country inaccessible to enemies."89 Byzantine historians unanimously glorify John Vatatzes.90 Even if we admit a certain exaggeration of the sources in their estimate of the Emperor of Nicaea, John Vatatzes must be considered a talented and energetic politician, and the chief creator of the restored Byzantine Empire. It is interesting that the name of John Vatatzes was so beloved and esteemed by the people that some time after his death, in popular tradition, he became a saint; miracles began to be connected with his memory; "The Life of St. John the Merciful” was composed, a sort of popular canonization. The memory of John Vatatzes has not been officially recognized by the Greek church, and his cult confined itself to the narrow limits of a Lydian city in Asia Minor, Magnesia, where the Emperor had been buried. "The Life" of Vatatzes is not to be confused with "The Life" of a saint of the seventh century, John the Merciful, as is sometimes the case. Scholars vary in opinion concerning the place and time of composition of "the Life." Even at the present time the clergy and population of Magnesia and its surroundings gather annually on Nov. 4th in the local church and honor the memory of the late Emperor John the Merciful.91 In the orthodox calendar under November 4 we read the name of "John Ducas Vatadzi."9: The external activity of Vatatzes was extremely important, because, by eliminating gradually the pretenders to the role of restorer of the Empire, that is, the rulers of Thessalonica, Epirus, and Bulgaria, he brought under his power so much territory as practically to signify the restoration of the Byzantine Empire. The main role in the restoration belonged to John Vatatzes, and, 80 Th. Uspensky, "On the manuscripts of the History of Nicetas Acominatus," Journal of the Min. of Public Instruction, CXCIV (1877), 76. Pappadopoulos, Theodore II Lascaris (Paris, 1908), p. 43. See Niceph. Greg., II, 1, 2 (I, 24); Georg. Acrop., Epitaph in memory of John Vatatzes, ed. Heisenberg, II, 12; 'Avorbμov Zvvoyis Xpovich, in Sathas, Bibliotheca Graeca medii aevi, VII, 509. 91 See A. Heisenberg, "Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige," Byz. Zeitsch., XIV (1905), 160, 162; N. Festa, "A propos d' une biographie de St. Jean le Miséricordieux," Viz. Vrem., XIII (1906), 5, 9, 18. Gardner, op. cit., 195-6. M. Andreeva, Essays on the culture of the Byzantine Court in the thirteenth century (Praha, 1927), p. 24 (in Russian). 92 Arch. Sergius, The Complete Liturgical Calendar (Menologion) of the Orient (2d ed., Vladimir, 1901), II, 344 (in Russian). in 1261, Michael Palaelogus only profited by the results of the persistence and energy of the best Nicene Emperor. The generations after John Vatatzes looked back upon him as "the Father of the Greeks." 1793 The last Lascarids. The Restoration of the Byzantine Empire. The last rulers of the Empire of Nicaea were the son and grandson of John Vatatzes, Theodore II Lascaris (1254-1258) and John IV Lascaris (1258-1261). Theodore, thirty-three years old, "seated, according to customs, on a shield, "94 was proclaimed Emperor with the consent of the troops and nobility. In spite of his weak health, Theodore, before ascending the throne, had devoted all his time to studies and literature. His enlightened father had done his best, and Theodore's education had been carefully supervised by the best scholars of the epoch, with Nicephorus Blemmydes and George Acropolita at their head. On his accession to the throne, Theodore II, like his father, displayed the energetic political activity which made him sometimes forget his studies, even his favorite philosophy. Realizing the importance of external political relations, he turned his chief attention to the forming of a powerful army. Theodore wrote: "I have one truth, one goal, one desire to gather together the flock of God and protect it from hostile wolves."95 Believing that the Greeks had to rely on their own strength and not on foreign alliances or on foreign mercenaries, Theodore, perhaps, was almost the only "Byzantine" Emperor who paid attention to the "hellenization" of the army, contrary to the established custom of making use of the mercenary troops of foreign peoples.96 In 1258, the young Emperor breathed his last in the prime of life (36 years old), having before death exchanged his imperial robes for those of a monk. He left to his successor the vast conquests of John Vatatzes intact. This active and philosophically See W. Miller, in the Cambridge Medieval History, iv, 500. Niceph. Greg., III, 1, 2 (I, 55). Georg. Acrop., chap. 53 (ed. Heisenberg, I, 105). Theodori Ducae Lascaris, Epistulae CCXVII, nunc primum ed. N. Festa (Firenze, 1898), ep. XLIV, p. 59 (Pubblicazioni del R. Istituto di studi superiori pratici e di perfezionamento. Ser. di filosofia e lettere, vol. 29). See W. Miller, in The Cambridge Medieval History, IV, 505. educated Emperor lived and worked in the belief that history would pass judgment upon him. In one of his letters we read: "The judgment of history will be passed by the generations to come.' "97 The special historian of the time of Theodore II, not without some exaggeration, writes: "Theodore died very young; otherwise Hellenism might have hoped for better days under the wise rule of the Emperor who had exerted all his energy in order to found the Greek Empire upon a solid and steady basis."98 But this ambition of Theodore remained a theory. In reality the mercenary troops representing different nationalities took an important part in the life of the Empire of Nicaea in general, and during Theodore's reign in particular.99 As far as his external activity is concerned, Theodore undertook two hard Bulgarian campaigns. On the news of Vatatzes' death the Bulgarian Tsar Michael Asen seized the opportunity of recovering the