Site Library Library of Rome

How did the Empire of Nicaea emerge as the front-runner of the Byzantine Successor States and eventually become the restorer of Constantinople?

The walls had been breached. When the Latin knights of the Fourth Crusade tore out the heart of the Byzantine Empire, the great city of Constantinople, on 13th April 1204, the regime that could trace its origins back to Constantine and even to Augustus and Julius Caesar was dislodged from its foremost bastion of imperial glory and became an ‘Empire in exile’. However, fifty-seven years later, a new Byzantine imperial family would be restored to Constantinople. This Palaeologi family, which was to become the longest reigning dynasty in Roman and Byzantine history, rose from the Empire of Nicaea, one of the many Greek successor states following 1204. However, on the eve of 1205 Nicaea must have seemed the least likely state to reform the Byzantine Empire due to its size, geographical position and meagre resources. To discover how this state of ‘only three cities and two thousand soldiers’ could emerge as the front-runner of all the successor states and the eventual restorer of Constantinople, we must highlight the weaknesses and failings of the other Greek successor states and the Latin states challenging for dominance over the ruins of the Byzantine Empire as well as the ability of the Nicaeans to deal with their difficult position in the face of foreign pressures, with special attention being given to Theodore Lascaris, his son-in-law John Ducas Vatatzes and Michael Palaeologus.

We must start, however, with what caused this disintegration of the Byzantine Empire: the Fourth Crusade. The disappointing results of the Third Crusade, which failed to make much impression on the Ayyubid Sultanate of Saladin and could not achieve its goal of Jerusalem in the early 1190s, had led to the call for a Fourth Crusade. This new crusade was designed to take advantage of the Christian superiority on the seas by launching an amphibious assault on Egypt, “the key to the Levant”. Seeing an opportunity to catch up on the other crusader states and a chance to extend her influence further afield, as well as any financial rewards offered by the crusading movement, the Venetians were particularly keen to make their large navy available to the campaign. However, the problems for the crusade began as soon as the military forces assembled in Venice, as the soldiers had brought little more than half of the price agreed for the passage to Egypt. Ever the opportunists, the Venetians decided to use the large army that was now indebted to them to capture the Adriatic port of Zara, only recently acquired by the King of Hungary from the Byzantines and long coveted by the Doge of Venice.

During the Zara campaign, Alexius, the son of the deposed Byzantine emperor, Isaac Angelus, approached the crusaders and pledged his father’s full support for the crusade and a grand sum from the imperial treasury in return for restoring Isaac to the throne. Many of the crusaders did not want to attack their fellow Christians, even if they were ‘heretical’, Orthodox Christians. However, after a long discussion and with varying degrees of reluctance, egged on by the Venetians, the leaders of the crusade succumbed and

the armaments intended for the discomfort of the Turks were used to replace one Byzantine emperor with another.

The Byzantine Empire itself had been fading for a generation after Manuel I’s disastrous offensive against the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, which had come to grief at the Battle of Myriocephalum in 1176. In the years since, many of the border provinces had been lost with the Hungarians taking not only Zara but also Croatia and Dalmatia, Cilicia going to the migrating Armenians and Serbia and Bulgaria gaining their independence, making the Byzantine Empire of the early thirteenth century almost the equivalent of the Ottoman Empire of the 1800’s as the ‘sick man of Europe’.

After a quick siege in July 1204, Isaac II was restored with his son Alexius VI as co-regent, but it soon became obvious that the imperial treasury was empty, likely ransacked by the fleeing Alexius III. The public were also very unhappy by the Latin invasion and they rose up in rebellion, deposed the Angeli and put Alexius V Ducas Marzoufle on the imperial throne. The new regime despised the crusaders, who were still waiting for their payment, and it soon became clear that conflict was unavoidable. A second siege began in the first week of April and by the 13th the city was under the control of the crusaders. The ‘second Rome’, ‘the queen of cities’ was mercilessly sacked for three days as

they smashed the holy images and hurled the sacred relics of the Martyrs into places I am ashamed to mention, scattering everywhere the body and blood of the Saviour.

