The Crusaders and the Roman Empire
The confrontation between Romans and the west
One common explanation for the hostility between the Crusaders and Byzantium is the idea of a fundamental clash of civilizations between the Latin West and the Greek East. Historians such as Norden and Runciman have framed the conflict as an inevitable cultural and religious confrontation, with Latin Catholic and Greek Orthodox worlds locked in a struggle that culminated in events like the Fourth Crusade (1204). However, this perspective has several problems. First, it overemphasizes a teleological narrative, assuming an inevitable split rather than examining historical contingencies. In doing so it overlooks the deep interconnections between Byzantium and the West, including political alliances, trade, and diplomatic relations. Moreover it fails to fully account for the role of Latin rule in Byzantium, which complicates the notion of an essential and irreconcilable divide. As opposed to a perspective we’ll analyze later, it places too much emphasis on longue durée (long-term historical processes) without adequately addressing specific historical contingencies.
Other historians, including Riley-Smith, Queller, Madden, and Ciggaar, have avoided overarching theories and instead focused on specific events and motivations. These scholars emphasize political, military, and economic factors, as well as the actions of individuals, rather than broad cultural or civilizational narratives. However, this approach also has limitations. In contrast to the previous perspective it tends to overemphasize contingency while neglecting structural and ideological factors. It focuses on short-term events (courte durée), failing to provide a deeper theoretical explanation for the broader patterns of hostility. Because of this it does not sufficiently address the normative frameworks that shaped interactions between Byzantium and the West.
A more comprehensive understanding of why the Crusaders turned against Byzantium requires a synthesis of both longue durée (structural, ideological, and normative factors) and courte durée (historical contingencies and key events). This approach involves two key elements: first, Theory of Ideology – Understanding how Crusading ideology evolved in a way that justified hostility toward Byzantium, despite its Christian status and secondly a theory of Christian-Roman normativity (contra Harris) in order to investigate how Byzantine and Latin notions of imperial legitimacy, Christian unity, and rightful rule shaped their interactions and eventual conflicts. By integrating these perspectives, it becomes possible to move beyond both perspectives described above and explain why the crusades, originally aimed at defending Christendom, ultimately contributed to the destruction of empire of the Romans.
It is necessary to establish an appropriate framework for examining the relationship between the West and the East, with a methodological emphasis on the Western perception of Byzantium. To this end, Peter Brown’s model of a shared civilizational matrix—which he argues ended with the fall of the Carolingian Empire—is extended. The hypothesis proposed here is that, from the perspective of the history of normative presuppositions, this model actually persists until the 12th century, or the first half of the 13th century.
There are several reasons to support this claim. Despite the differences between Western and Byzantine socio-economic structures (feudalism vs. the thematic system) and their cultural developments, both the West and the East felt the necessity to justify their normative domains through an appeal to Romanitas—the idea of Roman heritage and legitimacy. Although the collapse of the Carolingian Empire temporarily disrupted the concrete functioning of an active "Roman" domain, the ideal of empire persisted. Future rulers sought to restore imperial authority in the West, a goal ultimately achieved under Otto I (936/962–971). The West and East shared a "Commonwealth of Romanitas," which manifested concretely in the Zweikaiserproblem (the problem of two emperors). The essential question here is how the division of universal empire transformed in response to the emergence of new mentalities in the 11th century and the Crusades of the 12th century. A purely historical overview that focuses solely on Byzantine ideology in search of an explanation for the so-called "turning point" (Harris) is insufficient. By examining Western conceptions of Romanitas in conjunction with Crusader subjectivity—as well as the representations of Byzantium in the West—we can discern the consequences of Byzantine ideology and, in turn, the evolving ideas of Christian Romanitas. For these reasons, the claim that the West and the East were two fundamentally separate worlds and entities (Ciggaar) is rejected. While this may be broadly true at a general level, the crucial problem that is often overlooked is their shared normative matrix. The 12th century represents a challenge to this matrix, particularly to the Romanitas-Christianity synthesis that had previously united East and West.
Western authors generally avoided referring to the Byzantines as "Romans," especially after the revival of the empire in the West in 962. One of the main reasons, as emphasized by Liutprand of Cremona (Rentschler), was that the Graeci (as Liutprand referred to the Byzantines, particularly during his second visit to Constantinople) had long since abandoned Rome and had changed their customs. A crucial factor in this perception was the Western concept of ethnicity—gens. On a political level, Merovingian and Carolingian writers no longer viewed Byzantium as the legitimate successor of the Roman Empire. A notable example is the letter of Emperor Louis II the Pious to Emperor Basil I, in which Louis interprets imperial legitimacy in terms of religious translatio (transference of divine favor). Just as the Jews were once God’s chosen people, only to be replaced by Christians, so too had God’s grace passed from the Romans to the Franks. In this model, the Greeks had no place due to their cacodoxy (false belief). Louis further argued that the Greeks' departure from Rome to Constantinople caused them to lose their Roman identity, as they had abandoned their seat of power, their people, and their language. Because of this, many German authors (though not all) in the 12th century continued to refer to Byzantine emperors as rex Grecorum (King of the Greeks) or imperator Constantinopolitanus (Emperor of Constantinople).
Western attitudes toward the East, up until the Crusades, oscillated between deep admiration for Greek knowledge and learning, and open hostility. Antipathy toward the Greeks was often expressed through accusations that they were "unfaithful" or "deceitful." Thietmar of Merseburg, for instance, when describing Empress Theophano as leading a "virtuous life," added that such behavior was rare among the Greeks. Hildebert of Le Mans likewise accused the Greeks of calumniosa Grecorum versutia ("Greek slanderous cunning"). Widukind of Corvey believed that the Byzantines were directly descended from the ancient Greeks rather than the Romans, which, in his view, explained their cowardice. As previously mentioned, these negative perceptions culminated in the writings of Liutprand of Cremona.
Until the 8th century, the Papacy remained favorably inclined toward Byzantium, but this changed with the establishment of the Carolingian state under Pope Paul I (757–767) and Pope Hadrian I (772–795). Conflicts with Byzantium became evident in the letters of Pope Nicholas I (858–867), particularly concerning Patriarch Photius and Bulgaria. The historian Klaus Herbers notes that Nicholas' writings already reveal a shift in the perception of the Greeks—from seeing them as Christians who needed to be reintegrated into a single universal Church to distinguishing them as a separate community through the use of pronouns "we" and "you". This division in attitudes gave rise to two main perspectives. The first viewed the Greeks as legitimate Christians and Byzantium as a defender against infidels (e.g., Alcuin, Pope John VIII, and Hadrian I, who described the Church as "a unity divided into two parts"). The second regarded the Byzantines as heretics who had abandoned the Christian community. This ambivalence ultimately culminated, due to the Filioque controversy, in the Great Schism of 1054.
The Transformation of 11th Century
Two key factors that altered Byzantium’s "Otherness" in the eyes of the West were the millenarianism of the 11th century and the Crusades of the 12th century, both of which transformed the Western mentality.
In the 11th century, millenarianism, which manifested in the expectation of the end of the world, led many knights to become aware of their own sinfulness. The contradiction between "ideality" (the religious life) and "concreteness" (constant feudal conflicts, especially in France) reached its peak in this period. Since millenarianism coincided with a period of feudal decentralization in the West, movements such as the Cluniac Reform emerged, seeking to reform the Church from within and end feudal conflicts by establishing what Arnold Toynbee called a "spiritual empire in Europe." Western society entered into a deep crisis: many feudal lords found it impossible to avoid warfare against other feudal lords. Because of this, many nobles—such as Fulk III the Black, who waged constant wars in southern France—felt compelled to undertake pilgrimages to Jerusalem, as Fulk did three times, subjecting their bodies to severe penance for the sake of absolution. This crisis gave rise to movements like the "Peace of God" in France, which sought to restrain the warrior class at home.
A crucial aspect of this transformation—one that would become even more pronounced during the Crusades—was the relationship between the believer (the subject) and God. Rodulfus Glaber captured this sentiment best: "Peace! Peace! Peace! They saw the sign of the final peace, made between themselves and God." This moment of God’s approach toward the subject led to the "humanization of God," which would become an essential characteristic of knightly-Crusader subjectivity. This shift occurred due to the relative failure of the "Peace of God" movement and the successful efforts of the Cluniacs to channel knightly energy toward an external enemy beyond the ecumene. As a result, figures such as Pope Gregory VII and Anselm of Lucca saw the Crusades as a necessary means of purifying the Church, an act of "blessed persecution" (beata persecutio).
It is worth reflecting on some quotes from the primary sources:
•,,Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren (!) who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it. …With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion!’’
Historia Hierosolymitana, Fulcher of Chartres
,,Oh, race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race chosen and beloved by Godas shines forth in very many of your works set apart from all nations by the situation of your country, as well as by your catholic faith and the honor of the holy church!... From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness… The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it can not be traversed in a march of two months. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you.
Historia Hierosolimitana, Robert of Reims
,,We have heard, most beloved brethren, and you have heard what we cannot recount without deep sorrow how, with great hurt and dire sufferings our Christian brothers, members in Christ, are scourged, oppressed, and injured in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and the other cities of the East. Your own blood brothers, your companions, your associates (for you are sons of the same Christ and the same Church) are either subjected in their inherited homes to other masters, or are driven from them, or they come as beggars among us; or, which is far worse, they are flogged and exiled as slaves for sale in their own land. Christian blood, redeemed by the blood of Christ, has been shed, and Christian flesh, akin to the flesh of Christ, has been subjected to unspeakable degradation and servitude… if, forsooth, you wish to be mindful of your souls, either lay down the girdle of such knighthood, or advance boldly, as knights of Christ, and rush as quickly as you can to the defence of the Eastern Church. For she it is from whom the joys of your whole salvation have come forth, who poured into your mouths the milk of divine wisdom, who set before you the holy teachings of the Gospels.’’
Historia Jerosolimitana
The First Crusade
When Raymond of Aguilers arrived in Constantinople, he believed that he was "in our homeland" (in patria nostra) and that Emperor Alexios and his vassals were brothers and allies. However, Raymond of Toulouse’s troops rebelled due to the watchful presence of Alexios’ mercenary forces. When Byzantine mercenaries wounded two barons and the papal legate, the Crusaders saw this as justification to attack the Romans. From that moment on, Raymond of Aguilers portrayed the Byzantines as traitors in his chronicle, although he noted that the Crusader army ultimately refrained from attacking them. When Alexios failed to send aid to the Crusaders in Antioch, they wrote a letter to the pope, accusing the emperor of betraying Christian brotherhood. After conflict escalated between the French Crusaders and the Byzantines during the Second Crusade (under Louis VII), the Crusader soldiers did not attack the Byzantines because they still considered them their brothers. Fulcher’s chronicle, Historia Hierosolymitana, is divided into three parts. The first book describes the First Crusade up to the establishment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, while the remaining two focus on the reigns of Baldwin I and Baldwin II.
Upon entry to Constantinople, Fulcher remarked:
"But we did not try to enter the city because it was not agreeable to the emperor (for he feared that possibly we would plot some harm to him). Therefore it was necessary for us to buy our daily supplies outside the walls… We were not allowed to enter the city except at the rate of five or six each hour. Thus while we were leaving, others were entering to pray in the churches."