provinces lost under Vatatzes, and it was feared that all the latter's European conquests might again become Bulgarian. In spite of many difficulties and the cowardice and treachery of his generals, the two Bulgarain campaigns ended successfully for Theodore, and, through the mediation of the Russian. prince Rostislav, Michael Asen's father-in-law, a treaty was made. Bulgarians and Greeks received their former frontiers, and one Bulgarian fortress was even ceded to Theodore.100 Theodore's relations to the Despot of Epirus in connection with the proposed marriage between the Despot's son and Theodore's daughter, resulted in Theodore's receiving the important seaport Dyrrhachium (Durazzo), on the Adriatic, and the fortress Serbia (Servia), near the confines of Epirus and Bulgaria. Dyrrhachium "was the western outpost of the Nicene Empire, and necessarily a thorn in the side of the despots of Epirus."101 In Asia Minor, the Seljuq Turks were seriously menaced by the Mongols, who succeeded in making the Sultan their tributary. Ep. XLIV, pp. 59, 119-20. 28 Pappadopoulos, Théodore II Lascaris, empereur of Nicée (Paris, 1908), p. 180. 99 See M. Andreeva, Essays. ... pp. 50-54, and 105 (in Russian). 100 Georg. Acrop., ch. 62 (ed. Heisenberg, pp. 126-27). 101 Gardner, op. cit., p. 226. The situation was delicate and complicated, because Theodore had, though undecidedly, supported the Sultan in his struggle against the Mongols, and the Sultan, "having the heart of a shy deer,"102 as a fugitive, took refuge with Theodore. But a military conflict between Nicaea and the Mongols was avoided, and a Mongol embassy was sent to Theodore. The reception which took place probably at Magnesia, was exceptionally brilliant and imposing; Theodore's chief idea was to impress the Tartars, of whom he was afraid. The Emperor received the ambassadors, seated on a lofty throne, sword in hand. Byzantine historians afford us a detailed account of the reception.103 A recent historian remarks: Theodore "was, in a word, a mass of nerves, an 'interesting case' for a modern mental specialist", and his "brief reign of less than four years did not enable him to make a great mark upon the history of his time."'104 Finally, it has been said lately that "in Theodore was particularly felt what may be called enlightened absolutism."105 Of course, Theodore's reign was too short for us to pass definite judgment on its significance. But in the history of Nicaea his name will always be honorably remembered for his continuance of his father's successful external policy and for his own breadth of learning. Theodore's only son and successor, who was not quite eight years old, John IV (1258–1261) could not, even with the help of the appointed regent, George Muzalon, master the complicated affairs of the Empire. At this time the crafty and ambitious Michael Palaeologus, John Vatatzes' relative, "a restless intriguer and an infamous hypocrite, but an able officer,"106 played a decisive role. Several times suspected of plots and treason by Vatatzes and Theodore II, and occupying, nevertheless, high offices, he had 102 Georg. Acrop., ch. 69 (p. 143). 102 See a very accurate article on this reception by M. Andreeva, The reception of the Tartar ambassadors at the Nicene court. Recueil d'études dédiées à la mémoire de N. P. Kondakov (Praha, 1926), pp. 187-200 (in Russian). Idem, Essays 71-72 (in Russian). 104 W. Miller, in the Cambridge Med. Hist., IV, 501 and 506. .... p. 107. 108 Finlay, A History of Greece, III, 328. ..., pp. in times of danger successfully withdrawn and even fled for a time to the court of the Sultan of Iconium. Stormy times demanded a strong rule. Michael Palaeologus profited skillfully by circumstances and, in 1259, was crowned Emperor. The chief external danger to the Balkan possessions of the Empire of Nicaea arose from the Despot of Epirus, who succeeded in forming an alliance against the Empire consisting of the Despot himself, the King of Sicily, Manfred, a relative of the Despot and the natural son of Frederick II, and the Prince of Achaia, William de Villehardouin. Michael Palaeologus gained some military success against the coalition, and the decisive battle was fought in 1259 in Western Macedonia, in the plain of Pelagonia, near the city of Castoria. Besides Greeks, Turks, Cumans, and Slavs fought in Michael's army. The battle of Pelagonia or Castoria ended in the complete defeat of the allies. The Prince of Achaia was captured. The well-armed troops of the Western knights fled before the light-armed Bithynian, Slavonic, and Eastern troops. "Perhaps," we read in a work on the history of the Empire of Nicaea, "it was the first time that Turks fought against Greeks on Greek soil, and on this occasion in Greek service."107 A contemporary, George Acropolita, gives the following judgment of this event: "Under imperial advice our troops have got so great a victory that the fame of it has passed over all the ends of the earth; of such victories the sun has seen but few."108 In his autobiography, which has come down to us, Michael Palaeologus writes concerning this battle: "Along with them (with the traitors to the Roman state, i. e., the Despot of Epirus and his associates) and their allies, who had as their leader the Prince of Achaia, whom have I vanquished? Alamans, Sicilians, and Italians who came from Apulia, the land of the Iapygians and Brundusium, from Bithynia, Euboea, and the Peloponnesus.' 107 A. Gardner, op. cit., p. 248. 108 Georg. Acrop., ch. 81 (ed. Heisenberg, p. 171). 29109 109 Imp. Michaelis Palaeologi, De vita sua opusculum, par. VII, in the Christianskoe Čtenie (St. Petersburg, 1885), Vol. II, 534 (Greek text); 554-55 (Russian translation). A French translation is given in C. Chapman, Michel Paléologue, restaurateur de l'Empire Byzantin (Paris, 1926), p. 171. |