Was Ermengard Married?

King Louis II of Italy was the emperor of the Carolingian Empire. He did not have a son to succeed him, but only a single surviving daughter, Ermengard, named for her grandmother, Ermengarde of Tours. In her youth she was educated by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, the archivist/librarian.

In 869, the Carolingian and Byzantine Empires started discussing an alliance to defeat the Saracens in southern Italy. During these discussions, the notion of a stronger alliance came up, by marriage of Ermengard to Constantine, the eldest son of Emperor Basil I. Constantine had been named co-emperor with his father, and was being groomed for that position.

But now we enter highly suspect territory. To start with, we do not know the birth years of either Ermengard or Constantine. Were they old enough to truly marry? Or was this a more of a "child engagement" plan as we have seen in other political alliances through marriage? Some historians claim they were married; some claim there is no evidence for it and the plan never went beyond announcing the betrothal.

The Annales Bertiniani (Annals of Abbey of St. Bertin, covering years up to 882) referred to Ermengard in 879 as filia imperatoris Italiae et desponsata imperatori Greciae ("daughter of the emperor of Italy and engaged to the emperor of Greece"), but they also say she was engaged to Basil, so we aren't sure how accurate the writer was. Also, 879 is the year that Constantine died unexpectedly, with no chronicle suggesting that he had heirs and no suggestion that Ermengard was a widow.

In fact, by 879 she was already married to someone else, despite what other chronicles may have recorded. Some time in the first half of 876, she was married to Boso of Provence (pictured above; there are no reliable images of Ermengard). Boso (c.841 - 887) was a Frankish nobleman who, in 879, became King of Lower Burgundy and Provence.

In 878, Ermengard and Boso sheltered Pope John VIII when he had to flee Rome because of Saracens. In papal correspondence between Pope John and Ermengarde's mother, Engelberga, he mentions the good impression the couple made on him. They had three children. A daughter named Engelberga after Ermengarde's mother married William I, Duke of Aquitaine, founder of Cluny Abbey. There was another daughter of whom we are not certain, but some believe she was Guilla of Provence, who was consort first to Rudolf I of Upper Burgundy (making her possibly the mother of King Rudolf II of Burgundy) and later to Hugh of Arles, border count of Provence.

They also had a son, Louis the Blind, whose story includes a marriage link that become as confusing to historians as his mother's, if not more so. We'll check that out tomorrow, and lament how inaccurate our historical records truly are once we go back a millennium. See you then.

Zoe Zaoutzaina, Consort

Emperor Leo VI "the Wise" became Byzantine emperor in 886. He had married, in 883, the daughter of a dynasty that had been emperors from 820 to 867. Supposedly, the marriage was forced on him by the then-Emperor Basil I, Leo's father. The wife was Theophano Martinakia, and there was little love between the couple. They had one child, a daughter, who died young.

In the third year of Leo's reign as emperor, he came to know the daughter of one of his retainers. The woman was Zoe Zaoutzaina; her father, Stylianos Zaoutzes, was a Macedonian-born official whose surname refers to him having a dark complexion. In contemporary records, he is referred to as "the Ethiopian" because of his color. Stylianos was well-respected in the imperial court. Leo was interested in Zoe.

Zoe, however, was married to a lower-grade court official named Theodore, of whom we know very little. History says that Theodore was poisoned, and the suggestion hinted at by chroniclers was that Leo was somehow involved. At any rate, contemporary historians say that Leo started an affair with Zoe in his third year, although Leo denied it.

In the seventh year of Leo's reign, Theophano retired to a monastery outside of Constantinople. She was known to be very devout, and the choice may well have been hers, but the chroniclers hint that it may have been deliberate on Leo's part. The marriage was not dissolved, but Zoe was now officially considered (and treated as) Leo's mistress and a royal consort.

Her new status benefitted her father. Leo "promoted" him with the title basileopator, "father of the emperor," a grand title for someone who was technically not even a father-in-law. She bore Leo a daughter, Anna, who was married to the king of Provence, Louis the Blind, who became Holy Roman Emperor.

Zoe died in 899 and was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles, where Theophano and Leo himself were buried, as well as Leo's third wife. Oh yes, Leo got over his grief at losing Zoe. He needed a son, so marrying again was imperative. Whether he succeeded in having someone to whom he could leave the empire will be tomorrow's topic, after we talk about his relationship with his father.

The Last Medieval Pope

Others may dispute it, but I call Nicholas V the Last Medieval Pope because he saw the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks and the end of the Hundred Years War (I explain more here).

Born Tomasso Parentucelli (13 November 1397 - 24 March 1455), his father died when he was young, leaving Tomasso unable to complete his education until many years later. Achieving a degree in theology, he was hired by Bishop Niccolò Albergati, spending the next 20 years as the bishop's personal assistant and librarian, helping the bishop to acquire a large library. He read as well as curated; his wide knowledge of theology made him valuable and respected.

When Albergati died, Tommaso was offered the position of bishop, but Bologna was going through a some political troubles that made his appointment unlikely. Pope Eugene IV sent him on diplomatic missions at which Tommaso was so successful that he earned a cardinal's hat. Upon Eugene's death, Tommaso was elected to succeed him, taking the name Nicholas to honor his original patron.

