Podestà of Constantinople

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Podestà of Constantinople
Formation1205
First holder
1261

The Podestà of Constantinople was the official in charge of Venetian possessions in the Latin Empire and the Venetian quarter of Constantinople during the 13th century. Nominally a vassal to the Latin Emperor, the Podestà functioned as a ruler in his own right, and answered to the Doge of Venice. The podestà was also officially known as Governor of One-Fourth and One-Half of the Empire of Romania and was entitled to wearing the crimson buskins as the emperors.[1]

History

Background

The Venetians had enjoyed their own quarter in the Byzantine capital of Constantinople since the 1082 chrysobull of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos.[2] How that colony was governed is unknown; most likely it elected its own local elders, but occasionally consuls sent from Venice, or passing captains of the Venetian fleet, may have assumed some political responsibility.[3]

The Venetian position in Constantinople was immensely strengthened as a result of the

Baldwin of Flanders, as the first Latin Emperor.[4] Dandolo himself remained in Constantinople and received the exalted Byzantine title of Despot. Until his death on 29 May 1205, in the aftermath of the disastrous Battle of Adrianople, he remained the ruler of the local Venetians, and one of the most important statesmen of the Latin Empire.[5]

Establishment of the office

The Latin Empire with its vassals (in yellow) and the Greek successor states of the Byzantine Empire (in red) and Venetian possessions (in green), c. 1214

After Dandolo's death, the Venetians of Constantinople elected Marino Zeno as 'By the Grace of God Podestà and lord of one quarter and one half [quarter] of the whole Empire of Romania' in the Doge's stead.[6][7] The use of such lofty titles was also a stake for influence given the existing power vacuum in the Latin Empire following Adrianople.[8]

Already in the first act of the new official, dated 29 June 1205, he appears with his own

Pantokrator Monastery complex.[10] According to the 16th-century historian Daniele Barbaro, for a while after Dandolo's death it was seriously considered to move the capital of the Republic from Venice to Constantinople. Although in all probability a later invention, it is an indication of the size and eminence of the Venetian community in Constantinople become at this time,[11][12] as well as the dominant role the Venetians played in the affairs of the Latin Empire.[13]

When

Duchy of Naxos, were thus subordinated directly to the Latin Emperor.[16]

After 1207, the title 'Lord of one fourth and one half of the Empire of Romania' (dominator quartae partis et dimidiae Imperii Romaniae) was applied to the Doge rather than the Podestà, who became simply 'the Podestà of the Venetians in Constantinople' (in Constantinopoli Venetorum Potestas). The Doges retained that title until the 1358

Treaty of Zara, and although some of the Podestàs used it, it was only in their capacity as the Doge's representative.[17][18]

Position within the Latin Empire

Based on an agreement concluded in October 1205, the Podestà and his councillors (consiliarii) formed part of the executive council (consilium) of the Latin Empire, which was responsible for defence and foreign policy matters, as well as adjudicating disputes between the Emperor and his feudal lieges, alongside the Emperor and the 'Frankish magnates' (magnates Francigenarum).[19] However, the Venetian position was ambiguous: as Filip Van Tricht explains, Venice was "at one and the same time an independent state and a feudal partner in the empire".[20] Thus the Podestà conducted his own negotiations and concluded trade agreements with neighbouring rulers, although this independence did not extend to other areas of foreign policy, and the commercial agreements appear to have been largely aligned with the Latin Empire's policy at the time.[20]

The tension between Venice and the Emperor is evident in the frequent attempts by the emperors and powerful barons of the Latin Empire to intrude in nominally Venetian jurisdictions, and restrict and even revert Venetian claims and rights deriving from the Empire's foundational treaties of 1204–1205.[21] This tendency arose very quickly: already by 1208, the executive council stipulated in 1205 had ceased to play its intended role, and the Emperor ceased involving the Podestà or the Venetians in his decisions.[22] This development was aided on the one hand by the stabilization of the Empire's military situation after its catastrophic early years, and by the relative weakness of the Podestà and his councillors, given their brief and circumscribed tenures, vis-a-vis the Emperor and his barons.[23]

