Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Κωνσταντινούπολη

1. Τhe Latin Empire of Constantinople

1.1. Partitio Romaniae

The Latin Empire in Constantinople was founded after the fall of the City to the army of the crusaders of the Forth Crusade. It consisted mainly of west European knights (from Flanders, Burgundy and the German lands) and Venetians, who participated with their fleet and were under the orders of their Doge Enrico Dandolo (1192-1205). Long before the ultimate conquest of the city the crusaders (west European knights and Venetians) entered into an agreement (Partitio Romaniae) on the subsequent division of the territories of the Byzantine Empire. It stipulated that 3/8 of the city and of the conquered Byzantine territories were to be under the rule of Venice and its doge. The newly elected Emperor was entitled to ¼ of the city and the territories of Byzantium. Among the other provisions of the agreement, which defined the future organisation of the Latin empire, the following were important: (a) the manner in which the emperor was to be elected – by a council of 12 people, with equal number of representatives from the Venetians and the knights; (b) the party which would not choose the emperor was given the right to choose the Latin patriarch in Constantinople; (c) a committee of 24 people from both parties distributed the fiefs (they were absolute and free property, inheritable in the male and female line of descent) afterwards; (d) enemies of Venice were not admitted within the boundaries of the Empire in times of war and the Doge was not to swear allegiance to the emperor. This agreement continued after the conquest of the city in autumn 1204, and it specifically defined which territories belonged to whom of the leaders of the crusade.¹

1.2. The fall of Constantinople and the distribution of the spoils

The siege of the city lasted from June 1203 to 12 April 1204. During that time fires were ignited three times and they caused big damages, especially in the trade quarters around the Golden Horn, including the centre of the town in close proximity to Hagia Sophia and the palaces.² The fall of Constantinople itself is described in detail by a lot of contemporary Byzantine authors (most notably by Niketas Choniates)³ and by crusaders (Geoffroi de Villehardouin,⁴Robert de Clary⁵). We learn from them that after the conquest and the initial pillage, which lasted for three days, the spoils were piled in three churches and then distributed among crusaders. They consisted mainly of objects of great value –church vessels made of gold and silver– as well as of works of art, fabrics, and precious stones. Their value amounted to around 400,000 silver marks. From this sum – 50,000 were paid to the Venetians, pursuant a preliminary contract (according to Geoffroi de Villehardouin).⁶ The rest of it was distributed among the knights and the Venetians. The number of the knights is uncertain – it is accepted that they were approximately around 35,000, and the Venetians were 17,000. The sack of the city and the destruction of its monuments continued in the following months. Niketas Choniates tells in a separate account, added at the end of his history, about the smelting and the destruction of the numerous bronze statues located near the Hippodrome and the city’s squares, as well as about the stealing of architectural and construction elements.⁷

The relics kept in the numerous churches of Constantinople were of the greatest value. Priceless relics were loaded into ships and sent to the West (the Mandylion, a piece of the True Cross, parts of the thorn-wreath of Christ, relics of saints, among which those of St Athanasius, St. Simon, etc.); so did icons, consecrated chalices and church vessels made of gold and silver, parts of mosaics, marble columns, statues (among which were the famous horses adorning the façade of Saint Marc at Venice), expensive fabrics and clothes, even slaves and cattle. The transfer of these riches to Venice, Paris and other cities of Western Europe continued during the following years, though to a smaller extent. In 1238, under Baldwin II, the empress mother pawned the thorn-wreath to the Venetian podestà Alberto Morosini for the sum of 13,134 hyperpera. It was redeemed by the French King Louis IX the Saint together with other relics from the church of Theotokos of Pharos in Constantinople, and they were taken to the Sainte Chapelle in Paris; some of them were later transferred in the treasury of Notre Dame de Paris.

1.3. Latin emperors

The emperors of the Latin Empire followed the traditions of the Byzantine imperial ceremonial and were crowned in the St. Sofia church. Some of the basic insignia of power were also borrowed from Byzantium. Titulature for feudal lords were also changed under the influence of the Byzantine system (for example “despotes”). Emperors also founded their chancellery which used Latin, but the official documents followed the pattern of Byzantine charters. In some area of state administration like coin minting, tax and fiscal legislation the Byzantine model was also followed.

The first Latin emperor Baldwin, count of Flanders was crowned on 16 May 1204, although Boniface, marquis of Montferrat came to the fore during the crusade. Some late Venetians sources tell that a pretender for the throne was Dandolo himself. Baldwin І was young and had the trust of the army but his reign was short-lived. In 1205 or 1206 death found him in Bulgarian captivity, after his defeat by the Bulgarians at the decisive battle at Adrianople in April 1205, less than a year after his coronation. For a comparatively long period of time, the Empire was governed by his brother Henry, count of Flanders and subsequent crowned emperor; he was succeeded by Robert of Courtenay, the husband of their sister Yolande. These emperors with unremarkable deeds and short-lived power could hardly sustain the existence of the Latin empire, which lacked its own army and fleet, and relied entirely on support from Venice, which in its turn had actively begun to build its own colonial empire and started to conquer islands, cities and territories.