He carried his love of learning and arts to the papacy. During his time:

—A library of 5000 volumes was created, including manuscripts rescued from Constantinople after it fell to the Turks. More on the evolution of the new Vatican Library can be found here.

—He promoted the new humanist learning, sending emissaries East to invite Greek scholars from Constantinople.

—He started his papacy by restoring the major Roman basilicas, and cleaning and paving main streets.

—He restored the Aqua Virgo, one of the 11 main aqueducts that used to supply the city before they crumbled into ruin after the fall of Rome. It emptied into a basin that later became the famous Trevi Fountain.

—He had Lorenzo Valla translate Greek histories and literature to make them available to the West.

(He is also known as a supporter of slavery of non-Christians, mentioned here, which later caused controversy among two Christian nations.)

As part of his rebuilding plan, he took 2522 cartloads of marble from the Colosseum, which at that time was used basically as a quarry. The Colosseum has been barely mentioned here, and you might be interested to know what the Middle Ages thought of this great Roman wonder...next time.

John the Beautiful

As the eldest son of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos, John had the status of Porphyrogenitus, "born to the purple." He had an older and well-educated sister, Anna, who had hoped that she and her husband would rule after Alexios' death, but it was not to be. Her brother became Emperor John II Comnenos, the second emperor of what is called the Comnenian Restoration that lasted more than a century.

He was known as John the Good or John the Beautiful, but this was a reference to his character, not his physical appearance (he was short, and his eyes and hair and complexion were so dark that he was also called "the Moor"). He was pious, dignified, and (notable for a medieval ruler) known to be faithful to his wife (Irene of Hungary, venerated as a saint). A just ruler, supposedly he never had anyone executed outside of what the law demanded.

He was also a good general and strategist. Unlike his father and other emperors, he did not use his family to fill high positions (which in the past created opportunities for family members to consider conspiracies and coups). He appointed several men from outside his family connections, distributing (and diluting) power among several different clans.

His closest friend and advisor was John Axouch, who was himself so moral that, when John offered him all the property of John's sister Anna (because John had uncovered a conspiracy of which she was a part), Axouch declined. Axouch was a Turk who had been captured at the Siege of Nicaea and given to Alexios as a gift. John appointed Axouch as the megas domestikos, the Grand Domestic, making him commander-in-chief of the Byzantine armed forces.

John II's policies did lead to resentment among his family. His younger brother, Isaac, was conspiring against John, and in 1130 when John was about to have him arrested for it, Isaac fled first to a Danishmend emir, then to the Seljuk Sultan of Rum, and also to the Prince of Armenia. Isaac was apparently seeking aid from these rulers. Isaac had some support in Constantinople, and John had to hurry back home from a campaign upon learning that there was a plan to put Isaac on the throne. A reconciliation of the brothers in 1138 was short-lived: a year later Isaac was exiled to Heraclea, on the coast of the Black Sea, far from Constantinople.

During his reign, John personally led all military campaigns to expand territory or put down rebellions. He is regarded as the most successful of the Comnenian emperors. His death was accidental. While hunting wild boar in Cilicia in southern Turkey, he cut his hand on a poisoned arrow. We assume he did not bother treating the cut, which became infected; he died several days after the incident, on 8 April 1143. Of his surviving sons, he named the younger, Manuel, to be his heir rather than the older Isaac. Isaac was known to be irritable, while Manuel had distinguished himself on campaign. John Axouch argued for the older Isaac, but was a faithful supporter of Manuel when the choice was made.

There is another theory offered to explain the choice of Manuel over Isaac, and it is the odd AIMA prophecy. This is a quirky one, which I'll save for tomorrow.

The Alexiad

Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger (1062 - 1137) was a Byzantine noble. As a general, he defended Constantinople when the army of Godfrey of Bouillon attacked in 1097 during the First Crusade. He was also the second husband of Anna Comnena, the daughter of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos.

Anna's mother Irene Doukaina suggested he write a political history of the quarter century leading up to the coronation of his father-in-law, Alexios. It would largely be a "family history" of the Comnenos clan, and he gathered information for his "Material for a History." He drew on writings of contemporary historians such as Michael Psellos, John Skylitzes and Michael Attaleiates, covering many topics of which he would have no personal experience

Before the work was finished, Nikephoros died after becoming ill while on a military campaign in Syria. His widow, Anna, took the notes and turned them into The Alexiad, with a large focus on exalting her father:

I, Anna, the daughter of two royal personages, Alexius and Irene, born and bred in the purple. I was not ignorant of letters, for I carried my study of Greek to the highest pitch, and was also not unpractised in rhetoric; I perused the works of Aristotle and the dialogues of Plato carefully, ...

However, to resume—I intend in this writing of mine to recount the deeds done by my father for they should certainly not be lost in silence, or swept away, as it were, on the current of time into the sea of forgetfulness, and I shall recount not only his achievements as Emperor, but also the services he rendered to various Emperors before he himself received the sceptre.

The 15 chapters include not only the political rise and fall of emperors, but also the encounter with the "Frankish barbarians" of the Crusade, with details useful to modern historians:

For the Frankish weapon of defence is this coat of mail, ring plaited into ring[s], and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer’s skin unhurt. An additional weapon of defence is a shield which is not round, but a long shield, very broad at the top and running out to a point, hollowed out slightly inside, but externally smooth and gleaming with a brilliant boss of molten brass.

