishop, Theophylact of Ohrid, waged a fierce war against the Bogomils of Ohrid yet, in spite of severe punishments, he did not succeed in stamping them out. Led by the priest Basil, the Bogomil apostles and women preachers spread Bogomilism throughout all the regions of the empire, even into Tsari Grad itself. Confronted with this rapid spread of Bogomilism, the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus decided to personally intervene. While making plans to eradicate the Bogomils he figured it was a good time to also attack the Paulician movement which existed on a large scale in the Balkans. His soldiers rounded up all the Bogomils they could catch, including their leader Basil, and brought them before a Synod in Tsari Grad. The Synod quickly condemned them to death and subsequently had them executed. The movements did not collapse as expected, however, but rather experienced a revival after Alexius I Comnenus’s death in 1118. During the 1070’s, while Michael VII Parapinakes was emperor, many enemies began to descend upon Byzantine territory. The new enemies that appeared at this time seemed to emerge almost simultaneously on the northern, eastern and western frontiers. It was nothing new for the Byzantines to have to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously but that task required a soldier on the throne. The Pechenegs, a Turkic tribe, had long been a northern neighbour and valuable ally against the Bulgars, Magyars and Russians. After the Bulgar Empire collapsed the Pechenegs began to raid across the Danube into Byzantine territory. As allies, Constantine IX allowed them to settle south of the river but by mid-11th century they were becoming a nuisance. They were threatening Thrace and Macedonia and encouraging the spirit of revolt among the Bogomils. Alexius I put their reign of terror to an end in1091. The next to arrive, this time on the eastern frontier, were the Seljuq Turks, whose conquests would change the shape of both the Muslim and Byzantine worlds. In 1055, having conquered Persia, they entered Baghdad and their prince assumed the title of sultan and protector of the Abbasid caliphate. Before long they asserted their authority up to the borders of Fatimid Egypt and through Byzantine Anatolia. They made their first appearance across the Byzantine

frontier in Armenia in the mid-1060’s and went as far west as Caesarea in central Anatolia. The appearance of the Turkish raiders frightened the military aristocracy in Anatolia who, in 1068, elected one of their own emperors, Romanus IV Diogenes. Romanus assembled an army consisting mainly of foreign mercenaries and went on a campaign against the Turks. In August 1071 the Byzantines lost the battle at Manzikert, near Lake Van in Armenia. Romanus was taken prisoner by the Seljuq sultan, Alp-Arslan. After signing a treaty with the sultan, Romanus was allowed to buy his freedom. Unfortunately Tsari Grad did not want him back and installed their candidate Michael VII. Subsequently Romanus’s treaty with the Turks was rejected and Romanus himself was treacherously blinded. With their treaty rejected, the Seljuqs were justified in resuming their raids. It did not take too long before an irreconcilable rift began to form between Tsari Grad and the eastern themes. Civil war broke out consuming all resources and leaving no troops to defend the eastern frontier. The Turks were quick to exploit the situation and by 1081 had penetrated Asia Minor and taken Nicaea. The heart of the empire's military and economic strength was now in Turkish hands. The next enemy, the Normans, arrived from the west and began their conquest of southern Italy early in the 11th century. Ironically the Norman conquests were made possible by Basil II's project of recovering Sicily from the Arabs. Sicily was almost recovered in 1042 by the great general of the post-Macedonian era, George Maniaces. Unfortunately, being fearful of him and his military reputation, Constantine IX had him recalled and killed as a pretender to the throne. The Normans afterwards simply filled the political void and made steady progress conquering Italy. In 1071 after a three-year siege, the Normans, led by Robert Guiscard, finally took Bari, the last remaining Byzantine stronghold in the west. After that Byzantine rule in Italy and the hope of re-conquering Sicily came to an end. The simultaneous losses of Manzikert, to the Turks in the east, and Bari, to the Normans in the west were a disaster for the Byzantines. The final loss of Italy put a permanent physical barrier between the Byzantine east and the Latin west. After conquering Bari, the Normans pressed on with their campaign into Byzantine territory. In 1072 they won a resounding victory in Dyrrachium and in the following year another in Ioannina. Then they turned to Macedonia and took Ohrid, the two Pologs and Skopje. After that they made their way to Berroea and Meglen and rebuilt the destroyed fortress. The Normans then followed the Vardar River and camped for three months in Beli Tsrkvi. Following their long rest they came back and took Pelagonia, Trikkala and Kostur. In January 1084, in an attempt to take Larissa, they suffered a devastating defeat. A year later Emperor Alexius I, making use of his victory, attacked and took back Kostur, forcing the Normans to retreat from the Balkans.

