The Medieval Slave Trade, Part 3

(Parts one and two)

There are plenty of historical records of Vikings raiding for plunder and slaves, from the northern coasts of the British Isles down to the Iberian peninsula. Slaves were sought to help populate Iceland, and slaves from British monasteries were often young and educated men that would fetch higher prices in Venice of Byzantium.

Slaves, or thralls to use the Viking term, had worse prospects than losing their freedom. An Arab explorer, ibn Fadlān, while traveling with Eastern Vikings in the 920s, records a gruesome viking ritual in which a slave girl is brutally killed by both strangulation and stabbing after being laid down beside her deceased master. [link] Graves that are assumed to be of slaves show:

The thralls did not end their lives in a peaceful way. Most of them had been abused, injured and decapitated before being laid to rest together with their masters.

In some of the graves the skulls were missing altogether but no one knows why.[ibid]

These graves are also distinguished from typical Viking burials in that they do not contain any possessions or treasures of the deceased. 

The Icelandic Laxdaela Saga in the 10th century tells us that kings met every three years and negotiated and traded slaves.

The Vikings traveled far, trading slaves from northern climes to people as far away as Central Asia and to Middle Eastern merchants. The slave trade went in several directions. Mongols in the 13th century captured slaves and sold them throughout Eurasia.

As mentioned in Part Two, there is a modern notion that the growth of Christianity correlated with the demise of owning slaves in Medieval Europe. This was not true, as we shall see tomorrow.

The Medieval Slave Trade, Part 2

We in the West often think of African slaves in North America when the topic of slavery comes up, as if it were a facet of the Industrial Age needed to provide cheap labor. It existed for millennia prior to the Modern Age, however.

...there is a thriving body of scholarship which demonstrates that slavery was practiced widely in various forms in Europe during the Middle Ages, alongside captivity, serfdom, and other types of unfreedom. Where then did the common knowledge come from? In the first instance, it derives from the late-18th- and 19th-century abolitionist assumption that as Christianity spread through Europe during the Middle Ages, it must surely have driven out slavery. [source]

Italy's was not the only economy that was boosted by the slave trade. Medieval Spain used slaves, especially under the Umayyads, and especially under the son of Hisham:

Al-Hakam was the first monarch of this family who surrounded his throne with a certain splendour and magnificence. He increased the number of mamelukes (slave soldiers) until they amounted to 5,000 horse and 1,000 foot. ... he increased the number of his slaves, eunuchs and servants; had a bodyguard of cavalry always stationed at the gate of his palace and surrounded his person with a guard of mamelukes...[Colins, Roger; Early Medieval Spain (1995)]

Spain, in turn, was raided for slaves. Al-Andalus in northern Spain was raided in the 9th and 10th centuries by Vikings. Slaves went out from Spain in other ways: Muslim and Jewish merchants exported slaves from Spain to other Islamic countries. Bishop Liutprand of Cremona wrote that Jewish merchants castrated slaves in order to create eunuchs, much in demand in Muslim Spain. He wasn't complaining, just reporting. In fact, on a visit to Constantinople he enjoyed the great hospitality he was shown, including being carried into the Emperor's presence on the shoulders of eunuchs who had their gentalia completely removed.

Speaking of the Vikings raiding Spain, we shall look at them next.

The Medieval Slave Trade, Part 1

We should probably start by pointing out the misleading nature of the illustration [MS. Ludwig XIV 6, c.1290-1310, from Aragon]. Depictions of slavery in the 13th and 14th centuries more often than not show dark-skinned subjects. The truth is that sub-Saharan Africa was not a common source of slaves for traders.

Long before nations gathered to develop the concept of "universal human rights," treating outsiders with far less regard than your own countrymen was standard practice. Slavery in medieval Europe was a natural extension of the Roman Empire's policy of conquering new lands and taking their inhabitants for purposes of labor and entertainment. Slavery was built into the legal system: a slave's worth, what was allowable for slaves, how they could be traded or freed, etc. Wales in the 10th century had laws set down by Hywel Dda (he was mentioned back in January), and the Visigoths used slavery for criminals who could not pay fines.