About 10 manuscripts of the finished work survive, some of them complete. Written in Attic Greek, The Alexiad gives us another version of the time period for scholars to study with some unusual traits. It is the only historical work written by a woman, and it differs radically from other histories because the author acknowledges feelings and opinions of the events discussed.

She virtually ignores her brother, John II Comnenos, who became emperor after Alexios. Anna, of course, wanted Nikephoros to succeed her father. Was John that bad an emperor? Was his reign worthy of being ignored in The Alexiad? Let's look at John II Comnenos next time.

Emperor Alexios I Comnenos

Alexios I Comnenos (1057 - 1118) was the Byzantine emperor during the start of the Crusades. Since the Byzantines were a part of the old Roman Empire, and Christian, and a well-populated and economically significant city at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, Europeans saw them as allies and the gateway to the lands of the infidels who held the Holy Land.

The Crusades were not his only concern, however. As a young man, he and his brother, Manuel Comnenos, served with distinction against the Seljuk Turks, whose territory was right across the Bosporus. The empire also had trouble with Normans in the western Balkans. At one point, he refused to fight against a kinsman who was seizing control of Byzantine territory in Asia Minor for himself. This did not count against Alexios, however, because his abilities were too valuable, and he was needed to help deal with Robert Guiscard.

His father, John Comnenos, had refused the throne when the previous ruler, Isaac I Comnenos, abdicated to become a monk. The throne therefore went to Constantine X Doukas, followed by Romanos IV Diogenes, then Michael VII Doukas, then Nikephoros III Botaneiates, against whom Alexios conspired to take the throne himself. Alexios surrounded Constantinople with his troops, broke through the walls on 1 April 1081, and was crowned on 4 April. Nikephoros fled, but was captured and forced into monk-hood.

Alexios took on an empire that was in decline and face with content military threats at the edge of its borders. Alexios' military skills enabled him to strengthen the empire and recover lost territory. The First Crusade was sparked by his requests for aid against the Turks, as mentioned in this 2012 post. He got the help (some of which was better than others), but the Seljuks continued to be a problem throughout his reign. He was also plagued by the question of succession, his preference being for his son John II Comnenos, while his wife pushed for their daughter Anna and her husband.

I might get to the resolution of who succeeded Alexios, John or Anna, but I want to talk about another Anna: Alexios' mother. She was an important figure who had a significant role in helping his rebellion succeed, and we should look at her next.

The Christianization of the Kievan Rus

Although his grandmother, the cruel and vicious Olga, is considered by some to be the reason the Kievan Rus became Christian, Vladimir the Great is the one who made it "official." The "Baptism of Kyivan Rus"*  is celebrated every year. The reason he converted himself and the country is worthy of debate.

The account of the Primary Chronicle is that he looked for the best religion of the three major ones (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) to submit to, settling on Christianity because it didn't have the dietary prohibitions of the others. The Chronicle also contains what is called the "Korsun Legend." In it, Vladimir captures Korsun—part of the Byzantine Empire—in the Crimean Peninsula. He uses this to negotiate with the Emperor Basil II for Basil's unwedded sister in marriage. Vladimir already had a few wives, but this would be the highest-born wife he could get, and forge an alliance with a large empire. Basil consents if Vladimir will be baptized a Christian. He does so, and marries Anna Porphyrogeneta.

Several Arab sources cast this event in a slightly different light. They tell us that two rebels joined forces against Emperor Basil, one of whom actually declared himself emperor in September 987. Basil wanted help dealing with them, and so turned to Vladimir, despite their less-than-friendly history. Vladimir offered his help in suppressing the rebels, in exchange for Anna's hand in marriage. Vladimir also agreed (although he seemed to have had the upper hand in this deal) to be baptized and to Christianize his whole nation. Once this agreement was finalized, Vladimir sent 6000 troops to Basil's aid.

Whichever version is accurate, Vladimir married Anna, but had a problem at home: several wives. He had to divorce Rogneda (who entered a monastery), Adela, and Malfrida. He also had all the residents of Kyiv meet him at the Dnieper River for a mass baptism. He baptized his children and all the nobility. Messages went to all residents of Kyiv to come to the river and be baptized or be declared Vladimir's enemy. Priests from Korsun performed the ceremony.

Afterward, less than a decade after setting up shrines and temples to pagan deities to please the various tribes, he had them all torn down or burned. 

In our high school History of Western Civilization classes we often hear about entire countries being forced into Christianity. We never hear about paganism fighting back. In this case, let's see how Vladimir's people felt about their forced conversion. See you tomorrow.

*The Russian attack of Ukraine in 2022 has resulted in a change in many places to use the Ukrainian spelling "Kyiv" over the Russian "Kiev." I still use "Kievan Rus" because it is historically what the group has been called; when I mention the capital city, I will use the Ukraine spelling.

Vladimir the Great

Vladimir the Great (also Vladimir I, also St. Vladimir/Volodymyr) was Grand Prince of Kyiv and ruler of Kievan Rus from 980 to 1015. He was the third son of Sviatoslav I, whose death in 972 resulted in Vladimir fleeing to Scandinavia after his oldest brother, Yaropolik, murdered their middle brother, Oleg, to eliminate a potential rival to his rule.

