tivity of its kings Kalojan and John Asen II, and the Sultanate of Rum or Iconium in Asia Minor-took, in the thirteenth century, an active part, especially Bulgaria, in the complicated international life which, after 1204, was established on the ruins of the Byzantine Empire.

The whole thirteenth century was full of continuous clashes and strife between the states just cited in the most various combinations: now the Greeks struggled against the Frankish newcomers, the Turks and Bulgars; now the Greeks strove against the Greeks, introducing thereby, in the form of national discord, new elements of dissolution into the life of a country which was already disorganized enough; now the Franks fought against the Bulgars, and so forth. All these military conflicts were followed by the making of various and, to a large extent, transient international alliances and understandings, which were easily concluded and equally easily broken.

After the disaster of 1204 the problem of where the political, economic, national, religious, and cultural center should exist, and where the idea of unification and order might be created and strengthened, was extremely important. The feudal states founded in the East on the Western models, and commercial factories, where everyone pursued his personal interests, led, under the conditions of general anarchy, to further dissolution; they could neither create a new order nor adequately manage the inheritance which they had received after the Fourth Crusade. To quote an historian, "All these Western enclaves in the East reacted not creatively, but destructively, and therefore they were themselves destroyed; but the Orient remained master over the Orient."1

Beginnings of the Empire of Nicaea. The Lascarids. The role of Bulgaria.-As the chief theme of our exposition we choose the history of the Empire of Nicaea, where was formed and strengthened the idea of Greek national unification and the reconstruction of the Byzantine state, and whence came Michael Palaeologus, who, in 1261, took possession of Constantinople and restored, though to much less than its former extent, the Byzan

1 C. Neumann, "Die byzantinische Marine," Historische Zeitschrift, Neue Folge, 45 (1898), 1-2.

tine Empire. For a time it might have been thought that the task of the restoration of the Greek Empire would be reserved for another Greek centre, the Despotat of Epirus; but, as we shall see later, on the strength of many reasons, the despots of Epirus were forced to yield to the increasing importance of Nicaea and to give up the leading role in the Christian East. The third Greek centre, the Empire of Trebizond, lay too far away to be able to play the leading part in the process of the unification of the Greeks; therefore the history of Trebizond has its own special interest, political as well as cultural and economic, and deserves a particular investigation of its own.

The founder of the Empire of Nicaea, "an Empire in exile," was Theodore Lascaris, a man about thirty years old, related to the house of the Angeli through his wife Anna, daughter of the former Emperor Alexius III, and to the house of the Comneni through Alexius III. We do not know the origin of the Lascarids or the name of Theodore's native city. Under Alexius III he held military command and fought energetically against the crusaders.2 In all likelihood he had been regarded as a possible emperor of Byzantium by the Constantinopolitan clergy after the flight of Alexius Ducas Murzuphlus (Mourtzouphlos) and up to the very moment of the taking of the capital by the crusaders, when Theodore Lascaris fled thence to Asia Minor. There also sought shelter from the invasion of the crusaders numerous representatives of the Byzantine civil and military nobility, some prominent members of the church and some other fugitives who did not wish to be under the yoke of the foreign power. The last Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, John Camaterus, however, left the capital for Bulgaria and refused to come to Nicaea on Theodore's invitation. The metropolitan of Athens, Michael Acominatus, who had withdrawn into exile before the invading Latins, in a letter in which he recommended to the favorable attention of Theodore Lascaris a certain Euboean, wrote that the latter had gone secretly to

2 See A. Gardner, The Lascarids of Nicaea. The Story of an empire in exile (London, 1912), pp. 53-54. Α. Μηλιαράκης, Ιστορία τοῦ βασιλείου τῆς Νικαίας καὶ τοῦ SEσTоTÁTOυ ThS 'Haeipo, (Athens, 1898), p. 8. M. A. Andreeva, Essays on the culture of the Byzantine court in the thirteenth century (Praha, 1927), pp. 82-85 (in Russian).

Nicaea, preferring the life of an exile at the palace of a Greek (Romaic) state to a stay in his native country oppressed by the foreigners; in the same letter of introduction Michael emphasized the fact that, if the above mentioned Euboean found shelter at Nicaea, it would greatly impress the whole population of Greece who "would regard Theodore as a single universal liberator," that is to say, a liberator of the whole of Romania.3

After the death of Theodore Lascaris, who ruled from 1204 to 1222, there reigned his son-in-law, his daughter Irene's husband, John III Ducas Vatatzes (1222-1254),* the most talented and energetic emperor of Nicaea. After his death the throne was in the power, first, of his own son Theodore II (1254-1258), and, then, of his grand-son John IV (1258-1261), who was a minor during his reign. The latter was dethroned by Michael Palaeologus, the restorer of the Byzantine Empire.

The situation of the new state in Bithynia was extremely dangerous: from the east it was threatened by the powerful sultan of Iconium, who occupied the whole interior of Asia Minor and was also master of a part of the Mediterranean shore in the south and of a part of the Black Sea coast in the north; while from the west the state of Nicaea was pushed back by the Latin Empire, which set as one of its chief goals the destruction of the new state of Nicaea. A complicated and difficult task devolved upon Theodore Lascaris, who, for about the first four years, ruled with the title not of emperor, but of despot. Within the country anarchy prevailed; in several parts of the state there arose independent rulers; the city of Nicaea shut its gates to Theodore.

