Back to Cover
It has often been assumed that Niketas Choniates' account of the reign of Alexios III, is merely a reflection of bad statesmanship, deficient government and poor administration. However, since it is the only major narrative source that exists on Alexios III, it is aimless to presume that it reflects a complete view of his personality. Nevertheless, we will try to discover the 'person' of Alexios III as Niketas saw him, in relation to his own background and convictions, as well as, to the chronological setting of the 12th century.
Niketas Choniates was born in the early 1150's in the town of Chonai, in Frygia of Asia Minor.1 His family was probably comfortable and Niketas was sent with his brother Michael, to Constantinople to receive his education.2 He was trained in rhetoric, grammar, poetry, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, politics and law, qualifications required for administrative positions. At first, he was appointed to the provinces as a tax official.3 Under Alexios II, he served as imperial secretary but after the coup of Andronikos I, he resigned from his post.4 During Isaac's reign he returned to the administration serving as secretary.5 His career evolved rapidly. He became court orator, governor of Philippopolis, judge of the velum and finally logothete ton sekreton.6 Niketas was well married into the family of the Belissariotae who shared administrative positions as well.7 In April 1204 just before the sack of Constantinople, the life Niketas had made for himself collapsed.8 He managed to flee the City on foot along with his family and took refuge with Theodore Laskaris in Nicaea.9 There, his rhetorical skills and administrative experience were not as much appreciated and the family was afflicted by poverty. Niketas died in 1215.10
In Nicaea, Choniates completed his History describing the fall of Constantinople to the Latins which he began writing from his youth before the reign of Isaac II.11 The story begins with the reign of John II Komnenos, son of Alexios I and it spans through his successors from Manuel I to the first Latin emperor Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut, and his brother Henry. The reign of John II is told briefly, but from the reign of Manuel I to the fall of the City, Choniates gives more details. Generally, Choniates' history represents the major narrative source of the period.
Niketas composed other works as well. Famous are the encomia he addressed to the emperors Isaac II, Alexios III and Theodore Laskaris. He also composed several epistolai (letters), epitaphioi (funerary orations), monodiai and a few religious works, the most important of which is the Thesauros Orthodoxias. This is a religious work dealing in detail with the heresies that had troubled the Orthodox Church to that time. The Thesauros Orthodoxias, which was written in Nicaea, is a more elaborate work of the Panoplia Dogmatiki of Euthymios Zigabenos. Choniates used more sources than Zigabenos, although in some parts he simply copies Panoplia Dogmatiki.12Nevertheless, Thesauros Orthodoxias is an important work suggesting Niketas' interest in religious affairs. We will concern ourselves with Niketas' religiosity later on as we follow through Alexios' reign.
Alexios Angelos ascended the throne after deposing and blinding his brother Isaac II. Choniates censures this action and states that Alexios dethroned himself the day he dethroned his brother.13 Although he believes in divine Providence being responsible for this event14 he insinuates that providence will again emend what happened giving an insight on what will follow.15Niketas is stunned before this seemingly inexplicable action of brother going against brother.16 Two matters arise from his words. On the one hand, the unity of the empire which according to him must be maintained at all costs, and on the other, the undermining of this unity by the deplorable actions of Alexios and the vulnerability which follows the lack of it. First of all we must acknowledge the religiosity that sways the person of Niketas and his era. He is obviously very well acquainted with Christian religion and also closely brought up to the ecclesiastical tradition.17 Like most of the Byzantines regards the imperial court as a magnified copy of the heavenly "basileia".18 This 'divine kingdom' is characterised by the existence of the Holy Trinity who, according to Christian beliefs, is One God manifested into three 'hypostaseis', meaning persons, who are in perfect love and unity with each other.19 This is the unity Choniates wishes to see in the earthly Byzantine court.
