Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Mongol invasions and the Aegean world (1241–61)

2013; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 28; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/09518967.2013.837640

1743-940X

John Giebfried,

Medieval History and Crusades

AbstractThis article examines the decisive role played by the Mongols in the political history of the Aegean region in the thirteenth century. The Mongol invasions of 1241–44 were the key turning point in the struggle for hegemony in the region. It was these invasions that allowed the Empire of Nicaea to rapidly expand its power at the expense of its Mongol-ravaged rivals: Bulgaria, the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum, and the Latin Empire of Constantinople and thus assert itself as the preeminent power in the region, leading to the reconquest of Constantinople in 1261.Keywords:: MongolsMongol invasion of EuropeBaldwin IIJohn III VatatzesLatin Empire of ConstantinopleBulgariaEmpire of Nicaea AcknowledgementsI would briefly like to acknowledge the assistance of my instructors and fellow students at Royal Holloway College, University of London and Saint Louis University. My gratitude especially goes out to Professors Thomas Madden, Jonathan Phillips and Jonathan Harris, who have all given me insightful feedback on this article, and to Martin Hall, a PhD candidate at Royal Holloway, who brought a crucial passage of John of Garland's De Triumphis Ecclesiae to my attention and allowed me to use his unpublished translation of the text.Notes 1.CitationNicol, Despotate of Epiros, 144. 2. Ibid., 144. 3.CitationBredenkamp, Byzantine Empire, 253. 4.CitationAngold, A Byzantine Government in Exile, 116, 194, 211. 5.CitationGardner, Lascarids of Nicaea, 181–3. 6. Ibid., 154. 7.CitationLangdon, "Byzantium's Encounter," 95–140. 8.CitationLock, Franks in the Aegean; CitationLongnon, L'Empire Latin de Constantinople; Citationvan Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium. 9.CitationRichard, "À Propos de la Mission."10.CitationWolff, "The Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204–1261," 220.11.CitationJackson, The Mongols and the West, 202.12.CitationMaier, Preaching the Crusades, 78.13. Timothy May partially makes this argument in his article on the Mongols (CitationMay, "The Mongol Presence," 134), in which he highlights the alliance between the Latin Empire and the Seljuq Turks as a counterbalance against the Greeks of Nicaea. Thus, after the Seljuq defeat at Köse Dagh, the Latin Empire found itself without an ally against the Greeks. May's argument is very much in line with the conclusions of this article, but two important distinctions must be made. First, the Latin–Seljuq alliance was intermittent and had not been formally restored because the accompanying marriage alliance had not yet taken place by the time of Köse Dagh. Second, May's view of the political situation is too narrow. There was a confluence of factors leading to the decline of Latin power, most importantly the Mongol invasion of the Latin Empire itself.14. For an account of this siege see CitationLangdon, "The Forgotten Byzantino-Bulgarian Assault," 105–36.15.CitationLower, Barons' Crusade, 58–73.16. Ibid., 149–55.17.CitationParis, Chronica Majora, 517–18; CitationAlberic of Trois-Fontaines, Chronica, 946.18. The last dated record of Baldwin's stay in France was 4 July 1239. This would suggest that Baldwin left in the late summer of 1239 to travel to Constantinople. There is some disagreement about his route. Alberic and Mouskes wrote that he travelled through Germany and Hungary, while Acropolites wrote that he travelled through Italy and then along the Dalmatian coast. The length of the trip and thus his arrival date is difficult to ascertain. A decade and a half later, the Franciscan friar William of Rubruck wrote that it took 40 days to travel from Cologne to Constantinople by wagon, approximately the same distance travelled by Baldwin's army. Baldwin's trip would have probably been slower because of the size of his army, and because it was comprised mostly of footmen. See CitationAcropolites, Opera, 59–60; CitationWilliam of Rubruck, Viaggio in Mongolia, 320. For the English translation see William of Rubruck, The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck, 278.19. Acropolites, Opera, 58–9; Paris, Chronica Majora, 54.20. Acropolites, Opera, 58–9; Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, Chronica, 947. The Cumans were a Turkish tribe that had migrated to the Black Sea region in the mid-eleventh century, for more details see: Jackson, Mongols and the West, 17–18.21.Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, 518–19.22. This attempted alliance eventually fell through both because of the Mongol invasions and because Baldwin could not convince Blanche of Castile, to send a French lady to marry a Muslim. See Wolff, "Latin Empire," 233; CitationLayettes du Trésor des Chartes, vol. 2, 518–19.23. Details about the land campaign are elusive, probably because the Venetian sources want to play up the achievements of the Venetian naval contingents. Dandolo speaks only briefly of a Nicaean siege. Slightly more detail is given by Canale, who wrote that Baldwin remained in Constantinople and chose not to fight Vatatzes in open battle. See CitationDandolo, Andreae Danduli, 298; Citationda Canale, Les estoires, 85.24. Acropolites wrote that 13 Venetian ships defeated 30 Greek triremes, taking 13 prizes. Canale wrote Venice had 10 galleys against 150 Greek ships of all types, and took 10 prizes. Dandolo wrote there were 16 Venetian galleys against 25 Greek galleys, and took 10 prizes. Acropolites, Opera, 204; da Canale, Les estoires, 85–6; Dandolo, Andreae Danduli, 298.25. Acropolites, Opera, 206.26. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, Chronica, 950.27. Da Canale, Les estoires, 86.28. Langdon, "Byzantium's Encounter," 111.29. Both commanders were grandsons of Chinggis Khan. Böček was the son of Tolui, while Kādān was Ögedei's son. It is possible that Kādān's force was the same one that met Baldwin II in battle, since no Mongol commander is known to have taken a more southerly route back to Asia. See CitationDecei, "L'invasion," 119–21; Jackson, Mongols and the West, 65.30. The degree of formality of this vassalage is largely unclear in the initial years, although it appears this was formalized by at least 1253. Langdon, "Byzantium's Encounter," 111.31. Langdon, "Byzantium"s Encounter," 71; CitationJohn of Joinville, Vie de Saint Louis, 180. For the English translation, see: CitationJohn of Joinville, Chronicles of the Crusades, 180–1.32. Langdon, "Byzantium's Encounter," 116–19.33.CitationMelville, "Anatolia Under the Mongols," 54.34. Richard, "A Propos de la Mission," 116.35. 'Tartari … recesserunt ab Ungaria … intrantes Greciam, totam terram illam depopulabant, exceptis castris et civitatibus valde munitis. Rex vero Constantinopolitanus nomine Paldwinus congressus est cum eis, a quo primo victi in secunda congressione victus est ab eis.' CitationAnonymi Chronicon, 245.36. As a means of introduction, Jackson writes 'If we can trust the single allusion in an Austrian chronicle': Jackson, Mongols and the West, 65.37. 'De viers de Grisse revint noviele / Assés périllouse et non biele, / Que mors estoit le emperère.' See CitationMouskes, Chronique rimée, vol. 2, 689, verses 31181–3.38. The passage reads: 'Jofrois, ki la seror avoit / L'emperéour, ki mors estoit, / Grant gent i mena de mains lius, / Quar il en vot iestre baillius; / Et, pour sa feme et pour l'enfant, / Avoir et gent i mena tant, / Et par galies et par nés'. It is unclear whether 'sa feme' refers to Villhardouin's own wife, Agnes of Courtenay, Baldwin II's sister, or Baldwin's wife, Marie of Brienne. Mouskes, Chronique rimée, vol. 2, 689, verses 31191–7.39. The English text is from the unpublished translation of John of Garland's poem by Martin Hall. I extend my thanks to Martin for his assistance. 'Suum luget Thracia victa ducem', CitationJohn of Garland, De triumphis, 108, verses 18–30.40. John of Garland's choice of the word Thrace makes the passage ambiguous. It allows for another possible reading of this passage, namely that it could refer to the death of John II Asen and the Mongol invasion of Bulgaria. There are several arguments against this reading. The first is the order of events. The passage clearly mentions Thrace's defeat before the death of its leader. As John II Asen died months before the invasion, this would argue against the case that it referred to the Mongol attack on Bulgaria. Likewise, referring to the region as Thrace suggests an association with the Latin Empire. This area had been conquered two years previously by Baldwin with the capture of Tzurulum and its conquest was known in the West by chroniclers such as Matthew Paris, with whose work John of Garland was familiar. Had John of Garland wanted to specify Bulgaria's defeat, he could have referred to it by name. He does use the word 'Bugaros' elsewhere in his poem, although he uses it as a synonym for heretic. He is at least familiar with the term and could have used it to describe the Bulgarians had it been his intention. In conclusion, the evidence that this passage refers to Baldwin II's defeat is not conclusive. Yet as this passage is only confirming and linking the other two sources, which unmistakably refer to the defeat and supposed death of Baldwin