The Norman conquests had serious long term consequences for Macedonia. Outside of the Norman mayhem and looting, the Macedonians were once again subjected to new cruelties as the Byzantines returned and imposed law and order on the province. The Norman expulsion unfortunately did not bring peace to Macedonia. As mentioned earlier, Bodin succeeded his father to the throne of Zeta in 1081and immediately began campaigning in Byzantine territory. He seized Mokra, a part of the Ohrid district including Mt. Bagora, and then proceeded to take the district of Dyrrachium. At that time the Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comnenus, intervened and Bodin was forced to retreat. Later, from time to time, Bodin took the occasion to campaign in the Ohrid region but always withdrew at the presence of the Byzantine army. Towards the end of the 1090’s Vukan, the ruler of Rashka, decided to invade Macedonia and attack Skopje. Vukan’s presence in Byzantine territory provoked a counter attack from the Emperor who this time personally took charge of the mission. Comnenus undertook three campaigns against Rashka in 1091, 1093, and 1094. His personal intervention not only gave the Byzantines an opportunity to take back all of Macedonia, but also sent a clear message to Bodin to keep out. Even with all of Macedonia’s possessions under Byzantine control, the empire could not replenish the military and economic resources it lost as a result of losing Asia Minor to the Turks. Its shrinking boundaries reduced the once mighty empire from the status of a world power to that of a small state fighting for survival. The loss of Anatolia forced the Byzantines to turn away from the east and start looking to the west. The first sign of this westward interest was in 1082 after the Normans captured Dyrrachium and were about to advance overland to Solun. Alexius, the Byzantine emperor, having no resources to raise a sizable army, called on the Venetians to help him. However, even before the west had a chance to react, the Norman leader Robert Guiscard died, in 1085, thus temporarily easing the Norman problem. The following year the Seljuq Turk sultan died and the sultanate was engulfed with internal rivalries. The Venetians eventually did come and were glad to help drive the Normans out of the Adriatic Sea but at the same time demanded large concessions for their services. In 1082 Alexius I granted them trading privileges in Tsari Grad with very lucrative terms. Unfortunately this created resentment for the westerners in Tsari Grad. The rich Byzantines, who otherwise might have invested in shipbuilding and trade, were pushed to invest in more familiar securities like land and property. In Alexius’s estimation the loss of Anatolia was only temporary and he fully expected to win it back. He would have too had it not been for the first crusade of western Europe in 1096. Alexius asked the west for help, not for the liberation of the Holy Land from the infidel but for the protection of Tsari Grad and the recovery of Anatolia. However, when Jerusalem was lost to the Turks in 1071 all the west could think of was revenge

The Holy War fervour finally peaked in 1095 when Pope Urban II appealed to the Christian world for recruits to go to war. The response in western Europe was overwhelming. Some came out of religious enthusiasm, others in the spirit of adventure and yet others with hopes of material gain. It was no comfort to Alexius to learn that four of the eight leaders of the First Crusade were Normans, among them Bohemond, the son of Robert Guiscard. Failing to convince the Crusaders to help him re-take Anatolia, the next best thing the emperor could do was get the crusade leaders to swear that they would restore Byzantine towns or territories they might conquer from the Turks on their way to the Holy Land, back to the Byzantines. In return for this gesture of goodwill the emperor gave them guides, a military escort and food supplies. One group of fearsome Crusaders, with Bohemond of Taranto at the helm, traveled along the Via Egnatia route and entered Macedonia in 1096. They had no qualms about using force and violence when it came to obtaining food and other necessities. While passing through they stopped in Kostur for several days, seizing oxen, mules and everything else they could pilfer. In the region between Prilep and Bitola they destroyed a fortified settlement and killed its inhabitants. While crossing the Vardar River the Crusaders were ambushed by a group of renegade Turkish and Pecheneg soldiers from the Byzantine army. Unscathed, the Crusaders continued on their journey to Serres where they were welcomed by Byzantine officials and given gifts collected from the local population. After a brief stop in Tsari Grad the Crusaders crossed into Asia Minor. After a short siege the Crusaders, in 1097, took Nicaea and in accordance with their