case, it reflects the prevailing opinion of the best-born and besteducated people of the Empire of Nicaea,-an opinion based on solid grounds, after Theodore Lascaris, united by ties of parentage with the Angeli and Comneni, became the "Roman basileus" at Nicaea and realized that he continued the line of the Byzantine emperors. External policy of Theodore I. The Seljuq Turks. The Latin Empire. After the defeat of the Latins at Hadrianople, Theodore's situation became temporarily a little easier. Baldwin's successor on the Constantinopolitan throne, however, his brother, Henry, an energetic and talented leader and ruler, after his coronation in St. Sophia, somewhat recovered from the reverse with the Bulgars and again opened hostilities against Theodore, having it in mind to annex the possessions of Nicaea to the Latin Empire. The Emperor of Nicaea could not, by force of arms, check the successes of the Latins. But the Bulgarian danger to the Latins and the Seljuq danger to Theodore compelled both of them to come to an agreement and to conclude a truce; Theodore had to pull down several fortresses.32 Theodore's war with the Seljuq Sultan to whom belonged the greater part of Asia Minor, had great importance for the new Empire of Nicaea. The appearance of a new state, the Empire of Nicaea, was, undoubtedly, exceedingly disagreeable to the Turkish Sultanate of Iconium or Rum, for it hindered the Turks in their further advance to the west toward the coast of the Aegean Sea. To this main cause of the strained relations between the two states must be added the fact that Theodore Lascaris' father-inlaw, Alexius III Angelus, fled to the Sultan and besought him for help to regain his lost throne. Availing himself of the opportunity of Alexius' arrival, the Sultan sent to Theodore a threatening demand to deliver the throne to him, concealing under this pretext his real aim of taking possession of the whole of Asia Minor. Hostilities began; they took place particularly at Antioch, on the 32 See E. Gerland, Geschichte der Kaiser Baldwin I. und Heinrich (Homburg v. d. Höhe, 1905), pp. 102-14. After Gerland's book the dissertation of L. Neuhaus, Die Reichsverwesenschaft und Politik des Grafen Heinrich von Anjou, des zweiten Kaisers im Lateinerreiche zu Byzanz (Leipzig, 1904), has no importance. Maeander river, in Caria. The chief force of Theodore was the eight hundred brave western mercenaries. In their fight with the Turks, they displayed great heroism and inflicted enormous losses on the enemy; but almost all of them were left dead on the field of battle. But by his personal courage and great presence of mind Theodore Lascaris regained control of the situation. In the following clash the Sultan was slain, perhaps by the Emperor himself. To quote a contemporary source, the Sultan "fell as from a tower," i. e. from the mare on which he was mounted.33 In the same battle the ex-Emperor Alexius III, who had taken refuge with the Turks, was captured. He put on the cowl and ended his life in one of the monasteries of Nicaea. Theodore seems to have received no new territories after this war. But the moral significance of the victory of the Greek Christian Emperor of Nicaea over the Muslims was very great: it confirmed the new Empire, revived the former Byzantine traditions of the struggle against Islam, and filled with joy and vigour the hearts of the Greeks, not only the Asiatics, but also the Europeans, who, for the first time, saw in Nicaea a possible centre of their future unification. Nicetas Choniates wrote in honour of Theodore, on account of this victory, à long and bombastic panegyric. Nicetas' brother, Michael Acominatus, the ex-Metropolitan of Athens, from the island of Ceos, where he was spending the last years of his life, sent Theodore a letter of congratulation in which he expressed his wish that Theodore might take possession of the throne of Constantine the Great in the place which our Lord had originally chosen,35 that is to say, in Constantinople. 34 But, if the Greeks rejoiced in Theodore's victory, the Latin Emperor, Henry, who feared the brave western mercenaries of Theodore, was also contented with the same victory, however strange it may seem at first sight; since almost all these mercenaries fell in the war against the Turks, the victory, in the opinion of Henry, weakened the Emperor of Nicaea. A historian 33 Georgii Acropolitae, Annales, cap. 10; ed. A. Heisenberg, p. 17. 34 Sathas, Bibliotheca graeca, I, 129–36. 35 Mich. Acom., II, 353 ff. of that time says that Henry declared: "Lascaris has been vanquished, and has not vanquished."36 Of course, Henry's opinion in this respect was erroneous, because shortly after the war Theodore had again at his disposal a considerable number of Franks and well-armed Greeks.37 The victory over the Turks allowed Theodore to open hostilities against Henry. At that time Theodore's definite goal was, with the support of his already considerable fleet, to attack Constantinople. We have a very interesting letter written by Henry from Pergamon at the opening of the year 1212. This letter, which Gerland calls a manifesto,3 38 was addressed to "all his friends whom its contents may reach" (universis amicis suis ad quos tenor presentium pervenerit). The letter testifies that Henry regarded Theodore as a very dangerous foe; he writes: "The first and greatest enemy was Lascaris who held the whole land beyond the Strait of Saint Georges as far as Turkey, and, setting up for an emperor, he often pressed upon us from that part. . . . Lascaris collected a very great number of galleys in order to take possession of Constantinople; therefore the city was trembling in great desolation, so that despairing of our return (from Asia Minor) many of our people were planning to flee across the sea; and a great many passed over to Lascaris promising him help against us. . . . All the Greeks began to murmur against us and promised Lascaris support if he would come to fight Constantinople." The letter ends with an appeal to the Latins to support Henry. "To have full victory and possess our Empire we need a great number of Latins to whom we may give the land which we are acquiring and which we have acquired; for, as you know, it is not enough to acquire the land, but there must be those who can maintain it."40 This letter shows clearly that Henry was greatly alarmed by Theodore's hostilities, and that the spirit of his new subjects was wavering. 