Nicetas Choniates and Nicholas Mesarites, both of who were eyewitnesses to the event, graphically depict the sack of the great city.

It was Constantinople’s darkest hour – even darker, perhaps, than that which was to see the city’s final fall to the Ottoman Sultan.

Not only was the wealth of Constantinople divided up among the crusaders, so was the territory of Byzantine Empire. As the leaders of the crusade, the Franks and Venetians took the job of carving up the Byzantine pie. The Franks set up the Principality of Achaea on the Peloponnese and the Kingdom of Thessalonica, centred on the second city of the Byzantine Empire. The Franks also controlled what became the Latin Empire with its territories in southern Thrace, northwest Asia Minor, the Sea of Marmora, the Hellespont and the Aegean Islands of Lesbos, Chios and Samos. The city of Constantinople itself was divided between the Venetian Doge, Dandolo, who took three-eighths of the city plus St. Sophia, with the remaining five-eighths going to the newly elected Latin Emperor, Baldwin, Count of Flanders. As well as gaining this foothold in Constantinople, the Venetians lifted several strategically important islands in the Aegean, Crete and a series of inland ports and promontories to bolster their trading routes. There were several other smaller successor states such as the Duchy of Athens and Thebes, ruled by the Megaskyr (‘Great Lord’), Othon de la Roche, and a number of fortresses throughout the Peloponnese.

However, the Latins were not successful in taking control of all the lands of the Byzantine Empire, as several leading men at Constantinople were able to escape the capture of the city and set up their own independent Greek states. On the European side of the Bosphorous, there was the Despotate of the Epirus, based on the ancient kingdom of the Molossians that had produced the mother of Alexander the Great and the general Pyrrhus, lead by Michael I Angelus Ducas Comnenus. Due to its geographical disposition beside several smaller states and the newly established Latin, Serbian and Bulgarian empires, the Despotate of Epirus may have looked like the most obvious candidate to make any headway in restoring Constantinople. The second major Greek successor state, the Empire of Trebizond, was established in the month before the fall of Constantinople by two brothers, Alexius and David Comnenus, grandsons of Andronicus I, who had fled to Georgia following the deposition of their grandfather in 1185 and now wished to continue the family dynasty. Based on the ancient regions of Pontus and Paphlagonia in Asia Minor, Trebizond was also able to take control of the strategic promontory of the Crimea following 1204. In the subsequent decade, under the leadership of Alexius I Comnenus, Trebizond would contend with the Empire of Nicaea for Greek prominence in Asia Minor, until after a Seljuk offensive left them increasingly isolated from the main theatre that became the race for Constantinople. The third and most important Greek successor state was that of Nicaea. The city of Nicaea, on the Asian side of the Bosphorous, had been the site of the famous Church Council in AD325, at which the views of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius on the relationship between the persons of the Trinity had been rejected and the Nicene Creed, promoting homoousios, had been issued. However, now it had a different reason for fame, as it would be from here that the restorers of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire would emerge.

During the first years the prospects did not look good for Nicaea, which was not yet an empire but a despotate. Even if Gibbon’s suggestion that at the outset Theodore Lascaris had fewer than 2,000 soldiers and only three towns is slightly exaggerated, which it might not be, there seems to have been few opportunities for advancement and expansion whereas external and internal threats were more obvious. The most evident threat came from the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, which was always ready to take advantage of Christian weakness in Asia Minor and would prevent any expansion into Anatolia. As I have already said above, Theodore would have to vie with the Empire of Trebizond to become the prominent Greek state in Asia Minor before moving against his enemies in Europe. However, the most immediate threat faced by the Despotate of Nicaea was the wrath of the new Latin Empire, which had the crusader armies to call upon. The Latins in Constantinople seem to have taken a disliking to Theodore Lascaris, possibly because they saw him as a threat or because they coveted the lands of Anatolia that he ruled. Other areas of possible expansion such as the shipping lanes of the Aegean and in northern Greece were blocked by the Venetian fleet supported by its new possessions throughout the region and the new Bulgarian Empire, which would play a big role in the Christian East for the next generation.