One "softening" of the slave trade was promoted by the Roman Catholic Church, who worked to prevent slavery of "co-religionists." St. Patrick, who had been a slave, argues in a letter to British chieftain Coroticus against making captured people slaves because sinners are already slaves to the devil:

I am at a loss to know whether to weep more for those they killed or those that are captured: or indeed for these men themselves whom the devil has taken fast for his slaves. In truth, they will bind themselves alongside him in the pains of the everlasting pit: for "he who sins is a slave already" and is to be called "son of the devil." [source]

About 10% of the population of England were slaves at the time of the Domesday Book, although the word used to denote a slave, servus, was also used for those who we now know to be serfs.

Because of the church's opposition to selling Christians to non-Christians, other sources were sought. For Venice, this meant capturing Slavs and eastern European pagans to sell to Muslims. Caravans of slaves would be led through Austria to reach Venice. A document that surfaced in 1250 in Bavaria records the tolls paid in the opening years of the 10th century for crossing the Danube; they include salt, weapons, wax, horses, and more, including slaves on their way from Bohemia and the Kievan Rus to Italy.

Genoa and Venice both sold slaves around the Black Sea starting in the 13th century, selling to Muslims those from Baltic, Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, and Turkish lands. Genoa did a lot of business from Crimea to the Mamluks in Egypt who were originally slaves themselves. Amalfi, on the southwestern coast of Italy, was a major exporter of slaves to North Africa.

This focus on Italian cities is unfair, since so many other countries bought and sold slaves. This topic will go on for another couple posts, at least. Stay tuned.

The Republic of Venice

The Republic of Venice lasted from its establishment in 697 until 12 May 1797 when Napoleon conquered Venice and the last doge stepped down. In its 1100 years, it dominated the Adriatic Sea, provided countless ships for the Crusades, and was one of the most powerful trading entities and maritime powers in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Marco Polo's uncles were Venetian traders; accompanying them is why we know who he was.

Venice started simply because the Venetian Lagoon was the easiest way to flee from Germanic tribes invading after the decline of the Roman Empire. Those in the lagoon formed a community that grew, formed laws, and became the city of Venice.

The historian John Deacon in the 11th century stated that a certain Paolo Lucio Anafesto was proclaimed dux or duke in 697, making him the first Doge of Venice. This is disputed, since Constantinople (with Rome's fall, the Byzantine Empire had more authority over the former Roman Empire) confirmed Orso Ipato with the title dux in the early 8th century. He is seen as the first official Doge. Although Orso's son Deusdedit ruled after him, any attempt to create a dynastic rulership ultimately failed. The Doges were elected for life by the Great Council of Venice, a parliament of aristocrats and merchants.

Venice was recognized as its own entity, separate from the Byzantine Empire, in 840 when it signed a commercial agreement with Lothair I of the Carolingian Empire. This Pactum Lotharii asked that Venice help control the Slavic tribes to the east; in return, Venice was safe from invasion from the Frankish Empire. The Pact also forbade the sale of Christians to Muslims. Venice had established a thriving slave trade, capturing people in Italy and selling them to Moors in North Africa. After the Pact, Venice captured Slavs and other Eastern European non-Christians. Records show a female slave was worth 1.5 grams of gold, or about 1/3 of a dinar. Castration houses were a business in Venice, preparing slaves because of the high demand for eunuchs.

Another big business was ship-building, and Venice perfected this process in a big way. Ships were important for moving everything, including thousands of willing passengers from Europe to the east during the Crusades. Venice was involved in just about every Crusade, providing (renting) ships to the ventures. The Fourth Crusade was particularly crucial in this regard, with the Doge Enrico Dandolo taking over the Crusade and using it for his own ends.

I suppose this is a good time to segue to a larger discussion of the medieval slave trade. Venice was not alone in this lucrative market, as you will see.

