Literature: Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth; Obolensky, Byzantium and the Slavs; Papadakis; Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State; Ostrogorski, Byzantium and Slovenia; Runciman Steven. The Fall of Constantinople 1453. Cambridge, 1969; Runciman, The Great Church; Meyendorff, Ideological Crises in Byzantium; Previte Orton; Vasiliev.

1. So, the crusaders proclaimed themselves masters and rulers of the Byzantine Empire. However, this boastful claim was very premature: the fall of Constantinople did not give the whole country into the hands of the Latins. They had yet to conquer the imperial lands. And this turned out to be a very difficult matter, because the catastrophe that occurred, as, however, often happens during disasters, certainly served to revive the best features of the Greek spirit - courage, endurance and energy.

When the Latins were already in the city, Emperor Alexius V Murchufl fled, and in St. Sophia the emperor was proclaimed Theodore Laskaris, son-in-law of the former emperor Alexy III - the first worthy candidate for the imperial throne in many years. It was already impossible to save the city, the new emperor retired from Constantinople together with the patriarch to the Asian coast, where he led the fight against the invaders.

Two years after the catastrophe of the fall of Constantinople, the independent Greek world was reorganized. Three Greek states arose on the ruins of the Empire.

The grandchildren of Andronicus Komnenos, with the help of their aunt, the great Georgian queen Tamara, founded on the northern coast of the Black Sea Empire of Trebizond. Thanks to trade with the Black Sea region, as well as silver mines on its territory, the Empire became a very wealthy state, known throughout the world at that time because of the beauty of its princesses.

In the Western Balkans, a side branch of the Angelic dynasty founded Despotate of Epirus. Its rulers will eventually destroy the Thessalonian kingdom of Boniface of Montferrat.

But the most powerful of all states was created by Theodore Laskaris. It was Empire of Nicaea. It was to her that all the leading citizens of Constantinople emigrated. Patriarch John Kamatir, who fled from the city after its fall, soon retired (1206). After that, in Nicaea, the clergy of Constantinople elected a new patriarch, Michael Autorean. He crowned Theodore Laskaris as king. Thus, in the eyes of the whole people, it was Nicaea that became the legitimate successor to Constantinople. Soon, the Nicene emperors subjugated almost all the imperial possessions in Asia. The way to Asia Minor was closed to the Latins.

The crusaders in their plans also did not take into account the presence of other peoples in the Balkans. This short-sightedness cost them dearly. At first, the Bulgarian Tsar Kaloyan was ready for an alliance, but the Latin emperor Baldwin I demanded that all imperial territories be returned to him, and the Latin Patriarch Tomaso Morosini demanded that the Bulgarian Church submit to his authority. In case of disobedience, they threatened the Bulgarians with an immediate attack.

Then Kaloyan went to an alliance with his former enemies - the Greeks. In 1205, in the battle of Adrianople, the crusaders were utterly defeated by the combined Bulgarian-Greek army, and the emperor Baldwin was taken prisoner, from where he never returned. His brother Heinrich, a capable and energetic ruler, reigned. It was he who laid the foundation, thanks to which such a stillborn child as the Latin Empire, or, as his contemporaries called it, "Romania", was able to exist for almost 55 years.

2. For the Orthodox world of the XIII century. became the time of the greatest catastrophes. Its beginning was marked by the IV Crusade. In Russia, the century was marked by Mongol invasions. The only thing that allowed Eastern Christian peoples and states to survive is the Orthodox Church. But its very existence was threatened for the first time in history.

Only now did the Byzantines see in practice what papal supremacy really was, and finally realized what a mistake they were making, not noticing the growth of this most dangerous trend and not touching this most important problem in disputes with the “Latins”. Various polemical writings began to appear in Byzantine circles, rejecting the idea of ​​papal supremacy from a theological point of view. The first of these is a letter from Patriarch John Kamatir (who fled from Constantinople with Theodore Laskaris) to Innocent III. The patriarch notes that the pope is not the only heir to St. Peter. Peter's role is related to his faith and flows from his faith. Consequently, every Orthodox bishop is the guardian of the faith, the heir of Peter.

After John Kamatir, already in exile, in Nicaea, retired, Michael Autorean was elected the new patriarch, and thus, as before, two patriarchs remained on the same chair - Greek and Latin. This meant the final and irrevocable split. And the responsibility for it lies entirely with the Roman Church and its ministers - the crusaders. It was after the IV Crusade that the division of the Churches was not only institutionalized, but also became a fact in the minds of the people.

3. The capture of Constantinople by the crusaders led to the collapse of the Empire. A number of states formed on its territory: Serbia and Bulgaria (de facto they were independent even before the IV Crusade); the Latin Empire, which included only Constantinople and its immediate suburbs; several small Latin principalities; islands belonging to the Venetians and three Greek states: the Empire of Nicaea, the Despotate of Epirus, the Empire of Trebizond.

The only surviving unified structure of the Byzantine world was the Church, the Patriarchate. Although the patriarch was elected in exile, his legitimacy has never been challenged by anyone in the Orthodox world. That is why the Nicaean Empire, where the patriarch lived, was perceived as the heir of the Byzantine Empire, and its emperors - as those of Constantinople in exile.

Despite the fact that the Despotate of Epirus strove for supremacy, and in 1224 even won Thessaloniki from the Franks, without the sanction of the Church, he could not achieve the same prestige. Although Theodore the Angel was crowned in Thessaloniki by Demetrius Homatian, Archbishop of Ohrid, as Emperor and autocrat of the Romans, his claims were not recognized by the popular consciousness, for which the sanction of the patriarch turned out to be the decisive factor.

However, at first, in the confusion that formed in the Balkans after the capture of Constantinople by the Franks, it was very difficult to decide. On the horizon could be seen two growing and strengthening Slavic empires - Serbian and Bulgarian. And on Byzantine soil, three rival empires were formed - one Latin and two Greek.

Trebizond, for all its pretensions, was too remote and provincial to seriously lay claim to imperial heritage.

The Empire of Nicaea was primarily a Greek nation-state. There was no longer any need to talk about the former imperial universalism.

Theodore Laskaris (1204-1222) turned out to be a very capable ruler. In 1208 he was crowned by the patriarch as Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans. The rite of coronation itself is interesting in that it was the first time that the anointing with the world was used in it. Apparently, chrismation was introduced under the influence of the Latin rite of coronation, since. the Latin emperor in Constantinople was anointed, and the Byzantine coronation was supposed to look no less legitimate than the rites of Latin usurpers and impostors. Theodore Laskaris strengthened and expanded his possessions. It was thanks to him that the Nicaean Empire became a viable and strong state.

His son-in-law and heir further strengthened the Empire John III Duka Vatatzes (1222-1254). He was an outstanding ruler, as well as an unusually attractive and likeable person. His piety and personal holiness are undeniable. Emperor John doubled the territory of the Nicaean Empire. Now his possessions surrounded Latin Constantinople on all sides. John turned out to be an unusually capable business executive. Despite the near-constant wars he was forced to wage, his subjects prospered economically in a way that the taxed inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire had never prospered. He provided systematic support for local production and turned the empire into economic self-sufficiency. John Vatatzes patronized the sciences and arts, built hospitals and hospices, took care of the poor, redeemed the captives. Half a century after his death, the Church canonized him. The memory of the faithful Tsar John the Merciful takes place on November 3.

The Empire of Nicaea also won a number of outstanding diplomatic victories. This is the return to the Byzantine orbit of Serbia, Bulgaria and the Romanian principalities, which was extremely important in view of the active offensive of Roman Catholicism.

4. What happened in the Balkans? As we know, by 1018 Basil II restored the borders of the Empire on the Danube, for the first time returning them to the limits in which they existed before the barbarian invasions. The Balkan peoples were reliably pacified, and national movements began to win only towards the end of the 12th century.

Basil II established the usual imperial administrative division in the Balkans, with direct control from the capital. At the same time, ethnic realities were deliberately not taken into account.

The population of the peninsula was mixed: in the South it was inhabited mainly by Greeks, in the North the Greeks coexisted with the Slavs; the Adriatic coast was inhabited mainly by the Latin-speaking population; the mountains of Illyria were inhabited by Albanians; north of the Danube was the territory of the Vlachs (descendants of the Latinized Dacians).

Back in the VI century. the northern Slavic tribes began their gradual penetration into the imperial dioceses of Illyricum and Dacia with their autochthonous Latin, Illyrian, Thracian and Dacian populations. They were followed by invasions of hordes of Asian origin: the Avars - in the 7th century, the Bulgarians - in the 8th, the Magyars - in the 9th. The indigenous population, as well as the Greeks who lived in the southern part of the peninsula, were almost completely Christianized by the time the invasions began. The great missionary work of the Byzantine Church in the 9th century. consisted in the conversion and Christianization of the conquerors and their integration into Christian civilization. The new churches were dominated by the Slavic language and civilization developed by the Cyril and Methodius mission. However, the Vlachs (who later became known as Romanians) continued to speak the Romance language; the Magyars (or Hungarians) and the Illyrians (today they are called Albanians) also retained their languages. Throughout the history of the Christianization of the region, there has been fierce rivalry between Western and Eastern missionaries. Until the 8th century the church structures of Illyricum (that was the name of the entire Balkan Peninsula with the exception of Thrace) were headed by the papal vicar, the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki and, therefore, belonged to Roman jurisdiction. However, in the post-iconoclastic period, Byzantine influence prevailed in the Balkans. Only the Hungarians and Croats eventually went over to Western Christianity.

The religious history of the peninsula was further hampered by the success of the Bogomil sect. This dualistic sect, originating from the Asia Minor Paulicians resettled in the Balkans and denying the sacraments and hierarchy of the Orthodox Church, spread widely in the 10th century. and continued until the end of the medieval period.

5. So, regular Slavic invasions into the imperial borders began during the reign of Justinian I (527-565). Justinian gave all his strength to his campaigns in the West and did not pay much attention to the Balkan borders. But still, somehow he managed to restrain the pressure of the Slavic tribes. Justinian tried to buy peace with them, but this attempt was not very successful. The emperor only completely emptied the treasury, and the barbarians, who felt the taste of easy money, demanded more and more payment.

In the 580s the border was broken through, and the Slavs with the Avars blocked the Balkans. The emperor Mauritius managed to beat them off somehow (590s), but during the reign of the usurper Foki, everything started all over again. This time the Slavs finally settled in the Balkans. Their offensive culminated in the siege of Constantinople by the Avars and Slavs in 626.

However, the walls of the imperial capital proved too powerful for them. Thessaloniki also survived. But the rest of the Balkan Peninsula now belonged to the barbarians. The Slavs even raided Crete and founded their settlements there.

The local population found refuge in the mountains: the Illyrians - on the Albanian heights, the Thracians - in the Rhodope Mountains, the Latin-speaking Vlachs - most likely on the Balkan ridge. In the Empire itself, Latin and Greek were preserved only in cities: Latin - in cities on the Adriatic coast, and Greek - in cities near the Black and Aegean Seas: Mesembria, Athens, Corinth, Patras, Monemvasia.