So looking at the position, size and resources of Nicaea, Theodore Lascaris’s ‘Empire in exile’ was in serious danger of being stillborn and absorbed by any one of a number of Seljuk, Frank, Latin, Venetian or even Greek enemies. It is in this desperate situation that Theodore was to prove himself worthy of the imperial title he was to be given in 1208. Gibbon says that ‘in every military operation he staked his life’ and with the wealth of opposition he faced for him to come through in a stronger position not only shows incredible bravery and determination but also an element of luck. At almost any given time the Seljuks or Latins had enough manpower to crush Theodore but at the appropriate moment another dilemma would catch the invaders attention long enough for Theodore to prepare his forces to resist the coming offensive.

Theodore himself remains a mystery to historians as the origins of the Lascarid family and even the name of Theodore’s home city are unknown. However, what is known that he had a legitimate claim to the imperial throne as his wife, Anna, was the daughter of the former emperor Alexius III, meaning that Theodore was related by marriage to the two great Byzantine families of Comnenus and Angelus. Lascaris is thought to have served under his father-in-law as a military commander and fought against the crusaders during the defence of Constantinople. After the flight of Alexius V Marzoufle, Lascaris must have been seen as a possible replacement and may even have been crowned emperor before he realised the futility of staying in the fallen city. Setting up a new state proved harder than anticipated, however, for Theodore and the large number of important Byzantine bureaucrats, civil and military representatives and prominent clergy. The area around Nicaea was in a state of anarchy and the city itself closed its gates to Theodore. Gradually through sheer force of character Theodore was able to win over the dissident groups and establish a moderately respectable state.

However, Lascaris’s problems had only just begun as the Latin Empire decided to invade Asia Minor and Theodore quickly had to defend his meagre possessions. Despite an alliance with the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, it did not go well. The new Despotate of Nicaea suffered two defeats at the hands of the invading crusader armies, first at Poemanenum and then at Bursa. This left the Lascarid state on the verge of total collapse, however, not for the last time, Nicaea was saved by the distraction of a perspective destroyer. On this occasion, the Latin Empire had done a good job angering not only the Greek populace of Thrace and Macedonia under its control by insulting Greek religious practices and beliefs, but also the Bulgarian king, Kalojan, by insulting his sovereignty and threatening to reduce him to the servile state that Bulgaria had suffered before 1187. This antagonism came to a head at the battle of Hadrianople where not only were the crusaders defeated but the Bulgarians took prisoner the Latin emperor, Baldwin. This catastrophe for the Latin Empire forced the new emperor, Henry, to remove his troops from Asia Minor to defend Latin possessions in Europe, giving Theodore some much-needed breathing space. He used this time to cement his position in Nicaea and to beat back the invading army of Alexius Comnenus, emperor of Trebizond, in 1207. After signing a peace treaty with Henry of Hainault, who was having more trouble with the Bulgarians, Theodore decided to reinforce his claim to the Byzantine succession. He did this by first having a new Patriarch, Michael Autoreanus, elected and then having himself crowned emperor of Nicaea in 1208.

It is possible to underestimate the importance of these early years for the future of Theodore and his minor despotate. The respite imparted by the battle of Hadrianople saved the Nicaeans from almost certain extinction at the hands of Baldwin’s Latins. Not only that but it also granted the opportunity for Theodore to improve the calibre and experience of his army with the victory over the Comnenii of Trebizond, whilst establishing Nicaea as the foremost Greek state in Asia. The treaty with Henry of Hainault not only guaranteed a further period of relief but also bestowed upon the Nicaeans the recognition of a western power, allowing Theodore to establish his empire and head of the Orthodox Church with a greater sense of legitimacy, creating a pocket-sized replica of the Byzantine Empire of old.