Yaropolik might not have considered Vladimir a threat, since Vladimir was the son of their father and their father's housekeeper.

The ruler of Norway, Haakon Sigurdsson, was a relative. Haakon helped Vladimir (who was only 21) to gather a Varangian army and defeat Yaropolik, taking over Novgorod. He was crowned 11 June 980.

On his way to defeat his brother, he sent to the Prince of Polotsk (in Belarus) asking for his daughter Rogneda's hand in marriage. Rogneda refused to marry the son of a housekeeper, so Vladimir diverted to Polotsk, conquered it, kidnapped Rogneda, killed her parents, and used Polotsk as a fortress base to capture Kyiv.

During his reign and expansion of his father's territory, Vladimir lived the life of a staunch pagan, erecting shrines to gods and enjoying 800 concubines. He was keenly aware of the religious beliefs of the various tribes and areas he was conquering, and wanted to ensure loyalty to himself by showing reverence for their deities, at one point building a temple to six different gods worshipped by different groups.

This attempt to exploit the gods for his own purposes was overt enough that people resented it. Vladimir, fascinated with the power religion had, sent emissaries to explore the major religions of the world: Islam, Christianity, Judaism. Islam's prohibition against alcohol and pork made it unsuitable, and Jews' loss of Jerusalem showed that God did not favor them. His people returned having been most impressed by the grandeur of Constantinople and its religious rituals.

There are two different versions of what happened next: the local sources that say Vladimir decided Christianity was preferable, and Arab sources that offer a more cynical reason for his conversion. I'll give you the details next time.

From Scandinavia to Constantinople

The Varangian Guard were personal bodyguards for Byzantine emperors from the 10th to 14th centuries. The guards were primarily hired from Northern Europe. Hiring mercenaries from far away was a common practice in many countries (Italy, for example) to avoid soldiers having any local loyalties that might motivate them to help someone overthrow the government.

Vikings traveled everywhere, not only on northern seas, but also the Black Sea, the Marmara, the Aegean, and the Mediterranean. An ethnic group called the Rus, believed to be Norse who settled around the Black and Baltic Seas and merged with Slavic locals, created a culture now called the Kievan Rus. They were the first recruits for the Varangian Guard, after their Christianization.

Over time, Constantinople sent emissaries north seeking to hire more. In 1195, Alexios Angelos sent requests for 1000 warriors each from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden to help him overthrow the emperor, who was his brother, and make himself Emperor Alexios III.

Many Norse, mostly Swedes, made the trip south on their own, seeking employment in the lucrative business of guarding the Byzantine emperor in Miklagarðr, ("Great City"). The number of them—and the consequences of their absence—was sufficient to create new laws. Sweden forbade receiving an inheritance if you lived in Greece. Norway decreed that departing for Greece forfeited your place in line regarding inheritance. Clearly they were happy if citizens brought money back, but were against seeing wealth leave their country for southern climes.

The Christianization of Kievan Rus that brought them to the attention of Byzantium and made them the source of the first Varangians has been touched on before, as has been the person who brought it about, but he did more than that. Next time we look more closely at Vladimir I of Kyiv.

The Papal States

Although the early popes had no temporal power or property, as the Roman Catholic Church grew in popularity and influence, they accrued territory. It started simply, when Constantine gave the Lateran Palace for the pope's use, but the Renaissance saw a significant expansion and increase in the papacy's temporal and political influence.

As the Church grew post-Edict of Milan, donations of and (or buildings to be used as churches) followed from well-to-do Christins. These were all initially treated as property privately held, not as property of a political entity. This may have helped when the Roman Empire crumbled under attacks: Odoacer's overthrow of Romulus Augustus in 476, and the later rule by the Ostrogoths, would have made the Church's position more precarious if it were seen as a political rival. At this time, however, it was just a private "corporation," so to speak. The pope could be a dutiful subject under the new (and potentially hostile) administrations, while still professing spiritual authority.

When the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, headquartered in Constantinople, decided to reconquer the Western Roman Empire from the Goths, it set in motion a chain that would pass more temporal power to the popes. True, the East managed to regain much territory in Italy between 535 and 554, but the fighting left the economy in disarray. This made it easier for the Lombards to enter from the north and proceed to conquer most—not all—of the territory held by Constantinople.

The remaining strip of land stretching diagonally from coast to coast and including Rome. As the Eastern Empire's ability to manage these lands from far away waned, they increasingly left the popes in charge, since by this time the popes were the single largest landowner. At some point, these lands and others became known s the Duchy of Rome.

As their temporal power grew, of course, it led to severe clashes with other rulers. But then, it was other rulers' generosity that contributed to the papal increase in power. One such example was the Donation of Pepin, which I'll tell you about next time.

Extreme Weather

"Volcanic winter" is a frightening phrase. It is the result of a volcanic eruption that spews so much ash and dust into the atmosphere that it encircles the globe and prevents sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth. 

A volcanic winter took place in the 530s CE, the most severe drop in temperature in the Common Era. An eruption of sulfate aerosols possibly in late 535 dropped summer temperature averages in 536 by at least 4-5 degrees Fahrenheit. In 539-540, a second volcanic eruption caused summer temperatures to drop another 5 degrees.