The Adriatic

From Venice in the north to the heel of Italy's boot, the Adriatic offers access to the Mediterranean for many Italian cities, as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Slovenia. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, however, much of its eastern coastline was controlled by the Republic of Venice, blocking much of the Ottoman Empire from access.

The Romans established a naval base in (what is now) Brindisi  (at the heel) in 246 BCE, partially to block Carthaginian ships from entering the Adriatic, and partially to deal with the Illyrians. Illyrians inhabited the eastern side of the Sea and acted as pirates to traders. Rome and Illyria fought on and off from 229-168 BCE.

After the decline of Rome, the coasts were ruled by the Byzantine Empire under Justinian, the Lombards, and the Ostrogoths. A few centuries later, with the rise of the Carolingians, the Frankish Kingdom of Italy controlled the western coasts and the Byzantines kept control of the eastern. It was around this time (700) that the Republic of Venice was founded. They thrived early on because of the salt trade, eventually developing a thalassocracy, a maritime empire known more for its presence on the sea than for possession of land.

In 999 CE, the Normans conquered southern Italy, eventually establishing the Kingdom of Sicily. Against this growing power, Alexios I of Constantinople issued a Golden Bull to Venice, offering them tax-free trading with the Byzantine Empire if their navy would control the spread of Normans.

The Adriatic was controlled by the Republic of Venice for centuries after that, and we will look at the Republic a little closer tomorrow.

Golden Bulls

When Byzantine Emperor Alexios I sent his general Boutoumites to secretly negotiate with the city of Nicaea in order to have them surrender to him instead of being captured and plundered by the First Crusade, he gave Boutoumites an edge: the chrysobull.

I mentioned these briefly in 2012 when discussing papal bulls. Starting from the 6th century, popes used bulls to authenticate their decrees. Initially lumps of clay, they evolved to lead. Byzantine emperors took this a step further, making their seal out of gold, hence a chrysobull (from Greek chrysos, "gold"). The chrysobull carried by Boutoumites was an assurance that he represented the word of the emperor. (It worked, as you can read here.)

The Holy Roman Emperors liked the look of gold and the status it conferred on their decrees, as did the popes, so both they and other rulers sent out golden bulls for many occasions.

A Golden Bull of 1213 from the papacy to King John of England confirmed their alliance. A year later, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II issued a Golden Bull ceding all territory north of the River Elbe to Denmark. One of the most famous was the Golden Bull of 1356, issued by Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV (he is mentioned here), declaring the constitutional structure of the Holy Roman Empire—an arrangement that would last the next 400 years.

Emperor Alexios had issued another Golden Bull in 1082, giving Venetian merchants tax-exempt trading rights, so long as their fleets defended the Adriatic Sea against the Normans. The Adriatic is on the east coast of Italy and was an access point for invaders from the east. Venice was at the extreme northern end, in an ideal location to police the whole area. Let's look at the Adriatic and its medieval history next time.

The Siege of Nicaea

When the First Crusade was on their way to free the Holy land from the "infidel," they passed through Constantinople and asked for help from Emperor Alexios I. They left Constantinople in stages, starting in April 1097. Their first target was the city of Nicaea (now İznik), held by Seljuk Turks on the shore of Lake Ascania in Turkey.

Godfrey of Bouillon arrived first on 6 May, followed by other parts of the army including Raymond IV of Toulouse, Tancred, and Peter the Hermit with the remains of the People's Crusade.

The ruler of Nicaea, Sultan Kilij Arslan, was away, but rushed back when he got word the siege, but he was unsuccessful in breaking through the Crusaders. Nicaea had to make a decision.

Alexios had not joined the Crusading army for the siege, but stationed his forces at a nearby town. He had boats transported over land to the Crusaders to aid in a blockade on Lake Ascania, to prevent the Turks from getting food. The boats were sent with general Manuel Boutoumites. Following them was general Tatikios with 2000 foot soldiers. This was not simple support of the siege, however. Alexios instructed Tatikios to join the assault on the walls while Boutoumites from the lake side of the city secretly negotiated with Nicaea to surrender, making it appear that the Byzantines had captured Nicaea themselves and could dictate what happened in the aftermath. Here's how they pulled it off.