The new emperor of Nicaea was not idle for long as the uneasy truce with the Latin Empire lasted less than two years, but this time Theodore I, with his new army of Greek and Frankish mercenaries, was able to defeat the crusader army of Peter of Bracheuil. Yet Theodore I’s biggest triumph was yet to come for when in 1210 his own father-in-law, the deposed Alexius III, encouraged the Seljuk Sultan of Rum to put him on the throne of Nicaea. After repulsing the initial attack, Theodore I engaged the Sultan near Pisidian Antioch on the Maeander River in two particularly bloody encounters. After the dust had settled, the Sultan was dead and Alexius III was a prisoner of the emperor of Nicaea. This victory did not bring any immediate territorial gains for Theodore I but it was a great triumph for the stability of Nicaea and for Greek Christianity as a whole. The following year, after further victories over the emperor of Trebizond and the new Sultan of Rum, much of Anatolia became Nicene territory.

Compared with the first years of his reign in Nicaea, the last decade for Theodore I Lascaris was relatively peaceful. There is evidence that Theodore I got a little carried away with his successes between 1210-11, as he launched a potentially disastrous attack on Latin territory in the Asian side of the Bosphorous, possibly with the aim of taking back Constantinople. However, whatever his aspirations were, the campaign miscarried badly as Theodore I was comprehensibly defeated by Henry of Hainault at Luparcos, who then began an invasion of Anatolia. Theodore I was quick to accept a peace treaty in which he agreed to hand over part of Mysia and Bithynia . This setback aside, the Empire of Nicaea seems to have remained stable throughout the final years of Theodore I’s reign with the Latin Empire distracted with Epirus and Bulgaria and the Seljuks turning their attention to the Empire of Trebizond and then to the alarming reports coming from beyond their eastern frontier about an approaching enemy of vast proportions. Theodore I’s empire began to be recognised as a legitimate state by more European powers. The two treaties signed with the Latin Empire and a third with a Venetian representative in 1220 prove that the Nicene Empire was being taken more seriously than it had been in the years after 1204. In 1222, Theodore I Lascaris died leaving his empire to his son-in-law John Ducas Vatatzes. Through his drive, determination, military skill and personal courage, Theodore had enabled his Byzantine ‘Empire in exile’ not only to survive but to flourish, expand and ultimately push back Latin, Greek and Seljuk invasions. He had built firm foundations for future development under his successor and was seen as a ‘saviour and universal liberator’ in the eulogistic letters of Michael Acominatus.

Theodore I had made the job of Nicene emperor look easy but this was far from the truth as there were still three other strong and dangerous states vying with Nicaea for primacy in the east. The Latins were still a threat to Nicaea’s north-western frontier, the Bulgarians had proven themselves to be no pushovers while the Despotate of Epirus, Theodore Ducas Angelus, had absorbed the Frankish Kingdom of Thessalonica and incorporated most of the European territory of the Latin Empire into his new Empire of Salonika. In eastern Anatolia, the Seljuks, while they had been badly beaten at Pisidian Antioch, were always likely to make a comeback with the immense backing of the Ayyubid Sultanate. It was into this cauldron that John III Vatatzes would find himself thrust into and where he would prove himself to be a man of decisiveness, capable military means and incredible energy.

Vatatzes immediately proved his administrative skill with the reorganisation of Nicaea, creating in effect a smaller version of the Byzantine Empire from a century before. By these measures, his encouraging of trade, agriculture and industry and a clever use of war and alliances, Vatatzes was to make Nicaea one of the richest states in the region. After two years of consolidation, reorganisation and the building of a new army and fleet, in 1224 Vatatzes struck at and defeated a Frankish army on the same battlefield of Poemanenum that his father-in-law had been beaten twenty years previously. This victory brought Nicaea much of the lands lost by Theodore I along the Aegean coast of Mysia. From this position, Vatatzes used his new fleet to take Samos, Chios and Lemnos from the Venetians and also to subjugate the minor despotate of Rhodes. He then received a plea from the people of Hadrianople to release them from Latin domination. This was a great opportunity for John III who saw the capture of Hadrianople as a major step in the re-conquest of Constantinople. However, as his army arrived outside the city it was obliged to retreat by the appearance of the Epirote forces of Theodore Angelus. Whilst the retreat from Hadrianople was a setback for Vatatzes, it marks a new stage in Nicene development. The reign of Theodore I had been a struggle for survival, whereas now in the 1220s, Nicaea was confident and secure enough to attempt to establish a foothold in Europe from which to threaten the tarnished jewel in the Byzantine crown, Constantinople.