Secondly, another interpretation must be mentioned on Choniates' words, which supports the preceding one. This could lie on the fact that Choniates shares the knowledge of the Church that all people are members (limps) of the body of Christ.20 Naturally he wonders, how can the limps of the body go against each other, this would, indeed, endanger the body's unity and integrity. In addition he uses a quotation from the book of Psalms but in a different phrasing. The Psalm 48:8 reads: "As we have heard so we have seen in the city of the Lord Almighty in the city of our God: God makes her secure for ever". The question of security arises which is undermined by the absence of divine aid and lack of unity as it is mentioned above. In Niketas mind, God will forsaken his City because His people do not remain united to each other and to Him, engaging in shameful deeds. This is not only a reference to Alexios III, but to the other Komnenoi as well, and possibly Andronikos. Choniates asserts that disregarding nature and committing crimes to acquire more power is disgraceful for the Empire causing lack of trust among the people which leads to lack of unity and solidarity, which, in their turn, are responsible for the weakening of the Empire and for its being vulnerable to hostile forces.21
Proceeding to examine more closely Alexios' reign we have to concern ourselves with his public administration. Niketas thinks that he was "not wholly polished"22 meaning that he conducted the affairs of state in an unsystematic and often slovenly way. As soon as he ascended the throne, he started lavishly rewarding all those who had helped him wear the purple. He generously distributed large amounts of wealth and innumerable titles of property, exhausting the riches that his predecessor Isaac II had amassed in the previous years.23 This statement could be an indirect compliment to Isaac, explicitly contradicting Alexios' financial management. According to Choniates, he never refused anyone, even when the public resources were depleted. Alexios continued on promising considerable awards by signing every petition that was forwarded to him.24 Furthermore, as soon as he became emperor, he dismissed the army, regardless of the raids of the Vlach-Bulgarians and Cumans.25
Another example of poor administration, is that of the navy. Michael Stryphnos who was serving as administrator of the navy at the time, most probably favored by Eufrosyne, Alexios' wife "sold the ships nails, anchors, ropes and sails, emptying the arsenals of warships".26 By 1196, when the pirate Gafforio was raiding the Aegean, there were still thirty combatant ships remaining to fight him. However, that fleet was destroyed and when in 1204, Constantinople needed a fleet to defend her against the crusaders and the Venetians, only "twenty rotten and worm-eaten tubs were available". 27
Choniates proceeds to recount another worth citing event. Henry VI, elder son of Frederic Barbarossa, as soon as he became the king of Germany, dispatched envoys to the Byzantine emperor (Isaac II at the time) demanding compensation for all the misfortunes his father endured because of the Byzantines. In addition, he claimed the regions between Epidamnos and Thessalonika, as the present ruler of Sicily, he asked for naval aid to assist his army in Palestine, he demanded to be recognized as lord of lords and king of kings28and last but not least, he concluded by asking huge amounts of money and threatening with war if the emperor would not comply. Approximately at this time, Alexios III was crowned emperor of the Romans. He sent envoys to Henry promising him an enormous payment in exchange for peace. Choniates attests that nothing like that had ever been done before. In Christmas 1196 Alexios received the German envoys. In an effort to display the magnificence of his imperial status, he had ordered the court to dress up formally for the occasion hoping to impress the Germans with his imperial regalia. The Germans were indeed impressed by the splendid attire of the Romans but not in the way Alexios expected. Arguing that such a guise is fit only for women "they longed the sooner to conquer the Greeks" whom they thought incapable of war.29
What is more, Alexios could not meet the payment he had promised to the Germans and he decided to tax the provinces of the empire imposing the Alamanikon, the German tax. However, citizens, senate, clergy and guildsmen refused to pay such tax and Alexios was forced to withdraw his proposal. His second attempt was to claim the gold and silver votive offerings of the Church, but after he failed with that as well, in his despair, he ordered the plundering and the looting of old imperial tombs. Choniates narrates the story with bitter resentment. He describes how even the tomb of Constantine the Great was about to be pillaged if not thieves had not reached it first, and robbed it of its golden covering.30 When the amount owed was gathered, news came from Germany that king Henry VI died. Fortunately, therefore, the money remained in the empire.