Boutoumites sent messages to the city rulers, offering them amnesty for surrender but promising destruction if they did not. Boutoumites was even allowed into the city (all out of sight from the land-side Crusaders). When Nicaea learned that Kilij Arslan was on his way, they forced Boutoumites out, but with the failure of Arslan's attack, they re-considered the Greek's offer. On the morning of 19 June, when the Crusading army prepared a large assault, the Byzantines on the lake-side were allowed into Nicaea; they raised their standard above the city walls, showing that they—not the Western Europeans—had control of the city.

Nicaea surrendered peacefully to Boutoumites, who as its new leader protected the city by forbidding plundering. Groups of Crusaders were allowed in of no more than 10 at a time. Arslan's family were sent to Constantinople, but were released with ransom once the Crusaders had moved on from Nicaea. Alexios did supply the Crusade with money and horses, but the wealth they might have had by ransacking Nicaea was denied them.

Part of Boutoumites' negotiation included showing Nicaea the chrysobull, which I suppose needs some explanation. I'll be happy to do that...tomorrow.

The End of Axouch

The rise of John Axouch from captive Turk to Byzantine megas domestikos and sebastor can be found here. Although he was treated well by one emperor (Alexios I), favored highly by the next (John II), and maintained in his high status by the third (Manuel), he was not immune to the whims of rulers, as you shall see.

It involves a dinner party consisting of the emperor's (Manuel's) family. The presence of Axouch at the dinner shows how integrated he was with the Comnenos clan. A debate arose concerning the martial prowess of Manuel versus his father, John II. Axouch was John's closest companion his whole life, so it is not surprising that Axouch praised the abilities of his friend above those of his friend's son.

Manuel's older brother, Isaac (whom we are told was preferred by Axouch as the next emperor, but John wanted Manuel instead), agreed with Axouch. A cousin, Andronikos, argued for Manuel's superiority. Tempers flared and Isaac attacked Andronikos with a sword, but the blow did not strike because Manuel had his own sword ready and saved Andronikos. (Andronikos would later usurp the throne from Manuel's son, Alexios II.)

Manuel, unhappy with the unfavorable comparison with his father, took the imperial seal from Axouch, who could no longer approve documents. This anecdote tells us that Axouch, besides being commander of the army, also was in charge of civil administration.

Despite this incident, he was still in charge of the military, and still respected enough for it that his ties to the Comnenos family continued. Axouch had a son whom he named for the man who first brought him to Constantinople, Alexios. Alexios married Maria, the daughter of John II's eldest son Alexios who had died before John. Alexios Axouch became second-in-command of the Byzantine army (until he was forced into a monastery in 1167, having been accused of treason). Axouch also had a daughter, Eudokia, who married Stephen Comnenos, a great-nephew of Alexios I.

...which brings us back to Alexios I Comnenos, who was given Axouch as a captive after the Siege of Nicaea during the First Crusade. There is much more to that story and Alexios' involvement in the Nicaea event, which I'll tell you about tomorrow.

John Axouch, from War Prize to Commander

In June of 1097, the First Crusade captured Nicaea, at that time under the control of the Seljuk Turks. An attempt at defense by Kilij Arslan failed, after which Nicaea surrendered rather than allow the Crusaders to break the walls. (There is much more to that surrender that needs addressing soon.)

As in many such cases, captives from noble families were taken in order to guarantee good behavior on the part of the conquered. One of these was John Axouch, given to Emperor Alexios I as a present. Alexios took him to Constantinople where Axouch became a companion to Alexios' son John Comnenos (shown above; there are no available representations of John Axouch).

The two were constant companions and close friends. When Alexios died and his son became Emperor John II Comnenos, he appointed his close friend megas domestikos, essentially commander-in-chief of the army. Axouch was also given the court title of sebastos, equivalent to the Roman augustus, meaning "venerable one." Members of the imperial family were required to treat him with the greatest respect.

