Anna Komnene’s history of her father’s reign, The Alexiad, portrayed the chief enemies of the Empire as Catholic Latins, instead of Muslim Turks. Although the Muslim Turks under the leadership of the Seljuks and later the Ottomans did complete the conquest of the Constantinople, Alexios was forced to deal with marauding forces of the First Crusade, who presented a more immediate threat at the time. Under the command of various Franks, Normans, and European military leaders, Catholic Crusaders seized territory from the Byzantine state, refused to accept the authority of Alexios and subsequent emperors in reconquered Levantine areas, and generally opposed the interests of the Byzantine state. Thus, from Anna Komnene’s perspective, the occurrence of the Crusades accelerated the decline and fall of Byzantium, especially after the loss of large areas of Asia Minor and the collapse of Byzantine authority in regions once considered part of the Byzantine heartland. Therefore, the Catholic Latins were considered the chief enemies of the Empire, leading to to the empire's dissolution.
First, Muslim Turks, who had accumulated a vast portion of Asia Minor, were relatively less aggressive in their relations with Alexios than Western leaders. Their religious identity and stereotypes equated with them were not as negative or mentioned as often as that of the West.[1] Although Alexios did provide the spark for Western Crusades by calling on the papacy to send aid to defeat the Seljuks, he invited a far more dangerous force that would eventually tear the empire apart, culminating in the sack of Constantinople in 1204.[2] Anna, who covered the wars with Muslim Turks for Anatolia in her history, provides less detail and barely mentions their religion, unlike the Latin Catholics, who are constantly referred to as “barbarians” and attributed with other negative qualities.[3] Turks received comparatively fewer attacks in spite of their faith.[4] Surprisingly, their faith is barely mentioned at all, despite the centuries of enmity between Byzantium and the various Islamic states of the Near East, such as the Abbasids.[5]
In addition to ignoring the religious affiliations of the Turkish, Anna Komnene also avoids highlighting their faith since the Empire had already formed close alliances with Muslim states in the Mediterranean.[6] For instance, the Shiite Fatimid dynasty of caliphs, centered in Cairo, was one powerful Muslim ally of Byzantium.[7] As a Shiite caliphate surrounded by Sunni states in North Africa and the Middle East, it is no surprise that Fatimid rulers and Byzantine emperors would form an alliance against hostile Sunni states, especially after the rise of Turkish-led states.[8] The Turks, once slave-soldiers for Arab-ruled states, came to dominate Persia, Iraq, and other areas of the Middle East for themselves in in the 11th century.[9] Thus, the Byzantines were already accustomed to working with Muslim allies against other Muslims since the Fatimids made Cairo their capital in 969.[10] From the Latin Catholic perspective, the Roman willingness to ally with Muslims against other Christians was a contributing factor to the aggression Westerners directed at Constantinople, since Muslims were supposed to be enemies of Christendom. Alexios even consulted with the Turks in order to fight off Robert’s invading Latins.[11]
To Alexios and his daughter, Muslim Turks, though still a threat, were seen as less dangerous to the Empire than Latin Catholics. Anna’s history has striking evidence of this perception of Byzantine affairs based on the emphasis on Norman and Latin leaders and their personalities instead of the details concerning Turkish leaders who were advancing on the Empire’s borders.[12] From the outset of the Crusades, Alexios believed that the Crusaders’ real purpose was to take the throne for themselves.[13] Consequently, Alexios’ relations with the Crusaders focused on keeping them away from Constantinople, and ensuring that they quickly arrived in Muslim lands.[14] Latins such as Bohemond quickly proved Alexios’ fears when he rebelled against Alexios and endeavored to seize the throne.[15] Counts such as Raoul and Godfrey also used the pretext of crusading for coming to Constantinople in order to dethrone Alexios.[16]
Moreover, the Crusaders “barbarian” ways were perceived as culturally inferior, including the prevalence of fighting priests and their lack of piety.[17] To illustrate, Latin Catholics had no qualms fighting on Holy Thursday, while Alexios refused to allow his men to fight.[18] Furthermore, the huge rift that had developed between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church limited the chances for successful cooperation between the West and Constantinople because both defined Christendom in differently. For instance, Latin Catholics did not agree with the Byzantine view of the Empire as the protector and center of Christianity. Therefore, the First Crusade’s leadership’s lack of morals, treacherous ways, and refusal to recognize the sovereignty of Byzantium significantly limited any chances of cooperation between Latin Christendom and the Orthodox East.
In conclusion, Anna Komnene’s Alexiad unquestionably portrays the Westerners as the greater enemy of Byzantium than the expanding Seljuk state. Her emphasis on Western leaders, their personalities and specific campaigns and battles involving them are far more numerous and detailed than the information provided on the Muslim Turks. Furthermore, the Latin Catholics, sometimes using the façade of the First Crusade, did endeavor to divide the Empire and seize the wealth of Constantinople instead of fighting the encroachment of the Turks. Though the Turks were still a viable threat to Byzantine security on the eastern border, Westerners, supposedly passing through the Empire to defeat Muslims in the Holy Land claimed imperial territory and fought imperial armies. Even before the First Crusade, Normans, under the leadership of Robert Guiscard showed that Westerners were not allies of Byzantium. When one looks at the situation facing Alexios, the threat from the West was more threatening and frightening for Byzantium. Therefore, Anna’s history of Alexios’ reign identifies the main enemies of Byzantium as Latins instead of Muslim Turks. Fortunately, the “barbarian” Western aristocrats attempts to finally defeat the Empire would have to wait until the 13th century. Alexios’ political and military skills allowed Byzantium to grow under his sons through the reconquest of parts of Asia Minor and the Balkans and averting the Western Crusaders attempts to destroy the empire.
[1] Komnene, Anna. The Alexiad. Translated by E.R.A. Sewter (New York: Penguin Books, 1969), 283.
[2] Gregory, Timothy E.. A History of Byzantium (Malden, MA Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2010), 328.
[3] Komnene, Anna. The Alexiad. Translated by E.R.A. Sewter (New York: Penguin Books, 1969), 283.
[4] Komnene, Anna. The Alexiad. Translated by E.R.A. Sewter (New York: Penguin Books, 1969), 319.
[5] Leonora Neville, “9th Century Mediterranean.”
[6] Leonora Neville, “Crusades,” 4/13/2011
[7] Ibid.
[8] Leonora Neville, “Turks & Normas,” 4/6/2011.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Leonora Neville, “Crusades,” 4/6/2011.
[11] Komnene, Anna. The Alexiad. Translated by E.R.A. Sewter (New York: Penguin Books, 1969), 111.
[12] Ibid., 285, 295, 297. 330.
[13] Ibid., 285.
[14] Ibid., 276.
[15] Ibid., 295.
[16] Ibid., 285.
[17] Ibid., 284.
[18] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment