Page:
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 |
Next
In the Macedonian period a grave domes tic question troubled the Government. This was the growth of the large estates of the rich nobles of Asia Minor, at the expense of small properties, to an excess which was politically and economi cally dangerous. The legislation against the evil began under Romanus I. and was directed to the defence of the poor against the rich, and to protecting the military organization which was based on holdings of land to which the obligation of military service was attached. There was also danger in the excessive influence of rich and powerful families, from which the great military officers were drawn, and which were extensively related by alliances among themselves. The danger was realized in the struggle which Basil II. had to sustain with the families of Sclerus and Phocas. Various kinds of legislation were attempted. Under Romanus I. alienation of property to the large landowners was forbidden. Nicephorus Phocas, whose sympathies were with the aristocracy to which he belonged, holding that there had been enough legislation in favour of the poor, sought to meet the difficulty of maintaining a supply of military lands in the future by forbidding further acquisitions of estates by the church. Basil II. returned to the policy of Romanus, but with much greater severity, resorting to confiscation of some of the immense private estates; and he endeavoured to keep down the aristocrats of Asia Minor by very heavy taxation. Through the recovery of the Balkan provinces he gained in Europe a certain political counterpoise to the influence of Asia Minor, which had been preponderant since the 7th century. Asia Minor meant the army, and opposition to its influence expressed itself in the II th century in a fatal anti military policy, which is largely responsible for the conquests of a new enemy, the Seljuk Turks, who now entered into the inher itance of the Caliphs (see CALIPHATE ad fin. and SELJUKS). Constantinople was haunted by the dread of a military usurpation. An attempt of the military hero George Maniaces (who had made a remarkable effort to recover Sicily) to wrest the crown from Constantine IX. had failed; and when Isaac Comnenus, who represented the military aristocrats of Asia Minor, ascended the throne, he found himself soon compelled to abdicate, in face of the opposition. The reign of Constantine X., of the rival family of Ducas, marked the culmination of this antagonism. The senate was filled with men of the lower classes, and the military budget was ruthlessly cut down. This policy reduced the army and stopped the supply of officers, since there was no longer hope of a profitable career. The emperor thought to meet dangers from external enemies by diplomacy. The successes of the Seljuks (after the fall of the great Armenian fortress of Ani in 1064) at length awoke the Government from its dream of security. The general Romanus Diogenes was proclaimed emperor. He had to create an army and to train it ; he did not spare himself, but it was too late. He was defeated and captured by Alp Arslan on the decisive field of Manzikert 0070. Released by the sultan, who honoured his bravery, he was deposed in favour of Michael Ducas, and falling into the hands of his enemies, was blinded. The east and centre of Asia Minor were thus lost; the Seljuk kingdom of Rum was founded; Nicaea was captured by the Turks in r o80. The provinces which escaped the Seljuk occupation were thor oughly disorganized, a prey to foreign and native adventurers and usurpers (see SELJUKS).
Thus in the '7os of the iith century the empire seemed through incompetence and frivolity to have been brought to the verge of dissolution. The disorder was terminated by the accession of the extraordinarily able statesman Alexius Comnenus (I 08r), who effected a reconciliation with the rival family of Ducas, estab lished a strong Government and founded a dynasty. He had to deal with three great dangers—the Seljuks, the Petchenegs (see above), and in the west the Normans. The Normans had wrested from East Rome its possessions in south Italy (1041-70—suc ceeding where German emperors had failed—and throughout the Comnenian period the empire was threatened by their projects of conquest beyond the Adriatic, projects which aimed at Con stantinople itself.
Four great attempts against the empire were made by the Normans; they were unsuccessful, but they heralded the Western conquest of 1204. (I) Expedition of Robert Guiscard, 1081-85, repelled by Alexius with help of Venice; (2) Bohemond's expe dition, 1105-07, foiled by the able strategy of Alexius ; (3) the invasion of Greece by Roger of Sicily, 1147; Venice supported Manuel Comnenus, and the Normans were driven from Corfu, "49; (4) the expedition of William II. of Sicily, 1185, who suc
ceeded in capturing Thessalonica; the invaders were defeated at Demetritsa, but they gained the islands of Cephallenia and Zacynthus.