This was recorded in the Northern Hemisphere by contemporary writers in Constantinople. Procopius, whose writing revealed the secret of where silk came from, records of 536 

...during this year a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness … and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear."

Cassiodorus, in a letter in 538, describes the sun's rays being weak, no shadows from people at noon, the sun's heat being feeble, the moon "empty of splendor," prolonged frost, unseasonable drought, frosts during harvest, the need to use stored food because harvests were so poor.

The Annals of Ulster mention a failure of bread in the year 536.

Dendrochronology (tree ring analysis) shows very poor growth in Irish oak in 536. Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show substantial sulfate deposits around 534±2 years, which offers evidence for the volcanic eruption. Which volcano was the cause, however, has never been agreed upon. The 536 event was worse than 1816, when the explosion of the Mount Tambora volcano caused the "Year Without a Summer."

As mentioned in the prior post, the line regarding the Battle of Camlann in the Welsh Annals that says of 537 "there was great mortality in Britain and Ireland" is likely a reference to the famine that resulted from the volcanic winter.

The 536 event was not the only severe weather crisis in the Middle Ages. Next time, let's jump forward to the Great Famine of 1315-17.

Mortgaging Children

This is the story of Philip of Courtenay (1243 - 15 December 1283). He was one of the Latin Emperors of Constantinople—the empire was established after the disastrous and mis-guided (literally) Fourth Crusade—even though the Byzantine Empire had re-established control in 1261. Technically he was an "Emperor in Exile."

He was born in Constantinople, the child of Baldwin II and Marie of Brienne. Baldwin was the last of the Latin Emperors who actually ruled from Constantinople. The difficulty with the "Latin Emperors of Constantinople" was that they didn't have the resources they would have enjoyed at home. They weren't landowners living off rents. Baldwin's "territory" was essentially the city itself, and he did not have the resources to control the country around him, where life just went on.

Baldwin went westward to beg for money, asking Rome and France to help support him financially. One plan was to supplant the Marchioness Margaret of Namur (a sometimes independent state, now basically a city in Belgium) to have the Namur revenues. It didn't matter to him that Margaret was his sister. Baldwin didn't stay to manage Namur, however, and after it was invaded by the Count of Luxembourg, Baldwin sold the rights to his cousin, Count Guy of Flanders.

Baldwin left Marie and a regency council behind while he traveled Europe begging. In 1238 they sold the Crown of Thorns to Venice for 13,134 hyperpyrons. Around that time Baldwin got money from Louis IX of France in exchange for some other relics, of which Constantinople had many.

But this is about his son, Philip, and you can guess where this is going. Baldwin and Marie borrowed 24,000 hyperpyrons from Venetian merchants. The mortgage, the surety for this loan, was their son, Philip of Courtenay. Philip was five years old at the time. He was sent to Venice to live in the household of two merchant brothers. He was there from 1248 until he was 17, in 1260, when the mortgage was paid with the help of Alfonso X of Castile.

Mortgaging your child seems like a cruel act by a desperate parent. As difficult as it is to argue with that, as usual, medieval sensibilities were different from ours, and never more so than in the idea of a hostage. In fact, the meaning and practice of "hostage" is my next topic.

Godfrey of Bouillon

Godfrey (c.1060 - 18 July, 1100) was the second son of Eustace II, Count of Boulogne, and therefore was not in line for much inheritance. His godfather, however, was Godfrey the Hunchback, Duke of Lower Lorraine. The Duke had no children, and named Godfrey his heir. The old Duke died in 1076, leaving Godfrey the duchy--if he could keep it.

Lower Lorraine was an important buffer between France and Germany, but that made it important to a lot of people. In 1076, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV (of the Investiture Controversy) wanted there Lower Lorraine for his son, confiscating it and leaving Godfrey with Bouillon and the land around the cities of Antwerp and Breda. Godfrey's land was also being nibbled at by his aunt Matilda of Tuscany, his cousin Albert III of Namur, and a couple others. His brothers, Eustace and Baldwin, supported him, and eventually he won the Lower Lorraine back by 1087.

Having a larger territory made it possible to gather a larger force to join the First Crusade, which set off in August 1096. Godfrey mortgaged his estates to the bishops of Liège and Verdun, and he and his brothers led a group of 40,000 overland to Constantinople.

"Crusade fever" sparked a new wave of antisemitism. While passing through Mainz, word went out that Godfrey had vowed to avenge the Crucifixion by eliminating all Jews. Emperor Henry prohibited this, and one report (written 50 years later) says Godfrey relented after the Jewish communities of Mainz and Cologne each paid him 500 marks (1 mark=8 ounces of either gold or silver).

The army reached Jerusalem in June 1099 (after many other events and encounters). On 14-15 July, they got over the walls using siege towers made from lumber from Italian ships, intentionally dismantled for the purpose. Godfrey was one of the first to enter the city. They had left home three years earlier, but they had set foot in Jerusalem (after conquering other towns along the way), and could claim success.

The next step was to determine how to rule the new Christian kingdom of Jerusalem. Godfrey was chosen to rule (after Raymond of Toulouse, the oldest and most experienced warrior of the Crusade had turned it down), and chose to be Calle Defender of the Holy Sepulchre rather than king. Among other acts, Godfrey endowed the Jerusalem hospital.