Byzantine control over the territories of historical Greece began to be restored only after two centuries. He came along with the re-Christianization and re-Hellenization of the area. But at this time, the emperors had to begin to reckon with the new people that appeared in the Balkans - the Bulgarians.

6. The Bulgarians were a Turkic tribe that founded at the beginning of the 7th century. his state between the Caspian and the Don (perhaps, his influence extended even to the Dnieper). From the south it was limited by the Caucasian ridge. The Byzantines called this state "Great Old Bulgaria".

In the middle of the 7th century another Turkic people - the Khazars - drove the Bulgarians out of the region and founded their empire there. It should be noted that at the end of the 7th c. and throughout the first half of the 8th century. The Khazars played a providential role for the whole of Europe. All this time they held back the onslaught of the Arabs and did not allow Islam to cross the Caucasus. Essentially, they performed the same mission as the Isaurian emperors in Constantinople and Charles Martel in France. AT 737- five years after the great victory of Charles Martel over the Arabs at Poitiers (732) - the decisive battle of the Khazars with the Arabs took place in the North Caucasus. The Khazars were defeated. But the victory was given to the Arabs at such a high price that they were forced to retreat behind the Caucasus Range and no longer made attempts to cross it. Thus, the Caucasian path of the advance of Islam to the northwest was blocked and Europe was saved.

As for the Bulgarians, they were driven out of their territories by the Khazars and divided. Half retreated to the north, where they founded the Bulgarian Khanate on the Middle Volga. This part of the Bulgarians played a role in the history of Russia; they did not influence Byzantine politics. Another part of the Bulgarians, led by Khan Asparuh, broke through to Dobruja in 680 and settled there. At the beginning of the next century, they were already a real factor in Balkan politics: as we remember, in 705 they helped the exiled Justinian II return to Constantinople.

Gradually, the Bulgarians spread from Dobruja to the region around the Rhodope ridge, where they settled. The population there was predominantly Slavic, and the Bulgarian, Turkic element constituted only a military aristocracy. Gradually, the conquerors dissolved among the subordinates. The Turks began to speak the Slavic language and forget their native language. We talked a lot about the wars of Byzantium with the Bulgarians in the VIII-IX centuries. Even then, the winners and the vanquished more and more merged together. By the X century. Bulgaria was already a completely Slavic country: the Turkic-Bulgarians mixed with the Slavic population and adopted its language. Only the name of the tribe remained, which was accepted by all the people.

We talked about the baptism of Bulgaria in 865 under Khan Boris (unlike his predecessors, he already had a Slavic name). The students of St. Cyril and Methodius, who emigrated from Moravia to the Balkans, made Bulgaria a real center of Slavic Christian civilization. As we remember, the son of Boris Simeon (893-927) significantly expanded the borders of Bulgaria, extended his power to the entire Balkan Peninsula and repeatedly threatened Constantinople itself. Simeon set himself the goal of becoming king in Constantinople, and he, like no one else before and after him, was close to this. He not only achieved the recognition of himself as the king (i.e. emperor) of the Bulgarians, but even almost achieved the title of “emperor of the Romans”. Only with great difficulty did Byzantium manage to cope with the Bulgarian threat. Simeon had to content himself with establishing his own Bulgarian Patriarchate in his capital, Preslav. All these events have already been discussed in sufficient detail above. Under the son of Simeon the peace-loving St. Petre (927-969), relations between Byzantium and Bulgaria normalized to such an extent that Constantinople even recognized the new Bulgarian Patriarchate.

Bulgarian wars began again in the last years of the reign of Peter and under his successor Boris II (969-971). After the crushing of the Eastern Bulgarian state - first by the Russian prince Svyatoslav, and then by the Byzantine emperor John Tzimiskes (971) - the revival of Bulgaria on the Macedonian territory under the rule of Tsar Samuil followed with a political and ecclesiastical center in Ohrid. The wars continued until 1018, when Emperor Basil II the Bulgar Slayer utterly defeated the troops of Tsar Samuil, included the Bulgarian lands in the Empire and abolished the patriarchate. Instead, an autonomous Ohrid archdiocese was established. As a result of his campaigns and reforms, Bulgaria was so suppressed that it did not try to secede from the Empire for almost two hundred subsequent years.

The early history of Slavic Christianity, spiritually determined by the great missionaries of Sts. Cyril and Methodius and their disciples and shaped by the glorious deeds of Simeon and Samuel, will never be forgotten by their descendants. An extensive corpus of Christian literature, both translated from Greek and original Slavic, was carefully preserved and expanded in the centers of Slavic learning, which were preserved even under Greek rule. Other Slavic writings were imported from Kievan Rus.

In the political sphere, the Slavs adopted from the Byzantines the idea of ​​a universal Christian empire centered in Constantinople. However, Tsars Simeon and Samuel established alternative imperial centers in Preslav and Ohrid. These actions did not call into question the universality of the empire: after all, in the past there were precedents when a single Roman Empire was ruled by several emperors. But the Bulgarian rulers introduced new cultural and national elements: they retained the designation "king of the Bulgarians" in their titles. And since in the Byzantine political scheme the imperial title assumed the parallel existence of the patriarch, the new imperial pluralism inevitably led to the creation of national patriarchates.

As we remember, the early pre-Constantine Church was a decentralized community of local churches. The union of the Church with the universal Roman Empire provided it with a universal structure. But now, after the fall of the Empire, were the universal church structures to disappear as well? In the West, they found a new solution - the political and spiritual power of the Roman papacy, which, after the Gregorian reforms of the 11th century. was seen as a worldwide political and spiritual monarchy. In the East, the unifying factor was still associated with the imperial center in Constantinople, but it took on a new form: the form of a spiritual family or "commonwealth" of peoples and churches. This turned out to be a very reasonable, efficient and flexible formula used by the previously decaying Western empire in the 5th-6th centuries. in its relations with the barbarian kingdoms. The conquests of Basil II lasted more than a century and a half, but even when the southern Slavic peoples and churches at the end of the XII century. nevertheless began to restore their independence, the Byzantine community of states managed to maintain its cultural and religious unity.

7. Already during the reign of Tsar Peter the Bulgarian Patriarchate, originally founded by Tsar Simeon in Preslav, was transferred to Dorostolon (or Dristra or Silistria) on the Danube. When Byzantine troops under the command of Emperor John Tzimiskes entered this city in 971, Patriarch Damian was deposed. Since then, Greek sources no longer call the Bulgarian primate a patriarch, but only an archbishop. However, he continued to call himself patriarch. His chair moved to Sofia (ancient Serdika, then Triaditsa), Voden, Moglena and Prespa, and then to Ohrid, the capital of King Samuil.

After the conquest of Bulgaria in 1018, Emperor Basil II published three charters on church administration in the newly incorporated territories of the Empire. These documents recognize a direct canonical succession between the "archbishop" of Ohrid and the Patriarchate founded by Simeon and Peter. Nevertheless, the primate is no longer called a patriarch, but "the most holy archbishop." However, his autocephaly from the Patriarch of Constantinople was fully preserved. The archbishop was appointed personally by the emperor. Its jurisdiction was to extend to all the territories that were part of Bulgaria during the time of Peter and Samuel, including the Greek-speaking areas, the areas inhabited by the Vlachs (Romanians) and the Magyars (called "Turks"). The archdiocese also included most of the Serbian regions. Basil II even went so far as to appoint the first archbishop of Ohrid, the Bulgarian John.

In fact, the emperor-controlled Ohrid Archdiocese was supposed to cooperate with the military administration of Bulgaria, created by Basil, reorganized into three themes. All of John's successors on the throne of Ohrid will be Greeks, often closely associated with the court in Constantinople. The archdiocese as an autocephalous Church will survive until 1767, when the Patriarchate of Constantinople will subdue it. Since this will be a unilateral action supported by the Turkish authorities, the Bulgarians will never recognize it. In 1870, the Bulgarians used the ancient status of Ohrid to justify the creation of an independent Bulgarian Exarchate, which was done, of course, without the consent of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, the Bulgarians will refer to the fact that this is a restoration of the original canonical structure, but by no means an innovation.

Quite understandably, the time between 1018 and 1204, when Ohrid was under direct Greek control, is perceived by many Bulgarian historians as a dark period of the “Byzantine yoke”. Many talk about the suppression of the then Slavic language and the Cyril and Methodius cultural tradition. This view seems to be confirmed by the snobbish statements of the most prominent of all the Greek archbishops of Ohrid blzh. Theophylact of Bulgaria (1090-1126), who wrote to his friends in Constantinople about his flock as "unclean barbarians, slaves that stink of sheepskin" and even as "monsters".

However, apart from the snobbery of the Byzantine administration that undoubtedly took place, we have no evidence of the disappearance of Slavic culture after the Byzantine conquest. It was at this time that many important Slavic manuscripts continued to be copied in Bulgaria, and the Blessed One himself. Theophylact wrote the Greek version of the Life of St. Clement, which gives the highest assessment of the missionary feat of Sts. Cyril and Methodius and their students. With all the arrogance of the Byzantines, with all their desire to include the Bulgarians in the administrative structure of the empire, we still cannot speak of an imperial policy of systematic Hellenization. Moreover, the cultural flowering of Bulgaria at the end of the XII century. could not have been so powerful if the Slavic civilization had been completely suppressed during the Byzantine rule.

It must also be remembered that even during the reign of Simeon, Peter and Samuil, the patriarchates of Preslav, Silistria and Ohrid (as well as the empires of these kings) were multinational in composition and included not only Bulgarians, but also Greeks, Serbs, Vlachs and Hungarians. The letters of Basil II refer specifically to this multinational situation and restore the territorial organization of the Church with local dioceses uniting all Christians in the region. Yes, the archbishops of Ohrid were Byzantines. But apart from their political appointments, the cultural pluralism so characteristic of the medieval Balkans, and so distinct from the secularist national antagonisms of the present day, was the indisputable rule in the Church both before and after the arrival of the Byzantines in 1018.

The first Greek Archbishop of Ohrid - Leo (after 1024) was closely associated with Patriarch Michael Cerularius. On his instructions, Leo, in a letter to Bishop John of Trania (Italy), sharply criticized Latin disciplinary and liturgical practice. He built the magnificent church of St. Sophia in Ohrid.

His successor was St. Theophylact of Bulgaria. He served as a deacon at St. Sophia in Constantinople, and then became the teacher of Constantine, son of Emperor Michael VII. In Bulgaria he defended his flock against imperial tax collectors and became perhaps the most prolific exegete of the Orthodox Church in all the Middle Ages. He defended the independence of the Bulgarian Archdiocese and wrote about the need to distinguish between Latin liturgical customs (which must be tolerated) from doctrinal matters, in which there should be no compromise.

Arguing with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was always unenthusiastic about the Bulgarian autocephaly, its defenders referred to the historical precedent of the creation by Justinian of an independent archdiocese, which he called Justiniana Prima (it disappeared during the invasions of the 7th century), with jurisdiction more or less coinciding with the Archdiocese of Ohrid . In 1156, Archbishop John Komnenos of Ohrid signed the deeds of the Council of Constantinople as "the humble monk John, by the grace of God Archbishop of the First Justiniana and All Bulgaria Komnenos." This title was used by all his successors and was recognized by the famous canonist Theodore Balsamon.