On the other hand, Niketas in an effort to present Alexios' good intentions, he recounts his attempt to purify the administrative system by ordering the seizure of the sale of public offices and their distribution according to merit. Choniates does not fail to compliment him on this decision. However, the new system failed and the ministries were weakened even more. Choniates attributes this failure to the "light-mindness of the emperor and his ineptness in governing the affairs of the state".31 He considers equally responsible also those who flocked around him, full of greed and intemperate craving to amass money and power.
It is clear that Alexios' administrative policies were not very efficient. The reason must be sought to Niketas characterization 'apexesmenos'. It seems that Alexios, due to the influence he received from those who surrounded him, the lack of experience, and most probably due to the lack of genuine interest in the Empire, made abrupt and crude movements which concluded to awkward and undesirable results.
Choniates also comments on Alexios' inefficiency in conducting military operations. However, reading through the narration of the Balkan and Asia Minor campaigns, Alexios seems to be victorious. He is not portrayed as a great warrior figure, but in the end, he succeeds in regaining most of the lost territories of the Empire, for example, in the case of Ivanko, the Vlach-Bulgarian boyar, who opposed and killed Asan. After Ivanko had seized power, he had to face Peter's army that marched against him. Ivanko turned to the Byzantines for help, with whom he signed an alliance. The emperor sent Manuel Kamytzes, the protostrator, to relieve him. Kamytzes' fruitless attempt to assist him, brought Ivanko to Constantinople, where his alliance with the emperor was finally concluded since he was married to Alexios' grand-daughter, Theodora. After Ivanko was victorious against Peter, he remained peacefully allied to Byzantium, until 1199 when he rebelled against it. Alexios wrongfully believed that Theodora provided him with a certain security. Nonetheless, as Ivanko was advancing, Alexios found himself at a loss of troops. Fortunately, Manuel Kamytzes was in the area and rushed to confront Ivanko, but falling into an ambush, he was captured. Ivanko had succeeded in capturing Thrace and Rhodope from the Strymon to the mouth of Maritsa, but in 1200 Alexios, fearing that he aimed at usurpation set out to fight him. Ivanko was captured and executed, and his regions restored to the Empire.32
Another Vlach-Bulgarian Alexios had to face, was Chrysos. Chrysos had acquired the very important fort of Stumnitsa which the emperor unsuccessfully besieged for two months. Chrysos managed also to capture Prosakos, an almost impenetrable citadel. Alexios' attempt to regain both regions proved unsuccessful. Nevertheless, Chrysos and the Roman emperor after sometime of intense warfare, signed a peace treaty which placed Prosakos, Stumnitsa and the surrounding regions under Chrysos authority.33
Alexios' third threat from the Balkans came in the face of Ioannitsa, the younger brother of Peter and Asan, who after establishing himself as ruler of Tirnovo, made two successful expeditions against Byzantine territories. In the first, he captured Constantia and in the second, the port of Varna. Vlach attacks were as terrible as ever, but in 1200 unexpected aid came from Prince Roman, the ruler of Volynia and Galicia the son of Mstislav II of Kiev, who wanted to regain the way to Byzantium through Cuman lands on the lower Danube. A certain agreement must have been reached between the two, and Roman, by attacking Cuman homelands achieved the relief of Byzantine territories. Finally, in 1202 Alexios succeeded in signing a peace treaty with Ioannitsa who was weakened by Alexios' military achievements and the lack of Cuman help.34
According to Choniates, Manuel Kamytzes captured by Ivanko, was at the time, in the hands of Ioannitsa. Although he appealed repeatedly to the emperor pleading with him for deliverance, Alexios deliberately ignored him in order to hold on to his cousin's wealth. Manuel, therefore, was forced to appeal instead to Chrysos for help, who was his son-in-law. Chrysos was willing to offer him his assistance only if Manuel agreed to stay with him and not return to Constantinople. They attacked together Prilap and Pelagonia, as well as, Thessaly. This last event, as Choniates describes, caused an uprising both in Hellas and in Peloponnesus. Alexios was interested in dissolving this alliance between Chrysos and Kamytzes. To accomplish that, he offered Chrysos a new Byzantine bride, Ivanko's widow, Theodora. Chrysos consented and the regions were regained for the Empire.35
As is evident, the general overview of the Balkan affair seems to be bright and victorious for Alexios. Ivanko's territories were recovered. Manuel Kamytzes was driven out of Thessaly. Chrysos had surrendered his conquests in return for a Byzantine bride. A peace treaty had been signed with Ioannitsa. Only Prosakos still remained in the hands of Chrysos.