As Vatatzes consolidated his new Aegean possessions, he had to watch as the new Empire of Salonika looked certain to extinguish the faltering Latin Empire. However, Theodore Angelus was distracted by the politics of Constantinople, which by 1228 was being ruled by Baldwin II, a boy of eleven years old. The Bulgarian king John Asen II as a relative of Baldwin was being suggested as a possible regent. This was unacceptable to Theodore who launched an attack on his Bulgarian ally. The matter came to a head in 1230 when Theodore was heavily defeated and captured by John Asen II at the battle of Klokotinitza. The short-lived Empire of Salonika fell apart as the Bulgarian King took control of Macedonia and Albania. Thessalonica managed to retain its independence under Theodore Angelus’s brother, Manuel, but ceased to be a major player in the race for Constantinople. This Epirote disaster and subsequent fading into the background marks another watershed for the Empire of Nicaea. Not only was it the prominent Greek state in Asia, but it was now the principal Greek state in Eastern Europe and with the Latin Empire under the leadership of an eleven-year-old boy, Baldwin II, and his octogenarian regent, the former king of Jerusalem, John of Brienne, the race for Constantinople looked entirely winnable.

One result of the hostilities between Bulgaria and Epirus was an alliance between John Asen II and Vatatzes, but following the total defeat of Theodore, Bulgaria and Nicaea were left as the only contenders for the restoration of Constantinople. This situation would normally mean the end of friendly relations but for once the terms of a treaty were upheld and in 1235 the Graeco-Bulgarian alliance led a joint attack by land and sea on Constantinople. However, not for the first and definitely not the last time, the defences of Constantinople proved to be too strong and the allies were forced to retreat. This defeat was too much for the Bulgarians to take and the same year they joined the Epirotes, Latins and Thessalians in an anti-Nicaean alliance but it came too little as Vatatzes was well prepared for any attempted invasion of Asia Minor. For the next several years there was a relative stalemate in the region as all sides waited for the other to strike.

During this period of inactivity, Vatatzes began to look for a powerful ally to help him against all his potential foes and during the next ten years he was not only to show his military prowess and opportunism, but also his considerable diplomatic skills. The man he found for an ally was the German Emperor and King of Sicily, Frederick II Hohenstaufen. Frederick II was entangled in a vicious dispute with the papacy over who had supreme sovereignty granted by God. As a sworn enemy of the Pope, Frederick II deplored any examples of papal authority and one of these was the Latin Empire. He had already given funds to Theodore of Epirus to help him with his attempts at retaking Constantinople and was now looking for a new way to oppose the Latin Empire. Both parties wanted different things but decided that together they could attain their goals. Their relations became so close that some of Vatatzes’s Greek troops were found fighting in Frederick’s army in Italy and when Vatatzes’s wife died, he married the daughter of the German emperor, Constance. The agreement between them seems to have been for Frederick II to free Constantinople from the Latins and restore it to Vatatzes in return for the vassal status of a reconstituted Byzantine Empire; however, it is difficult to know how serious this deal was. It was a diplomatic coup on behalf of Vatatzes to get a western state so openly on his side and was yet more recognition for the Nicaean Empire, but there does not appear to have been any German attempts to push into the East to defeat the anti-Nicaean alliance and displace the Latins from Constantinople.

Buoyed by his diplomatic success, in 1242 Vatatzes led an invasion of the Balkans accompanied by the now liberated Theodore Angelus. His aim appears to have been the important centre of Thessalonica, however, his attempts to capture the city through force or subversion failed and he was not prepared for a protracted siege. The expedition was not a total loss as Vatatzes received the submission of the Despot of Thessaly, who agreed to recognise Nicaean suzerainty over his territory. As Vatatzes returned to Nicaea, he heard that the threat that had been distracting the Seljuk Turks for the past two decades was now very real. While the Mongol hordes of Batu were crushing Kievan Russia, another prong of the advance attacked and conquered Armenia and invaded the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. The immediate threat put all historical adversaries aside and a triple alliance was signed between the Seljuk Sultan, the ailing Empire of Trebizond and Vatatzes’ Empire of Nicaea.