However, from a historical point of view, the Archdiocese of Ohrid was not the legacy of Justinian, but of the Cyril and Methodius tradition and the First Bulgarian Empire. The future belonged to the Slavic church centers in the Balkans - Tarnovo, where the Bulgarian revival began, and the Serbian Church.

8. It was the Serbs who first emerged from Byzantine political control. What kind of people were they and where did they come from in the Balkans?

Around 630, Heraclius invited a tribe of Croats to settle in Illyricum, who lived in the so-called "White Croatia", on the territory of present-day Galicia, southern Poland, Slovakia and Eastern Bohemia. The Croats defeated the Avars who threatened the Empire and settled in Northern Illyricum.

Shortly thereafter, under similar circumstances, their neighbors Serbs from "White Serbia", located in the territory of present-day Saxony, were invited to the Empire. Heraclius already said that he converted the Serbs to Christianity, but we know that the final conversion of all their tribes dragged on until the 12th century.

The conversion of the Serbs who lived in a mountainous region (on the territory of modern Kosovo) with a capital in Rash - hence the area was called Rashka - is also described by Emperor Constantine Porfirorodny. According to him, it happened during the reign of Basil I (867-886). Then the Dalmatian seaside towns were converted. In the X century. the region entered the Bulgarian kingdom of Simeon and Samuil, and after the victories of Emperor Basil II in 1018, it was again included in the Byzantine Empire. When the first Serbian tribes adopted Christianity, they were ecclesially ruled directly from Constantinople. Then the diocese of Rash became part of the Ohrid Patriarchy, created by Samuil, which, as mentioned above, was transformed by Basil II into an autocephalous archdiocese.

Another historically known Serbian territory in ancient documents is called the kingdom of Zeta, or in other words, Dioklea. Today this area is called Montenegro. It was Christianized by the labors of the Dyrrhachian Metropolis, which at that time was the canonical Orthodox center for the coastal region.

In the XI century. Serbian princes Zeta - Stefan Vojislav (1042-1052), Michael (1052-1081) and Konstantin Bodin (1081-1091) rebelled against Byzantine rule (both ecclesiastical and civil) and subordinated their country to the jurisdiction of the Latin Archdiocese of Bar (Antibari). This was due to the powerful papal influence that penetrated the Balkans after the papal reforms of Gregory VII (Hildebrand). The Croatian ruler Dimitri Zvonimir and the Serbian prince Michael were crowned as kings by papal legates (in 1075 and 1077). But soon Byzantine power in Serbian territory was restored by the great emperor Alexius Komnenos. The Serbs remained in the Empire for the time being. But Croats have since entered the orbit of Western Christianity. In 1102 the Croatian crown was acquired by the Hungarian king and the Croatian territories were incorporated into the Hungarian kingdom.

Another attempt by the Serbs to gain political independence was made in Raska. This Serbian state was ruled by semi-independent rulers called zhupans and zemstvo zhupans. Taking advantage of the new anti-Byzantine policy of Hungary, the great zhupan Raska Stefan Nemanja tried to expand his possessions to the south. He included Zeta in his state and in 1172 rebelled against Byzantium. In the same year, he was utterly defeated. He had to come to Manuel Comnenus (as well as the ruler of Antioch, Reynald of Chatillon) barefoot, bare-haired, with a rope around his neck and with a sword in his left hand: he gave the sword to the emperor and fell to the ground in front of him. Manuel generously forgave him and reinstated him in his reign as his vassal.

In 1190, Stefan Nemanya, taking advantage of the Third Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa (1189), again rebelled against Isaac Angel and was defeated again. However, despite their victory, Byzantium had to recognize the independence of the Serbs. An agreement was signed between the two parties, under the terms of which the son of Stefan Nemanya Stefan (the future Primate) married the niece of Emperor Isaac Angela and received the high Byzantine court title of sevastokrator.

Raska's ties with Byzantium were further strengthened after the creation of the Rashka diocese, founded in the 10th century. and from 1018 placed in canonical dependence on the Ohrid Archdiocese. Although the Latin influence in the northwestern Balkans was very strong, the Orthodox Church gradually became dominant in the Serb-populated region.

Nemanja himself was baptized in his youth by a Latin priest in his native Zeta. Later, the Orthodox Bishop of Rashsky accepted him into Orthodoxy through chrismation. But his second appeal was much more sincere. The children of Stefan Nemanja were brought up in a Christian spirit. His younger son Rastko secretly fled from his father's house to Athos, where he took monastic vows under the name Savva in a Russian monastery. Later he moved to the Greek Vatopedi monastery.

Stefan Nemanja was so shocked by his son's choice that he eventually decided to follow his example. In 1196, he abdicated, passing Rashka to his son, the sevastokrator Stefan, and Zeta to another son, Vukan, and took monastic vows in the Studenica monastery founded by him in the Serbian mountains. The all-powerful zhupan became the humble monk Simeon. Simeon soon decided to join his son Savva on Athos. There, father and son founded the Serbian monastery of Hilandar, which soon became the largest center of Serbian spirituality, culture, literature and art. After his death, Stefan Nemanya, whose relics became famous for miracles and the outflow of peace from them, was canonized as St. Simeon the Myrrh-streaming.

The incomparable role of St. Savva (1175-1235), the founder of the Serbian Orthodox Church, who became its spiritual standard, cannot be overestimated. The main sources of information about him are his two lives: one - written by his student Dometian, and the other - by an unknown monk. St. Savva took his calling extremely seriously, was a wise pastor, administrator and church leader. The architect of Serbian ecclesiastical independence, at the same time he never forgot about the universality of the Church and equally felt at home on Mount Athos and in Tarnovo, in Constantinople and Jerusalem.

St. Sava lived on Athos for sixteen years (1191-1207). In 1199, he traveled to Constantinople to obtain imperial approval for the foundation of the Hilandar Monastery by him and his father. After the death of Simeon, St. Savva retired for a while to a secluded cell, where he alone carried out his monastic feat. There he compiled his Typicon.

He returned to Serbia in 1207, bringing with him the body of his father. From this time begins the direct participation of St. Savvas in the political life of Raska. For some time he headed the Studenica monastery founded by his father, where St. Savva and placed the myrrh-streaming relics of St. Simeon.

The situation in the country was difficult. Two brothers of St. Savvas - Stefan, the ruler of Raska, and Vukan, the ruler of Zeta - were in constant conflict. All efforts of St. The Savvas were sent to ensure the unity of the country under the Nemanich dynasty, the symbol of which was the relics of St. Simeon, and its affirmation in the single Orthodox faith.

9. In the first half of the XIII century. - centuries of catastrophes - it seemed that Byzantine Christianity was retreating before the Roman Church, which quickly took advantage of the situation in Eastern Europe after the founding of the Latin Empire. But this tendency of the offensive of Catholicism into the Balkans manifested itself much earlier - as early as the end of the 12th century, when the power of Byzantium began to weaken.

Let's look at a few examples. Earlier we saw that the "Turks", i.e. Magyars (Hungarians), were placed by Basil II under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Ohrid. Of course, these were Hungarians who lived on the territory of the Basil's empire. However, in the XI and XII centuries. the empire maintained close political - and therefore religious and ecclesiastical - contacts with the Kingdom of Hungary. The Hungarian rulers hesitated for a long time between accepting Eastern or Western church culture. At the beginning of the XI century. The Hungarian prince Aytonius was christened in Vidin on imperial territory. Aithonios founded a Greek monastery in his city of Marosvár. But even in the north of Hungary there were many Greek and Slavic monasteries that belonged to the jurisdiction of Constantinople. Very frequent were marriages between the families of the Hungarian and Byzantine rulers. The most obvious symbols of these contacts are the “crown of Constantine Monomakh” and the famous “crown of St. Stephen" - the most precious treasure of the Hungarian statehood. The first crown was sent by Emperor Constantine IX to King Andrew I (1046-1060), who was baptized in Kyiv and married to the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise. Emperor Michael VII sent the second crown to King Giza I (1074-1077). Both crowns are typical examples of Byzantine art and Byzantine political ideology, emphasizing Hungary's belonging to the Byzantine community. Only the marriage of King Bela III to Margaret Capet of France (1186) marked the final turn of Hungary towards the West. This was the same Bela, who had previously been the groom of the sister of Emperor Manuel Komnenos.

Around the same time, in 1185, the Bulgarians revolted. It was headed by two brothers, Peter and Asen - aristocrats of Vlach origin. The Byzantines were unable to suppress the uprising, and after 1190 an independent Bulgarian state appeared on the map of the Balkans on the territory between the Danube and the Balkan ridge. This was the beginning of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom.

The consecration of Vasily, the first archbishop of Tarnovo, was performed by the Metropolitan of Vidinsky, and Asen was proclaimed "king of the Bulgarians and Vlachs." Of course, these actions were not recognized by either Constantinople or Ohrid, but the new state continued to spread, and the new church center continued to be built. Tarnovo became a Slavic alternative to the Greek-ruled Ohrid.

More decisive steps were taken after the IV Crusade by the younger brother of Peter and Asen, Kaloyan, who succeeded Peter in 1197. Kaloyan (1197-1207) waged victorious wars with the weakening Empire and even earned the honorary title Grekoboytsy. The shadow of King Samuel was avenged.

The steps taken by him cannot be correctly understood outside the context of the political and religious ideology that the Slavs adopted from the Byzantines: a Christian society should be led by the dual command of the emperor and the patriarch. While the legitimate empire must undoubtedly be "Roman" and universal, secondary or "regional" empires had the right to exist if historical circumstances so required. However, since the unity of the Christian "ecumene" could not be questioned, the regional emperors (or kings), as well as the regional patriarchs, had to be legitimized by the supreme universal imperial power. As we have already seen in the case of Ohrid, these regional empires and patriarchates, although they usually had a national name, were not, strictly speaking, "national churches": they (especially in the Balkans) always included a mixed population and even entire dioceses, in which the Greek worship was spread much wider than the Slavic.

Kaloyan, like all his contemporaries, took the rules of this political game for granted. However, since the authorities of Constantinople flatly refused to grant imperial status to him, and the patriarchal to his archbishop Basil, he turned to another Christian universal power, which in the West took the place of the empire and itself became the source of political and ecclesiastical power, the Roman papacy.

Even at the end of the XII century. Kaloyan began a correspondence with Pope Innocent III, hoping to get from him what he was not given in Byzantium: recognition of himself as emperor and church independence. The tone of these letters was rather obsequious, but Kaloyan wrote them for purely legal and political purposes. Religiously, he remained faithful to Orthodoxy.

The papal legates, the “archpresbyter” Dominic and the “chaplain” John, visited Bulgaria in 1200. During the negotiations, Kaloyan resorted to cunning blackmail, referring to the Byzantine theory of the “duality” of the emperor and the patriarch: “Come to us,” the Greeks allegedly told Kaloyan, - we will crown you the kingdom (i.e. we will make you emperor) and give you a patriarch, for it is impossible to be a kingdom without a patriarch. On February 25, 1204, the pope instructed Cardinal Leo of Santa Croce to crown Kaloyan as king (and not as emperor) and to raise his archbishop Basil to the rank of primate (not patriarch). “Everyone understands,” the pope wrote, “that these two titles, primate and patriarch, mean almost the same thing, for both primate and patriarch perform the same ministry, differing only in name.” Moreover, a very typical expression of distrust on the part of the pope in Eastern church practice, which did not know the custom of anointing during episcopal and priestly ordinations, was his demand that the legate anoint all Bulgarian bishops.