Similarly, Alexios' relations with Asia Minor had been successful as it appears through the following two episodes. Trouble had arisen with the Sultan of Iconium Kaikhusraw I. It began with a quarrel over two stallions that Kaikhusraw stole from Alexios on their way from Egypt to Constantinople. The two parties engaged in warfare. The Turk captured Karia and Tandalos and he advanced upon Antioch. He did not attack it, however, because he had mistaken the sounds of a wedding feast to be soldiers preparing for battle. Reluctant to face the opposition he retreated. Alexios was not so energetic against him probably because the internal problems, Iconium had been experiencing, were favorable to him. There were constant quarrels among the numerous sons of Kilidj Arslan II, and the young Kaikhusraw lacked authority among them.36
After Kilidj Arslan's death in 1192, another of his sons, Rukn al-Din increased his possessions. Alexios and Rukn al-Din had shared peace for several years. However, in 1200 a series of events damaged their relations. The governor of the theme of Mylassa and Melanudion had rebelled. He was Michael Dukas, illegitimate son of John Angelos Dukas the sebastocrator. He fled to Iconium and asked help from Rukn al-Din. The latter agreed and began attacking Byzantine territories. Alexios, on the other hand, had attacked Turkish ships to covet spoils through Constantine Phrangopoulos, the pirate. Turkish merchants appealed to Rukn al-Din for this action, who demanded compensation from the emperor. Alexios instead of paying Rukn's request of fifty pounds of silver, he dispatched Chasisios to assassinate the Sultan. However, the former was captured and Alexios plan became known to the Turk. This would normally offer a good excuse for war, but it seems that both parties were too involved to begin a new conflict between themselves.37
Apparently, the Asia Minor encounters were not as turbulent as the ones in the Balkans. Alexios avoided being engaged in long and costly warfare due to the Turkish civil strives. Although Niketas is suggesting Alexios' lack of military mind, throughout the text, it is evident that Alexios is victorious in his military campaigns. However, he is not portrayed as a great warrior figure, nor he is praised as being solely responsible for those victories. Choniates tends to insinuate that he might have been helped by Fortune. Whether Fortune signifies divine help or a set of fortuitous circumstances is not conclusive. However, taking into consideration Choniates' belief in divine intervention, I would suggest that this could be, indeed, defined as God-sent assistance. In any case, Niketas claims that in Alexios' victories, Alexios' wit played the least significant role.
As we have mentioned, Alexios' ascension to the throne was marked by the deposing and blinding of his brother Isaac II. Although this transition occurred in a peaceful and unruffled way, inspiring Niketas to compare the two brothers to the Dioskouroi,38 at the same time, it incited his exasperation. He explicitly condemns such actions and he devotes his prologue to reprimanding Alexios for what he considers reprehensible. Choniates concept of the ideal emperor is falling appart. He had been brought up with the glorious image created during Manuel's reign and which he himself exalted in his orations.39 During the reigns of Andronikos and the following emperors, he is experiencing the dissolution of the Empire and along with it the collapse of the ideal emperor, an image that the later emperors as well as Alexios, identified themselves with, without being able to attain their status.40
In the case of Alexios III we notice that he used the surname "Komnenos", in an effort to associate himself with the 'glorious Byzantine past.41 During the 11th and 12th centuries six of the Byzantine emperors had the name Komnenos. Apparently, by the time of Alexios, it had become "a symbol of power and authority".42 Alexios preferred to be linked with the renowned Komnenos family, while he wished to dissociate himself from his brother, who had created an image of his name.43 This is not acceptable by Niketas whose disapproval must be sought in Alexios' incapability of living up to the Komnenos name, as he perceived it.