However, it turned out to be of little consequence as before the Nicenes could send a force eastwards, Trebizond and the Iconian Sultan, Kaikosru II, were shattered at Kösedag in 1243. Here Vatatzes saw a chance for some gain and quickly made overtures to the Mongols as they reached Ankara. The results appear to show that Vatatzes was able to manoeuvre himself as a possible friend and ally of the Mongols as he received a large portion of land in central Anatolia taken from the Seljuks. While this may be another diplomatic coup for Vatatzes, it is difficult to gauge how much it actually achieved when it is set apart from the events. It is not known what the Mongols intended to do in Asia Minor before they retreated in 1242-3. The lands of Anatolia were not the best for grazing the enormous numbers of horses a Mongol army required and was not suitable for nomad settlement. The land Vatatzes acquired may have been obtained through him taking advantage of the routed Seljuks instead of it being granted to him by a Mongol commander, who would never have given away anything that would contain booty. However, by hook or by crook, the Nicaeans had been saved from a more direct form of Mongol interaction and it suited Vatatzes well to proclaim it a diplomatic victory.

The death of the Great Khan Ogëdei ended the immediate Mongol threat to Eastern Europe, but not before Batu’s hordes invaded and decimated the armies of the Bulgarian Empire. This devastation of his nearest rival in the race for Constantinople, the death of John Asen II in 1241 and his own success in dealing with the Mongols emboldened Vatatzes into a second Balkan invasion in 1246. It was a resounding success as Nicaea took control of the parts of Macedonia and Thrace that had been Bulgarian possessions before finally capturing the city of Thessalonica. The following year he completed the conquest of Thrace by taking the few remaining cites of the Latin Empire. After the Despot of Epirus recognised Nicaean suzerainty, Vatatzes directly or through vassals ruled an empire stretching from the Black to Adriatic Seas. His last conquest was to be the reclamation of Constantinople, but unfortunately at the age of sixty-two, John III Ducas Vatatzes died in 1254. He was so loved by the people that he became known as St. John the Merciful, although never canonised by the Orthodox Church. His achievements were astounding as he managed to not only emulate the balancing act of Theodore I, but also in almost every way, be it militarily, politically, socially or diplomatically, surpassed the feats of his predecessor. It was during Vatatzes’s reign that the Byzantine Empire was virtually restored minus Constantinople and Vatatzes’s accomplishments made it possible for Michael Palaeologus to steal the spotlight as the restorer of the Byzantine Empire in 1261. If there were any justice John Vatatzes would be remembered in the Byzantine Empire as Restutitor Orbis.

Vatatzes’s successor, his son Theodore II Lascaris, only enjoyed a brief reign as emperor of Nicaea, dying before completing his fourth year in command. However, he was not idle between 1254 and 1258. Internally he paid special attention to the Hellenising the army. His two predecessors had used increasing numbers of Greek and Frankish mercenaries, but Theodore II built an army drawn from the ranks of the territories in Europe and Asia Minor bequeathed to him by his father. Externally, he had plenty of opportunities to use this new army in the field, especially against a resurgent Bulgaria, who under Michael Asen, grandson of John Asen, tried to take advantage of the death of Vatatzes and invaded Macedonia, hoping to recover the territory lost in 1246. After two difficult campaigns, a treaty was signed re-establishing the frontiers built by Vatatzes. Also through a marriage alliance with the Despot of Epirus, Theodore II received the important Adriatic port of Dyrrachium. Apart from the Bulgarians, Theodore II also faced another far more dangerous external threat as by the time of his reign the Seljuk Sultanate had been thoroughly crushed and subjugated by the Mongols. Theodore II had given the fugitive sultan refuge and was therefore inadvertently opposing the Mongols. However, he was able to ward off any Mongol threat to Nicaea by entertaining Mongol ambassadors at Magnesia and impressing them so much that a friendship was established between the two parties. Unfortunately for the Lascarid line, Theodore II died early at the age of thirty-six leaving his eight-year old son, John IV, as his only heir. Due to the brevity of his reign, Theodore II is often overlooked in the history of Nicaea, however, his four years as emperor was an important period of consolidation and enforcing of Vatatzes’s gains. By the time of Theodore’s death, Nicene territory stretched from Anatolia to the Adriatic Sea maintained by a new Greek national army. The only thing missing was Constantinople.