This generated hostility among the royal family, which Axouch wisely tried to ameliorate. When a plot against John by his sister Anna was foiled, John wanted to give Axouch all her properties, but Axouch refused, knowing how much the action would increase the enmity felt towards him by the royals. He also (we are told) persuaded John to reconcile with his sister and let her keep her property.

John liked to be personally involved in military campaigns, and the two worked well together. For example, Axouch would be sent ahead to begin a siege, and John would follow up with more of the army to swiftly conclude the taking of a city.

John died after being wounded while hunting on a campaign in Cilicia. Axouch quickly traveled back to Constantinople in order to reach it before news of the death did. The urgency was to ensure that John's younger son Manuel succeeded him, rather than the older Isaac. This may have had something to do with Isaac's reputation for being irascible, or perhaps in order to fulfill a prophecy. Some historians of the time claim that Axouch was close to Isaac, and tried to persuade John that the elder son was a better candidate. They also say Manuel was suspicious of the friendship between Axouch and Isaac.

Whatever the case, the truth is that Manuel became emperor and confirmed Axouch in his position as megas domestikos. There were troubles ahead, however, which I will tell you about tomorrow.

The AIMA Prophecy

When Emperor John II Comnenos chose his younger son Manuel over the older Isaac as his heir, some eyebrows were raised. One explanation offered by later historians is that he was following the AIMA Prophecy. Also called the "Blood Prophecy," it refers to the idea that the names of successive emperors in the Comnenian dynasty would spell AIMA, aima, Greek for "blood." The letter sequence was alpha, iota, mu, alpha.

The acronym begins with Alexios II, followed by his son Ioannes (John II), then Manuel. Manuel's eldest child was a daughter, Maria, whom he betrothed to Béla, son of the king of Hungary and Croatia (and later king himself). Manuel bestowed on Béla the name "Alexios" in case he was the only heir available should something happen to Manuel. When Manuel's second wife bore him a son, the son was named Alexios (of course). Typical naming convention was to give a son the name of his paternal grandfather, but Manuel must have been trying to adhere to the prophecy.

That son became Emperor Alexios II Comnenos, but after three years he was deposed (and killed) by his cousin, Andronikos I Comnenos. At this point, the AIMA sequence could begin again. Andronikos already had children prior to his plans to become emperor, and his eldest was named Manuel. He reigned only a couple years, and felt obliged to name his second son, Ioannes, as his heir so that the "A-I" part of the prophecy was in place. It was not to be, however. Another iota-bearing person was in the wings: Andronikos' cousin, Isaac II Angelos. Fearing that Isaac would take over, Andronikos' trusted friend and lieutenant tried to kill him; Isaac instead killed his attacker and fled to sanctuary in the Hagia Sophia. From there he appealed to the citizens of Constantinople for support, who decided he should replace Andronikos. That he did.

The AIMA Prophecy was broken...in Constantinople. The Byzantine Empire included the Empire of Trebizond stretched around the coastline of the Black Sea and was founded by Alexios I Megas Comnenos, a son of Manuel. The Comnenos clan ruled there, and the sequence restarted with Andronikos I Gidos, Ioannes I Axouchos, Manuel Megas Comnenos, and Andronikos II Megas Comnenos.

The Middle Ages loved acronyms and patterns that suggested an order to the universe. The AIMA Prophecy was just one example.

I mentioned in yesterday's post the character of John Axouch, a Turkish prisoner who rose in the Byzantine ranks. You can see his family name represented again above, indicating that he left a legacy tied to the Comnenos clan. Let's look at his rise to power tomorrow.

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.

Anna Comnena's Rebellion

Anna Comnena (1083 - 1153) has had her own blog posts before (here and here). The daughter of Alexios I Comnenos and Irene Doukaina, she was betrothed at an early age to Constantine Doukas and raised by Constantine's mother (who had helped Anna's father and grandmother in the coup that put Alexios on the throne). Constantine was named junior emperor and heir to Alexios.