Niketas discredit of Alexios continues commenting on his love for luxuries and earthly pleasures. Alexios preferred to dwell in the splendid and lavishly comfortable Propontis as though it was the "land of the lotus and the Sirens".44 His hankering for luxury impeded him from effecting the siege of Prosakos during his campaign against Chrysos. He was advised by his generals to attack all the surrounding regions so as to weaken Chrysos' defenses, however, he acquiesced to the proposal of his eunuchs and servants to attack Prosakos and return as soon as possible to the lavish environment of his palace.45 It seems that the eunuchs and the chamberlains, taking advantage of the emperor's credulity and love for luxuries, convinced him that they had a better chance of winning Chrysos if they attacked immediately. Alexios ignoring his generals' remarks agreed with to that suggestion revealing not only his attachment to earthly pleasures but also his ineptness concerning the affairs of war.
Alexios was allegedly afraid of the 'avenging justice' and according to Niketas he suffered a 'heartfelt condition' caused by his abominable action. It is doubtful whether he expressed any remorse to his entourage, nevertheless, this could be an explanation for his being keen on astrology and its interpretations of the daily circumstances. Although Choniates considers this a common practice of the emperors of the times,46 he does not fail to thoroughly criticize it and ridicule those who professed it. He accuses them of denying Divine Providence and perversely turning to interpreting the movements, positions and configurations of the stars, misusing expressions like 'it is fated' or 'what is ordained by necessity...cannot be undone' in order to explain the paradoxes of life.47 Niketas objection to astrology is very well depicted in his account of Manuel I. He blames Manuel for believing in the astrologers as if they were uttering the word of God.48 In the episode of Manuel's illness and death, Choniates seizes the opportunity to expose and deride astrologers, as well as criticizing the emperor's belief in their assertions.
But those pestilential astrologers had the audacity to say that the emperor would shortly recover from his illness...they shamelessly predicted the razing of enemy cities to the ground. What was more outrageous, they, being quick-tongued and used to lying, foretold a great commotion of the universe... the transformation of the whole natural order, thus proving themselves ventriloquists rather than stargazers. They... told the weeks in which these things would happen, and notified the emperor accordingly;... as if they had clear knowledge of the things which the Father has kept in His own power, and about which Our Savior reprimanded his disciples for asking. So not only did the emperor seek out caves... and prepare them for habitation...49
Likewise, Niketas denounces Alexios' inclination on astrology which he finds totally incompatible with Christian faith.50 However, Alexios' portrait is not completely gloomy. Choniates finds also a few complimentary things to say about him, like the courage he had often demonstrated in relation to his illness. Alexios was suffering from gout, an organic disturbance marked by arthritic attacks. He was, presumably, in a serious state of pain. However, he refused to call the physicians until he could not endure the pain any longer. It is also reported that before Alexios had assembled his army at Kypsella to go on a campaign against Chrysos, he had been suffering from severe pains, which however, did not prevent him to go against the Vlach. Adding to the positive features, Niketas comments on the mildness of Alexios' character; "he surpassed all others in the mildness of his manner; neither was he inaccessible, nor did he repel anyone with a ferocious mien and supercilious glare and by snarling, but anyone who wished to do so could approached and petition him, and sometimes, one could contradict him without placing restrictions on oneself in speech". Niketas may be referring to the beginning of Alexios' reign when he gave away money and lands to anyone that petitioned him. He never refused anyone. He was generous and charitable. Even when the public resources were depleted he continued to be open-handed and munificent. At this point, however, Niketas is contradicting his own characterization of Alexios. He says that