INTRODUCTION the Capture of Constantinople by the Armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 Fragmented the Byzantine Empire. Territor

INTRODUCTION The capture of Constantinople by the armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 fragmented the Byzantine empire. Territories which did not submit to the Crusaders fell into the hands of Byzantine magnates who became rulers of numerous small political entities. The most important of these newly founded states, which each claimed to be the successor of the destroyed Byzantine empire, were the empires of Trebizond and Nicaea in Asia Minor and the principality of Epiros in the Balkans.1 The so-called empire of Nicaea, which was established as a viable state by Theodore I Laskaris (1204–1221), was the most suc- cessful of these. Laskaris averted the threat of a combined attack from the Latin empire of Constantinople and the Seljuks of Rum and over- came various local lords who, in the wake of the collapse of Byzantium, had established their own independent authorities in Asia Minor. His successors, John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) and Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258), conquered large territories in the Balkans. They forced the rulers of Epiros to abandon their claim to the imperial title and reduced the military strength of the Latin empire of Constantinople. Under John III and Theodore II, Nicaea prevailed as the legitimate successor to the Byzantine empire. In 1261, the Nicaean army captured Constantinople and Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259–1282), who had seized the throne from the Laskarids, restored the Byzantine empire. Yet, despite the conquests of the Laskarids and the recovery of Constantinople by Michael VIII, much territory which had belonged to the Byzantine empire before the Fourth Crusade remained beyond imperial control. Many Aegean islands, most of the Peloponnese, a large part of mainland Greece and the Ionian islands were ruled by Western European lords. Although the rulers of Epiros and Thessaly ceased to call themselves emperors, their states remained effectively independent territories. 1 See N. Oikonomides, “La décomposition de l’ empire Byzantin à la veille de 1204 et les origines de l’ Empire de Nicée: À propos de la Partitio Romaniae,” in Actes du XVe Congrès des études byzantines. Rapports et co-rapports, I, (Athens, 1976), 1–28, reprinted in N. Oikonomides, Byzantium from the Ninth Century to the Fourth Cru- sade. Studies, Texts, Monuments (Aldershot, 1992), Study XX. 2 introduction The reign of Michael VIII’s successor, Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328) witnessed the loss of Asia Minor to the Turcoman principalities and the increasing strength of the Serbian kingdom, which grew in Macedonia, Epiros and Albania at the expense of the Byzantines. Andronikos II was overthrown by his grandson Andronikos III (1328– 1341) as a result of a civil war waged intermittently from 1321 to 1328. Andronikos III’s death in 1341 was followed by a catastrophic civil war between his close associate, John Kantakouzenos (John VI, 1347– 1354), and the regency of the legitimate successor to the throne, John V Palaiologos (1341–1391). In 1352, John V rose against Kantakouzenos, who was forced to abdicate two years later. During the conflicts between the clans of the Kantakouzenoi and the Palaiologoi, the Serbian ruler, Stefan Dušan (1331–1355) exploited the weakness of the Byzantines and captured almost all the Byzantine possessions in Albania, Epiros, Thessaly and most of Macedonia. Consequently, the Byzantine state was reduced in Thrace and Constantinople to a small district around Thessalonica, the despotate of Morea in the Peloponnese and a small number of northern Aegean islands. Each of these territories consti- tuted a de facto semi-independent principality ruled by members of the extended imperial family. Dušan’s son and successor, Stefan Uroš (1355–1371), was finally unable to maintain the unity of his father’s dominions. As a result, the Serbian empire disintegrated and a mul- titude of small centres of power was established in the Balkans. The emperor in Constantinople, together with the despots of the Morea and Thessalonica, belonged to this extremely fragmented world of powerful and ambitious men who, in their small principalities, were short of authority. These states were constantly at war with each other over ill-defined frontiers and territorial differences, the limited avail- able resources and local pre-eminence. They lacked any elaborate administrative infrastructure and their unity and survival relied on the personality and wealth of their rulers, in particular on their ability to impose their authority over local magnates and recruit effective military forces to defend their lands. The fate of many of these states was identified with that of their rulers. This fragmented political situation when they had already established themselves as the dominant power in Asia Minor, helped the Ottomans advance into the Balkans. Therefore, the period 1204–1453 was characterised by political fragmentation, endless wars between small political entities and con- tinuous crises. It is in this respect that the study of Byzantine military thought and attitudes towards war is important. They reflect the .

Load more