Unfortunately, her father and mother later had a male child, John, making the succession of Constantine unnecessary. Constantine died in 1094, and Anna then married Nikephoros Bryennios in 1097. Nikephoros was about 35, handsome and educated, and a good match for the highly educated and talented Anna. Alexios approved the marriage heartily, and granted Nikephoros the titles Caesar (a court title denoting favor) and Panhypersebastos. (Panhypersebastos, meaning "venerable above all," was a new title created by Alexios.)

When Alexios died (attended by Anna in the hospital he founded and she worked at), Anna would have liked Nikephoros to take over, rather than her brother John. Anna was raised in the presence of inspiring women who often took matters in their own hands to bring about large results. Her paternal grandmother Anna Dalassene helped the coup that put Alexios on the throne, as did her mother-in-law Maria of Alania. Her mother, Irene, although initially seemed to be in an unsatisfactory marriage, later became a strong partner to Alexios, accompanying him on expeditions and ruling firmly when he left her behind. In the latter cases, she was regent for John with Nikephoros Bryennios. It has been suggested that Irene wanted Nikephoros to be named Alexios' heir rather than their younger son.

Anna's and Nikephoros' previous titles and administrative authority, seniority in the family, and ambition may have led them to be involved in a plot to replace John. John suspected opposition, so as his father lay dying in the monastery of the Mangana on 15 August 1118, John took a retinue to the monastery and obtained the imperial signet ring from his father. One chronicler, Niketas Choniates, claims that John embraced his father as if in mourning and secretly stole the ring from him. John then rode with armed followers to the palace and forced his way in.

Alexios died that night. John II Comnenos did not attend the funeral, fearing a public appearance would offer an assassination attempt. In his first year, however, he claimed to discover a conspiracy involving his mother and sister. Anna's property was taken from her and given to a friend of John's, John Axouch, who declined it. Eventually it was given back to Anna, but Anna was effectively removed from public life. Irene was retired to a monastery,

Much of what we know of this period comes from The Alexiad, a book begun by Nikephoros Bryennios and completed by Anna Comnena. I want to dive a little deeper into it tomorrow.

Maria of Alania

The Unified Kingdom of Georgia in the Middle Ages stretched from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea. When it was conquered by the Byzantine Empire, the daughter of its then ruler, Bagrat IV, was taken to Constantinople as a hostage in 1056. She was five years old. Martha of Alania, called Maria in Constantinople, was raised and educated by the Empress Theodora; when Theodora died a year later, Maria was sent home.

In 1065, to further unite Georgia and the empire, Maria was married to Michael VII Doukas, who was in line to become emperor in 1071. Unfortunately for Michael, his reign experienced military disasters and economic woes, and in 1078 a coup replaced him with Nikephoros III Botaneiates. Michael was forced into a monastery and became a monk, and Maria with her young son Constantine was sent to a monastery (but did not become a nun).

Nikephoros was widowed while in office, and his intention to remarry started a fierce competition among all the eligible noblewomen. He settled on Maria for several reasons: marrying her would assuage the hostility of her Doukas relatives after the ouster of her first husband; her foreign birth meant she had no blood relatives who would try to use her empress status as a way to garner power for themselves, and she was a known beauty:

And certainly she was as slender of stature as a cypress, her skin was white as snow, and though her face was not a perfect round, yet her complexion was exactly like a spring flower or a rose. And what mortal could describe the radiance of her eyes? Her eyebrows were well-marked and red-gold, while her eyes were blue. Full many a painter's hand has successfully imitated the colours of the various flowers the seasons bring, but this queen's beauty, the radiance of her grace and the charm and sweetness of her manners surpassed all description and all art. Never did Apelles or Pheidias or any of the sculptors produce a statue so beautiful. [from the Alexiad]

She was still married to Michael, however, and the Orthodox Church considered a marriage to Nikephoros to be adulterous. The first priest who was asked to perform the marriage refused (and was demoted), but the next one was willing to accommodate the couple. Nikephoros agreed as part of the marriage pact to make her son from her first husband the heir to the empire, but he later went back on his word.