he "did not drive a stake into the eyes to implant darkness or prune the limbs of the body as though they were grapevines, to become a butcher of men. As long as he wore the gloom-stained purple, no woman put on black, mourning a husband whom black Death had enfolded. Neither did fire flash from his eyes like rays from gems, nor did he abuse others with insults so that teardrops the size of round pearls should fall". He tries to reconstruct an image of Alexios as a pious, mild man who would never deliberately cause harm to anyone. This picture of the emperor is confuted when one examines the following events. We have already mentioned Alexios' attempt to assassinate Rukn al-Din. Unfortunately for Alexios the assassin he paid to execute the plan was captured and the Turk was spared. However, in the next episode involving his wife Eufrosyne, the emperor was 'luckier'. Eufrosyne, who according to Niketas, was a very intelligent, shrewd and capable woman taking active part in the administration,51 had appointed Constantine Mesopotamites as her minister. Gradually, Mesopotamites acquired more and more power, under the patronage of Eufrosyne. Consequently, other ministers, attached to the emperor, found that their influence had been diminished. Especially Andronikos Kontostephanos and Basil Kamateros who were blood relations of the empress, "were choked with rage".52 They decided to avenge this injustice made to them, by attacking Eufrosyne, as it was difficult to harm Mesopotamites directly. They accused her of adultery against the emperor, and of inciting a rebellion, with her alleged lover, Vatatzes. Alexios was greatly distressed to discover such treachery and without even investigating the matter, he ordered Vatatzes' death. Apparently, the orders were very cruel, since, according to Choniates, Vatatzes suffered a disgraceful death and his body was dismembered. Afterwards his head was brought to the emperor, who kicked it and insulted the deceased in the worst manner. Concerning Eufrosyne, he did not take immediate action. She, on the other hand, fearing her husband, demanded to go through a trial affirming she would comply with whatever the court decided. She implored him not to give credit to her accusers, and instead listen to the truth. Nevertheless, the emperor did not acquiesce in her wishes, and he ordered the torturing of Eufrosyne's maids. After he had produced the information he needed from the eunuchs and the women of the bed chamber, he compelled her to depart from the palace and enter the monastery of Nematarea, near Pontos.53
Despite Eufrosyne' s later return to the palace, and the unsuccessful attempt on Rukn al-Din's life, Niketas' attestation of Alexios' mildness falls through. The emperor was, indeed, capable of insult, mutilation, torture and murder. Nevertheless, compared with his predecessors, Alexios might have, indeed, appeared 'milder' in the eyes of Niketas, even though this might constitute a contradiction in terms.
A contradiction in terms can also be noted in the imperial image revealed through the encomia addressed to the emperor, when compared to the one emerging from the History. Although the author of both is Niketas Choniates, we clearly observe a conspicuous discrepancy. Namely, the glorified and god-like appearance of the emperor in the encomia, in contradistinction to its deconstruction in the narrative history. Specifically, the encomia were logoi presented to the emperor on a ceremonial basis and possessed a correlative character in which both the celebrant and the person celebrated were honoured. Although the image conveyed in the encomia had to be endorsed by the emperor, this signified neither an appointment, nor an imposition on his part. On the contrary, they were often composed on the author's initiative. They followed a more or less ratified imperial portrait, simultaneously stressing how the Church and the people of Constantinople pictured the emperor, namely as their defender and benefactor.54