It is unlikely that Kaloyan was completely satisfied with the papal answer. Nevertheless, on November 8, 1204, he took an oath of allegiance to the pope and was crowned papal legate, and his archbishop Basil was declared primate. This was explained by the fact that Kaloyan no longer had a choice: in April of the same year, Constantinople was taken by the crusaders.

It seemed that there was no alternative to universal Latin Christianity, led by the pope. Nevertheless, Kaloyan started looking for such alternatives. He gave shelter to Ecumenical Patriarch John Kamatir, who had fled from Constantinople occupied by the Crusaders (he died on Bulgarian territory in 1206). Rejecting the power claims of the Latin emperor of Constantinople, Kaloyan attacked the Franks, completely defeated them and captured the emperor Baldwin (1205). None of the papal appeals for peace and obedience was heeded.

When Kaloyan died in 1207, his kingdom kept the entire Balkan Peninsula in fear. He achieved papal recognition of his power, but was not going to play by the rules binding on papal vassals. His church in Tarnovo was de facto an independent patriarchy. Its primate, whose jurisdiction was almost identical to the Bulgarian Patriarchate of Simeon's time, called himself Patriarch. Only "the autocephalous Archdiocese of Ohrid was included in the territory of the Greek Despotate of Epirus.

In 1211, Kaloyan's successor, the usurper Tsar Boril (1207-1218), presided over a council in Tarnovo, at which the heresy of the Bogomils was condemned. As we know, this heresy, with its dualistic roots, sharp attacks against the Church, hierarchy and sacraments, developed in Bulgaria in the 10th century, but gained a second wind during all the complexities and changes of the 12th century. The Tyrnovo Cathedral of 1211 followed the Byzantine model: it was headed by the king and concentrated on local problems and situations. We have no information that the council fathers received any instructions from Rome. However, it is interesting to note that the Tyrnov Cathedral took place simultaneously with the repressions against the Albigensians (or Cathars) in the south of France. Let us recall that the Albigensians, apparently, descended from the Bogomils.

10. A couple of years earlier, Prince Vukan Zetsky (son of Stefan Nemanja) entered into an alliance with the Hungarian king Emmerich (1196-1204) and recognized the power of the pope over himself. The Church of Zeta was again placed under the jurisdiction of the Latin archbishop of Antibari. Vukan managed even for a short time to seize power over the principality of his brother Stephen of Rasha, who returned to power only with the help of Bulgaria (1202-1204). In order to consolidate his power and no longer be afraid of his brother's attacks, Stefan divorced his wife Eudoxia (daughter of the emperor) and married the granddaughter of Enrico Dandolo, Doge of Venice. Vukan and Stefan were open rivalries in their desire to gain papal favor.

The first challenge facing St. Savva, immediately after his return, was to reconcile the brothers. He achieved this, but the peace agreement they signed meant that Zeta would remain under papal ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Stephen and St. Savva agreed that in order to strengthen the power of Raska, Stefan should write to Pope Honorius III and ask for the royal crown for Stefan. The request was accepted favorably, and in 1217 the papal legate-cardinal arrived in Raska, who crowned Stefan. Since then, among his people, he became known as Stefan the First Crowned.

11. So, the victory of the papacy seemed to be complete: the Latin Empire was founded on the ruins of Constantinople with a Latin emperor and patriarch, and both Orthodox Slavic states in the Balkans unconditionally recognized the power of the pope over themselves. Even the Russian princes, hoping to throw off the Tatar yoke, went to Rome for papal help. In 1253, Prince Daniel of Galicia received the crown from the hands of the papal legate.

But all these triumphs of Rome turned out to be very fragile - in fact, having become acquainted with papal supremacy, the Slavs quickly pulled back into the Byzantine orbit. And the Nicene patriarchs showed considerable flexibility, making a number of concessions that ensured the complete loyalty of the Slavic Churches at that difficult moment for the empire and the Church.

The most modest concessions were offered to Russia. Since 1249, when the Russian monk Kirill became the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, the candidates for metropolitan alternated: first Russians, then Greek candidates ascended the cathedra. This arrangement continued for nearly a century and a half.

The biggest concessions were offered to Bulgaria. The ambiguity between Bulgaria and Rome ended in 1235 when canonical relations between Tarnovo and the Orthodox patriarchs were restored. This situation is largely predetermined by political circumstances.

The Bulgarian Tsar John Asen II (1218-1241), like his predecessor Simeon, dreamed of taking the imperial throne in Constantinople. He managed to confound his rivals and enemies. In 1230, at the Battle of Klokotnitsa, he defeated and captured the Despot of Epirus Theodore, who had previously been crowned imperial in Thessaloniki. Ohrid and his archdiocese went to John, and he proclaimed himself emperor of the Bulgarians and Greeks. He also won a number of territories from Serbia and Hungary. However, his project to marry his daughter to the young Latin emperor Baldwin II and thus become regent in Frankish-occupied Constantinople provoked strong protests from the Latin clergy - a clear sign that the Bulgarian-Roman union was not perceived by them as something valid.

Then John Asen II signed an alliance treaty with the Nicene emperor John III Duka Vatatzes (1222-1254). A marriage was concluded between the children of two sovereigns, and the church council of 1235 recognized the patriarchal rank of Joachim of Tarnovo. According to Bulgarian sources, the emperor called on the rest of the eastern patriarchs to recognize their new Bulgarian counterpart as equals with them. After receiving positive answers, the Ecumenical Patriarch Herman II and the fathers of the council signed an official letter on the foundation of the patriarchate. According to it, the Bulgarian Church was recognized as an independent patriarchate, only nominally recognizing the primacy of the patriarch in Nicaea.

The size of the new patriarchate corresponded to the borders of the Second Bulgarian Empire and in 1235 included the dioceses located on the territory from the lower Danube to Macedonia and from Belgrade to Thrace. It remains not entirely clear what position the Archdiocese of Ohrid occupied in this system.

12. No less disappointed was the Pope and the development of events in Serbia. No doubt he hoped that the result of Stephen's crowning would be to extend Roman jurisdiction over Raska, just as it had earlier extended to Zeta. But that did not happen. After the coronation of Stephen, St. Savva left for Athos, thinking over a new canonical status for his Church - but a status within the Orthodox world. This double move, invented by King Stephen and St. Savva - to receive political legitimacy from the pope and ecclesiastical legitimacy from the ecumenical patriarch, who was in exile in Nicaea - reflected the mentality of that time and did not seem to his contemporaries as strange as it may seem to us.

The canonically Orthodox diocese of Rash was under the jurisdiction of Demetrius Chomatian, Archbishop of Ohrid. This learned Greek bishop maintained a close political alliance with the Despot of Epirus, Theodore Angelos, on whose territory Ohrid was located. Theodore hoped to get the Byzantine imperial crown himself. He was a fierce rival of Serbian influence in the Balkans, and consequently the Archbishop of Ohrid would hardly have supported St. Savva on the dispensation of the church independence of his people. From here it is easier to understand the ingenious political move of St. Sava: his success in obtaining from the Nicene emperor Theodore I Laskaris (1204-1222) and the ecumenical patriarch Manuel I Sarantin (1215-1222) the status of an "autocephalous" Serbian archdiocese.

So, in 1219, having coordinated his actions with his brother, Savva arrived in Nicaea, where he asked the emperor for the founding of the Serbian Orthodox Church. His request was met with understanding. St. Savva was ordained archbishop of Serbia and returned home to create a Church that gained almost complete independence.

It must be said that the ordination of the first Serbian archbishop caused a number of canonical and political problems. The canonical problems lay in the relations of the new Serbian Archdiocese with Constantinople (i.e. Nicaea) on the one hand, and with Ohrid on the other. The title of "autocephalous archbishop" received by St. Savva, was usually used to refer to a bishop independent of the local metropolitan, who was appointed directly by the emperor (or patriarch). The archbishop was considered lower than the metropolitan and did not have his own district with bishops subordinate to him. However, in the late Byzantine period, the archiepiscopal rank began to be used much more widely. For example, the archbishop of Ohrid was appointed by the emperor, but many bishops were subordinate to him, as the successor of the Bulgarian patriarchs, while the archbishops of Novgorod and (later) Rostov were themselves under the metropolitan of Kiev and did not have the right to communicate directly with Constantinople.

However, the situation with the Archdiocese of St. Savva differed from both examples described above: he received almost complete independence from Constantinople and jurisdiction "over all Serbian and Pomeranian lands" (an unambiguous reference to Zeta who had gone to the Latins) and "over all the metropolitans and bishops of this territory." Thus, the status of the Serbian Church, in essence, was equated with the patriarchy or with modern autocephalous Churches. The only connection with Constantinople required of her was the mention of the ecumenical patriarch in the Eucharistic prayer (“Remember first, Lord ...”). The autocephalous status of the Serbian Church was in many ways a new formula.

There was also a conflict between the Nicene Patriarchate and Ohrid. A new archdiocese was created by Nicaea, which did not even think of asking the opinion of Ohrid. Hence the protest expressed by Demetrius Chomatian of Ohrid in a letter to St. Savva (1220). However, the legal weakness of Ohrid's position was that, as seen from Constantinople, Ohrid itself was created by imperial decree. Since the empire never recognized the legitimacy of the “patriarchate of Ohrid” proclaimed by Samuil, the real creator of the archdiocese was Emperor Basil II, who issued a corresponding decree in 1019. Consequently, Basil’s successor had the right to change the rules he developed.

This argument was well understood by all sides of the dispute. According to biographer St. Savva, the patriarch did not want to consecrate a Serbian monk and did so only at the insistence of Emperor Theodore Laskaris. On the other hand, Homatian's protest was based on the fact that he did not recognize the legitimacy of the Nicene emperor: "We have no legitimate empire," he wrote to St. Savva, - and, therefore, your consecration has no legal basis. In the Byzantine understanding of the relationship between the Church and the empire, the establishment of boundaries between ecclesiastical jurisdictions was considered the right of the emperor. This was the case with Justinian, who founded an autocephalous archdiocese in Justinian Prime (on the territory formally under papal jurisdiction), in the case of Basil II, who founded the Archdiocese of Ohrid, and in other cases when emperors created and abolished metropolitanates in the Polish-Lithuanian territories that were under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Kiev.

Theodore Laskaris of Nicaea, the self-proclaimed successor of the emperors of Constantinople, wanted to establish his legitimacy, in particular by creating a Serbian archdiocese. But his rival, the Despot of Epirus Theodore Angelos, also called himself emperor; Demetrius Chomatian, who supported him, soon crowned him in Thessaloniki. This act was also a challenge to the patriarch who crowned Laskaris in Nicaea in 1208. So, Chomatian's main argument was that, in the absence of undisputed imperial power, Constantinople had no right to redraw the boundaries between ecclesiastical jurisdictions.

