Alexius Comnenus - the ultimate cause of the fall of the Byzantines?

[Tobias]

G'day all

 

I'm sure all you Byzantine buffs have heard of Alexius Comnenus, and the circumstances of his reign and certain actions he took during this reign. During the reign of a previous Emperor, Romanus Diogenes, a considerably large Byzantine army, composed largely of mercenaries, was routed at the small fortress town of Manzikert by the Seljuk Turks. This loss proved quite a fatal enough stroke to the Byzantines, as the "aura of invincibility" that had previously awed the lesser enemies of the Byzantines was completely shattered, and the recruiting ground of the Byzantines, Anatolia, was lost. In desperation, Alexius Comnenus, lacking the manpower to regain Anatolia, appealed to Pope Urban III to raise an army from Christendom. Thus began the First Crusade.

 

Was this action ultimately a catalyst of the destruction of the Byzantine Empire? With the precedent set, Crusading armies kept going through Byzantine territory, and eventually began to ignore the overlordship of the Byzantine Emperor of the day. The Fourth Crusade captured and sacked COnstantinople, a blow from which the Empire was assured to never recover to it's former glory. Was the decision of Alexius Comnenus a short sighted one? Was Alexius Comnenus the one who would lay down the script for the final fall of New Rome?

[jbs1114]

To point to the reign of an 11th century byzantine emperor as the "ultimate" cause of the collapse of the state is rather shortshighted, in my view. Equally so is to look at Manzikert as some kind of pivotal point of no return. The empire continued on for roughly four centuries after the death of Alexius, and experienced substantial expansion under Manuel Comnenus later in the 12th century. The Byzantine empire was always waxing and waning after its defacto split from its roman identity under heraclius. If anything, Alexius revitalized the empire, and was not the last to do so.

[Honorius]

Alexius only asked the pope for a small band of knights from the west that could be placed under his personal command. The Pope saw this oppourtunity and decided to preach a crusade. so in my opinion Alexius wasnt the ultimate cause of the fall of the empire. If Anything Alexius was one of the better Emperors. Anyway the empire and the west were bound to get into a conflict sooner or later.

[Kosmo]

Could he forsee the extent that crusades will take? It was no previous experience that he could use. He was in tight spot with attacks from East (selgiuk turks) and West (normans of Sicilly) and harrasment from North (pecenegs). So, he did the smart thing and played the West against the East being ready to reap the benefits. And he was not shy to get control of much of Anatolia, especially the western parts, but also areas in north and south.

After that he left the crusaders on their own knowing that whatever the result he could not lose. And the empire got lots of profits from that until internal problems sparked another fall. Manuel and Ioan got soveraignity over the kings of Jerusalem and a return in Syria and the Holy Land of the empire could have been forseen.

So, in short and medium term crusades were beneficial for the Empire.

The crisis that brought the 1204 takeover had it's causes in the policy of Andronic and Anghelos, the conflict with the western comercial powers, and the rebellion that broke away Bulgaria.

And the main cause of defeat was the fact that the army could not defend the City against an enemy with inferior numbers and little cohesion.

Of course, that IV-th crusade benefited from the establishement of a crusading tradition and the growth of Venice as a result of the establishment of latin states in the East. And the bases of this tradition and maritime power lay in Alexius call to the pope. But in his time Venice and the knights of Neaples were already dangerous and maybe focusing energies at distant conquest was better for the empire.

What would have been the faith of the empire if the turks kept their hold on Niceea and Scutari and their swords pointing at the heart of the empire?

Alexios did the right things and with luck and perseverence succeded. What happened 100 years later was the responsablity of his succesors.

[Divi Filius]

Alexius only asked the pope for a small band of knights from the west that could be placed under his personal command.

 

Yes, and Byzantine politics were also at fault here. The many knights who did come expected a Byzantine emperor to lead them on. What they found was someone who could barely open the gates to them... Albeit now, the original "army" -- if you can call it that -- that made it's way to Constantinople was a joke, which was made quite clear when they were massacred by the Seljucs. But the following army of hardened knights with proper royal leadership too was disrespected. Byzantine footdragging was also partly at fault for their rambunktious behavior. They came in completely expecting the Byzantines to aid them, instead they did the exact opposite, eventually siding with the Muslims.

 

Anyhows, yes, IMO, the event was a "catalyst", among the hundreds of others in the period between 602-1453. History plays out in many cause and effects. This is among the many of them. One that was originally divised to aid the Byzantines, ended up doing irreperable damage to them, two-hundred years later mind you.