However, the more immediate concern was with internal politics. The new emperor was too young and George Muzalon was declared regent but he could not handle the complicated affairs of the Empire of Nicaea. Almost immediately an alliance between the Despot of Epirus, Manfred, the King of Sicily and William de Villehardouin, Prince of Achaea, was formed to challenge Nicaean suzerainty in the Balkans. The failure of the emperor and regent to deal with this new problem led many to look for another more capable leader. They found one in Michael Palaeologus. The Palaeologi were an old and distinguished Byzantine family and had been considerably successful in the military and civil government. Through this background, Michael Palaeologus was well loved both by the soldiers and the people. Seeing the trouble the new regent was in Michael used his popularity and position to good effect and was the first to violate the oath of allegiance given to Muzalon, and is the most likely candidate to have carried out the massacre of Muzalon and his court. Michael manoeuvred himself into the position of megas dux and for all intents and purposes was the ruler of the Nicaean Empire. This usurpation by Michael Palaeologus was reminiscent of the Roman Empire of old as an influential and successful general made a grab for imperial authority. It marked the complete ignominy of the Lascarid family, which after dragging Nicaea from the brink of annihilation to the gates of Constantinople, deserved a lot better that the imprisonment and blinding of its last emperor.

Before going to deal with the Balkan threat, Michael guaranteed his position by keeping close ties with the clergy and the patriarch, suspending the heavy taxes that had built up to pay for the armies and navy, abolishing trials by ordeal and combat and most importantly moving the state treasury to a stronghold on the banks of the river Hermus in the custody of the Varangians. Michael’s newfound power and position were consolidated and advanced by his counter-attack in the Balkans in 1259. After several skirmishes, a decisive battle was fought near the city of Castoria on the plain of Pelagonia. With an army consisting of Turks, Cumans, Slavs, Franks and Greeks, Michael routed the allied force led by the Prince of Achaea who was taken prisoner. This victory ended any threat from Epirus and cut-off the formerly dangerous Achaean principality from the crumbling Latin Empire and was a clear step on the road to the final restoration of the Byzantine Empire. When he got back to Nicaea, Michael was proclaimed co-emperor with John IV and was crowned on January 1st, 1260 and immediately began to prepare for the capture of Constantinople.

His first attempt ended in failure as once again the formidable fortifications proved almost impervious to any attack, but in the first months of 1261 after a treaty with the Genoese and a defensive alliance with the Bulgarians, the now Michael VIII sent a force of eight hundred men under Alexius Stragopulos to the city to reconnoitre on the layout of the defending army. However, on July 25th 1261, realising that the Venetian fleet was nowhere to be found, Stragopulos quickly crossed the Bosphorous and captured the city with barely striking a blow. Upon being told by his sister, Eirene, of the momentous event in his camp at Meterion, Michael VIII refused to accept that he had taken Constantinople proclaiming

How could I take possession of Constantinople from Meterion? I did not even send an adequate army against it.

When Eirene amended her statement, declaring that ‘Christ has given Constantinople to you’, the emperor agreed replying ‘these things are easy for God’. After the pockets of resistance were extinguished, Michael VIII made his triumphal entry into Constantinople on August 14th, 1261 and was formally crowned emperor in Hagia Sophia. Byzantium had been reconstituted and even if the success had been almost inevitable since Vatatzes’s conquests and if the situation was still precarious with Charles of Anjou reviving the crusading movement, this time aimed at the schismatic Greeks, it was still a moment to savour.