What we know of the Crusades comes to us from various chronicles. They do not always agree, and their general reliability must always be examined very carefully. Tomorrow we'll look at a couple accounts of the First Crusade.

1453-The End

Historic periods rarely have well-defined dates, unless they can point to a specific event that created definitive change. One can say there's an "Atomic Age" that started with the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, for instance. Human history is divided into three periods: Classical Antiquity, The Middle Ages, and Modern History. There is, of course, "pre-history" where we have evidence of human beings but no written records (we are ignoring cave paintings).

The Middle Ages itself spans such a long time that it is convenient to split it into Early (late 5th century to 10th century), High (1000 CE to 1300s), and Late Middle Ages (about 1250 CE to 1500). You can't help noticing that High and Late overlap by at least 100 years.

For me, the Middle Ages ends in 1453. That year is not quite as arbitrary as the "official" year of 1500, picked (I assume) because it was a nice round number. I like 1453 because there are events—two specific and one approximate—that make large enough changes politically and culturally that it seems to me things in Europe will never be the same.

The first is the final end of the Hundred Years War. The economies and cultures of England and France were dominant through much of the previous centuries; their political alliances and hostilities affected several other countries, their trade partners as well helped create a "global" economy. With the French victory at the Battle of Castillon in 1453, a long period of instability that had started in 1066 came to and end. (Yes, there were military conflicts between France and Great Britain afterward, but no large or sustained campaigns. They are sometimes referred to as "The Second Hundred Years War." In fact, there was a period of 1159-1259 referred to as "The First Hundred Years War." [sigh])

The second specific event is the final Fall of Constantinople. (I feel obligated to designate it "final" because of the disastrous Fourth Crusade, which for some reason I have avoided discussing. Some day...) The result of a 53-day siege by the Ottoman Empire, it not only altered the history of one of the constants of history—Constantinople had never lost its reputation the way Rome did after the Goths—but it also marked a change in siege warfare. Until then, strong walls/ramparts had prove effective against siege warfare, and Constantinople had very strong ramparts. They were defeated, however, by the use of gunpowder. Defeating a well-defended city became easier. Constantinople became the new capital of the empire. There was a secondary result of this conquest: an influx of new (and classical) learning through Greek texts brought to Western Europe by scholar fleeing Constantinople. The Renaissance had already started in Italy and elsewhere, and now would be enhanced by the new scholars and scholarship.

My third (and the "approximate" event) was a development brought about by a German named Johannes Gensfleisch, whose expertise with metal work helped him perfect a process that had actually been around for 200 years—just not in Europe. We know him now as Johannes Gutenberg. The famous Gutenberg Bible took about two years to set and print, and was completed in 1454. We are certain his press was in operation as early as 1450. The cultural sea-change brought about by the relatively easy method of providing the world with books without fear of scribal errors cannot be calculated. There were fears that learning would not be appreciated properly or used wisely—once you let just anyone have a book, the less-educated could misinterpret it and spread misinformation. It is likely that an elite class would oppose widespread dissemination of learning in order to maintain their elite status (which is why movable type did not become widespread two centuries earlier). The cat was out of the bag, however. It is likely that the choice of printing an impressive Bible helped some see the beauty and utility of mass-produced books.

...and that, for me, is why post-1453 would never be the same in Europe and the very-near East. Now, as much as I want to talk about that "First" Hundred Years War, you may be sick of that topic and the petty fighting between England and France. For a change, let's look at the "failure" of movable type to catch on in the 13th century, and for that we have to turn to a country never before mentioned in this blog: Korea.

The Brothers-in-law

Among the groups in history that have long since disappeared, there are the Pechenegs. They were a semi-nomadic group that spoke a Turkic language, originally inhabiting the area north of the Black Sea, but being pushed westward until they came into conflict (and cooperation, but more often conflict) with others.

Pechenges versus the Rus, from a 15th century Russian history

The group's name, Pecheneg, derives from the old Turkic word for brother-in-law. We assume that the tribal units comprised people related by marriages. One of their early mentions in documents is by an 11th century Uighur scholar, who analyzed their language and declared it a Turkic dialect. In the 12th century, Anna Comnena described them as speaking a common language with the Cumans (a literary language of Central and Eastern Europe).

An invading group of other Turkish peoples drove the Pechenegs from their homeland. The Pechenegs pushed into Hungarian lands in the mid-800s. Some scholars of the time claimed that some Pechenegs remained in their homeland and were absorbed into the invaders' culture. A Byzantine historian of the 10th century wrote of those who stayed:

...even to this day they live among them, and wear such distinguishing marks as separate them off and betray their origin and how it came about that they were split off from their own folk: for their tunics are short, reaching to the knee, and their sleeves are cut off at the shoulder, whereby, you see, they indicate that they have been cut off from their own folk and those of their race. [Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Imperial Administration]

Moving westward, Pechenegs made an alliance with Byzantium, who used them as allies against other groups, such as Magyars and Rus. Alliances shifted, however. Some Pechenegs attacked Kiev (in 968), while some joined Kiev in attacking Byzantium (970-71). The Pechenegs eventually had no neighbors with whom they did not have a history of hostility. In 1087, a large migration/invasion of Pechenegs (estimated at 80,000) started moving toward Constantinople from the north, plundering as they went. Byzantium, after years of mis-management and weak leadership, was unable to meet this threat without help. Alexios I Comnenos offered gold to the Pecheneg-related Cumans to come to his aid.