However, the political future lay with Nicaea and Serbia. Nicaea was increasingly gaining recognition as the legitimate successor to Constantinople, and the patriarchy played a decisive role in this process. It would be very unreasonable for the Patriarch of Nicaea, who is in exile, to continue the tough centralizing policy of his predecessors, who ruled in the days of the power of the Byzantine Empire, in relation to the Slavic Churches. With the resistance of the Latins in Constantinople and the Greeks in Epirus, it was vital for the patriarchs to gain the recognition of the Slavic daughter Churches, and, therefore, it was important for them to be liberal towards them.

Thus, by establishing an independent archdiocese for the royal brother of St. Savva, the Nicaean Patriarchate won the support of the rich and growing kingdom of the Serbian Nemanjic. As noted above, in 1235 he also recognized the Tarnovo Patriarchate, and in 1246 he appointed the Russian hieromonk Kirill as Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, which allowed Kirill's patron, the influential Prince Daniel of Galich, to maintain ties with Orthodox Byzantium.

So, now it was the Byzantine Church, and no longer the Empire, that played the role of the unifying force of all Eastern Christianity.

The establishment of Serbian ecclesiastical independence marked a subtle but very important evolution in the meaning of the concept of autocephaly. Prior to this, with the sole exception of Georgia, all Orthodox autocephalous Churches were part of the empire and acquired legal status by the sole decision of the emperor or the Ecumenical Council. New autocephalies (i.e. Serbia and Bulgaria) were created through bilateral treaties between the two civil governments. This reflected a new tendency to view ecclesiastical autocephaly as a sign of the nation-state, which undoubtedly set a precedent for ecclesiastical relations in modern history, when increasingly fiery nationalist politics - both in the Balkans and elsewhere - would turn the struggle for national autocephaly into a phenomenon, known today as ecclesiastical phyletism.

13. However, it would be an anachronism to suspect the presence of phyletism in the mentality of a person of the 13th century. In particular, St. Savva, more than anyone else, was aware of the need for Orthodox unity and canonical order. We do not know if he responded to the polemical writings of Chomatian. On the way back from Nicaea, he visited not only Athos, but also Thessaloniki, which was under the rule of the Latins, where he stayed at the Philokal Monastery. The Greek Metropolitan of Thessaloniki Constantine Mesopotamite was an old friend of St. Savva, and the Serbian archbishop often turned to him for advice. Constantine was expelled from Thessaloniki by the Latins in 1204 and only on the eve of a meeting with his friend was he able to return to his see. Undoubtedly, St. Savva needed wise advice, especially in connection with the Latin presence in the border regions of Serbia. Latin bishops sat in the Adriatic port cities of Kotor, Antibari (Bar) and Ragusa (Dubrovnik). The latter was part of the possessions of Venice.

Returning to Serbia, St. Savva made the “great church” in Zhich the center of his archdiocese (in 1253 the archiepiscopal see would be transferred to the Pech Monastery). There were no large cities in the Serbian kingdom of that time (even the royal court was constantly moving from place to place), and therefore St. Savva founded new diocesan centers mainly in monasteries, which provided the bishops with economic stability and a place for residence. The archbishop's concern for ecclesiastical order and organization is illustrated by the fact that he acquired during his stay in Thessaloniki an entire legal and canonical library. He also translated the Byzantine legal collection Nomocanon into Slavonic, calling it the Pilot's Book.

Throughout his episcopal ministry, St. Savva maintained contacts with all the main centers of the Christian world. After the death of King Stephen (1228), his son Stephen Radoslav married Anna, the daughter of Theodore of Epirus. Friendly relations were established between the Serbian court and Archbishop Dimitri Homatian of Ohrid, who now became an adviser to the Serbian king. This shows that St. Savva reconciled with Homatian.

In 1229-1230. Serbian archbishop went to Jerusalem and visited the holy places. Perhaps it was then that he brought with him to Serbia the "Tipikon" of St. Savva of Palestine, which was gradually adopted as a standard liturgical pattern throughout the Byzantine Orthodox world. On the way home St. Savva also stopped for a long time in Nicaea and Athos.

Despite his diplomatic and pastoral activities, St. Savva remained primarily a monk, striving for prayer and solitude. In any case, this is how biographers interpret his unexpected refusal from the archbishop's chair in 1234. Before leaving, he personally consecrated his successor, his student Arseny, which was a very unusual step. Then St. Savva departed on a new pilgrimage to Jerusalem, Alexandria, Sinai and Constantinople. According to his biographer Domentian, he intended to eventually arrive on Athos to stay there. But he managed to get only to Tarnovo, where he died on January 14, 1236. His body was brought to Serbia and buried in the monastery of Mileshevo (1237). In 1595 the relics of St. The Savvas were, by order of the Turkish authorities, removed from the monastery and burned. But this did not diminish the popular veneration of the saint.

St. Savva, in essence, is the father and founder of Serbian Orthodoxy. Universally revered as a Serbian teacher, St. Savva is one of the most enlightened, dynamic and spirit-bearing figures of the Orthodox Church in the 13th century. He and his father Rev. Simeon Myrrh-streaming - the greatest Serbian saints, enjoying popular veneration not only in Serbia, but throughout the Orthodox world to this day.

Nicaean empire (1204-61), a state that developed around the city of Nicaea (modern Iznik, Turkey). Founded by Theodore I Laskaris (1175-1222) after the Crusaders defeated Constantinople during the 4th Crusade. He recreated the Byzantine in miniature. empire, assumed the title of emperor and established his own hierarchy. Restraining the onslaught of the Seljuks and the Latin Empire (Crusaders), he conquered territories from them, seized the lands of the Trabzon Empire of the Komnins. After the death of Fedor I, his son-in-law John III, who was in exile, became the second emperor N.I. and strengthened it. His successor Theodore II (1254-58) ruled for only two years. Byzant. General Michael VIII, after the capture of Constantinople (1261), blinded and imprisoned John IV Laskaris, a minor pretender to the throne in N.I. The capital was moved to Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire was restored, and N.I. ceased to exist.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

NICENE EMPIRE

state in the north-west. M. Asia with its capital in Nicaea (which was the patriarchal residence); arose in 1204 after the collapse of Byzantium and lasted until 1261. The first ruler of N. and. was Theodore Laskaris (1204-22) with the title of despot, and from 1208 - emperor. Tepp. H. i. determined in the fight against the Latin Empire, the Seljuk Turks and the Trebizond Empire: in the beginning. 1211 Laskaris defeated the Seljuks at Antioch on Meander (Menderes), 15 Oct. 1211 - Latins on Rindacus. In 1214, the Treaty of Nymphaeum was signed, which politically fixed the borders between Lat. empire and N. and. In the same year, Laskaris took part of the Black Sea coast from the Trebizond dynasty. Economical N.'s development and. contradictory. On the one hand, the strengthening of the feud. property (the distribution of immunities, the acquisition by the owners of prony court-adm. rights over wigs), on the other hand, the revival of trade (with Genoa, where bread was exported, with the Konya Sultanate, Russia). Emperors patronized the cities (the largest - Nicaea, Nymphaeum, Smyrna, Ephesus, Prusa) and planted an entrepreneurial economy in their own. estates. In N. and. there were relatively many free peasants, especially in the mountainous regions; together with the Proniari and the Polovtsy settled in the country, they formed the basis of the army. N. and. led an offensive external politics. John III Doukas Vatatzes expelled the Latins from M. Asia (according to the treaty of 1225, they retained only the region of Nicomedia), occupied the islands of Lesbos, Chios, and others, and fortified in Thrace. In 1246 he entered Thessaloniki without a fight. In the beginning. summer 1259 imp. Michael VIII Palaiologos (1258-61) defeated a coalition at Pelagonia, which was formed against N. and. Sicily, Epirus state-in, Achaean prince-in and Serbia. March 13, 1261 N. and. signed an agreement with Genoa, leaving the Genoese merchants to bargain. privileges in exchange for the military. help against the Venetians and the Latin Empire. July 25, 1261 Byzantium. the commander of Michael VIII Alexei Stratigopoulos, almost without resistance, occupied Constantinople, after which the capital was moved there. Thus, Byzantium was restored. empire and N. and. ceased to exist. Lit .: Andreeva M. A., Essays on the culture of the Byzantine court in the XIII century, Prague, 1927; Angelov D., Bringing to earth the relations in Byzantium prez XIII century, in the book: Yearbook on Philosophical History. fak. (Sofia University), C, 1952, v. 47, book. 2; Gardner A., ​​The Lascarids of Nicaea, L., 1912; Gl?katzi-Ahrweiler H., La politique agraire des empereurs de Nic?e, "Byzantion", 1958, t. 28. A. P. Kazhdan. Moscow. -***-***-***- Empire of Nicaea

Empire of Nicaea

one of the most influential and economically stable Greek states that arose on the territory of Byzantium. It was formed in 1204 after the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders and existed until 1261. entered the fertile countryside and rich cities of the northwest. region of Asia Minor: Nicaea, Nymphaeum, Smyrna, Philadelphia. The founder of the state was energetic. and the clever ruler Theodore I Laskaris (1206-1222), who in a short time collected a significant fund of lands into the treasury, which formed the basis of his power. He distributed these lands to his supporters in irony on the condition of carrying out the military. service for the emperor. Over the pronias, he retained the supreme right of ownership, which contributed to the consolidation of the feudal lords around the throne and the strengthening of the military. the forces of the empire. Large-scale feuds, land ownership and feuds, and the dependence of the peasants grew intensively. Theodore I was succeeded by his son-in-law, a talented administrator and commander John III Duka Vatatzes (1222-1254). He significantly expanded the territory of N. and., raised its economy, promoted the growth of handicraft production, active trade with neighbors, was a generous patron of the arts and sciences, and sought to revive interest in antiquity. John III was succeeded by his son Theodore II Laskaris (1254-1258). A philosopher and writer, he did a lot to turn Nicaea into one of the main cultural centers. In 1261, the Nicaean Emperor Michael VIII, as a result of a successful campaign against Constantinople, captured the former capital and restored Byzantium. empire.

Lit.: Zhavoronkov P.I. Empire of Nicaea and the West // Byzantium. temporary. 1974. T. 36; Zhavoronkov P.I. At the origins of the formation of the Nicaean Empire // Byzant. temporary. T. 38; Zhavoronkov P.I. Empire of Nicaea and the East // Byzantium. temporary. T. 39; Kurbatov GL. History of Byzantium. M., 1984.

encyclopedic Dictionary

Empire of Nicaea

Byzantine state in M. Asia in 1204-61, which arose after the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders. The capital is Nicaea (modern Iznik). In 1261, the Nicene emperor captured Constantinople, moved the capital there, and restored the Byzantine Empire.

Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron

Empire of Nicaea

The conquest of Constantinople by the Latins (see Latin Empire) in 1204 was accompanied by enormous upheavals in all parts of the Byzantine Empire. The upper classes of the service class and the local nobility, with a few exceptions, even benefited from the invasion of the Latins, or, in any case, did not suffer significant hardships. Near the Comneni, Angels, Lascaris, Mavrosomes, Mankaf, who aspired to form independent principalities, the nobles who fled from the areas occupied by the Latins gather and arrange a prosperous existence for themselves. There were many who preferred to enlist the favor of the conquerors, gave them useful advice and helped them to strengthen themselves in the regions of the empire. Lack of patriotism and the absence of a state idea characterize the state of affairs after the Latin conquest. One of the Greek nobles, who stood close to the court of the kings of the Angels and married to the daughter of Alexei III, Theodore Laskaris, fled to the East after the conquest of Constantinople and sought to establish an independent state here. The most convenient point for Laskaris was Nicaea, which was walled and had a claim to be the main city of Bithynia; but at first the Nicaeans did not trust Laskaris and did not want to take him under the protection of their walls. The violence and extortion that the crusaders allowed themselves, however, soon showed the Greeks that they were in danger of not only political, but also religious enslavement, if they did not concentrate around one of the leaders who sought power in the East. Laskaris was the most prominent claimant, both because he was related to the dynasty of Angels, and especially because he had already been elected king in Constantinople, just before its fall. According to the division of the empire, Bithynia went to Count Louis of Blois, who actually took possession of some areas and defeated the Laskaris detachment. Under such circumstances, the N. Empire would hardly have been possible if it were not for the liberation movement in Bulgaria, begun at the end of the 12th century. brothers Asenami and by the time of the IV crusade, expressed in the formation second Bulgarian kingdom. The crusaders, having seized the capital of the empire, considered it their right to lay claims to those parts of the Byzantine Empire that were torn away from it as a result of the Bulgarian movement, and were ready to look at the Bulgarian Tsar John as a rebel, even after he received the crown from Rome. The Bulgarian tsar took advantage of the mistakes of the crusaders, who did not spare the feelings of national pride in the Greeks, ridiculed their faith and customs, encroached on their religious freedom and did not accept them into their service. He raised a strong movement against the Crusaders in Thrace and Macedonia, acting as a defender of Orthodoxy and the Greek people. The Greeks of the Balkan Peninsula soon went over to the side of the Bulgarians and began to shadow the Latins. While Baldwin of Flanders and Boniface of Montferrat, considering their position secured in Macedonia and Thessaly, transferred their military forces to Asia in order to strike with their combined forces at Laskaris and other Greek pretenders to independence, the Bulgarian Tsar skillfully took advantage of the moment and inflicted a terrible defeat on the crusaders under Adrianople, April 15, 1205. The weakening of the Latins allowed F. Laskaris to establish himself in Nicaea and create here a stronghold of Greek nationality and Orthodoxy. Representatives of the clergy, service and local estates began to arrive in Nicaea from all over the empire in order to seek protection under the power of Laskaris and bring their forces to serve the national cause. Elected Patriarch Michael Authorian (1206) solemnly crowned Laskaris with the imperial crown. The most dangerous enemy of Laskaris was Alexei Komnenos, who tried to create the same empire in Trebizond that was founded in Nicaea. Laskaris defeated the army of Trebizont sent against him and eliminated the rivals put up against him by the Sultan of Iconium in the person of Mavrozos and Mankafa. In the autumn of 1206, imp. Latin Henry undertook a great expedition to the East in order to conquer Asia Minor and allocate fiefs in it for his knights. Laskaris entered into an alliance with the Bulgarian king, who approached Adrianople and began to threaten Constantinople itself. This forced the Latins to quickly move their military forces from Asia to Europe. By a truce concluded in 1207, the important coastal cities of Cyzicus and Nicomedia remained behind Laskaris. How little this ensured the peace of H. of the empire is evident from the letter of Laskaris to Pope Innocent III, in which he complains about the willfulness of the knights, who paid little attention to the Emperor of Constantinople and continued to wage private war in Asia Minor at their own risk. According to Laskaris, an eternal peace should have been concluded with the Latins on the condition that the crusaders own the European provinces and leave the Greeks to quietly dominate Asia. His request for mediation, addressed to the pope, remained, however, unsuccessful. Since the empire of N. equally threatened the Latins and Seljuks, an alliance was formed between Iconium and Constantinople against the N. emperor. The Iconic sultan demanded that Laskaris surrender power to the legitimate tsar, the former emperor Alexei III. But near Antioch, the Greeks inflicted a severe defeat on the Seljuks, and Alexei III was captured and was imprisoned in a monastery; Laskaris annexed Antioch to his possessions (1210). Emperor Henry thought to improve the matter by putting David Komnenos, brother of the Emperor of Trebizond, against Laskaris; but the latter was defeated, and the Empire of Trebizond was forced to limit its limits to Sinope (1212). In 1214, a peace treaty was concluded between N. and the Latin emperor, according to which the Latins remained in Asia in Asia with a narrow strip from the Gulf of Nicomedia to the Black Sea, while the boundaries of the N. empire were marked on the one hand by the Gulf of Nicomedia, and on the other by Cyzicus and the Aegean. by sea. From the side of the Iconian sultan, the regions to the upper reaches of the Sangaria and Meander departed to Nicaea. This peace continued after the death of Henry (1216) and was sealed by the marriage between Laskaris and Mary, daughter of Yolande, Empress of Constantinople. After the death of F. Laksaris (1222), his associate, John Doukas Vatatzes (John III; see the corresponding article) becomes the head of the N. empire. At this time, Theodore Duka Angel, despot of Epirus, was pursuing the same religious and political goals in the West as Laskaris was in the East. In 1222, he captured Thessalonica (Thessaloniki), the inheritance of the counts of Montferrat, was crowned here as the emperor of Thessalonica, made several more conquests at the expense of the Latins and Bulgarians. Under such circumstances, the tasks of the N. empire became more complicated; it was necessary not only to strive to expel the Latins from Constantinople, but also to take care that the place vacated after them was not occupied by the Thessalonica emperors. John Doukas Vatatzes took every measure to strengthen his army and improve the economic condition of the empire. In 1224, the Latin emperor Robert declared war on Vatatzes. A decisive battle took place at Lampsacus, where the Latin cavalry died, and the advantage was on the side of the Greeks. N. the emperor took away from the Latins all their cities on the Asian coast, took possession of Samos, Chios and Lesbos, sent an army to Europe and easily took possession of Adrianople; but here the interests of N. and the Thessalonica empire. Theodore Doukas approached Adrianople and demanded the surrender of the city; N. the leaders had to clean up the city. In 1230, the Thessalonica emperor entered into an unfortunate war with John Asen of Bulgaria, was taken prisoner and blinded by him (battle of Klokotnitsa). The Thessalonica empire was granted, by the grace of the Bulgarian Tsar, to Fyodor's brother, Manuel. Since then, for several years, the fate of the European provinces was in the hands of the Bulgarian Tsar. A very important moment in the history of the N. empire should be considered the events of 1235, when the N. emperor and the Bulgarian tsar had a meeting at Lampsak and the son of the N. emperor, Fedor, was betrothed to the daughter of the Bulgarian tsar, Elena. N. the army from Lampsak crossed to the European coast, captured Gallipoli and other cities; at the same time the Bulgarians threatened the walls of Constantinople. Latin domination seemed to be at an end - but it was supported by the Venetian fleet, since Venice considered the existence of a Latin empire necessary for its commercial interests; on the other hand, the Bulgarian tsar found it advantageous to have a weak Latin government in Constantinople. As a result, he made a separate peace with the Latins and transferred his troops from the south to the north, where Bulgaria was to defend its borders against the Mongols. The Latin Empire, however, was on the verge of collapse. The Greek population left in masses from the power of the Latins to Nicaea, trade and industry ceased, the emperors of Constantinople did not know where to raise funds for the maintenance of the army and administration, they sold and pawned church treasures. In 1240, Emperor Baldwin gathered an army with great difficulty and began. campaign against N. emperor; but Vatatzes drove the Latins out of the Asian cities, so that only Chalcedon, Scutari and the coastline of the Bosphorus remained behind them. After the death of John Asen, the Thessalonica Emperor Theodore, who was kept in Bulgaria, received his freedom. He planned to return the Thessalonica empire to his son John and forced Manuel to flee to Nicaea. This opened the way for Vatatzes to intervene in Thessalonica affairs. Having deceived the blind Fyodor to himself and kept him prisoner, Vatatzes hurried to Thessalonica and laid siege to it. For the first time, he was content to force John to recognize the sovereignty of Nicaea over himself, to renounce the title of emperor and be content with the title of despot. In 1246 Vatatzes made very important acquisitions in Europe at the expense of the Bulgarians; then he approached Thessalonica and took her, capturing her last despot, Demetrius. After the capture of Thessalonica, no one could challenge N. the emperor's right to supremacy in the Hellenic world. The last deed of I. Vatatzes was a campaign against the Despot of Epirus Michael II, who was forced, in 1254, to recognize the power of N. the emperor over himself. After the death of I. Vatatses (1254), his son, Theodore Laskaris II, succeeded to N.. The Bulgarian Tsar Michael Asen thought to take advantage of the death of Vatatses in order to regain the Macedonian regions, but was defeated and had to make peace. It was much more difficult for Laskaris to succeed in the war with Epirus. Here the main role belonged to Michael Palaiologos, first a skillful general under Vatatzes and Laskaris II, and then, from 1259, N. the emperor. Palaiologos was declared only co-ruler of the legitimate heir to the throne, John IV, but soon removed him from power, blinded him and imprisoned him in a fortress (see the corresponding article). The state of the N. empire favored the plans of Michael (see the corresponding article). He had a well organized army; the mountain dwellers of Phrygia and Bithynia brought forth brave and robust recruits. Shooters N. were famous throughout the Greek army. The economic situation of the empire, thanks to continued internal peace and good administration, improved significantly. Meanwhile, in the states neighboring Nicaea, a process of decomposition was gradually taking place. The Iconian Sultanate was completely weakened, divided into many small possessions and was busy with an internal war. The Latin Empire was not in the best condition. Baldwin II lived in Constantinople with funds he had begged from the pope and from St. Louis, took away decorations from churches and monasteries and borrowed money from Venetian bankers, to whom he provided all the economic resources of the country. He didn't have an army; the Venetians garrisoned Constantinople, and the very existence of the Latin Empire depended on the arrival of the Europeans at a dangerous moment to save it. There were domestic wars between Asen's successors; Bulgarian Tsar Konstantin Tekh was not able to interfere with the plans of N. Emperor. The only serious danger was from Epirus. Although Epirus was not an ethnographically homogeneous country (Slavs, Vlachs, Albanians, Greeks), the militant nature of the Epirus population made the Epirus despot a very dangerous neighbor. Without abandoning his claims to Thessalonica, he entered into an alliance with Manfred of Sicily and Willhardouin, Duke of Achaea. The allied army was, however, completely defeated (1259); the winners took possession of Yanina and Arta. Although in the following year (1260) N. the army was defeated by the despot of Epirus, this did not prevent Michael from acting decisively. Taking advantage of the fact that Venice was occupied by the war with Genoa, Michael went to Constantinople with all haste, having neither wall-beating machines, nor a convoy; apparently, he harbored the hope that the city would be surrendered to him without resistance. When it was discovered that a siege had to be undertaken, Palaiologos was forced to retreat, concluding a truce with Baldwin for one year. In the spring of 1261, Michael entered into an alliance with Genoa, which he granted extensive trading rights, to the detriment of the Venetians, and negotiated the help of the Genoese fleet for the conquest of Constantinople. He sent to Europe the experienced general Alexios Stratigopoulos, who entered into negotiations with the Greek population in the immediate vicinity of Constantinople, received accurate information about what was happening in the city among the Latins, and, after the expiration of the truce, moved to Constantinople, from where the Venetian garrison had just was transferred to the ships, with the aim of attacking the Genoese. On the night of July 25, 1261, Stratigopulo approached the walls of Constantinople, set up ladders, entered the city without noise and took possession of it almost without resistance; imp. Baldwin fled to Euboea. Only the Venetians and part of the Latins tried to defend themselves in Galata, but Stratigopulo set fire to this part of the city and deprived the Latins of any point of support; they also hastened to board ships and flee. August 15, 1261 Michael Palaiologos had a solemn entrance to Constantinople and was crowned in the church of St.. Sofia.