There is no one explanation why Nicaea emerged as the front-runner of the Greek successor states, but it was a multitude of reasons, encompassing stunning victories, spectacular bravery and courage, ruinous decisions of others, and cunning intrigue and diplomacy. However, I think it is important to highlight the large amount of luck and good fortune that the Nicaean Empire enjoyed throughout its time in exile. In the first years following 1205, Nicaea was not even the leading Greek state in Asia Minor, until some inadvertent help came from the Seljuk Sultanate when it defeated Trebizond in 1214 taking the important city of Sinope, cutting Trebizond off by land from the main theatre of interest. In the 1230’s the Despot of Epirus probably should have won the race for Constantinople had it not been for Theodore Angelus’s ‘disastrous foray’ against the Bulgarians, which came to grief at Klokotnica in 1230. The Bulgarians themselves were eliminated from the race for Constantinople by the timely intervention of the Mongols in 1242. In fact the Mongols kept Nicaea in the race on three separate occasions. As well as the defeat of the Bulgarians, in the form of the Golden Horde they enabled Michael VIII to survive at a time were there were three major power blocks jockeying for position and they prevented a Turkish attack by distracting and then crushing the power of the Seljuk Sultanate at Kösedag in 1243. The Nicaeans were also saved from extinction when the invading army of Henry of Hainault was forced to withdraw from Bithynia by the expansion of the Bulgarians in tandem with Epirus

The luck of the Nicaeans also extends to their succession of capable leaders. In the past, when the Roman Empire had needed a flurry of capable leaders, especially in the middle of the fifth century, they had not found them, whereas the Nicaeans were blessed with four able commanders in Theodore I, an extremely brave and courageous leader of men, Theodore II, who saved the European possessions despite his short reign, Michael Palaeologus, a master of intrigue and diplomacy and most importantly John III Ducas Vatatzes, whose leadership and fiscal organisation built the Empire of Nicaea on the firm foundations left to him and produced one of the richest and most secure states in the Levant. With this stability maintained even after Vatatzes’s death, the Empire of Nicaea was able to watch as the competition in the race for Constantinople slowly fell by the wayside eventually leaving her as the only possible successor to the disintegrating Latin Empire.


Bibliography

Primary

Michael Acominatus, Works
George Akropolites, Opera
Nicetas Choniates, Historia
Nicholas Mesarites,
Philothesus of Pskov, Letter to Vasily III – ‘The Third Rome Doctrine’


Secondary

Angold, M. (1975), A Byzantine Government in Exile
Angold, M. (1984), The Byzantine Empire, 1015-1205: A Political History
Chadwick, H. (1993), The Early Church
Dimitrov, (2002), Bulgaria Illustrated History – ‘Rise and Restoration of the Bulgarian State’ (www.bulgaria.com)
Gibbon, E. (1788), The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Lilie, R.J. (??), Byzantium and the Crusader States
McEvedy, C. (1992), The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History
Morgan, D. (??), ‘The Mongols and the Eastern Mediterranean’
Nicol, D.M. (1972), The Last Centuries of Byzantium
Norwich, J.J. (1997), A Short History of Byzantium
Phillips, J. (2004), The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople
Vasiliev, (1952), History of the Byzantine Empire
Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean
www.fact-index.com (Wikipedia), ‘The Empire of Nicaea’

How did the Empire of Nicaea emerge as the front-runner of the Byzantine Successor States and eventually become the restorer of Constantinople?

Who were the Huns and how did they make such an impact in Europe?
How did the Roman army and strategy change during the last two hundred years of the Roman Empire in the West?
Was the battle of Ankara the last chance for the Byzantine Empire?
Why did Hannibal lose the Second Punic War?
What do we know of the purposes, the provisions, and the results of the Periclean citizenship law?
What were the motives behind Greek opposition to and co-operation with Philip of Macedon?
How could the Spartans have avoided the loss of their leading position in Greece?