Greatest Emperor (of Byzantium)

Emperor Alexios I.  Fought the Turks defeated the Normans twice and played the Crusaders like fools.

Edited by Basileus - 11-May-2008 at 14:33

That 'precaution' caused the first army to cross to Bosphorus to be annihilated, he also bribed Pechenegs to mess up the mobility of the Crusaders in the Balkans, not forgeting that Byzantium re acquired a lot of terrortory because of the 'Crusade'.

Add that Alexius also warned them of the Turks' capabilities and they laughed at him.

Originally posted by Praetor I voted for Basil II quite possibly the best statesman Byzantium ever had, an excellent military commander but also an able Administrater, governor and refomer who left the empire far larger and more secure then it was when he ascended the throne and yet at the end of his reign the empire still had a full treasury. He rose from Puppet emperor to an emperor whose control of the empire was more absolute then the majority of his predesesors gaining ascendency over powerful generals and the landed aristocracy that they represented and wrested power from powerful ministers. He was one of the most well rounded of Byzantium's emperors and perhaps among them demonstrated the greatest self-discipline.

I totally agree. I voted as well for Basil II.

Indeed. Alexius asked for help from the Pope as sort of a representative of W. Europe for mercenaries. For him a religiously guided force was more an inconvenience than what was sought after. Mercenaries would have been far more useful in his mind. Hence why he asked for that. The events that unfolded however added to W. Europe's recent population explosion, papal centrism, ... just added more steam toward a religiously fueled crusade.

Alexius did not use the Crusaders. He knew where they were headed, he assisted them with Turcopoles and guides. They were there in the first place to help him out as a fellow Christian. In addition to going to Jerusalem.


"From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, ..."

"The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismemberd by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it cannot be traversed in a march of two motnhs. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this terrtory incumbent, if not upon you?"[1]


"We have heard, most beloved brethren, and you have heard what we cannot recount without deep sorrow - how, with great hurt and dire sufferings our Christian brothers, members in Christ, are scourged, oppressed, and injured in Jerusalem, in Antich, and the other cities of the East. "
"If, forsooth, you wish to be mindful of your souls, either lay down the girdle of such knighthood, or advance boldly, as knights of Christ, and rush as quickly as you can to the defence of the Eastern Church." [2]

"... the Roman pope Urban came to Angers and exhorted our people to go to Jerusalem in order to hunt the pagan people who had occupied this city and all of the lands of the Christians as far as Constantinople." [3]
"5. I speak to those present, I send word to those not here; moreover, Christ commands it. Remission of sins will be granted for those going thither, if they end a schackled life either on land or in crossing the sea, or in struggling against the heathen. I, bieng vested with that gift from God, grant this to those who go." [4]

Here we have four different accounts of the proclamation of which we have no real contemporary account off. In all four versions Pope Urban is asking the Christians in the West to embark for the East and help the Christians there from Constantinople to Jerusalem.

Fulcher also reports on the first expedition that had a tragic end after crossing over to Anatolia.

"We hastened then to the city of Nicaea, which Lord Bohemond, Duke Godfrey, Count Raymond, and the count of Flanders had already surrounded in siege by the middle of May. The Oriental Turks, very keeen archers and bowmen, then possessed this city. These Turks from Persia, after they had crossed the Euphrates River fifty years before, subjugated the whole land of Romania for themsleves as far as the city of Nicomedia.
5. Oh, how many severed heads and bones of the dead lying on the plains did we find beyond Nicomedia near that sea! In the preceding year, the Turks destroyed those who were ignorant of and new to the use of the arrow. Moved to compasin by this, we hsed many tears there." [5]

This clearly shows the naive nature of the first expedition by Peter. They were no ready and rushed themsleves into sure death. Notice, too, that he does not blame Alexius. This is not usual for chroniclers of Crusades, Odo of Deuil, Geoffrey de Villehardouin, and Robert of Clari for example all have a very strong bias toward the Greeks. "Even though the Greeks furnished no proof of their treachery we still knew they were" paraphrased qoute from Odo of Deuil's work.

"Then the Turks let in the Turcopoles, sent there by the Emperor, who guarded the city with the money in it on behalf of the Emperor just as he had commanded them. Because he kept all of that mone n his possession, the Emperor gave some of his own gold and silver and mantles to our nobles: he also distibuted some of his coppper coins, which they call tartarons, to the foodsoldiers." [6]

Fulcher has no qualms with Alexius taking the city. Also the nobles and footsoldiers were recompensated for not having loot. Personal gifts from their lord was welcomed. The leaders after all became vassals of the Emperor.

"... then our leaders, after counsel, agreed upon a contract under oath with the Emperor, upon his demand. Aleady Lord Bohemond and Duke Godfrey, who had preceded us, had taken it. However, Count Raymond at that time refused to do so. The count of Flanders, just as the others did, took that same oath.
It was necessary for all to confirm friendship with the Emperor, without whose counsel and aid we could not have completed our journey, nor could those who were to follow us on that same road. To these, then, the Emperor himself offered as many coins and silken garments as he pleased; aslosome horses and some money, which they needed to complete sucha great journy."









[1]From Speech of Urban: The Version of Robert of Theims. Peters, Edward. The First Crusade.
[2]From Speech of Urban: The Version of Baldric of Dol.
[3]From Chronicle of Fulk le Rechin, 1096AD.
[4]Fulcher of Chartres. Pg. 53, Peters, First Crusade.
[5]Fulcher of Chartres. Pg. 63.
[6]Fulcher. Pg. 65.

If he had kept his vassal status and not provoked the Ottomans who put him in the position to be Emperor then he probably would have kept the city instead of dying defending it.

At the expense of his on personal honor I guess. The Empire aspect of it had been brought to an end already long before him.