Treaty of Devol
The Treaty of Devol (
At the beginning of the
Under the terms of the Treaty, Bohemond agreed to become a vassal of the Emperor and to defend the Empire whenever needed. He also accepted the appointment of a
The Treaty of Devol is viewed as a typical example of the Byzantine tendency to settle disputes through diplomacy rather than warfare, and was both a result of and a cause for the distrust between the Byzantines and their Western European neighbors.
Background
In 1097, the Crusader armies assembled at Constantinople having traveled in groups eastward through Europe. Alexios I, who had requested only some western knights to serve as
By 1100, there were several
Bohemond added a further insult to both Alexios and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1100 when he appointed Bernard of Valence as the
Bohemond's
Settlements
In September 1108, Alexios requested that Bohemond negotiate with him at the imperial camp at Diabolis (Devol). Bohemond had no choice but to accept, now that his disease-stricken army would no longer be able to defeat Alexios in battle. He admitted that he had violated the oath sworn in 1097,[16] but refused to acknowledge that it had any bearing on the present circumstances, as Alexios, in Bohemond's eyes, had also violated the agreement by turning back from the siege of Antioch in 1098. Alexios agreed to consider the oaths of 1097 invalid.[17] The specific terms of the treaty were negotiated by the general Nikephoros Bryennios, and were recorded by Anna Komnene:[18]
- Bohemond agreed to become a vassal of the emperor, and also of Alexios' son and heir John;[19]
- He agreed to help defend the empire, wherever and whenever he was required to do so, and agreed to an annual payment of 200 talentsin return for this service;
- He was given the title of sebastos, as well as doux (duke) of Antioch;
- He was granted as imperial fiefs Antioch and Aleppo (the latter of which neither the Crusaders nor the Byzantines controlled, but it was understood that Bohemond should try to conquer it);
- He agreed to return Laodicea and other Cilician territories to Alexios;
- He agreed to let Alexios appoint a Greek patriarch "among the disciples of the great church of Constantinople" (The restoration of the Greek Patriarch marked the acceptance of submission to the empire, but posed canonical questions, which were difficult to resolve[20]).[21]
The terms were negotiated according to Bohemond's western understanding, so that he saw himself as a feudal vassal of Alexios, a "liege man" (homo ligius or ἄνθρωπος λίζιος) with all the obligations this implied, as customary in the West: he was obliged to bring military assistance to the Emperor, except in wars in which he was involved, and to serve him against all his enemies, in Europe and in Asia.[22]
Anna Komnene described the proceedings with very repetitive details, with Bohemond frequently pointing out his own mistakes and praising the benevolence of Alexios and the Empire; the proceedings must have been rather humiliating for Bohemond. On the other hand, Anna's work was meant to praise her father and the terms of the treaty may not be entirely accurate.
"I swear to thee, our most powerful and holy Emperor, the Lord Alexios Komnenos, and to thy fellow-Emperor, the much-desired Lord John Porphyrogenitos that I will observe all the conditions to which I have agreed and spoken by my mouth and will keep them inviolate for all time and the things that are for the good of your Empire I care for now and will for ever care for and I will never harbor even the slightest thought of hatred or treachery towards you ... and everything that is for the benefit and honor of the Roman rule that I will both think of and execute. Thus may I enjoy the help of God, and of the Cross and of the holy Gospels." |
Oath sworn by Bohemond, concluding the Treaty of Devol, as recorded by Anna Komnene[23] |
The oral agreement was written down in two copies, one given to Alexios, and the other given to Bohemond. According to Anna, the witnesses from Bohemond's camp who signed his copy of the treaty were Maurus,
Neither copy survives. It may have been written in
Analysis
The Treaty was weighted in Alexios' favor and provided for the eventual absorption of Antioch and its territory into the Empire.[27] Alexios, recognizing the impossibility of driving Bohemond out of Antioch, tried to absorb him into the structure of Byzantine rule, and put him to work for the Empire's benefit.[28] Bohemond was to retain Antioch until his death with the title of doux, unless the emperor (either Alexios or, in the future, John) chose for any reason to renege on the deal. The principality would revert to direct Byzantine rule on Bohemond's death. Bohemond therefore could not set up a dynasty in Antioch, although he was guaranteed the right to pass on to his heirs the County of Edessa, and any other territories he managed to acquire in the Syrian interior.[27]