agreement gave it back to the Byzantines. In 1098 the Crusaders captured Antioch but this time they refused to honour the agreement. The trouble was started by Bohemond’s refusal to turn it over on the grounds that he made the city his own principality. If other Crusaders could keep the lands they conquered for themselves, why shouldn’t he? As precedence he used the establishment of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, which the crusaders had taken the year before. As further evidence, there were also the Latin conquered counties of Edessa and Tripoli which belonged to Crusaders as well. When the crusaders finished conquering they settled down and colonized their possessions, which stretched along the coast of Palestine and Syria. Then they began to quarrel among themselves. While the crusaders were complacent and the Turks were busy fighting each other, Alexius established and secured a new boundary, extending his empire to the middle of Anatolia. Alexius was able to take advantage of prevailing rivalries between the Seljuq sultans at Konya, and the rival dynasty of the Danishmend emirs at Melitene. The First Crusade may have brought some benefits to the Byzantines but it certainly created new problems. The small rivalries between Alexius and Bohemond soon erupted into full scale war when Bohemond invaded Byzantine territory. In the fall of 1107 Bohemond, with an army of forty-five thousand troops and two hundred transport ships, left Italy and disembarked near Avlona where he took the port without much difficulty. His army then set out for

Dyrrachium and took several neighbouring fortresses including Arbanon and Debar. By this time Alexius had built up his forces and immediately went in pursuit. He met Bohemond at Dyrrachium in 1108 and gave him a crushing defeat. Bohemond agreed to a peace treaty and withdrew to Italy where he died in 1111. Alexius I’s victory brought some prestige to the Byzantine Empire, but at a price. Alexius managed to rebuild his army and fleet only by sacrificing his economy. He devalued his gold coins to one-third their original value and imposed more supplementary taxes on his subjects. Alexius I’s policies were continued after his death by his son John II Comnenus through the years 1118 to 1143 and by his grandson Manuel I Comnenus through the years 1143 to 1180. With the dawn of the 12th century the increasingly complex political situation in Europe and the growing involvement of the western powers into Byzantine affairs could no longer be ignored. In Asia matters were also complicated by the conflict between the Seljuq and the Danishmend dynasties and by the activities of the crusader states. Foreign relations and skillful diplomacy became of paramount importance for the Byzantines as John II tried but failed to break the Venetian monopoly in Byzantine trade. Manuel I came to the conclusion that the Byzantines could no longer ignore or afford to offend the growing powers in the west and went out of his way to understand and appease them. It was most unfortunate that the second Crusade in 1147 was during Manuel’s reign. By trying hard to appease both sides, Manuel aggravated existing animosities between Byzantines and Latins pushing Tsari Grad deeper into the tangle of western politics. While internal western rivalries kept the westerners busy fighting among themselves, Manuel started a campaign of recovery. His armies won back much of the northwest Balkans and almost conquered Hungary, reducing it to a Byzantine client kingdom. The Serbs too, under their leader Stephen Nemanja, were kept under control while Manuel's dramatic recovery of Antioch in 1159 gave the crusaders reason to treat him with respect. Unfortunately the Emperor went too far when he intervened in Anatolia to stop the formation of a single Turkish sultanate. After invading the Seljuq territory of Rum in 1176, his army was surrounded at Myriocephalon and annihilated. The loss of this battle marked the end of the counter-offensive against the Turks which was started by Alexius I. Manuel’s failure in Asia Minor delighted the western emperor, Frederick I Barbarossa, who had supported the Seljuq sultan of Rum against the Byzantines and now openly threatened to take over the Byzantine Empire by force. Manuel's personal relationships with the crusaders and with other westerners remained cordial to the end. But his policies antagonized the Holy Roman Empire, the papacy, the Normans and the Venetians. His effort to revive Byzantine prestige in Italy and the Balkans roused the suspicions of Venice. In 1171, following an anti-Latin demonstration in Tsari Grad, all Venetians in the empire were arrested and their properties confiscated. The Venetians did not forget this episode and soon began to think in terms of putting Tsari Grad under western control as the only means of securing their interest in Byzantine trade.