Niketas' encomia embellish Alexios with numerous qualities. He is regarded as a plain, guileless, extremely mild and gentle man, possessing a grand soul full of leniency and mercy. He appears brave and wise, routing the enemies of the Empire and having control over revolts and those who promote them. He goes fearless to battle disregarding his illness, yet at the same time remaining modest. He seems milder and more just than previous emperors, even those of his own kin. He is responsible for the renovation of the Empire which had been declining since Manuel's death, unlike his predecessors who were accountable for its exhaustion. He is addressed to with several epithets that suggest his closeness and likeness to God (θειότατε, θεοείκελε, θεοειδη, ισόθεε, αγχίθεε), thus insinuating the sanction and the lawfulness of his reign.55
Evidently, one could argue, we observe two different personalities of Alexios, one in the encomia, and another in the History. This discrepancy has incited the development of two theories that explain the matter. The first rejects the encomiastic literature inclining towards the History and the second tries to place the truth somewhere in between.56 Taking into consideration that the orations were addressed directly to the emperor and that the encomia were, as P. Magdalino puts it, "a distorting mirror with a built-in tendency to inflate whatever it reflected",57 we are led to assume that the encomia could not have expressed the complete and honest opinion of the rhetor. Hence, turning to the narrative account appears safer in terms of discovering the author's true sentiments. Nevertheless, it seems that Choniates' objection to the rhetorical is, first, that the emperors were wrong to correlate themselves with those ideals, since they were unable to attain them, and second, that those ideals were ambiguous themselves.58 Consequently, and as R. Macrides states "it is with the image , that Choniates finds fault" and not so much with the deficiencies of particular emperors.59 The mere existence of such an image was able to deceive both emperor and ruler, inspiring them to take doubting things for granted.60
Concluding, we see Alexios falling short of his ideal image, and apart from his few positive features, possessing no sufficient qualities for ruling. Still, what about the larger question; was his decadent reign that led to the fall of Constantinople in 1204? I believe that the answer to this question must be sought in Alexios' contribution to the already declining environment of his age. The Fourth Crusade and the sack of the City as its consequence must be studied taking into consideration the policies of the entire Komnenos dynasty. The relations Alexios I and Manuel I shared with the West, the image that was cultivated there about them, and last but not least, the inner struggle of the Empire, the ruthless usurpations of the later emperors as well as their incompetent reigns.
Examining more specifically the reign of Alexios III, it is evident that he contributed to what we name 'decline of the 12th century'. However, Choniates even though he acknowledges the decadence that characterized his era, as well as the impact from the West, still, he attributes a large part of the blame to the lack of unity and solidarity of the Empire that emerges from the disrespect the larger family of Komnenos showed to the throne disregarding its nature as an institution consecrated by God. This does not imply only their successful coups, but also their unsuccessful revolts, as well as, their defections to other states.61 Choniates seems to feel very strongly about this. The provocation of central authority and the undermining of imperial supremacy received his utter reprobation, not only for their own sake, but also as responsible for making the Empire vulnerable to hostile forces. Therefore, it is impossible to see Alexios out of his geographical and chronological context. He must be studied as a part of the background picture of the Fourth Crusade, considering also the changing character of the 13th century.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHYAbbreviations 1. Chon.: Choniates, Niketas, O City of Byzantium. The Annals of Niketas Choniates. Trans. by H. Magoulias; Detroit, 1984. 2. Chon. (Van Dieten ed): Akominatos Nicetas Choniates, Nicetae Choniatae Historia. I. A. V. Dieten ed. Vol. 2; Berlin, 1975. 3. MB: Sathas K. N. Medieval Library (in Greek). Vol. Ι. Reprinted. Athens: 1972 4. Or. et Ep.: Ed. J. -L. Van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae Orationes et Epistulae. Berlin, 1972. 5. PG: Migne, J. P. ed, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca. Vol. 62, 95; Paris, 1857-1906. 6. Van Dieten biog.: J. -L. Van Dieten, Erlauterungen zu den Reden und Briefen nebst einer Biographie. Berlin, 1971.