His views on Constantinople were as follows:
"Oh, what a noble and beautiful city is Constantinople! How many monasteries and palaces it contains, constructed with wonderful skill! How many remarkable things may be seen in the principal avenues and even in the lesser streets! It would be very tedious to enumerate the wealth that is there of every kind—of gold, of silver, of robes of many kinds, and of holy relics. Merchants constantly bring to the city by frequent voyages all the necessities of man. About twenty thousand eunuchs, I judge, are always living there."
He also insisted upon the necessity of an alliance with the Roman emperor:
"For it was essential that all establish friendship with the emperor, since without his aid and counsel we could not easily make the journey…"
Fulcher also emphasizes in his narrative the numerous gifts Alexios provided to the Crusaders, as well as the assistance he gave during the siege of Nicaea. Unlike other historians (such as Guibert), he does not comment on how the Byzantines treated Muslims. Regarding the siege of Antioch, for instance, when the Crusaders sent a letter to the pope about the "Greek betrayal", referring to the departure of Alexios’ general Tatikios (which was labeled as treachery by Raymond and Baldric!), Fulcher does not mention the Greek envoys who accompanied the Crusader army, nor does he reference Tatikios' departure. He also omits the meeting between Alexios and Stephen of Blois, as well as Alexios' decision not to aid the Crusaders (something that Guibert also viewed as betrayal). Furthermore, Fulcher’s stance toward Alexios is intriguing. He lists him among the "leading men of this world" who died in 1118, and he only once describes him negatively:
"…there was an emperor of Constantinople, Alexios by name, extremely hostile to our people, a disturber of those making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem… and a tyrant."
This is the only instance where Fulcher portrays Alexios in a negative light; in all other cases, Alexios is depicted as an ally of the Crusaders. On the other hand when discussing the so-called "Crusade" that Bohemond attempted to lead against Byzantium, it is essential to examine the arguments he used to justify this attack.
After being released in 1100, Bohemond embarked on a pilgrimage to Europe in 1105. However, according to Western chronicles, his real motive was to gather an army for an invasion of Byzantium. One such source, Hierosolymita Ekkehard of Aura, openly refers to Alexios as a "tyrant." However, it is important to note that no source describes the Greeks as schismatics or infidels who must be conquered—the negative portrayal is exclusively directed at Alexios! This cannot be called a "Crusade", however, primarily because there is little mention of the Greeks as schismatics in the correspondence of Pope Paschal II. By 1115, the pope had good relations with Alexios and did not criticize him on the basis of "schismatic beliefs." His contact with Byzantium actually intensified due to his desire to support the Latin states in the East. However, during this war, for the first time, a Crusader source raises the issue of Byzantine faith. In a letter to the pope, Bohemond suggests that as soon as he sets out for Jerusalem, the pope should convene a council to:
"…obtain justice between us and the emperor, or remove the schism, heresies, and diverse traditions that are in the church."
In this letter, Bohemond outlined the theological disputes the council should address:
Filioque
The use of leavened or unleavened bread
The proper method of baptism
Whether clergy can marry
Bohemond was invoking issues that had been central to the schism of 1054. This is the first recorded instance of a secular ruler being not only aware of but also engaging with the theological disputes between the two churches (!)—and using such arguments for political purposes. Bohemond explains the "rise of heresy" in Byzantium by pointing to Alexios’ illegitimate rule. Since Alexios was a usurper, his betrayal of Nikephoros Botaneiates rendered the Byzantine people heretical. In other words, treachery is the key concept here—it is Alexios' political illegitimacy that, according to Bohemond, made Byzantium heretical.
Gibert of Nogent wrote Dei Gesta per Francos using Gesta Francorum and Historia Hierosolymitana. The Franks are praised and highlighted, while even the Germans are portrayed as cowardly and as having betrayed the papacy and Christianity. For Gibert, Boemond is the hero. However, one ethnic group stands out in his narrative due to how it is essentialized: the Greeks. Gibert, putting words into the mouth of the Crusader Hugh of Vermandois, calls the Greeks "the laziest people." Oaths, according to Gibert, were unnecessary because the Greeks were "weak." The Byzantines are like this because of the "Asian climate" (geographical determinism). Therefore, for Gibert, the main characteristic of the Byzantines is levitas: "Clearly these men, according to the purity of the air and skies to which they are born, are with a lightness of body and therefore of keen talent"; but he quickly adds that they have misused this talent and thus became deceitful and dishonest. As a result, he describes another characteristic tied to levitas – Asiaticam levitatem (Asian instability). By instability, Gibert refers to the tendency in Byzantium where emperors were often overthrown, and new ones were brought in – the most recent example being Alexios.
Since levitas is the essence of the Greek people, they are inconsistent regarding religion: "the faith of Easterners, however, as it consistently was staggering and inconstant and wandering with the grinding of new things – always derailing rules of true belief – defected from the authority of the ancient Fathers." Gibert supported Cluniac policies regarding marriages, the use of leavened bread, and emphasizing the authority of Rome. Gibert criticizes the Byzantines for not understanding that filioque was created in the struggle against Arianism and tries to prove that, because of this, the Byzantines fall into Arianism: "…what are they about to say of the Holy Spirit, who contend with a profane mind that he is less than the Father and the Son, following the remnants of the Arian heresy." The East is full of heresy, while in the West, heresy never appeared. As a result, Gibert believed that the East deserved all the suffering the Turks inflicted upon them because they had previously provoked God's wrath. He made a contrast between the East and the Western Christians in the Near East, adding that since the Westerners lived in prosperity in the East, it was proof that God had abandoned Byzantium. The main culprit, for Gibert, was Alexios.