The two most important events in the reign of Alexius were the prices which he paid for help against his enemies. (I) He was obliged (1084) to grant to Venice (q.v.) in return for her naval aid against the Normans, commercial privi leges which practically made the empire commercially dependent on the republic. (2) He sought auxiliary forces in western Europe to help him against the Seljuks; the answer of the pope and Latin Christendom was the First Crusade—a succour very differ ent from that which he desired. Through his tact and discretion, the State was safely steered through the dangers with which the disorderly hosts of barbarous allies menaced it, and the immediate results were salutary; large parts of Asia Minor, including Nicaea, were restored to the empire, which was thus greatly strengthened in the East while the Turks were weakened (see CRUSADES). But for this help Byzantium might not have recovered the transient strength and brilliance which it displayed under Manuel. In Asia Minor the crusaders kept the terms of their agreement to restore to the emperor what had belonged to him ; but on capturing An tioch (1098) they permitted the Norman Bohemond to retain it, in flagrant violation of their oaths ; for to Antioch if to any place the emperor had a right, as it had been his a few years before. This was in itself sufficient to cause a breach between Byzantium and the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem (founded 1099). But other wise the new political situation created by the Crusade was dan gerous, ultimately fatal, to the empire. For its lands and seas became a highway from western Europe to the Latin colonies in Syria; the Byzantine Government was forced to take precautions to protect itself against the crusading expeditions which travelled to the Holy Land; and these precautions were regarded by the western Powers as a hindrance to the sacred objects of the cru sades. The bitter religious antagonism between the Greek and Latin Christians increased the mutual distrust and the danger.
The history of the new relations between East and West dating from the First Crusade is closely connected with the history of the futile attempts at bringing about a reunion between the Greek and Latin Churches, which had severed communion in 1054. To heal the hurtful schism and bring the Greek Church again under the domination of Rome was a principal object of papal policy from Gregory VII. forward. The popes alternated between two methods for attaining this, as circumstances dictated : namely, a peaceful agreement—the policy of union ; or an armed occupa tion of the empire by some western power (the Normans)—the policy of conquest. Their views varied according to the vicissi tudes of their political situation and their struggles with the western emperors. The eastern emperors were also constantly preoccupied with the idea of reconciliation, constantly negotiating with a view to union ; but they did not care about it for its own sake, but only for political advantages which it might bring, and their subjects were bitterly opposed to it. Manuel Comnenus during the first part of his reign was the close friend and ally of the western emperor Conrad III., but after Conrad's death he formed the ambitious plan of realizing in Europe a sovereignty like that of Justinian, and hoped to compass it in conjunction with Rome, the enemy of the Hohenstaufen. His forward policy carried war into Italy; he seized Ancona. But his strength was unequal to such designs. His Latin sympathies, no less than his financial extravagance, made him highly unpopular at home; and the national lack of sympathy with his Western policy was exhibited—after the revolution which overthrew his son Alexius and raised his cousin Andronicus I. to the throne—by the awful massacre of the Latin residents at Constantinople in 1182, for which the expedition of William of Sicily (see above) and the massacre of the people of Thessalonica was the revenge. The short reign of the wicked and brilliant Andronicus was in all respects a reaction, prudent, economical and popular. His fall was due to the aristocracy against whom his policy was directed, and the reign of Isaac Angelus undid his efforts and completed the ruin of the State. Oppressive taxation caused a revolt of the Bulgarian and Walachian population in the European provinces; the work of Zimisces and Basil was undone, and a new Bulgarian kingdom was founded by John Asen—a decisive blow to the Greek predominance which the Macedonian emperors seemed to have established.