36 Georgii Acropolitae, Annales, ch. 15 (p. 27). 37 Gerland, op. cit., p. 216. 38 Ibidem, p. 218. 39 Brachium Sancti-Georgii is the Bosphorus. 40 Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, new edition (Paris, 1879), xviii, 530-33. Nevertheless, this first attempt of Nicaea to restore the former capital of the Empire miscarried; the Empire of Nicaea was not yet sufficiently strong nor prepared for this purpose. The success was on the side of Henry, who penetrated rather far into the interior of Asia Minor. In a letter recently published and dated apparently in the year 1213, Henry gives a brief account of his victory over the Greeks, who "with such insolence and abuse rose against the Roman Church that they considered all its sons, devoted Latins, as dogs and, because of their contempt of our faith, called them generally dogs."41 The peace concluded between the two Emperors fixed exactly the borders of the two Empires in Asia Minor: the northwestern part of the peninsula remained in the hands of the Latin Empire, in other words, without taking into consideration some insignificant territorial annexations made by the Latin Empire within the country, the Latin possessions in Asia Minor, after that peace, differed very little from the possessions that the Empire had received in the partition of 1204.12 In 1216 the talented and energetic Henry died in the prime of life. He was admired and beloved even by the Greeks, and a Byzantine chronicler of the fourteenth century says that Henry was "a real Ares."43 The historians of the twentieth century also estimate highly his personality and activities. One of them, Gerland, says: "Of the (Latin) Empire Henry became the real founder. His institutions laid the basis upon which the Frankish dominion in Greece developed." A. Gardner writes: "Henry's 41 See M. Ph. Lauer, Une lettre inédite d' Henri, I-er d' Angre, empereur de Constantinople, aux prélats italiens (1213?), in Mélanges offerts à M. Gustave Schlumberger (Paris, 1924), I, 201. I do not know why Lauer ascribes to the year 1213 (p. 194) Henry's dated letter from Pergamon (Jan. 13, 1212). 42 See Gardner, op. cit., pp. 85-86. Gerland, op. cit., pp. 218-19. Sometimes the statement is given (see, for example, N. Iorga, Geschichte der Osmanen, I, 120, and E. Gerland, op. cit., I, 246), that Theodore I, in his political activity, also was successful in the south of Asia Minor, where he seized the city of Attalia, on the Mediterranean coast. But this is an error due to the chronological misdating of an inscription found at Attalia, which belongs properly to the year 915-916. See H. Grégoire, Recueil des inscriptions grecques chrétiennes d' Asie Mineure (Paris, 1922), I, 104. See also A. Vasiliev, Byzantium and the Arabs (St. Petersburg, 1902), II, 153 (in Russian). 43 Ephraemi Monachi, Imperatorum et patriarcharum recensus, vers. 7735 (ed. Bonn., p. 312). 44 Gerland, p. 251. death was certainly a calamity for the Latins-possibly for the Greeks likewise, since his strong but conciliatory policy might have succeeded, if any policy ever could, in filling up the breach between East and West." "45 In the person of Henry the most dangerous enemy of Nicaea passed away. His successors on the Constantinopolitan throne were distinguished neither for talent nor energy. In 1222 the founder of the Empire of Nicaea died. Theodore I Lascaris had created a Hellenic centre in Asia Minor, unified the state, and attracted to it the attention of the European Greeks. He had laid the foundation upon which his successor was able to build a vast structure. In his eulogistic letters to Theodore Lascaris Michael Acominatus wrote: "The capital hurled by the barbarian inundation out of the walls of Byzantium to the shores of Asia in the shape of a miserable fragment has been received by thee, guided, and saved. . . . Thou ought to be called forever the new builder and peopler of the city of Constantine. . . . Seeing only in thee and calling thee a savior and universal liberator the people wrecked in the universal deluge take refuge in thy state as in a calm harbour. . . . No one of the emperors who reigned over Constantinople I consider equal to thee, except, of those nearer in time, the great Basil Bulgaroctonus, and of the more ancient, the noble Heraclius." John III Ducas Vatatzes (1222-1254). History of the Despotat of Epirus before the foundation of the Empire of Thessalonica (Salonica) and its relation to the Empire of Nicaea. The Three Empires in the East.-After the death of Theodore I Lascaris John III Ducas Vatatzes, the husband of his daughter Irene, ascended the throne of Nicaea and reigned from 1222 to 1254.47 Although his predecessor had laid some foundation for the further development of the state of Nicaea, nevertheless its international position was such as to require urgently the rule of a decisive and energetic man. This man appeared in the person of John Vatatzes. 45 Gardner, p. 93. 46 Michael Acominatus, II, 150, 151, 276, 354. 47 The majority of writers regard the year 1254 as that of Vatatzes' death. Μηλιαράκης (p. 412) and Gardner (p. 192) say that he died on the thirtieth of October, 1255. In the Cambr. Med. History (iv, 430) we find the year given as 1254. |