Wed Finlay, "A History of Greece from its Conquest" (Oxford, 1877, vol. III); Παπαρρηγοπουλου, "Ίστορία τοΰ uέλληνικοΰ εθνους" (Athens, 1887, vol. IV - V).

The history of the H. empire represents a consistent, regularly developing episode of medieval Hellenic history. From the founder of the empire, F. Laskaris, to M. Palaiologos, all kings pursue the national idea with equal perseverance. The emperors owed their success to the N. to the Slavs, not only in the difficult time of the formation of empires, but also later. Greek chronicler Pachymer(F. Pachymeris, 1, 15 - 17) directly ascribes to the Slavic colonists the economic and military strength of the empire, and F. Laskaris II, in praise of his father I. Vatatses, put the latter in special merit for the skillful use of the forces of the Slavs. - For an analysis of the texts related to this, see Uspensky's article "On the History of Peasant Land Ownership in Byzantium" pp. 339 - 342 ("J. M. N. Pr.", February 1883).

F. Uspensky.

Russian language dictionaries

Form of government Monarchy Continuity ← Byzantine Empire
Byzantine Empire →

Empire of Nicaea- a state that was formed on the territory of northwestern Anatolia after the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders in the year and existed for up to a year. The Empire of Nicaea was the largest of these entities, and its emperors continued to regard themselves as the true rulers of Byzantium.

Base

Initially, the Nicenes did not trust Laskaris and did not want to accept him under the protection of their walls. However, the violence and extortion that the crusaders allowed themselves soon showed the Greeks that they were in danger of not only political, but also religious enslavement, if they did not unite under the rule of one of the leaders who gained power in the east of the Byzantine Empire. Theodore Laskaris was the most prominent claimant because he was related to the Angelic dynasty and had already been elected king in Constantinople, just before its fall.

According to the division of the Byzantine Empire, Bithynia went to Count Louis of Blois, who took possession of some areas and defeated the Laskaris detachment. Under such circumstances, the Nicaean Empire could not have been formed if it were not for the liberation movement in Bulgaria, begun at the end of the 12th century by the brothers Peter and Asen and by the time of the Fourth Crusade, expressed in the formation of the second Bulgarian kingdom. While Baldwin I of Flanders and Boniface of Montferrat, considering their position secured in Macedonia and Thessaly, transferred military forces to Asia in order to strike with combined forces at Laskaris, the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan I Asen skillfully took advantage of the moment and on April 15 of the year inflicted a terrible defeat on the crusaders near Adrianople.

The weakening of the Latins allowed Theodore Laskaris to establish himself in Nicea and create here a stronghold of Greek culture and Orthodoxy. Elected Patriarch Michael Authorian in the year solemnly crowned Laskaris with the imperial crown. Representatives of the Orthodox clergy, service and local estates began to arrive in Nicaea from all over the empire in order to seek protection under the power of Laskaris and bring their forces to serve the national cause.

The most dangerous enemy of Laskaris was Alexei Komnenos, who created in Trebizond the same empire that was founded in Nicaea. However, Laskaris defeated the Trebizond army sent against him and eliminated the rivals put up against him by the Sultan of Iconium in the person of Mavrozos and Mankafa.

Since the Empire of Nicaea equally threatened both the Latins and the Seljuks, an alliance was formed between Iconium and Constantinople against the Nicene emperor. The Iconic sultan demanded from Laskaris that he cede power to the rightful tsar, the former emperor Alexios III. But near Antioch, the Greeks inflicted a severe defeat on the Seljuks, and Alexei III was captured and imprisoned in a monastery. Thus, Laskaris annexed Antioch to his possessions in the year.

Emperor Henry thought to improve the matter by putting in a year against Laskaris David Comnenus, brother of the Emperor of Trebizond, but the latter was defeated, and the Trebizond Empire was forced to limit its borders to Sinope.

Gain

Upon the death of Theodore Laskaris in the year, his associate John III Doukas Vatatzes becomes the head of the Nicaean Empire.

At this time, Theodore Duca Angelus, Despot of Epirus, pursued the same religious and political goals in the West as Laskaris did in the East. In 1222, he captured Thessaloniki (Thessalonica), the inheritance of the counts of Montferrat, was crowned here as the emperor of Thessalonica, made several more conquests at the expense of the Latins and Bulgarians. Under such circumstances, the tasks of the Nicaean Empire became more difficult. It was necessary not only to strive to expel the Latins from Constantinople, but also to take care that the place vacated after them was not occupied by the Thessalonica emperors. John Doukas Vatatzes took all measures to strengthen his army and improve the economic condition of the empire.

The Bulgarian Tsar Michael I Asen thought to take advantage of the death of Vatats in order to regain the Macedonian regions, but was defeated and had to make peace. It was much more difficult for Laskaris to succeed in the war with Epirus. Here the main role belonged to Michael Palaiologos, first a skillful general under Vataces and Theodore II, and then from a year to the Emperor of Nicaea. Palaiologos was declared only co-ruler of the legitimate heir to the throne John IV, but soon removed him from power, blinded him and imprisoned him in a fortress.

The state of the Nicaean Empire favored Michael's plans. He had a well-organized army, the mountain dwellers of Phrygia and Bithynia bringing forth brave and stout recruits. The arrows of Nicaea were famous throughout the Greek army. The economic situation of the empire, thanks to continued internal peace and good administration, improved significantly.

Meanwhile, in the states neighboring Nicaea, a process of decomposition was gradually taking place. The Iconian Sultanate was completely weakened, divided into many small possessions and was busy with an internal war. The Latin Empire was not in the best condition. Baldwin II lived in Constantinople for funds he had begged from the pope and from St. Louis, took away decorations from churches and monasteries, and borrowed money from Venetian bankers, to whom he provided all the economic resources of the country. He had no troops, the Venetians kept the garrison in Constantinople, the very existence of the Latin Empire depended on whether the Europeans would come at a dangerous moment to save it. Domestic wars took place between Asen's successors, the Bulgarian Tsar Konstantin I Tikh was not able to impede the plans of the Nicaean emperor.

The only serious danger was from Epirus. Although Epirus was not an ethnographically homogeneous country (Slavs, Vlachs, Albanians, Greeks), the militant nature of the Epirus population made the Epirus despot a very dangerous neighbor. Without leaving his claims to Thessalonica, he entered into an alliance with Manfred of Sicily and Vilgarduen, Duke of Achaea. The allied army was, however, completely defeated by the Nicenes in the year. The winners took possession of Yanina and Arta. Although the next year the Nicene army was defeated by the despot of Epirus, this did not prevent Michael from acting decisively. Taking advantage of the fact that Venice was occupied by the war with Genoa, Michael went to Constantinople with all haste, having neither ramming machines nor a convoy, apparently, he had the hope that the city would be surrendered to him without resistance. When it was discovered that a siege had to be undertaken, Palaiologos was forced to retreat, concluding a truce with Baldwin for one year.

In the spring of the year, Michael concluded an alliance (Treaty of Nymphaeum) with Genoa, which he granted extensive trading rights, to the detriment of the Venetians, and negotiated the help of the Genoese fleet for the conquest of Constantinople. He sent the experienced general Alexios Stratigopoulos to Europe, who entered into negotiations with the Greek population in the immediate vicinity of Constantinople, received accurate information about what was happening in the city among the Latins, and, after the truce expired, moved to Constantinople, from where the Venetian garrison had just was transferred to the ships, with the aim of attacking the Genoese.

Plan
Introduction
1 Foundation
2 Gain
3 Capture of Constantinople
4 After capturing Constantinople
5 List of Nicene emperors

Introduction

The Nicaean Empire is a state that was formed on the territory of northwestern Anatolia after the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 and existed until 1261. The Empire of Nicaea was the largest of these entities, and its emperors continued to regard themselves as the true rulers of Byzantium.

1. Foundation

Theodore I Laskaris (Laskar) - a Greek nobleman who was close to the court of the Angels dynasty and married to the daughter of Alexei III, after the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders, fled to the east and made efforts to found an independent state. The most convenient point for these purposes was Nicaea, which was surrounded by walls and was the main city of Bithynia.

Initially, the Nicenes did not trust Laskaris and did not want to accept him under the protection of their walls. However, the violence and extortion that the crusaders allowed themselves soon showed the Greeks that they were in danger of not only political, but also religious enslavement, if they did not unite under the rule of one of the leaders who gained power in the east of the Byzantine Empire. Theodore Laskaris was the most prominent claimant because he was related to the Angelic dynasty and had already been elected king in Constantinople, just before its fall.

According to the division of the Byzantine Empire, Bithynia went to Count Louis of Blois, who took possession of some areas and defeated the Laskaris detachment. Under such circumstances, the Nicaean Empire could not have been formed if it were not for the liberation movement in Bulgaria, begun at the end of the 12th century by the brothers Peter and Asen, and by the time of the Fourth Crusade, expressed in the formation of the second Bulgarian kingdom. While Baldwin I of Flanders and Boniface of Montferrat, considering their position in Macedonia and Thessaly secured, transferred their military forces to Asia in order to strike with combined forces at Laskaris, the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan I Asen skillfully took advantage of the moment and on April 15, 1205, inflicted a terrible defeat at Adrianople.

The weakening of the Latins allowed Theodore Laskaris to establish himself in Nicaea and create here a stronghold of Greek culture and Orthodoxy. In 1206 Michael Avtorian, who was elected patriarch, solemnly crowned Laskaris with the imperial crown. Representatives of the Orthodox clergy, service and local estates began to arrive in Nicaea from all over the empire in order to seek protection under the power of Laskaris and bring their forces to serve the national cause.

The most dangerous enemy of Laskaris was Alexei the Great Komnenos, who created in Trebizond the same empire that was founded in Nicaea. However, Laskaris defeated the Trebizond army sent against him and eliminated the rivals put up against him by the Sultan of Iconium in the person of Mavrozos and Mankafa.