Just like Boemond asked the pope to come to the East to deal with the schism and fight to bring the Eastern Church under his control, a similar argument can be found in Gibert's writings. However, the key difference is the following: Boemond's use of causality in the way he presented it in the letter implies that Alexios is responsible for Byzantium's heresy. A similar claim can also be found in the Gesta. Gibert, on the other hand, argues that Alexios' betrayal is an epiphenomenon of a characteristic inherent to Byzantium. Therefore, the Zweikaiserproblem essentially does not change the normative essence of Romanitas-Christianity – while the problem postulates the existence of that normative sphere, even if divided, its existence is still not problematized. The Crusader subjectivity fundamentally examines the normative foundations of Romanitas through its claim that it can defend Christianity and its holy places. The universal peace (pax Romana) is too abstract – Jerusalem is concrete. Finally, Western perspectives are sending mixed signals; while some see Alexios as a phenomenon in and of itself separate from the politics and culture of Byzantium, some see it as the epiphenomenon of something far more deeper.
Gibert considered Alexios perfidious and more willing to assist the Turks against the Crusaders than the other way around. He refers to the Gesta Francorum, which openly claimed that Alexios collaborated with the Turks. In mentioning Stefan of Blois, Gibert portrays the whole situation with him as if it was orchestrated by Alexios; he twisted what Stefan had privately told him, convincing his followers to return to Constantinople. After that, Alexios betrayed the Crusaders in 1101. Gibert also attempts to depict the essence of the Roman people by claiming that Alexios undeservedly became emperor because he usurped power, and that after this act he issued two edicts; the first one according to which the younger daughters of noble families were to be sent into prostitution, with half of them serving the emperor directly and the second one in which younger sons were allegedly supposed to be castrated.
The Second Crusade
After the fall of Edessa (1144), Pope Eugene II issued a call to all the major Western rulers to embark on a crusade. He succeeded in convincing two of the most prominent rulers in Europe: Louis VII and Conrad III. One of Louis' companions was Odo of Deuil, a monk from the monastery of Saint-Denis, who wrote De profectione Ludovici VII in orientem. He was a member of the anti-Byzantine faction within the French army. However, the hostility of the anti-Byzantine faction did not arise solely from their knowledge of the chronicles of the First Crusade (Odo had read them), but from their disagreement with the Byzantines' attempts to impose direct control over Antioch. The anti-Byzantine faction tried three times to persuade the rest of the army to attack Constantinople. However, most of the French army rejected this. The army considered it inappropriate to involve themselves in the conflict between Constantinople and Antioch, as the emperor "probably had a good justification" (causas iustitae), despite the fact that his attack on Antioch was malicious. Furthermore, the custom (consuetudo) was for knights to honor their lords, but primarily to express loyalty (fides) to their kings. Since Emperor Manuel requested the same, an attack on Manuel would have meant betrayal of the basic knightly/feudal principle, thus undermining loyalty even to Louis himself. Finally, the majority of the army rejected the idea of attacking due to "Christian brotherhood."
Odo, however, never trusted the Romans. This is evident in his stance when he quotes the Iliad: "Whatever it may be, I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts." This antipathy can also be seen through his mixed views on Constantinople:
•,,Constantinople, the glory of the Greeks, rich in renown and richer still in possessions, is laid out in a triangle shaped like a ship’s sail. In its inner angle stand Santa Sophia and Constantine’s palace, in which there is a chapel that is revered for its exceedingly holy relics… In that place, the Palace of Blachernae, although having foundations on low ground, achieves eminence through excellent construction and elegance… Its exterior is of almost matchless beauty, but its interior surpasses anything that I can say about it. I do not know whether the exquisite art or the exceedingly valuable stuffs endows it with the more beauty or value. Below the walls lies open land, cultivated by plough and hoe, which contains gardens that furnish the citizens all kinds of vegetables…’’
•,,The city itself is squalid and fetid and in many places harmed by permanent darkness, for the wealthy overshadow the streets with buildings and leave these dirty, dark places to the poor and to travellers; there murders and robberies and other crimes which love the darkness are committed. Moreover, since people live lawlessly in this city,… a criminal knows neither fear nor shame, because crime is not punished by law and never entirely comes to light. In every respect she exceeds moderation; for, just as she surpasses other cities in wealth, so, too does she surpass them in vice. Also she possesses many churches unequal to Santa Sophia, in size but equal to it in beauty, which are to be marvelled at for their beauty and their many saintly relics. Those who had the opportunity, entered… to see the sights and… to worship faithfully.’’
•,,Conducted by the emperor, the king also visited the shrines and, after returning, when won over… dined with him. That banquet afforded pleasure to ear, mouth and eye with pomp as marvellous, viands as delicate, and pastimes as pleasant as the guests were illustrious… the feast of St. Denis occurred… since the Greeks celebrate this feast, the emperor knew of it, and he sent over to the king a carefully selected group of his clergy, each of whom he had equipped with a large taper decorated elaborately with gold and a great variety of colours; and thus he increased the glory of the ceremony. These clergy certainly differed from ours as to words and order of service, but they made a favourable impression because of their sweet chanting; for the mingling of voices, the heavier with the light, the eunuch’s, namely with the manly voice (for many of them were eunuchs), softened the hearts of the Franks. Also they gave the onlookers pleasure by their graceful bearing and gentle clapping of hands and genuflexions.’’