Bohemond's lands were to include St Simeon and the coast, the towns of
The terms of the Treaty have been interpreted in various ways. According to Paul Magdalino and Ralph-Johannes Lilie, "the Treaty as reproduced by Anna Komnene shows an astonishing familiarity with western feudal custom; whether it was drafted by a Greek or by a Latin in imperial service, it had a sensitive regard for the western view of the status quo in the East Mediterranean."[31] So too did the diplomatic initiatives Alexios undertook, in order to enforce the Treaty on Tancred (such as the treaty he concluded with Pisa in 1110–1111, and the negotiations for Church union with Pascal II in 1112).[32] In contrast, Asbridge has recently argued that the Treaty derived from Greek as well as western precedents, and that Alexios wished to regard Antioch as falling under the umbrella of pronoia arrangements.[29]
Aftermath
Bohemond never returned to Antioch (he went to Sicily where he died in 1111), and the carefully constructed clauses of the Treaty were never implemented.[33] Bohemond's nephew, Tancred, refused to honor the Treaty.[11] In his mind, Antioch was his by right of conquest. He saw no reason to hand it over to someone who had not been involved in the Crusade, and had indeed actively worked against it (as the Crusaders believed). The Crusaders seem to have felt Alexios had tricked Bohemond into giving him Antioch; they already believed Alexios was devious and untrustworthy and this may have confirmed their beliefs. The treaty referred to Tancred as the illegal holder of Antioch, and Alexios had expected Bohemond to expel him or somehow control him. Tancred also did not allow a Greek Patriarch to enter the city; instead, Greek Patriarchs were appointed in Constantinople and nominally held power there.[citation needed]
The question of the status of Antioch and the adjacent Cilician cities troubled the Empire for many years afterwards. Although the Treaty of Devol never came into effect, it provided the legal basis for Byzantine negotiations with the crusaders for the next thirty years, and for imperial claims to Antioch during the reigns of
It was not until 1158, during the reign of Manuel I, that Antioch truly became a vassal of the empire, after Manuel forced Prince Raynald of Châtillon to swear fealty to him in punishment for Raynald's attack on Byzantine Cyprus.[41] The Greek Patriarch was restored, and ruled simultaneously with the Latin Patriarch.[42] Antioch, weakened by powerless regents after Raynald's capture by the Muslims in 1160, remained a Byzantine vassal state until 1182 when internal divisions following Manuel's death in 1180 hindered the Empire's ability to enforce its claim.[citation needed]
In the Balkan frontier, the Treaty of Deabolis marked the end of the Norman threat to the southern
Notes
- ^ Spinka, Latin Church of the Early Crusades, 113
- ^ Anna Komnene, The Alexiad, X, 261
- ^ Runciman, The First Crusade, 98
- ^ Runciman, The First Crusade, 182-3
- ^ Runciman, The First Crusade, 183
- ^ Anna Komnene, The Alexiad, XI, 291
- ^ Raymond of Aguilers (III, 67) reports that Raymond de St.-Gilles opposed Bohemond's retention of Antioch on the ground that "we swore to the Emperor upon the Cross of the Lord and the crown of thorns, and upon many other sacred objects, that we would not retain without his will any city or fortress of all that belonged to his Empire." Nevertheless, after the capture of Antioch, the oath of allegiance was in the end repudiated (Spinka, Latin Church of the Early Crusades, 113).
- ^ a b c M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1118, 251
- ^ John IV of Antioch initially stayed in Antioch after the Crusaders captured his city, and presided over both Greek and Latin clergy. He later quarreled with Bohemond, fled to Constantinople and abdicated (T.M. Kolbaba, Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious "Errors", 126).
- ^ Runciman, The First Crusade, 232
- ^ a b J. Norwich, Byzantium:The Decline and Fall, 46
- ^ Modern scholars argue that Bohemond's planned attack on Epirus was kept secret from the Pope, who thought that he intended to launch a campaign in the Levant (J.G. Rowe, Paschal II, 181; J. Holifield, Tancred and Bohemond, 17).
- ^ Anna Komnene, The Alexiad, XII, 317
* M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1118, 251
* Norwich, Byzantium:The Decline and Fall, 47 - ^ Norwich, Byzantium:The Decline and Fall, 48
- ^ M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1118, 251
* S. Runciman, The First Crusade, 232 - ^ Anna Komnene, The Alexiad, XIII, 348–349
* Norwich, Byzantium:The Decline and Fall, 48 - ^ The only clause of Alexios and Bohemond's previous agreement that was not declared void was the latter's swearing "liege-homage" to Alexios (Anna Komnene, The Alexiad, XIII, 349).