Manuel's policies antagonized many of his own people as well, especially his favouritism towards the Latins and the lavish granting of estates to them. Manuel’s popularity soon plummeted. This prompted his cousin Andronicus I Comnenus to murder him in 1180 and take his throne. Andronicus, while posing as the champion of Byzantine patriotism and of the oppressed peasants, also murdered Manuel's widow and son Alexius II. Unfortunately when the time came to enforce his reforms he turned from a peoples’ champion to a peoples’ tyrant. By undermining the power of the aristocracy he weakened the empire's defenses and undid much of Manuel's work. In the meantime, taking advantage of the internal Byzantine strife, the king of Hungary broke his treaty with them. Stephen Nemanja of Serbia also declared his independence from the Byzantines and founded a new Serbian kingdom. Dissention was not limited to outsiders alone. In 1185 Isaac Comnenus, governor of Cyprus, took advantage of the situation and set himself up as independent ruler of the island. In the same year the Normans again invaded Macedonia and captured Solun. The news prompted a counterrevolution in Tsari Grad resulting in Andronicus’s murder. In 1185 the Normans, armed with eighty thousand men and two hundred vessels, laid siege to Solun by land and by sea. The city, unable to obtain reinforcements from Tsari Grad, fell to the enemy and was looted and plundered to no end. Andronicus I Comnenus was the last of the Comnenian family to wear the crown. Shortly after his death in 1185 Byzantine society weakened and the state found itself on the verge of collapse. Apart from increased feudal exploitation, lack of respect for the law and abuses perpetrated by the feudal lords and official bodies, the main danger to the empire’s stability came from internal strife and mass defection of aristocrats from the central government. Usurpation of authority followed by armed clashes, banishment and harsh punishments became the norm. The imperial palace had become a hotbed of politics and intrigues. After Andronicus I Comnenus died in 1185, Isaac II Angelus replaced him as emperor. It was during Isaac II’s reign that the newly developed feudal powers in Serbia and Bulgaria were established and became a significant political factor in the Balkans. The sacking of Solun by the Normans weakened the Byzantines and that too created favourable conditions for the Slavonic feudal lords to gain some independence. Among the more successful of these was Dobromir Hrs. Hrs had accumulated an army of five hundred men and, for the most part, maintained peaceful relations with the court in Tsari Grad. He was, however, an opportunist and looked for ways to expand his authority. His chance came in 1189 during the third Crusade, led by Frederic I Barbarossa, when a number of Crusaders left the main route and invaded Macedonia. While passing through Gradets they killed people and set fire to several buildings, including the town’s church. After descending to Vkahija (near Strumitsa) they clashed with a rebel group and took their possessions. It was here that Hrs made contact with the Crusaders and sent them on their way. Unfortunately no sooner had the Crusaders departed for Asia Minor than Byzantines rounded up these opportunistic feudal lords and sent them

to jail. Dobromir Hrs was imprisoned for a while but was then released and awarded the governorship of Strumitsa. In 1195 Isaac II was deposed and blinded by his brother Alexius III Angelus. When unrest broke out during Alexius III’s reign, Dobromir Hrs again declared his independence, first in Strumitsa and then in the naturally fortified town of Presok. After arming Presok with an elite garrison he transferred his seat and fortified the town with defensive weapons and adequate stores of food. By repealing the Byzantine laws he introduced his own brand of barbarian rule. After consolidating his power, Hrs went on a campaign to Serres but in 1199 was met by the Byzantine Emperor and a battle ensued. Hrs’s handpicked soldiers fought skillfully. By using catapults, operated by ex-Byzantine mercenaries, they inflicted severe losses on Alexius. In the course of battle Hrs's soldiers slipped out in the dark of night and destroyed Alexius’s siege equipment causing him to lose the battle. Alexius’s failure to defeat Hrs forced the Emperor to meet his demands, thus recognizing Hrs as the ruler of the towns of Strumitsa and Prosek. It wasn’t too long before relations between Prosek and Tsari Grad deteriorated. The cause of the deterioration was the Emperor's refusal to pay the agreed upon ransom for the release of Hrs's father-in-law, Kamits. Kamits was a prisoner in Bulgaria for some time and the Emperor had agreed to arrange for his release. But after Kamits was freed the Emperor refused to pay the ransom. The two hundred centenariis in gold were eventually paid by Hrs but left bad feelings