William of Tyre
In William of Tyre, a very significant dichotomy appears between the Greeks and the emperor. His portrayal of Alexios is negative; Alexios represents all that is worst among the Greeks, his relationship with the Crusaders "was not sincere," and he called Alexios "the worst persecutor of the Latins." On the other hand, his son John is portrayed more positively, though William qualifies this portrayal by stating that he, too, was not entirely sincere with the Eastern Latins. This qualification exists due to John's attempts to capture Antioch. However, when William described John during the siege of the city of Shaizar, which the Crusaders and Romans jointly attacked, he wrote:
"The emperor, a man of great courage, pressed on the assault with glowing zeal and promised rewards for victory. Thus he kindled the enthusiasm of the young, ever eager for glory, for the strife and the combats of war. Protected by the breastplate and girdled with the sword, his head covered with a golden helmet, he mingled with the ranks and cheered now these, now those, with words of encouragement. Again, like a man of the people, he roused their valor by his example and fought valiantly, that he might render others more courageous for the fray. Thus did this man of lofty spirit move about without ceasing among the troops… He gave himself no rest – not even to take food… He restored the strength of the fighters by successive relays of men and substituted fresh troops for those who were exhausted." It is important to highlight the following: John, portrayed in this way, represents the ideal emperor – no ruler in William's narrative had such a positive portrayal as John (Spoljarić). When John was forced to retreat, William placed all the blame on Raymond of Poitiers. John, strong and determined, is the essential opposite of his father.
Manuel, however, is the most interesting. Manuel's goal in Antioch was never to directly subordinate Raymond, and then Reynold (Antioch) to himself, which is why Manuel's portrayal does not have the negative traits attributed to John. When William visited Manuel in Constantinople in 1179-1180, he described his visit as follows:
"Indeed, if we tried to describe in detail the circus games in the hippodrome and the wonders of the various spectacles solemnly performed for the people on those occasions, the imperial vestments, and the weight and number of jewels and pearls adorning the garments which the emperor wore; the golden furnishings of the palace, the vast amount of silverware, and the costly embroidered hangings; if we tried to convey in words… we should lack words to express these things even were we to write a separate book about them."
From the very beginning, Manuel is different. Even before he was chosen as heir, William emphasizes that Manuel had always been beloved among the Latins. Even when he became emperor, he preferred the Latins over the Greeks: "He passed over his Greeklings as soft and effeminate and entrusted important affairs of the state to the Latins alone." His image only becomes complex through William's introduction of an episode from 1159, when Manuel fought in Syria alongside the King of Jerusalem, Baldwin III. They went hunting together, but the king fell from his horse and broke his arm. Instead of a servant or noble taking care of the king, Manuel personally took care of him. William describes this as follows: "...his nobles and kinsmen were indignant and amazed that, unmindful of his imperial majesty and negligent of his supreme dignity, he presented himself in this way like a caring servant." Manuel cares for the Latins, while his nobles just stand by; Manuel imitates Christ, while the Greeks do nothing and only judge.
This is a key moment. For William, who sees in the transition from Latin (Roman) to Greek rulers (which for him begins with the rise of Nicephorus I in the time of Charlemagne) the end of the Roman Empire, Manuel represents a contradiction. Referring to the "fallatio Grecorum" was something that was widely accepted; Alexios, in Constantinople and after the Crusaders left the city, did everything to destroy the Crusaders. This is why, according to William, Tatikios betrayed the Crusaders at the worst moment. However, didn’t Manuel also betray the Crusaders in 1147-8, as Odo insinuated, and whom William read? William also considers the possibility that Manuel betrayed the Crusaders, but there is no rhetoric attempting to convince the reader of this; the guides who led the French are the only culprits, likely because they were bribed by the Turks themselves. William leaves it at that. On the other hand, the Greeks are effeminate and molles – soft, womanly, incapable of leading a war or battle. He contrasts this with the Latins, who are described as "real men." Byzantium has become "feminine" due to the arrival of the "Greek" emperors; thus, a translatio has occurred – Byzantium, which was once responsible for defending the holy places (Antioch, Jerusalem), can no longer do so, which is why now the Latins, due to their strength and masculinity are the protectors of the Holy Land.
That is why Manuel is such a contradiction in William’s narrative. This can best be seen through the example of when Manuel was defeated at Myriokephalon in 1176; William did not place the blame on the Greeks, but on the Greeks and Latins, including all Christians. Manuel fought "in the name of all Christians" and was defeated because all Christians were sinful. For William, Byzantium rebelled against Manuel’s "legacy" after his death; the massacre of Latins in 1182 and the rise of Andronicus to power were, for William, proof that Byzantium was truly not part of the Christian ecumene, and that a compromise with the Greeks was impossible. The East-Latin state, which symbolically submitted to the ecumenical authority of Byzantium, was now against it.
Two Worlds, One Problem
Two events shocked the West in the 9th decade of the 12th century: the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182 and the Battle of Hattin in 1187. Many blamed Byzantium for the latter defeat. In the Chronicle of Magnus of Riegersburg, there is an accusation that first Saladin and Andronicus collaborated, and then Saladin continued his cooperation with Isaac Angelus, before and after the battle. Isaac tried to ease relations; he renewed ties with Pisa and Genoa, arranged a marriage between his sister Theodora and Conrad of Montferrat (1187), and he himself married the daughter of Bela III, Margaret. However, relations again significantly worsened with the arrival of the Crusaders in 1189. Barbarossa's army entered Byzantine territory on July 1. The Crusaders faced enormous problems and minor clashes with the local population. Supplies did not arrive on time while the Crusaders were in Niš, forcing them to fend for themselves. Considering the difficulty of the route and the fact that no supplies were awaiting them even in Sofia, Barbarossa had reasons to doubt the "hospitality" of the Byzantine Empire. When Friedrich arrived in Philippopolis, he learned that his ambassadors in Constantinople had been arrested. The Byzantines came to Friedrich to justify themselves, and this was the response of Dietpold, Bishop of Passau:
"He proudly and arrogantly described himself as emperor of the Romans, an angel of God, and the source of our faith. He conveyed his grace to our emperor, saying that he had learned from messages from the kings of France and England, and the duke of Brindisi, that the lord emperor had entered Greece with the intention of extinguishing his line and that he wished to transfer rule over the Greeks into the power of his son, the duke of Swabia. Moreover, he said that the treaty of friendship that he had heard had been concluded between the emperor and the Great Count [of Serbia, Stephen Nemanja] was suspicious and very much against his interests. He added also that the lord emperor should send hostages to him to secure his agreement to the army’s crossing of the Bosporus, and once he swore to do this, then he would grant a market [for the army]. He said furthermore that he wanted half the land which our army conquered from the Saracens to be assigned to him."