In April of 1091, a combined force of Byzantines and Cumans met the Pechenegs at a place called Levounion. The Pechenegs, with their women and children, were not prepared for such strong opposition. The slaughter was extensive, and the few survivors were taken into servitude at Constantinople. Any mention of Pechenegs after this (and there are very few) lists them as soldiers under Byzantine rulers.

The Marrying Kind, Part 1

Even if women were not allowed to ascend to the throne, they were often the link to a throne for someone else. The rulership might not be theirs, but they could be the "carrier" of the condition for some lucky man—or, in some cases, men.

Zoe mosaic at the Hagia Sophia

Zoe (978 - 1050) was the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VIII. She was Porphyrogenita [Greek: "born to the purple"], meaning she was born to a reigning emperor. This made her special: a link to the Byzantine throne for some man, or a particularly good choice for marriage to an important ruler in another country. A marriage was arranged between her and the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto III. In January 1002, the ship carrying Zoe to her intended arrived at Bari, Italy, to discover that Otto had died (possibly from malaria).

She returned to Constantinople. Years later, she was asked to consider marriage to another Holy Roman Emperor, Henry III. Zoe and her father rejected this marriage: it was 1028, Zoe was 50, and the groom was only ten years old.

Zoe was not fated never to be a bride; just the opposite, actually. Near the end of 1028, she was married to Romanos III Argyros. We're not completely certain of his origin, but Constantine had chosen Romanos as his successor, and forced Romanos to divorce so that he could marry Zoe and therefore become emperor. Three days later, Constantine died, and Romanos and Zoe ascended to the imperial throne.

Zoe cared about the dynasty, and wanted to have a child as soon as possible. She tried all manner of charms and potions, but pregnancy eluded her, which made relations strained between her and Romanos. He stopped sharing her bed, and reduced her allowance. She started having affairs, which at first he ignored, until she started talking openly about making one of her lovers into emperor.

On 11 April, 1034, after three and a half years of marriage, Emperor Romanos III Argyros was found dead in his bath.

[to be continued]

Taking Back Constantinople

Alexios Comnenos Strategopoulos

Recently, DailyMedieval covered the 4th Crusade and its misguided conquest of Constantinople. (This post has links to all the parts.) Constantinople did not remain under rule by the Western Europeans, however.

The man credited with returning Constantinople to Byzantine rule was Alexios Comnenos Strategopoulos, who was clearly related to the Comnenos family from which the Byzantine Empire drew several rulers. We don't know when he was born, but records refer to him as an old man in 1258. The earliest mention we have of him is when, in 1252, he was a leader in the army. The blog post linked above mentions that some Byzantine nobles fled the capital to establish their own kingdoms. Alexios lived in one of these, the Empire of Nicaea. His job was to conquer the Despotate of Epirus in northwestern Greece and bring it under Nicaean rule.

Alexios' strategic skills were not stellar, despite his surname, and the campaign failed. Alexios was deprived of his office and imprisoned by Nicaean Emperor Theodore II Laskaris. When Laskaris died in 1258, Alexios was released, and his fortunes started to turn. He went with the army to Macedonia to stop Epirus from taking it, and later was part of the battle that stopped an Achaean-Epiran-Sicilian alliance.

After some other successes and failures, he was sent by Emperor of Nicaea Michael VIII Paleologos with a band of only 800 men to spy on the defenses of the Latins (Venetians and Western Europeans). Michael VIII wanted to take back Constantinople, in the hands of Western Europeans. Fortune smiled upon Alexios: he learned from local farmers that the Venetian fleet and the garrison were gone, conducting a raid against Nicaea. Alexios took a chance that the force would not return, and he led his men—with the help of the locals—via a secret passage into Constantinople, where they took the few guards by surprise and opened the city gate to the Nicaean army of Michael. The next day, 25 July 1261, dawned with Constantinople returning to Greek control.

Learning of the invasion, the Latins living in the city—all of them, including the Latin emperor, Baldwin of Flanders—fled to the harbor to escape. The returning Venetian fleet gave them support during their escape from the oncoming Nicaeans. Michael VIII Paleologos entered the city on 15 August officially and was crowned in Hagia Sophia. Constantinople was finally back under control of the East, and the Byzantine Empire was restored.

Vikings in Constantinople

An 11th-century depiction of Varangian Guards.

In recent posts on the 4th Crusade and the Siege of Constantinople, I mentioned the Varangian Guard beating back the Crusaders temporarily. The Varangian Guard were, essentially, Vikings who made their way to the Mediterranean and became mercenaries. Their name comes from the Old Norse Væringjar, from the word var which meant "pledge"; thus, they were "pledged men"; the Greeks turned this name into Βάραγγοι or Varangoi.

It was Emperor Basil II (958 - 1025), sometimes called "Basil the Young" or "Porphyrogenitus," who first hired them in 988, after their Kievan Rus homeland was Christianized. Basil received 6000 Varangians from Vladimir I of Kiev, which he preferred over local men whose loyalties might attach them to other aristocrats and would-be emperors if circumstances favored such a switch.

Viking runes in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.