2. Distribution of palaces, churches and the territory of the city. Demographic changes

The first Latin emperor Baldwin was accommodated in the Boukoleon palace (according to Villehardouin⁸ and Clary⁹), and the palace in Blachernai was occupied by his brother Henry. The Great Palace had remained empty and neglected. Niceophore Gregoras gives an account of its deplorable state in 1261.¹⁰ Hagia Sofia became the see of the Latin patriarch who was the Venetian Tommaso Morosini. By the order of Pope Innocent III, he appointed many priests who acknowledged the primacy of the pope despite the fact that a lot of churches and monasteries kept their Orthodox priests. Hagia Sofia had Venetian clergymen and was under their rule. Of the remaining Constantinople churches the following went under the control of Catholic priests: Holy Apostles, St. George, the Pantokrator monastery (belonging to the Venetians), Virgin Mary of Blachernai and many other churches, a total of about 50. Around 30 churches were given to Baldwin, plus several others which were given to the Pisans. Papal legates (first of them was Benoit cardinal of St. Susana) donated churches and monasteries to various religious orders: the Hospitallers (St. Samson), the Benedictines (St. Mary of Virgiotis). The Franciscans took over the Virgin Kyriotissa church (modern day Kalenderhane camii) at some point after 1220. Fragments of frescoes and scenes from the life of St. Francis, made by a Western artist have been preserved and uncovered.¹¹ Despite all the efforts the church fell into decline in the course of time and in 1261 it had to be totally renovated.

At the time of the Latin empire a great part of the Greek population of the city migrated from it at the expense of the knights, the merchants and ordinary people coming from the West in search of fortune and living. The general state of the city was that of desertion and decline and it lost its lustre as a capital. There was no strong imperial power and aristocratic class which could play the role of patrons and donors to the ecclesiastic and the secular institutions of the city.

3. Venetian rule of the city

The Venetians were given the most important part of the city – between Mese, the main street, and the Golden Horn. The Monastery of Christ Pantocrator became the seat of their power. The death of the Doge Enrico Dandolo (buried in Hagia Sophia), who was quite old at that time, came shortly after the ill fated battle of Adrianople in April 1205. Moderator of the Venetians became podestà Marino Zeno. He acted as an equal to the Latin emperor and they signed jointly documents and agreements in red ink. He even entered into independent agreements in the third decade of the ХІІІ c. The council, established by the emperor, included 12 people – six from the Venetians and six from the barons. This was the highest consultative body of the new power. The Podestà (this title was into effect until 1261) had political, military and judicial functions. There is evidence that the first podestà carried out construction works in the city. The Venetians extended their power not only to their former trade quarter but beyond it as well thus making it considerably bigger.¹² In addition to this the podestà made huge donations to the Venetian patriarch in Grado and to other churches and monasteries in Venice. Thus for example the ship wharves on the Golden Horn and the fishing wharves were granted to San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice. The Venetians – having already become moderators of a considerable part of the city conducted vigorous trade activity. At the time of the Latin empire they became the ultimate rulers of the Eastern Mediterranean.

1. Thomas G., Tafel G., Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante. 1. Theil (814-1205) (Wien 1856, repr. Amsterdam 1964), pp. 445-452; Carile, A., "Partitio terrarium imperii Romanie", Studi veneziani 7 (1965), pp. 125-305.

2. Madden, T. F., “The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, 1203–1204: A Damage Assessment,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84/85 (1991–92), pp. 72–93. – see map on р. 93.

3. O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniates, (ed.) H.G. Magoulias (Detroit 1984), pp. 311-320.

4. Villehardouin, La Conquête de Constantinople (ed.) E. Faral (Paris 1939), vol II, § 232-251.

5. Robert de Clary, La prise de Constantinople (ed.) Ch. Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romaines inedites ou peu connues (Berlin 1873), pp. 1-85.

6. Villehardouin, La Conquête de Constantinople (ed.) E. Faral (Paris 1939), vol II, § 254.

7. O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniates, (ed.) H.G. Magoulias (Detroit 1984), pp. 321-355 (p. 327 “They sent gates of the City to their fellow country men in Syria, as well as pieces of the chain that had been stretched across the harbor blocking its entrance, and the dispatched messengers everywhere to announce the city’s fall”).

8. Villehardouin, La Conquête de Constantinople (ed.) E. Faral (Paris 1939), vol II § 263.

9. Robert de Clary, La prise de Constantinople (ed.) Ch. Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romaines inedites ou peu connues (Berlin 1873), pp. 73.

10. Nicephori Gregorae Historia Byzantina, vol. I, Shopen, L. (ed.), Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonnae 1829), liber IV.2.6, p. 87 - line 22-23.

11. Striker, C.L. - Kuban, Y.D. (eds), Kalenderhane Camii in Istanbul: The Buildings, their History, Architecture and Decoration (Mainz 1997), pp. 128-42. Jacoby, D., "The Urban Evolution of Latin Constantinople (1204-1261)" in Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life (ed.) N. Negipoglu (Leiden-Boston-Köln 2001), p. 289.

12. Jacoby, D., "The Urban Evolution of Latin Constantinople (1204-1261)" in Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life (ed.) N. Negipoglu (Leiden-Boston-Köln 2001), pp. 277-297.