The Germans, approaching Constantinople, noticed that there was a stationary Byzantine army meant to stop them; Friedrich's son took his contingents and defeated the Romans. Barbarossa became very suspicious, and the explanation for the Byzantine emperor's behavior was found in a letter from Queen Sibylla, which Friedrich received at the time:
"The emperor of Constantinople, the persecutor of the church of God, has entered into a conspiracy with Saladin, the seducer and destroyer of the Holy Name, against the name of our Lord Jesus Christ... I tell you truthfully that you ought to believe the most faithful bearer of this letter. For he himself witnesses what he has seen with his own eyes and heard with his own ears. This is the reason that with my head bowed to the ground and with bent knees, I ask your Magnificence that, inasmuch as you are the head of the world and the wall of the house of Israel, you should never believe the Grecian emperor."
Because of this, stories began to spread that the Byzantines were preparing to attack the Germans, that the Ecumenical Patriarch had promised all Romans forgiveness from God if they fought against the Germans, etc. (Harris). Friedrich began sending his men back to the West to inform the pope, Venice, the Italian city-states, German dukes, and many others – Barbarossa had no choice but to conquer Constantinople. Isaac soon began negotiations in Adrianople – the "U-turn" – and finally, in 1190, the Germans crossed into Asia Minor. Latin sources claimed that Isaac, despite this, continued to maintain contact with Saladin, informing him that his forces had inflicted a heavy defeat on Barbarossa and that his army posed no threat to the Ayyubids. This letter exists in Armenian sources, as well as Saladin's response and that of his senior officials: they did not believe Isaac at all. After the conquest of Cyprus (1191) and the tensions between Henry VI and Alexios III (1195-97), the empire was able to temporarily breathe easy because Henry was succeeded by his minor son. Pope Innocent III wanted a new crusade. The first to respond were Theobald III and Louis I of Blois. In 1200, Baldwin IX joined them. Initially, the plan was to conquer Egypt and use it as a base for an attack on Jerusalem. Agreements had been made with Venice, but only one-third of the 33,000 Crusaders appeared in the summer of 1202. Since they were in debt by around 34,000 silver marks, the Venetians persuaded the Crusaders to go to Zara. Although many Crusaders abandoned the main army, Zara was eventually captured in November of the same year. In December, while the Crusaders were still in Zara, envoys from Philip of Swabia and Prince Alexios IV approached them. They managed to negotiate an agreement for the Crusaders to march on Constantinople. Boniface of Montferrat, one of the Crusader leaders, openly supported this idea even before the arrival of the envoys. On the other hand, the pope had explicitly forbidden any attack on Constantinople even before the Crusaders departed.
Immediately, part of the army rebelled due to the ideals of brotherhood – Abbot Guy of Vaux-de-Cernay openly stated that he and his supporters: “…would never give consent, since it would mean marching against Christians.” The barons continued with the plan, however, due to debts.
After Alexios IV came to power with the help of the Crusaders, relations improved: “the Greeks and the French were on very friendly terms with each other in all things.” That mood did not last long due to heavy taxes and the presence of the Crusader army. The new emperor was overthrown in 1204, and Alexios Doukas Murzuflos staged a coup and became emperor. For the Latins, Alexios V did the same thing Alexios had done to Nicephorus Botaniates. The clergy, on the other hand, emphasized to the Crusaders that their sins would be forgiven. The power of church propaganda is best seen in the words of Robert of Clari. The Greeks were proclaimed to be worse than Jews and were called "enemies of God" – enemi damedieu. A similar opinion was held by the first Latin emperor, Baldwin I (IX):
“For it is this city, which in the most unclean rite of the heathens – sucking blood in turn as a sign of fraternal union – very often dared to secure deadly friendships with the infidels… What, on the other hand, the city did for the pilgrims, deeds rather than words provide the instruction of the entire Latin people… This is the city that deemed all Latins worthy of being called not humans but dogs, the shedding of whose blood they almost reckoned among the works of merit…”
Chansons de geste
The most significant experiences of the West that influenced the formation of chivalric literature were those involving the Saracens and Byzantium. Therefore, the following fact, which is very interesting, is noticeable: there is a certain type of duality – in historiography and medieval chronicles, Byzantium is depicted in a negative light, but in the works of poets, the image is completely different.
Chanson d’Antioche
It is believed that this work was written by someone who participated in the First Crusade (Grendor of Douai, Richard le Pelerin). The chanson describes the First Crusade – the journey of the crusaders after they captured Nicaea and the siege of Antioch. The crusaders are portrayed as heroes, while the Byzantine emperor represents the antithesis (Alexios is not named!). He is described as "unfaithful and a proven traitor." The chanson states that the emperor decided to deceive the crusaders and bring them down with the help of the Turks. First, he interrupted the supply lines. A conflict nearly broke out, but the crusaders' oaths temporarily halted the worsening of relations. The emperor then openly betrayed the crusaders while they were besieging Antioch, as he did not come to their aid. However, here a twist occurs, as a Byzantine (!) knight and the emperor’s nephew, Estatin l'Esnase (Lionhearted), suddenly takes the stage. He did not follow the emperor’s orders during the siege of Nicaea and decided to fight alongside the crusaders against the Muslims at Antioch. For this reason, the poet refers to him as Estatin l'Esnase, the hero with the lion's heart, who took the field next to Bohemond and Tancred. To emphasize this contradiction even more, the poet uses Estatin to condemn the emperor: "By my faith, Emperor, I will not fail to tell you: cursed be the treachery and the one who agrees with it."
Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne
Created around 1150, this chanson describes Charles’ journey to Constantinople. It begins with a question that Charles poses to his wife—whether there is any man in the world who wears a crown better than he does. His wife responds:
"Emperor, you think too highly of yourself. I know someone even more dashing than you when he wears his crown in the company of his knights. When he puts it on his head, it suits him better than yours. When he heard these words, Charles was very angry."
Charles then set out with his "twelve knights" (Olivier, William, Turpin, Berengar…—it is also mentioned that Charles was accompanied by 1,000 knights) to visit Constantinople and see for himself whether this Byzantine emperor, Hugo the Strong, truly wore his crown better than he did. First, he visited Jerusalem, where he met with the patriarch. A Jew, upon seeing Charles and his retinue, exclaimed:
"Come to the church, Lord, to prepare the fonts. I wish to be baptized forthwith, for I have just seen twelve counts enter the church and with them a thirteenth."
The patriarch granted Charles the title of emperor and bestowed upon him countless relics. Charles then remembered his original goal (it is implied in the story that he had forgotten it) and set off for Constantinople.
Constantinople is described as follows:
"They beheld the great city of Constantinople, with its bells, its roofs topped with eagles, and its shimmering bridges. …They discovered orchards planted with pine trees and fine laurels: roses, laburnum, and iris were in bloom. They found twenty thousand knights seated there, dressed in silk and white ermine, with great marten skins reaching down to their feet, playing games of chess and backgammon… Three thousand comely maidens were there, clad in shimmering silks and clinging to their lovers in great delight."
After temporarily losing themselves among the Roman knights, they finally found Emperor Hugo:
"The emperor continued without delay and found King Hugo at his plough. The yokes, the axles, the wheels, and the cutting blades. The king, his goad in his hand, was not on foot; rather, on each side of him he had a strong, ambling mule and was supported by a chair of gold. There sat the Emperor on a magnificent cushion, its down made from the golden oriole, its cover from Persian silk; at his feet was a stool inlaid with white silver, and he wore a hat and a fine pair of gloves."
“The Emperor dismounted… and arrived at the palace… Seven thousand knights were seated there… Charles beheld the palace and the great riches: the tables, the chairs and the benches were of pure gold. Decorated in blue, the palace was delightful with its fine paintings of beasts and serpents and a multitude of creatures and birds in flight… There was a sculpture in copper and metal of two children who carried in their mouths horns of white ivory… If any wind, blowing from the sea, struck the palace on the west side, it would make the palace revolve repeatedly, like a chariot’s wheel as it rolls earthwards.
Charles beheld the palace… no longer caring one jot for his own possessions, and recalling his wife whom he had threatened so much.’’
And then the palace started turning:
,,The palace revolved just like a windmill and the statues blew their horns and smiled at each other. You would have sworn they were alive. One was loud and the other clear: it was wonderful to hear. The listener imagined himself in paradise where the angels sing so sweetly and gently. The storm, snow, and hail were tremendous, and the wind was harsh and violent, and it caused great noise and clatter…Inside all was calm and tranquillity, as in the month of May with the sun shining, but the storm was violent, terrible, and overpowering. Charles saw the palace revolve and quiver, and, having no experience of such a thing, did not know what was happening. He sat down on the marble floor, unable to stand upright. The Franks had been thrown to the ground, as they could not remain on their feet. They covered their heads, some lying face down, other supine, and said to each other: "What a sorry plight! The doors are open, yet there is no escape.’’
After being received in an appropriate (knightly) manner by Hugo, the emperor placed Charlemagne and his knights in a luxurious room. They then got drunk, and Hugo left a spy in the room to check if Charlemagne intended to do anything against the interests of the empire.
Under the influence of alcohol, Charlemagne claimed that he could defeat any of Hugo’s knights. Roland also got drunk and claimed that if Hugo gave him his oliphant, he could, with his voice, bring down all the doors and windows of Constantinople. Oliver "joked" that he could have intercourse with the emperor’s daughter a hundred times, while Ogier "joked" that he could tear out the central pillar of the palace and bring down the entire court. Berengar "joked" that he could jump from the tallest tower and, during the fall, break the swords of all of Hugo’s knights—if he could first convince them to point their swords toward the sky as he fell onto them. Naturally, the emperor found out and confronted the hungover Franks, who immediately repented. Charlemagne prayed to God, and He promised that the knights would succeed in all their endeavors.
Encouraged, Charlemagne immediately accused Hugo of acting unchivalrously by leaving a spy in the room. Then, Charlemagne’s knights, one by one, succeeded in their challenges. Oliver was the first—initially, the emperor’s daughter was afraid, but Oliver reassured her that he was in love with her. The task was to have intercourse with her 100 times—the chanson states that he did not manage more than 30 times, but the princess lied to her father, claiming that Oliver had successfully completed the task. Hugo returned to where Charlemagne was and said: "The first jester is safe. I think he must be a magician. Now I intend to find out if the others have lied or told the truth." All the knights proved themselves, but they left behind a destroyed city and court. Charlemagne made his "court" in a tree, while Hugo hid in a tower. Hugo admitted that Charlemagne was better than him and agreed to become his vassal. Hugo’s daughter decided to leave with Oliver, and their story (and that of their son) continues in another chanson, Galien le Restoré.