Service in the Byzantine Empire was so attractive that men from all the Scandinavian countries considered it a good career move. Sweden even made a law that declared no Varangian serving in Byzantium could inherit without returning back home.

Varangians became very popular as mercenaries in Kievan Rus and even in England—but only for a short time, from 1018-1066: they did not help to turn the tide when William of Normandy came to claim the throne.

In Byzantium, they operated at least through the middle of the 14th century. Still, they left their mark on Constantinople in more ways than one. Some runic inscriptions have survived, placed their by Varangians. One was even carved in the Hagia Sophia.

The (Disastrous) 4th Crusade, Part 4

[see Part 1 here and Part 2 here, the intermezzo, and Part 3 here]

With former Emperor Isaac II Angelos dead at the end of January 1204, his deposed son Emperor Alexios IV Angelos turned to the Crusaders, asking for help. But they had been through this before, and Alexios had not honored on all his promises.

Imperial chamberlain Alexios Doukas proclaimed himself Emperor Alexios V—the citizens accepted him—and strangled Alexios IV. He then tried to get the Crusaders to leave his empire. In March of 1204, the Venetians and Crusaders decided there was no way to achieve a happy outcome without simply attacking Constantinople and taking what they wanted. Siege and military actions lasted from the end of March until 12 April, when several dozen Crusaders managed to breach the walls and allow some of their comrades in. A fire they started burned down a large section of the city. That night, Alexios V fled.

Three days of pillaging commenced, destroying or damaging or stealing countless works of art. Thousands of citizens were killed. The great Library of Constantinople was destroyed. The Hagia Sophia was desecrated. A contemporary Byzantine chronicler says:

Nor can the violation of the Great Church be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so great and infinite splendor.
When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with gold, which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship, and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away as booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of the temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing on the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, so that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth. [link]

Many of the priceless works of art wound up in Venice. For Venice and for Doge Enrico Dandolo, this was sweet revenge for an incident between Constantinople and Venice 30 years earlier, when Venetians in the city had all their property confiscated.

The Byzantine Empire was divided between Venice and the Crusading force, who elected Baldwin of Flanders to be their emperor. The upper classes and royalty of Constantinople fled the city; some of hem set up their own small kingdoms, in Epirus and Nicaea and Trebizond.

The thought that the Empire and therefore the Eastern Orthodox Church was now in the hands of the West so pleased Pope Innocent III that he lifted the excommunication placed on the Crusaders for having attacked and killed Christians. It would be 800 years before a Pope (John Paul II) would apologize for the tragedy, and for a Patriarch of Constantinople (Bartholomew I) to accept the apology.

The (Disastrous) 4th Crusade, Part 3

[see Part 1 here and Part 2 here, and the preface to today's here]

So the Crusade left in spring of 1203 to sail to Constanbtinople, to demand that the usurper, Emperor Alexios III Angelos, relinquish the throne to his predecessor, Isaac II Angelos. With the Crusaders was the son of the blinded and imprisoned Isaac, Alexios IV Angelos, who had offered the sun and moon for their help to eliminate Alexios III.

Of course Constantinople saw them coming and was prepared, its army lining the shore where the crusader ships landed. The Crusader cavalry surprised the Byzantine army, which ran away a short distance before turning back and fighting at the Tower of Galata. This was a strategic point for Constantinople. A huge harbor called The Golden Horn was the chief access to sea-level Constantinople; the entrance to the Golden Horn was blocked by a chain stretched between two towers. Once the Crusading army conquered the Tower of Galata (which they did), the chain was lowered and the fleet had ready access to the city.

Still, the walls were strong and the city gates shut. The Crusaders showed Alexios IV to the citizens on the walls, saying "Here's your king!" For Constantinople, however, Alexios III had ruled since 1195 and not done such a bad job that they couldn't forgive his his unorthodox rise to the throne. They saw no need for Alexios III, or to release Isaac II from prison.

The Crusaders laid siege to the city on 17 July, attacking the walls from land and sea. Although defended ably by the Varangian Guard, the advances made by the Crusaders prompted Alexios III to flee to Thrace; the city released Isaac II and re-proclaimed him Emperor. The Crusaders forced Isaac to name his son emperor, and Alexios IV was put on the throne.

It was time for Alexios IV to make good on his promise to help the Crusade. According to one chronicler:

After he had been crowned the barons demanded their pay. He said he would very willingly pay what he could and at that time he paid 100,000 marks. Of this sum the Venetians -received one-half; for they were to receive one-half of the conquests. Of the 50,000 which remained, 36,000, which the Franks still owed for the vessels, were paid to the Venetians. And all those who had advanced money to pay for the passage were paid out of the 14,000 marks which the pilgrims had left. [Robert de Clari, Chroniques]

Then, like at Zara, the Crusaders settled in for several months to await the preparations for the rest of Alexios' promised aid. During this time, tensions between East and West, between Greeks and Latins, ran high. The locals blamed Alexios for bringing these Crusaders into their midst. Then, in January of 1204, Isaac II died. Perhaps it was only respect for the Emperor of a decade ago that held the city in check; whatever the case, the citizens no longer looked favorably on Alexios IV. Alexios was deposed during riots, so naturally he turned to the Crusaders for help again, with complicated results.

[to be continued]