- ^ Anna Komnene, The Alexiad, XIII, 348–358
- ^ Anna Komnene, The Alexiad, XIII, 349–350
* Norwich, Byzantium:The Decline and Fall, 48 - ^ J. Richard, The Crusades, c.1071 – c.1291, 131
- ^ Anna Komnene, The Alexiad, XIII, 354–355
* Norwich, Byzantium:The Decline and Fall, 48 - ^ a b J. Richard, The Crusades, c.1071 – c.1291, 130
- ^ Anna Komnene, The Alexiad, XIII, 357
- ^ Anna Komnene, The Alexiad, XIII, 357–358
- ^ A. Kazhdan, Latins and Franks in Byzantium, 93–94
- ^ Fulcher of Chartres, Expedition to Jerusalem, XXXV
- ^ a b P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 31–32
- ^ A. Jotischky, Crusading and the Crusader States, 69
P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 33 - ^ a b A. Jotischky, Crusading and the Crusader States, 69
- ^ J.W. Birkenmeier, The Development of the Komnenian Army, 46
- ^ P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 31–32
A. Jotischky, Crusading and the Crusader States, 69 - ^ P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 32
- ^ S. Runciman, The First Crusade, 232
* P. Stephenson, Byzantium's Balkan Frontier, 183 - ^ J.W. Birkenmeier, The Development of the Komnenian Army, 46
* R.-J. Lilie, The Crusades and Byzantium, 34 - ^ J. Norwich, Byzantium:The Decline and Fall, 77
- ^ a b J. Norwich, Byzantium:The Decline and Fall, 78
- ^ A. Jotischky, Crusading and the Crusader States, 77
* P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 41 - ^ The inhabitants of Antioch were hostile to the prospect of passing under Byzantine rule, which seemed to them the inevitable consequence (J. Richard, The Crusades, c.1071 – c.1291, 151).
- ^ a b J. Richard, The Crusades, c.1071 – c.1291, 151
- ^ J.W. Birkenmeier, The Development of the Komnenian Army, 48
* P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 41
* A. Stone, John II Comnenus (A.D. 1118–1143) - ^ B. Hamilton, William of Tyre and the Byzantine Empire, 226
* J. Norwich, Byzantium:The Decline and Fall, 121
* William of Tyre, Historia, XVIII, 23 - ^ J. Norwich, Byzantium:The Decline and Fall, 122
- ^ P. Stephenson, Byzantium's Balkan Frontier, 183
Sources
Primary sources
- The Alexiadtranslated by Elizabeth A. S. Dawes. Medieval Sourcebook.
- Fulcher of Chartres (1825). "Chapter XXXV". A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127 (translated in English by Frances Rita Ryon, edited with an introduction by Harold S. Fink [The University of Tennessee Press, 1969]).
- William of Tyre, Historia Rerum In Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum (A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea), translated by E. A. Babock and A. C. Krey (Columbia University Press, 1943). See the original text in the Latin library.
Secondary sources
- ISBN 978-1-13905402-7.
- Birkenmeier, John W. (2002). "Historical Overview of the Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century Byzantium". The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081–1180. Brill Academic Publishers. ISBN 90-04-11710-5.
- Hamilton, Bernard (2003). "William of Tyre and the Byzantine Empire". Porphyrogenita: Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honor of Julian Chrysostomides edited by Charalambos Dendrinos, ISBN 0-7546-3696-8.
- Holifield, Jessica. "Tancred and Bohemond: Brothers-in-arms or Arch Rivals?" (PDF). University of Leeds (School of History). Retrieved 2007-09-12.
- Jotischky, Andrew (2004). "Crusade and Settlement, 1095-c. 1118". Crusading And The Crusader States. Pearson Education. ISBN 0-582-41851-8.
- Kazhdan, Alexander (2001). "Latins and Franks in Byzantium: Perception and Reality from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Century" (PDF). In ISBN 0-88402-277-3.
- Kolbaba, Tia M. (2001). "Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious Errors (Themes and Changes from 850 to 1350)" (PDF). In Angeliki E. Laiou; Roy Parviz Mottahedeh (eds.). The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. ISBN 0-88402-277-3. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2010-12-02.
- Lilie, Ralph-Johannes (2003). "The Crusades and Byzantium". In Khalil I. Semaan (ed.). The Crusades: Other Experiences, Alternate Perspectives. Global Academic Publishing. ISBN 1-58684-251-X.
- ISBN 0-521-52653-1.
- ISBN 0-670-82377-5.
- Richard, Jean (1999). "From the First to the Second Crusade". The Crusades, C. 1071-c. 1291. Translated by Jean Birrell. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-62566-1.
- Rowe, John G. (1966–67). "Paschal II, Bohemond of Antioch and the Byzantine Empire". Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. 44: 165–202. .
- Runciman, Steven (1980). The First Crusade. Cambridge University. ISBN 0-521-23255-4.
- Spinka, Matthew (June 1939). "Latin Church of the Early Crusades". Church History. 8 (2). American Society of Church History: 113–131. S2CID 162020930.
- Stephenson, Peter (2000). "The Rise of the West, I: Normans and Crusaders (1081–1118)". Byzantium's Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-77017-3.
- Stone, Andrew. "John II Comnenus (A.D. 1118–1143)". Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors. Retrieved 2007-09-11.
Further reading
- Thomas S. Asbridge, The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098–1130. The Boydell Press, 2000.
- Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades. Hambledon and London, 2003.
- Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 1096–1204. Trans. J.C. Morris and J.C. Ridings. Clarendon Press, 1993.
- Kenneth M. Setton, ed., A History of the Crusades, Vols. II and V. Madison, 1969–1989.