and a breach in the treaty between the Emperor and Hrs. Free from any obligations, Hrs, together with his father-in-law, renewed their military campaigns and took Pelagonia and Prilep, then entered Thessaly and sparked a massive uprising in the Peloponnesus. While Hrs was wreaking havoc in the western provinces, the Emperor put an army together and went in pursuit. The Byzantines quickly re-took Pelagonia, Prilep and Thessaly, depriving Hrs of his latest gains. Through treachery in 1201 the Byzantines took Strumitsa, leaving Hrs isolated in Prosek. The westerners, who had blamed the failure of their crusade on the Byzantines, were now looking for retribution. Their chance came when the western emperor Henry VI, who by now had united the Norman Kingdom of Sicily with the Holy Roman Empire, wanted to become master of Tsari Grad. Henry would have attacked the Byzantines had it not been for Alexius’s steady bribes and payoffs. Unfortunately Henry died in 1197. Henry’s idea lived on and gained ground in the west. The conquest of Tsari Grad was seen as the ultimate solution to many of the west’s problems that would be of benefit not only to trade but also to the future of the crusades and the church. Henry’s idea came closer to fruition in 1198 when Innocent III was elected pope. It was through Innocent's inspiration that the Fourth Crusade was launched. It was by treachery and intrigue that the conquest and colonization of the Byzantine Empire by the west was realized. In 1203 the crusaders, under the pretext of restoring Isaac II and his son to the Byzantine throne, drove Alexius III out of Tsari Grad. Instead of making

good on their promises however, the Venetians and crusaders attacked, conquered and divided Tsari Grad and the Byzantine provinces between themselves. Tsari Grad fell to the Latins in April 1204. In the west's quest for trade, Venice was becoming the leader of commerce. Venice wanted to become a great merchant power; a middleman of consumerism, but Tsari Grad was always in the way. Far superior to Venice, Tsari Grad monopolized the silk trade and prohibited Venice from realizing her dream. Finally, as fate would have it, her moment of glory was near. When the Crusaders ran out of money and couldn't afford to pay for their voyage to the Holy Lands, they turned to Venice. Venice offered them a way out but the offer came at a price. It was Pope Innocent III who turned the crusaders first against the Christian town of Zara in the Adriatic in 1202 and then against Tsari Grad in 1204. Principles gave away to greed and Christian turned against Christian: all this to satisfy the greed and commercial appetites of Venice. It was not a war of armies but a war of betrayal, deceit and total annihilation. The unsuspecting and trusting citizens of Tsari Grad gladly opened the city doors for the Crusaders. Instead of bringing peace, however, the Latins killed the entire Tsari Grad population, military and civilian, then looted the city of its possessions. The city streets were flooded with the blood of the innocent. Warriors, women and children alike were all slaughtered like lambs by the Latin crusaders. This was an act of shame that the western Church will have to bear for all eternity. After taking Tsari Grad, the Venetians, led by their doge Enrico Dandolo, appropriated the principal harbours and islands on the trade routes and dispatched the crusaders in the conquest of the European and Asiatic provinces. The first Latin emperor, Baldwin I, became the feudal overlord of the feudal principalities established in Thrace, Solun, Athens, and the Peloponnesus. Baldwin soon came into conflict with the ruler of Bulgaria and later faced serious opposition from the three provincial centers of Byzantine resistance. At Trebizond (Trabzon) on the Black Sea, two brothers of the Comnenian family laid claim to the imperial title. In Epirus Michael Angelus Ducas, a relative of Alexius III, made his capital at Arta and harassed the crusader states in Thessaly. The third centre of resistance was based in the city of Nicaea in Anatolia. Theodore I Lascaris, another relative of Alexius III, was crowned there as emperor in 1208 by a patriarch of his own making. Of the three new powers of resistance Nicaea lay nearest to Tsari Grad, between the Latin Empire and the Seljuq Turk sultanate of Rum. Theodore proved worthy of the Byzantine traditions by simultaneously fighting on two fronts and by being a skillful diplomat. Theodore Lascaris and his son-in-law John III Vatatzes built up a small Byzantine Empire at Nicaea and established a Byzantine church in exile. The Latins were thus never able to gain a permanent foothold in Anatolia. Even in Europe their position was constantly threatened by the Byzantine rulers in the Balkans. In 1204 the Latin Crusaders formed a Frankish kingdom, the Kingdom of Solun, on the eastern coast of the Aegean Sea with Solun as its capital. With