1 Chon., p.350 2 Van Dieten biog., p.8 3 Chon., p.221; Van Dieten biog., p.233 4 Van Dieten biog., pp. 23-24 5 Chon., p.218;Van Dieten biog., p.26 6 The original title is very long (Van Dieten biog., p.5) 7 Kazhdan, p.257 8 Alexios V, in order to place Philokales at the head of the Senate, he dismissed Choniates as logothete of the secreta 'without the benefit of a specious excuse'.( Chon., p.311) 9 Chon., p.354 10 Kazhdan, p.257 11 Kazhdan, p.225 12 Beck, pp.663-4 13 Chon., p.249 14 Chon., p.248 15 Chon., p.249 16 Chon., p.249 17 This is evident in the narrative by the constant references in the Holy Scriptures as well as by his religious works. Characteristically, his brother, Michael, says of him in his Monody: (S. 336, 2-6) and (Van Dieten biog., p.55) 18 Mango, p.151 19 PG: I. Damaskenos, vol. 95 p.10 20 Corinthians I, 6: 15-16; 12: 12-28 esp. 21-22; Ephesians 4: 1-7; 5: 30; PG: Ioannes Chrysostomos, vol.62 p.139 21 Villehardouin, p.99 "Judge for yourselves, after hearing of this treachery, whether people who could treat each other with such savage cruelty would be fit to hold lands or would deserve to lose them?" 22 Chon. (Van Dieten ed.), p. 547:86-87. 23 Chon., p.249 24 Chon., p.249 25 Chon., p.250 26 Brand, p.147 27 Brand, p.147 28 This could be Choniates exaggeration ridiculing Henry's ardour to appear as a supreme ruler when it was 'very well known' that only the Roman emperor could claim such salutation. 29 Chon., p.262 30 There is a mistranslation at this point by Magoulias. The Greek text reads as reprinted in Chon. (Van Dieten ed.) 479: 35-38. See also the article by R.J. Macrides, From the 'Komnenoi to the Palaiologoi' in New Constantines p. 278. 31 Chon., p.265 32 Chon., pp.257-60, 281-5 33 Chon., p.267, 270, 277-80 34 Chon., pp.219, 259, 282, 292, 294, 336-8 35 Chon., pp.280, 282-3, 293-4 36 Chon., pp.286-7 37 Chon., p.290 38 Chon., p.248 39 Macrides, p.278 40 Macrides, p.279 Choniates finds that this image/model was not reflecting the reality and he questions the emperors' practice, namely, to create such a model in the first place. 41 Chon., p.252 42 Macrides, Archeion Pontou, 35 p.243 43 Macrides, p.279 44 Chon., p.273 45 Chon. ,p.277 46 Chon. p.291 47 Chon. (Van Dieten ed.), pp.95-95:33-36 (translation by P. Magdalino, Empire pp.5-6) 48 Chon. (Van Dieten ed.), p.154:53-54 (translation by P. Magdalino, Empire p.7) 49 Chon. (Van Dieten ed.), pp.220-221:23-43 (translation by P. Magdalino, Empire p.11) 50 Chon., p.291; Brand, p.117 51 Or. et Ep. Z p. 67:5-17 52 Chon., pp.266-9 53 Chon., p.267 54 Magdalino, p.479 Specifically on Alexios see MB vol. Ι p.85. 55 On the mildness see Or. et Ep. Z p.55:35, 56:7; MB vol. I pp.85,87. On the goodness of heart, artlessness, and possession of grand soul see Or. et Ep. Z p. 55:32-34. On the mercy see Or. et Ep. Z p.58:24-25, 59:21-30 (punishing, although not strict in punishment). On the modesty see Or. et Ep. Z p. 55:8; MB vol. I p. 88. On the bravery and wisdom see Or. et Ep. Z pp.55:21, 60:30-31, 67:5; MB vol. I pp.87,95. On his illness see MB vol. I p.97. On 'divine' appearance see Or et Ep. Z p.55:20-21; MB vol.I pp.85, 87. 56 Macrides, p.275 57 Magdalino, p. 479 58 Magdalino, p. 478 59 Macrides, p.277 60 Magdalino, p.482 61 Chon., p.290
Back to Cover
Get your own Free Home Page