Abolition and aftermath

In 1261, when Constantinople was

Treaty of 1265/68 with Palaiologos, under which the Venetians were allowed to return, and the subsequent treaties, the Venetian colony in the city was now headed by an official known as the Bailo (baiulus or rector).[24]

List of known Podestàs

See also

References

  1. ^ Hazlitt, William Carew. The Venetian Republic: Its Rise, Its Growth, and Its Fall 421–1797. Vol. 1, A. And C. Black, 1900.
  2. ^ Wolff 1952, p. 539.
  3. ^ Wolff 1952, p. 540.
  4. ^ Wolff 1952, pp. 541–543.
  5. ^ Wolff 1952, pp. 543–544.
  6. ^ Wolff 1952, p. 544.
  7. ^ Marin 2004, pp. 121, 125.
  8. ^ Van Tricht 2011, pp. 175–176.
  9. ^ Wolff 1952, p. 545.
  10. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 36–38.
  11. ^ Wolff 1952, pp. 545–546.
  12. ^ Madden 2012, p. 130.
  13. ^ Marin 2004, p. 120.
  14. ^ Wolff 1952, p. 547.
  15. ^ Wolff 1952, pp. 547–549.
  16. ^ Wolff 1952, p. 550.
  17. ^ Wolff 1952, pp. 550–551.
  18. ^ Marin 2004, pp. 125–126, 146–149.
  19. ^ Van Tricht 2011, pp. 54–55, 251.
  20. ^ a b Van Tricht 2011, p. 192.
  21. ^ Van Tricht 2011, pp. 215–216.
  22. ^ Van Tricht 2011, pp. 217, 252.
  23. ^ Van Tricht 2011, p. 251.
  24. ^ a b Wolff 1952, p. 558.
  25. ^ a b c Wolff 1952, p. 559.
  26. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 66–67.
  27. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 67–68.
  28. ^ Jacoby 2006, p. 68.
  29. ^ Wolff 1952, p. 560.
  30. ^ a b Jacoby 2006, p. 69.
  31. ^ a b c Wolff 1952, p. 561.
  32. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 69–70.
  33. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 70–71.
  34. ^ a b c d Wolff 1952, p. 562.
  35. ^ Jacoby 2006, p. 71.
  36. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 71–72.
  37. ^ Jacoby 2006, p. 72.
  38. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 72–73.
  39. ^ a b c Wolff 1952, p. 563.
  40. ^ Jacoby 2006, p. 73.
  41. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 73–75.
  42. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 75–76.
  43. ^ Jacoby 2006, p. 76.
  44. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 76–77.
  45. ^ a b Jacoby 2006, p. 77.
  46. ^ a b Wolff 1952, p. 564.
  47. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 77–78.
  48. ^ Jacoby 2006, pp. 78–79.

Sources

  • Jacoby, David (2006). "The Venetian Government and Administration in Latin Constantinople, 1204–1261: A State within a State". In Gherardo Ortalli; Giorgio Ravegnani; Peter Schreiner (eds.). Quarta Crociata. Venezia - Bisanzio - Impero latino. Atti delle giornate di studio. Venezia, 4-8 maggio 2004. Venice: Istituto veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti. pp. 19–79. .
  • .
  • Marin, Şerban (2004). "Dominus quartae partis et dimidiae totius imperii Romaniae: The Fourth Crusade and the Dogal Title in the Venetian Chronicles' Representation". Quaderni della Casa Romena di Venezia. 3: 119–150.
  • Van Tricht, Filip (2011). The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium: The Empire of Constantinople (1204–1228). Leiden: Brill. .
  • Wolff, Robert Lee (1952). "A New Document from the Period of the Latin Empire of Constantinople: The Oath of the Venetian Podesta". Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves. 12: 539–573.

Further reading

  • Jacoby, David (1993). "The Venetian Presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204-1261): the Challenge of Feudalism and the Byzantine Inheritance". Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik. 43: 141–201.
  • Jacoby, David (2001). "The Venetian Quarter of Constantinople from 1082 to 1261: Topographical Considerations". In Claudia Sode; Sarolta Takács (eds.). Novum Millennium: Studies on Byzantine History and Culture dedicated to Paul Speck. Aldershot: Ashgate. pp. 153–170. .