In the autumn of 1206, the Latin emperor Henry undertook a large expedition to the East in order to conquer Asia Minor and allocate fiefs in it for his knights. Laskaris made an alliance with the Bulgarian king, who approached Adrianople and began to threaten Constantinople. This forced the Latins to quickly move their military forces from Asia to Europe. By a truce concluded in 1207, the important seaside cities of Cyzicus and Nicomedia remained behind Laskaris.

Since the Empire of Nicaea equally threatened both the Latins and the Seljuks, an alliance was formed between Iconium and Constantinople against the Nicene emperor. The Iconic sultan demanded that Laskaris surrender power to the legitimate tsar, the former emperor Alexei III. But near Antioch, the Greeks inflicted a severe defeat on the Seljuks, and Alexei III was captured and imprisoned in a monastery. Thus, Laskaris annexed Antioch to his possessions in 1210.

Emperor Henry thought to improve the situation by setting up in 1212 against Laskaris David Comnenus, brother of the Emperor of Trebizond, but the latter was defeated, and the Trebizond Empire was forced to limit its borders to Sinop.

In 1214, a peace treaty was concluded between the Empire of Nicaea and the Latin emperor, according to which the Latins remained in Asia in Asia with a narrow strip from the Gulf of Nicomedia to the Black Sea, while the borders of the Empire of Nicaea were marked on the one hand by the Gulf of Nicomedia, on the other - Cyzicus and the Aegean Sea. From the side of the Iconian Sultanate, the regions to the upper reaches of the Sangaria and Greater Menderes were ceded to Nicaea (in the past - Meander).

This peace continued after the death of Henry in 1216 and was sealed by marriage between Laskaris and Mary, daughter of Iolanthe, Empress of the Latin Empire.

2. Gain

After the death of Theodore Laskaris in 1222, his associate John III Doukas Vatatzes became the head of the Nicaean Empire.

At this time, Theodore Doukas, the ruler of the kingdom of Epirus, pursued the same religious and political goals in the West as Laskaris in the East. In 1222, he captured Thessaloniki (Thessalonica), the inheritance of the counts of Montferrat, was crowned here as the emperor of Thessalonica, made several more conquests at the expense of the Latins and Bulgarians. Under such circumstances, the tasks of the Nicaean Empire became more difficult. It was necessary not only to strive to expel the Latins from Constantinople, but also to take care that the place vacated after them was not occupied by the Thessalonica emperors. John Doukas Vatatzes took all measures to strengthen his army and improve the economic condition of the empire.

In 1224, the Latin emperor Robert de Courtenay declared war on Watatsu. The decisive battle took place at Lampsacus, where the Latin cavalry died, and the advantage was on the side of the Greeks. The Nicaean emperor took away from the Latins all their cities on the Asian coast, captured Samos, Chios and Lesbos, sent an army to Europe and easily captured Adrianople, but here the interests of the Nicaean and Thessalonica empires clashed.

Theodore Duka approached Adrianople and demanded the surrender of the city. The Nicene leaders were to cleanse the city. In 1230, the Thessalonica emperor entered into an unsuccessful war with Ivan Asen of Bulgaria, was captured and blinded by him as a result of the battle of Klokotnitsa. The Thessalonica empire was granted, by the grace of the Bulgarian Tsar, to Fyodor's brother, Manuel. Since then, for several years, the fate of the European provinces was in the hands of the Bulgarian Tsar.

A very important moment in the history of the Nicaean Empire should be considered the events of 1235, when the Nicene emperor and the Bulgarian king had a meeting at Lampsak and the son of the Nicene emperor, Theodore, was betrothed to the daughter of the Bulgarian king Elena. The Nicaean army from Lampsacus crossed to the European coast, captured Gallipoli and other cities, while the Bulgarians threatened the walls of Constantinople.

The Latin Empire was about to fall. The Greek population in masses left the power of the Latins for Nicaea, trade and handicraft production ceased, the emperors of Constantinople did not know where to raise funds for the maintenance of the army and administration, they sold and pawned church treasures.

In 1240, Emperor Baldwin II gathered an army with great difficulty and began a campaign against the Nicene emperor, but Vatatzes ousted the Latins from the Asian cities, so that only Chalcedon, Scutari and the Bosphorus coastline remained behind them.

After the death of Ivan Asen, the Theodore Emperor of Thessalonica, who was kept in Bulgaria, received his freedom. He planned to return the Thessalonica empire to his son John and forced Manuel to flee to Nicaea. This opened the way for Watatsu to intervene in Thessalonica's affairs. Having deceived the blind Theodore to him and kept him a prisoner, Vatatzes hurried to Thessalonica and laid siege to it. For the first time, he was content to force John to recognize the sovereignty of Nicaea over himself, to renounce the title of emperor and be content with the title of despot.

In 1246, Vatatzes made very important acquisitions in Europe at the expense of the Bulgarians, at the same time he approached Thessalonica and took it, capturing its last despot Demetrius. After the capture of Thessalonica, no one could challenge the Nicene emperor for the right to rule in the Hellenic world.

The last deed of John Vatatzes was a campaign against the Despot of Epirus Michael II, who in 1254 was forced to recognize the power of the Nicene emperor over himself.

3. Capture of Constantinople

Coin issued by Michael VIII Palaiologos to commemorate the liberation of Constantinople from the Latin army and the restoration of the Byzantine Empire.

On the death of Vatatzes in 1254, his son Theodore II Laskaris succeeded to the throne of Nicaea.

The Bulgarian Tsar Michael I Asen thought to take advantage of the death of Vatats in order to regain the Macedonian regions, but was defeated and had to make peace. It was much more difficult for Laskaris to succeed in the war with Epirus. Here the main role belonged to Michael Palaiologos, first a skilled general under Vatazes and Theodore II, and then, from 1259, the Emperor of Nicaea. Palaiologos was declared only co-ruler of the legitimate heir to the throne, John IV, but soon removed him from power, blinded him and imprisoned him in a fortress.

The state of the Nicaean Empire favored Michael's plans. He had a well-organized army, the mountain dwellers of Phrygia and Bithynia bringing forth brave and stout recruits. The arrows of Nicaea were famous throughout the Greek army. The economic situation of the empire, thanks to continued internal peace and good administration, improved significantly.

Meanwhile, in the states neighboring Nicaea, a process of decomposition was gradually taking place. The Iconian Sultanate was completely weakened, divided into many small possessions and was busy with an internal war. The Latin Empire was not in the best condition. Baldwin II lived in Constantinople with funds he had begged from the pope and from St. Louis, took away decorations from churches and monasteries and borrowed money from Venetian bankers, to whom he provided all the country's economic resources. He had no troops, the Venetians kept the garrison in Constantinople, the very existence of the Latin Empire depended on whether the Europeans would come at a dangerous moment to save it. Domestic wars took place between Asen's successors, the Bulgarian Tsar Konstantin I Tikh was not able to impede the plans of the Nicaean emperor.

The only serious danger was from Epirus. Although Epirus was not an ethnographically homogeneous country (Slavs, Vlachs, Albanians, Greeks), the militant nature of the Epirus population made the Epirus despot a very dangerous neighbor. Without leaving his claims to Thessalonica, he entered into an alliance with Manfred of Sicily and Vilgarduen, Duke of Achaea. The allied army was, however, completely defeated by the Nicenes in 1259. The winners took possession of Yanina and Arta. Although in the next 1260 the Nicene army was defeated by the despot of Epirus, this did not prevent Michael from acting decisively. Taking advantage of the fact that Venice was occupied by the war with Genoa, Michael went to Constantinople with all haste, having neither ramming machines nor a convoy, apparently he had the hope that the city would be surrendered to him without resistance. When it was discovered that a siege had to be undertaken, Palaiologos was forced to retreat, concluding a truce with Baldwin for one year.

In the spring of 1261, Michael concluded an alliance (Treaty of Nymphaeum) with Genoa, which he granted extensive trading rights, to the detriment of the Venetians, and negotiated the help of the Genoese fleet to conquer Constantinople. He sent the experienced general Alexios Stratigopoulos to Europe, who entered into negotiations with the Greek population in the immediate vicinity of Constantinople, received accurate information about what was happening in the city among the Latins, and, after the expiration of the truce, moved to Constantinople, from where the Venetian garrison had just was transferred to the ships, with the aim of attacking the Genoese.

On the night of July 25, 1261, Stratigopulo approached the walls of Constantinople, set up ladders, entered the city without noise and took possession of it almost without resistance. Emperor Baldwin fled to Euboea. Only the Venetians and part of the Latins tried to defend themselves in Galata, but Stratigopulo set fire to this part of the city and deprived the Latins of any point of support, they also hurried to board ships and flee. On August 15, 1261, Michael Palaiologos solemnly entered Constantinople and was crowned in the church of St. Sophia.

4. After the capture of Constantinople

After the capture of Constantinople, Nicaea loses its important capital significance and becomes an ordinary provincial city of Byzantium. Gradually, the lands of the former Nicaean Empire were captured by the Ottoman Turks (starting from 1282), and by 1330 the territory of the former Nicaean Empire became the core of the young and aggressive Ottoman state.

5. List of Nicene Emperors

Theodore I Laskaris (Θεόδωρος Α" Λάσκαρης) ( ruled in 1206 - 1221/22)

John III Duka Vatatzes (Ιωάννης Γ" Δούκας Βατάτζης) ( ruled 1221/22 - 1254)

Theodore II Laskaris (Θεόδωρος Β" Λάσκαρης) ( reigned 1254 - 1257)

John IV Laskaris (Ιωάννης Δ "Λάσκαρης) ( reigned 1258 - 1259)

Michael VIII Palaiologos (Μιχαήλ Η΄ Παλαιολόγος) ( ruled from 1259 - 1261)

Literature

Averintsev S. S. Period of the Nicaean Empire: (Byzantine literature) // History of world literature: In 9 volumes / USSR Academy of Sciences; Institute of world literature. them. A. M. Gorky. - M .: Science, 1983- ... Volume 2 (1984). - S. 359-360.

Vasiliev A. A. History of the Byzantine Empire. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 1998. Volume 2, chapter 2.

· Zhavoronkov P. I. Empire of Nicaea and the West // Byzantine temporary, Issue. 36, 1974.

· Zhavoronkov P. I. At the origins of the formation of the Nicaean Empire (assessment of the activities of Constantine XI Laskar) // Byzantine temporary, Issue. 38, 1977.

· Zhavoronkov P.I. Empire of Nicaea and the East // Byzantine temporary, Issue. 39, 1978, pp. 93-97.

· Zhavoronkov P. I. Culture of the Nicaean Empire // Byzantine culture. XIII - first half of the XV century. M.: "Nauka", 1991, p.64.

Angold, M. A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society under the Lascarides of Nicaea (1204-1261). Oxford, 1975.

Finlay, George. A History of Greece from its Conquest…. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1877. (vol. III, History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders to its Conquest by the Turks);

Gardner, Alice. The Lascarides of Nicaea. The Story of an Empire in Exile. London, 1912.

Norwich, John Julius. A Short History of Byzantium. London: Viking, 1998. ISBN 0-00-686175-X.

· Παπαρρηγοπουλου, "Ίστορία τοΰ uέλληνικοΰ εθνους" (Athens, 1887, vols IV-V).

When writing this article, material from the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron (1890-1907) was used.