The Weakness of Byzantium
Byzantium's prospects for survival did not seem so good at the start of the thirteenth century, and seemed even bleaker after the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth crusade. The following is a discussion of the internal and external threats to the survival of Byzantium and why none of these threats proved to be fatal during the thirteenth century.
The Threats to Byzantium
At the turn of the thirteenth century the biggest external threat to the survival of Byzantium would have been the Seljuk Turks who seemed poised if not destined to take over Byzantium and the remains of a once great empire. Only inadvertant help from the most unexpected quarter saved Byzantium during the thirteenth century. The Seljuks were not beaten by the emergence of a great new Emperor in the mode of Constantine or Justinian or the double- edged sword of a crusade from the west, but by the Mongol hordes from the east. The Seljuks had emerged during the eleventh century and were from modern Turkey and Iran. They gained control of Egypt, Syria and the Holy Land and their less tolerant approach towards Christian pilgrims prompted the Crusades.
The Seljuks were able to overcome the crusaders despite initial setbacks, but the Mongols were fiercer than anything was or anyone the Seljuks had faced before. The strength of the Seljuks was more apparent than real, just like Byzantium they had weaknesses and divisions that were fully exposed by the Mongols. The leadership of the Seljuks did not survive the Mongolian onslaught but their successors the Ottoman Turks would eventually prove to be the conquerors of Byzantium (Lewis 1971, pp 12 - 13).
The Crusades
The external threat that was the most damaging to Byzantium during the thirteenth century came from a source that in theory was allied to Byzantium, Western Europe through the Crusades. The crusades were launched by the Papacy in order to regain the Holy Lands from Muslim hands and to shore up the Byzantium Empire. The First Crusade was the most successful in that Jerusalem, Antioch and Nicea were all captured, but then the crusaders turned their attention to in fighting and gaining plunder rather than making further progress. The Seljuk Turks fought back and more crusades were needed, the Second and Third Crusades achieved very little apart from making the names Richard the Lionheart and Saladan legendary.
The Fourth Crusade also failed to make any gains but on their return home the Crusaders were redirected by the Venetians (who were in trade disputes with the Empire) to Byzantium and sacked the capital. The loss of life was greater than in 1453, the crusaders killing more of their fellow Christians than the Ottomans, and their vile deceit was bitterly remembered till the end of Byzantium. Despite the religious rift between Eastern Orthodox Byzantium and the Roman Catholic crusaders, the main motive of their attack was the gaining of plunder excused by the fact that Byzantine heretics were little better than the Muslims that the crusaders were supposedly protecting Byzantium from. The sacking of Constantinople critically damaged Byzantium, she only survived the thirteenth century as none of her rivals either had the firepower or were in the position to deliever the coup de grace (Roberts 1996, p 183).
Bibliography
Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia edited by C Crystal 2nd edition 1997, University of Cambridge Press.
The Times Illustrated World History, revised edition 1992 edited by Geoffrey I. Parker, Times Books.
A History of Eastern Europe, Crisis and Change -R. Bideleux and I. Jeffries 1998, Routledge Books.
A History of Europe - J.M. Roberts, 1996, Helicon Publishing Ltd
Modern Greece: a Short History - C. Woodhouse 1977 , Faber
y