Cligès
The story begins with the son of a Byzantine emperor named Alexander, who wishes to serve King Arthur. Despite his father’s protests, Alexander leaves for Arthur’s court—Camelot. He succeeds in winning the favor of the Breton king, becomes a knight, and marries Soredamor, Arthur’s niece. They have one child—Cligès. Alexander later learns that his father has died and that his brother, Alis, has taken the throne. He travels to Greece to fight for his rightful claim (as Alis was the younger brother) but ultimately allows Alis to rule under the condition that he does not marry or have children.
The narrative then skips forward in time, revealing that Alis has been persuaded by his nobility to take a wife. He chooses Fenice, the daughter of the German emperor, but Cligès also falls in love with her. Fenice reciprocates his feelings, which leads Cligès into conflict with the Duke of Saxony and his nephew. After emerging victorious in both duels, Cligès is officially recognized as a knight. He returns home to Britain, while Fenice searches for ways to avoid marriage to Alis. Since her previous magical attempt failed, Fenice now tries to fake her death with a potion. However, she is caught, and three doctors who "revive" her begin interrogating her about why she did it. Cligès, upon learning what happened, rescues Fenice, and together they hide in a tower.
The emperor learns the truth from his messengers but soon dies. Meanwhile, Cligès, who had returned to Arthur to seek his help in conquering Constantinople, is informed of his uncle’s death. Cligès and Fenice then marry and become emperor and empress.
Latin Renovatio
The Latins did not seek to create a new empire—despite the agreement in March 1204, the imperium in question was always Byzantine. The imperial status of Byzantium was never called into question. The establishment of the "Latin Empire" was accompanied by a wave of feudalization, but this was not an unknown phenomenon in Byzantium. Byzantine laws that could be reconciled with Latin norms remained in place (Günter). The dichotomy of the "Latin" Empire lies precisely between continuity and innovation.
For our purposes, it is necessary to examine the ways in which the Latins modified Romanitas:
The empire used the terms Romanorum/Romanum in Latin and Rhomaion in Greek. During coronation ceremonies, the emperor would sit on Constantine the Great’s throne in Boukoleon. The Latin aristocracy also began to see itself as a senatorial class. This understanding was specifically Byzantine (Tricht). This suggests two things: the influence of the remaining Byzantine aristocracy and the pragmatism of the new Latin aristocracy.
The Latins continued to use the term Romania, which the Byzantines used to refer to their land—the land of the Romans. They also used Imperium Constantinopolitanum, and some argue this could be seen as a "concession" within the context of the Zweikaiserproblem (the problem of two emperors). Here, we encounter the radicalism of the Latin usage of this term—when the Latins used Rhomaioi, it was not ethnically exclusive in the same way the Byzantine elite had used it. All peoples living within Latin territories were considered Romans (van Tricht). The root of the idea that the Latins/Franks were Romans was linked to the mythological claim that both Franks and Romans were of Trojan origin (Robert de Clari).
Regarding the political aspect of Romanitas, Latin rulers also adopted Byzantine universalism within the symbolic universe of the Zweikaiserproblem. The use of the imperial title was already a step in this direction (Baldwin I), and in the case of Baldwin II, we have a concrete example in his horoscope, where the author explicitly stated that no ruler’s authority surpassed Baldwin’s. In other words, the Latins openly accepted the Byzantine concept of the hierarchy of nations. Concrete examples include the relations Latin emperors maintained with other states, such as the Germans (Philip of Swabia) and the French (Philip II / Saint Louis). The Latins did recognize papal authority, and imperial power was heavily dependent on the pope. However, emperors sometimes directly intervened in church matters. In 1214, Henry took the initiative to restore Greek metropolitan churches that had previously been abolished by the papal legate. Baldwin I attempted to convene an ecumenical council in Constantinople to declare the unity of the Christian Church.
Latin emperors also adopted the formula Deo coronatus / coronez de Deu (Baldwin II) in their titulature—"Vicar of Christ." Astrologers and intellectuals in Latin Constantinople drew parallels between Baldwin II and Christ. The papacy’s new policy shifted from translatio imperii to divisio imperii. Despite this, Latin emperors still claimed to be the sole Roman rulers.
Conclusion
Taking into consideration all of the data considered thus far, we can conclude that the conflict between the East and West was not only not inevitable, but rather contingent upon certain long-term and short-term processes as well as shifting viewpoints that arose during the reigns of different emperors (while the West was opposed to Alexios, the relations between the West and Romania began significantly improving during the reign of Manuel Komnenos). Despite that, they shared characteristics that were systematic and externalized in the ideal expressions of the literary genre of chansons where the East Romans often assumed contradictory qualities, albeit incorporated into the overall conceptual imaginary of the western feudal knights.
Both shared competing, although not necessarily confrontational views of Romanness; it was this framework, including that of Christianity, that allowed them to cooperate during the reign of Manuel Komnenos (as well as develop a strong rivalry). However, the period that followed after the death of Manuel Komnenos was indicative of a significant souring of relations between the west and east, particularly because of the 1182 Massacre of Latins in Constantinople, which was a significant turning point and greatly contributed to the eventual collapse of the empire of Romans in 1204. The rise of Saladin and the inability of Isaac, and his successor Alexios to navigate between the crusaders and Saladin, as well as the rising German power rendered Romania unprepared for the conflict that would come, mostly completely unexpected even for the crusaders who took the voyage in 1203.
Nevertheless it is quite ironic that the new Latin overlords of Constantinople would assume the very same symbolic and legal trappings of power the previous Byzantine Roman rulers had, pretending to be in complete continuity with the empire they had just conquered. It is precisely this Latin renovatio that shows that underneath the animosity, there had been a factor that both united and divided the Latins from the Romans, having been one of the very conditions of possibility of all the events that transpired in 12th century.