She allied with Anna Dalassene, and adopted her son Alexios in order to give him closer ties to the palace and the emperor; this allowed Anna and Alexios and Maria to plan to replace Nikephoros. Maria would have liked her son to become emperor, but he was still a child, and when the coup took place in 1081, Alexios became emperor. Alexios made Constantine his heir, even betrothing his own daughter Anna Comnena to the boy. Maria was treated well and remained in imperial quarters at Mangana, a suburb of Constantinople. As mother of the imperial heir, she lived a lavish lifestyle, making donations to a monastery and building a convent at Jerusalem. She was a patron to literary figures.

When Alexios and his wife bore a son of their own, however, the betrothal between Anna Comnena and Constantine was called off, Constantine was declared no longer heir, and Maria was retired to a monastery. Constantine died in 1096. Maria died in 1118, remaining an important figure to her fellow Georgians.

About the Alexiad that wrote so glowingly about Maria: it was written by Anna Comnena, Alexios' daughter, and we're going to look at her next time.

Rebellion in Constantinople

Alexios I Comnenos might not have made it to the position of Byzantine emperor if not for the behind-the-scene actions of his mother, Anna Dalassene. She endeavored early in the lives of her children to make politically advantageous marriages for them and help them get to useful positions, such as when she helped Manuel and Alexios become leaders in the army.

In 1081, an opportunity arose to take power from the current ruler of the Byzantine Empire, Nikephoros III Botaneiates. His empress, Maria of Alania, had originally been married to the previous emperor, Michael VII Doukas, and wanted her son by Michael, Constantine, to succeed. Nikephoros wanted instead to be succeeded by a close relative. Anna forged an alliance with Maria against Nikephoros, an alliance with a precedent: Anna's son Alexios was married to Maria's cousin Irene.

Anna allowed Empress Maria to adopt Alexios. This made her son Constantine and Alexios brothers, which allowed Alexios to come and go in the palace as "family" and be fed information from Maria about Nikephoros' plans. Alexios and his brother Isaac also pledged loyalty to Maria's son Constantine (who was just a child).

In February 1081, Isaac and Alexios left Constantinople to raise an army against the emperor. Anna had the rest of her children join her in the Hagia Sophia for sanctuary. She protested that her sons were innocent of the accusations that they were committing treasonous actions, and pleaded for the emperor's protection for her family. She claimed they had learned of a plot by enemies to have Isaac and Alexios blinded, and the boys had therefore fled to safety. She managed to get the emperor to publicly grant protection to her family. Her actions not only gave her sons time to raise an army but also convinced the emperor that there was no danger of a coup, leading him to be less guarded about their actions.

Isaac and Alexios returned to Constantinople on 1 April 1081 with their army, and Alexios assumed the throne on 4 April. Maria's son Constantine was only 7 years old at the time, so too young to assert a claim to the throne against Alexios' claim, but Alexios gave him the title junior emperor, which had to satisfy Maria.

Regarding other titles, however: it was typical for the emperor's wife to be also crowned and given the title "Augusta." Alexios' wife, Irene Doukaina (of the Doukas clan), was not crowned until a week later. Alexios then gave the title Augusta to his mother! Former empress Maria was allowed to live on in the palace thanks to her help in the coup and the fact that she was alone and far from home (Alania was in Georgia).

Alexios preferred to take personal control of the army, and so was often away from the capital, leaving his mother in charge of matters. She was still managing many administrative matters when the First Crusade came through, but she retired to a monastery not long after, and died on 1 November in 1100 (or 1101 or 1102: the year is unclear).

While on the subject of Byzantine women: Maria of Alania is worth looking at in more detail. She came from the newly unified kingdom of Georgia, was married to two emperors and took part in overthrowing the second to raise up a third. I'll talk about her tomorrow.