II, the ambiguity of John of Garland's testimony does not affect the overall narrative. Paris, Chronica Majora, vol. 4, 54–5; John of Garland, De triumphis, 92.41. Jackson, Mongols and the West, 63–5.42. It was the fact that the King Bela was harbouring the Cumans that led to the invasion of Hungary in the first place. Richard, "À Propos de la mission," 118; Jackson, Mongols and the West, 65.43. In this letter, Baldwin concedes to Louis IX the right to negotiate on his behalf with Countess Matilda of Nevers regarding an ongoing dispute over the control of four castles: Betriaco, Collungius super Yonam, Mallicastro and Mallivilla. Trésor des Chartes, vol. 2, 464.44. Jackson suggests that the account could refer to two battles, the first in which Baldwin fought the Cumans and was successful and a second in which he fought the Mongols and was then defeated. However the passage clearly refers to a conflict with a singular invader that Baldwin fought twice. An encounter with the Cumans is attributed nowhere in the sources. Moreover, Baldwin was an ally of the Cumans and members of his court even had Cuman wives. Jackson, Mongols and the West, 79.45. Due to the conversational nature of the letter and the lack of references to his encounter with the Mongols, Baldwin had likely returned a good time before this letter was sent and had earlier informed the French court of his encounter in a letter which does not survive. Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, vol. 2, 518–19.46. His evidence for this claim is the trip of Baldwin of Hainaut to the Mongols. Richard believes that this trip was part of Baldwin's renewing of his allegiance to Mongke. Richard, "À Propos de la mission," 118.47. Jackson, Mongols and the West, 117; William of Rubruck, Viaggio in Mongolia, 10–12; The Mission of FriarCitationWilliam of Rubruck, 65.48. It is possible that they also suffered from the Mongol invasion of Greece that affected the Latin Empire, but there is no known recorded evidence of this.49. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros, 110–12.50. Acropolites, Opera, 65–7.51. Ibid., 66–7.52. The starting date of this campaign is unclear, the sources disagree on whether the campaign began in either 1222 or 1225; see CitationLangdon, Byzantium's Last Imperial Offensive, 35–9.53.CitationCahen, The Formation of Turkey, 70.54. Acropolites, Opera, 68–70.55. 'Vathachius quoque in .cccc. lanceis eidem serviebat quociens vel quantum volebat.' Simon of Saint-Quentin, Histoire, 70.56. Richard suggests that this donation of money indicates that Vatatzes was a vassal of the Seljuq Turks; however both Langdon and Cahen suggest that this passage should be viewed as temporary financial support for the sultan to defend against the Mongol threat, CitationSimon of Saint-Quentin, Histoire, 69–70, 119; Langdon, Last Imperial Offensive, 37; Cahen, The Formation of Turkey, 68.57. Langdon, "Byzantium's Encounter," 120.58. This state of affairs persisted at least until the reemergence of the Mongol threat in the 1250s. Langdon, "Byzantium's Encounter," 119–20.59. The invasions made the Nicaean Greeks very wealthy as they were able to sell supplies to the Turks at inflated prices, while avoiding military losses of their own. Langdon, "Byzantium's Encounter," 118–19.60. Acropolites, Opera, 72–9.61. Ibid., 79–83.62. Ibid., 85.63. The history of this period has been extensively covered by historians across several fields. For more details on negotiations with the papacy, see CitationGill, Byzantium and the Papacy. For their internecine struggles between the Greeks of Epirus and Nicaea, see chapters 8–10 of Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros. For a Nicaean perspective on both of these issues and to look at the transition between John III and Theodore II see, Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile, and CitationPappadopoulos, Théodore II Lascaris.64. Wolff, "Latin Empire," 220.65. The directness of this threat to Nicaea is overstated in both the Latin and Greeks sources. Hülegü's force had no ambitions on conquering Asia Minor, it was only the misunderstanding of `Izz-al Din of the Mongols' intentions that led to their brief campaign against him. CitationLangdon, "Twilight," 190.Additional informationNotes on contributorsJohn GiebfriedJohn Giebfried is a doctoral candidate in medieval history and an adjunct instructor at Saint Louis University, in St. Louis, Missouri, USA. He holds an MA in Medieval Studies from the University of Toronto and an MA in Crusader Studies from Royal Holloway and Queen Mary Colleges, University of London. His research focuses on the history of the crusades and the crusader states, especially the Latin Empire of Constantinople.