I'll be Bach.
Posted on 06/16/2010 5:05:17 AM PDT by Cronos
Since the late 11th century, Western merchants, primarily from the Italian city-states of Venice, Genoa and Pisa, had started appearing in the East. The first had been the Venetians, who had secured large-scale trading concessions from Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Subsequent extensions of these privileges and Byzantium's own naval impotence at the time resulted in a virtual maritime monopoly and stranglehold over the Empire by the Venetians.[3] Alexios' grandson, Manuel I Komnenos, wishing to reduce their influence, began to reduce the privileges of Venice while concluding agreements with her rivals: Pisa, Genoa and Amalfi.[4] Gradually, all four Italian cities were also allowed to establish their own quarters in the northern part of Constantinople itself, towards the Golden Horn.
The predominance of the Italian merchants caused economic and social upheaval in Byzantium: it accelerated the decline of the independent native merchants in favour of big exporters, who became tied with the landed aristocracy, who in turn increasingly amassed large estates.[1] Together with the perceived arrogance of the Italians, it fueled popular resentment amongst the middle and lower classes both in the countryside and in the cities.[1] The religious differences between the two sides, who viewed each other as schismatics, further exacerbated the problem. The Italians proved uncontrollable by imperial authority: in 1162, for instance, the Pisans together with a few Venetians raided the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, causing much damage.[1] Emperor Manuel subsequently expelled most of the Genoese and Pisans from the city, thus giving the Venetians a free hand for several years.[5]
In early 1171, however, when the Venetians attacked and largely destroyed the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, the Emperor retaliated by ordering the mass arrest of all Venetians throughout the Empire and the confiscation of their property.[1] A subsequent Venetian expedition in the Aegean failed: a direct assault was impossible due to the strength of the Byzantine forces, and the Venetians agreed to negotiations, which the Emperor stalled intentionally. As talks dragged on through the winter, the Venetian fleet waited at Chios, until an outbreak of the plague forced them to withdraw.[6] The Venetians and the Empire remained at war, with the Venetians prudently avoiding direct confrontation but sponsoring Serb uprisings, besieging Ancona, Byzantium's last stronghold in Italy, and signing a treaty with the Norman Kingdom of Sicily.[7] Relations were only gradually normalized: there is evidence of a treaty in 1179,[8] although a full restoration of relations would only be reached in the mid-1180s.[9] Meanwhile, the Genoese and Pisans profited from the dispute with Venice, and by 1180, it is estimated that up to 60,000 Latins lived in Constantinople.[1]
Death of Manuel I and massacre Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support.[1][10] Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins. Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked.[11] Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea.[2] The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and the Latin priests and monks received special attention. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.[2][12] Ironically, a few years later, Andronikos I himself was deposed and handed over to the mob of Constantinople citizenry, and was tortured and summarily executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers.
Impact The massacre further worsened the image of the Byzantines in the West, and although regular trade agreements were soon resumed between Byzantium and Latin states, the underlying hostility would remain, leading to a spiraling chain of hostilities: a Norman expedition under William II of Sicily in 1185 sacked Thessalonica, the Empire's second largest city, and the German emperors Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI both threatened to attack Constantinople.[13] The worsening relationship culminated with the brutal sack of the city of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, which led to the permanent alienation of Orthodox and Catholics. The massacre itself however remains relatively obscure, and Catholic historian Warren Carroll notes that "Historians who wax eloquent and indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople ... rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in ... 1182."[12]
“...to bach each other over the head.”
Bach? As long as they’re not shostakoviching us we’re fine.
I'll be Bach.
>> As long as they’re not shostakoviching us we’re fine. <<
I don’t think I could Handel that.
Seriously, though, it should also be mentioned that those who sacked Constantinople were excommunicated from the Catholic church for their actions, quite to the contrary to them as they are frequently portrayed as acting on behalf of the Catholic church.
The fact is that the armies that sacked Constantinople in 1204:
(1) were led by a Greek claimant to the throne
(2) almost half of the soldiers in that army were Orthodox
(3) none of the Latins in the army were designated as Crusaders by any authority,
(4) the Pope forbade the attack beforehand and condemned it afterwards
(5) the largest contingent of Latins - the Venetians - included many relatives, descendants and friends of the Venetians who were massacred by the Greeks 22 years earlier.
The standard Orthodox mythology of 1204 - that innocent, peaceful Greeks were suddenly attacked by an army composed entirely of barbarous Latins which was specifically dispatched by the Pope - is just that: mythology.
Oh, that hurt.
Pope Innocent III, when informed that the Latin leaders of the Fourth Crusade planned to attack Zara in Croatia and use it as base to attack Constantinople rather than relieve Jerusalem - which was the Pope's actual request - he informed Boniface and his Venetian allies that he would excommunicate them if they did it.
They attacked Zara anyway in 1202 and the Pope, as he had promised, published an official decreee excommunicating the entire army.
That excommunication was still in force when Boniface moved on Constantinople.
It’s funny, Stephen Runciman’s book neglected to mention that fact, although there’s plenty in various modern accounts of the war that miss this point.
The Greeks were also in the middle of a civil war and had invited the Latins to participate. When the Latins were on the end of some double dealing, well.
Runciman was so deeply learned and such a skilled writer of prose that most people don't realize that he was an incredibly biased and selective historian.
Runciman - who was personally an Aleister Crowley-style occultist - had an enormous aesthetic appreciation for Byzantine and Ottoman culture and a definite contempt for traditional Catholicism.
It’s always bloodshed when someone has a monopoly that another group covets.
Had no idea about Runciman’s occultism, thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.