Meanwhile, the Latin knights who had established themselves at Constantinople, determined,, in the same year, 1204, to conquer Asia Minor. Their military operations there were very successful. It seemed to the Greeks of Asia Minor that all was lost. To quote Villehardouin, "the people of the country took the part of the Franks and began to pay them tributes." At this critical moment

Mich. Acom., ed. Lampros, II, 276-77.

Historians usually call John Vatatzes John III, regarding as the first two Johns, John Tzimisces and John Comnenus.

Villehardouin, 323; éd. de Wailly, 193.

for the new state came the sudden news that the Latin Emperor, Baldwin, had been captured by the Bulgars.

Since 1196 there had sat upon the Bulgarian throne Kalojan (John, Johannitsa), who, during the time of the Angeli, had been a terrible enemy of Byzantium. The Latin state established in the Balkan peninsula complicated the situation exceedingly. It was absolutely clear that the crusaders and Bulgars would have to raise the question of dominion in the Balkan peninsula. The relations between them became at once very strained, for the crusaders had insultingly reacted to Kalojan's friendly propositions, giving him to understand that he could not regard the Latin Emperor as his equal, but must look upon him as a serf upon his master; and the Latins warned Kalojan that if he failed in respect, the crusaders would conquer Bulgaria by force of arms and reduce him to his former servile state."

7

Having provoked thereby the anger of the Bulgarian King, the Latins at the same time also irritated the Greek population of Thrace and Macedonia by insulting Greek religious beliefs and rites. The secret relations of the Greeks with King Kalojan prepared in the Balkan peninsula an insurrection in favor of the Bulgars. It may be supposed that the former Patriarch of Constantinople, John Camaterus, who is known to have lived in Bulgaria, played an important part in the formation of the Byzantine-Bulgarian alliance, in the year 1204-5.8 This alliance, Th. Uspensky says, "put an end to Kalojan's hesitations and fixed the plan of his future actions. To come out as a protector of orthodoxy and of the Greco-Bulgarian population against the Catholic Latin predominance and therewith to take upon himself the task of reviving the weakened imperial power in Byzantium became hereafter the chief motive of Kalojan's undertakings against the crusaders." The tsar of Bulgaria longed for the crown of the Byzantine basileus.

Nicetas Choniates, pp. 808-809.

See V. Zlatarsky, The Greek-Bulgarian Alliance in the year 1204-5 (Sofia, 1914), pp. 8-11 (in Bulgarian).

See P. Nikov, Bulgarian diplomacy from the beginning of the thirteenth century, in the Bulgarian Historical Library (Sofia, 1928), I, 103-104 (in Bulgarian).

Th. Uspensky, The Formation of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom (Odessa, 1879). pp. 245-46 (in Russian).

The Greco-Bulgarian insurrection which had broken out in the Balkan peninsula, compelled the crusaders to recall to Europe the troops that had been sent to Asia Minor to fight against Theodore Lascaris. In the battle of Hadrianople, on the fifteenth of April, 1205, Kalojan, supported by the Cuman (Polovtzi) cavalry that was in his army, dealt a decisive defeat to the crusaders. In this battle fell the flower of Western chivalry, and the Emperor Baldwin himself was taken prisoner by the Bulgars. The fate of the captured Emperor is not known; but, apparently, by order of the Bulgarian King, Baldwin was slain in some manner.10 Because of the lack of information on Baldwin's end, his brother Henry was elected regent of the Latin Empire for the time of Baldwin's absence. More than eight hundred years before, in 378, another Roman Emperor, Valens, was killed near Hadrianople in his conflict with the Goths.11

The old doge, Enrico Dandolo, who had also taken part in the battle and conducted the hard night-retreat of the remains of the defeated troops, died shortly after this disaster and was buried in St. Sophia. As a wide-spread tradition states, his corpse remained there till the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, when the Sultan Muhammed II commanded the body of the Venetian hero to be destroyed.12

The defeat of Hadrianople placed the crusaders in a desperate situation. It was a blow to the Latin Empire that, at the very beginning of its political existence, undermined its whole future. To quote a historian (Gelzer), "The dominion of the Franks over Romania ended on this terrible day." "13 And it is true that "the

10 Gardner, op. cit., p. 66 (Baldwin is said to have been taken prisoner to Trnovo. He was never seen again). E. Gerland, Geschichte des lateinischen Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel (Homburg v. d. Höhe, 1905), I, 92 (Kalojan, in a sudden transport of anger, seems to have commanded his captive to be murdered). Nikov, The Bulgarian Diplomacy, p. 104 (Baldwin was captured, carried to Trnovo, and there put in prison, where he died); this information is given on the basis of Innocentii III Gesta. Migne, Patr. Lat., vol. 214, cap. 108 (col. CXLVIII).

11 See vol. I, 109.

12 See, for example, H. Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig (Gotha, 1905), I, 321 and 472.

13 Gelzer, Abriss ..., p. 1042.