Diferenças entre edições de "Manuel I Comneno"

Saltar para a navegação Saltar para a pesquisa
46 040 bytes removidos ,  16h30min de 30 de dezembro de 2012
sem resumo de edição
m (Typo fixing, typos fixed: um um → um utilizando AWB (8686))
Encorajado pelo sucesso, Manuel sonhou com a restauração do [[Império Romano]] através da restauração entre a [[Igreja Ortodoxa]] e a [[Igreja Católica]], uma perspectiva que seria freqüentemente oferecida ao Papa durante negociações e planos de aliança.<ref name="Vas7">[[A. A. Vasiliev]], ''History of the Byzantine Empire'', [http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0832/_P1A.HTM VII]</ref> Caso houvesse uma oportunidade de reunir as igrejas ocidentais e orientais, e reconciliar-se com o Papa de forma permanente, este seria, provavelmente, o momento mais favorável. O [[Papado]] nunca se deu a bons termos com os normandos, exceto quando sob a coação estabelecida pela ameaça da ação militar direta. Ter o "civilizado" [[Império Romano do Oriente]] em sua fronteira do sul era infinitamente preferível ao papado do que ter de lidar constantemente com os incômodos normandos da Sicília. Era do interesse do [[Papa Adriano IV]] alcançar um acordo de qualquer forma, uma vez que, caso ocorresse o acordo, aumentaria substancialmente sua influência sobre todos os seguidores cristãos ortodoxos. Manuel ofereceu uma imensa quantia em dinheiro ao Papa a fim de provisionar as tropas, com o pedido ao Papa que garantisse ao imperador bizantino poder sobre três cidades costeiras em troca de assistência na expulsão de Guilherme da ilha da Sicília. Manuel também prometeu pagar 5.000 libras de ouro ao Papa e à [[Cúria]].<ref name="W18-2">William of Tyre, ''Historia'', XVIII, [http://thelatinlibrary.com/williamtyre/18.html#2 2]</ref> Negotiações foram apressadamente feitas, e uma aliança foi formada entre Manuel e Adriano.<ref name="D122" />
== Ver também ==
<!--[[Imagem:Hyperryron-Manuel I-sb1965.jpg|thumb|A ''[[Byzantine coinage|Hyperpyron]]'', a form of Byzantine coinage, issued by Manuel. One side of the coin (left image) depicts Christ. The other side depicts Manuel (right image).]]
* [[Comnenos]]
* [[Restauração Comnena]]
[[Imagem:BN MS FR 2628 Folio205 Amalric and Manuel.png|thumb|Manuel and the envoys of Amalric – arrival of the crusaders in [[Pelusium]] (from the Manuscript of [[William of Tyre]]'s ''Historia'' and ''Old French Continuation'', painted in [[Acre, Israel]], 13th century, [[Bibliothèque nationale de France]]).]]
[[Imagem:Crusades surprised by turks.jpg|right|thumb|left|This image by [[Gustave Doré]] shows the Turkish ambush at the pass of Myriokephalon. This ambush destroyed Manuel's hope of capturing Konya]]
{{details|Battle of Myriokephalon}}
[[Imagem:Johnchrysostom.jpg|thumb|left|A millennium-old [[Byzantine]] [[mosaic]] of [[John Chrysostom]] ([[Hagia Sophia]]) – The controversy of 1156–1157 was about the interpretation of John's liturgy for the [[Eucharist]], "Thou art He who offers and is offered and receives."]]
[[Imagem:Maria of Antioch.jpg|thumb|200px|Manuscript miniature of Maria of Antioch (part of double portrait with Manuel I Komnenos, [[Vatican Library]], [[Rome]])]]
[[Imagem:Byzantium1173.JPG|thumb|350px|right|Map of the Byzantine Empire under Manuel, c. 1180.]]
{| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5"
| style="text-align: left;" | "Alexios Komnenos and Doukas ... had become captive to the Sicilians' lord [and] again ruined matters. For as they had already pledged to the Sicilians many things not then desired by the emperor, they robbed the Romans of very great and noble achievements. [They] ... very likely deprived the Roman of the cities too soon."
| style="text-align: left;" | '''''[[João Cinamo|J. Cinnamus]]'''''<ref name="G172">[[João Cinamo|J. Cinnamus]], ''Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus'', 172</ref>
It was at this point, just as the war seemed decided in Manuel's favour, that things started to go wrong for him. The Byzantine commander Michael Palaiologos had alienated Byzantium's allies by his attitude, and this had stalled the campaign as Count [[Robert III of Loritello]] refused to speak to him. Although the two were reconciled, the campaign had lost some of its momentum: Michael was soon recalled to Constantinople, and his loss was a major blow to the campaign. The turning point was the Battle for [[Brindisi]], where the Sicilians launched a major counter attack by both land and sea. At the approach of the enemy, the mercenaries that had been hired with Manuel's gold demanded huge rises in their pay. When this was refused, they deserted. Even the local barons started to melt away, and soon John Doukas was left hopelessly outnumbered. The arrival of [[Alexios Komnenos Bryennios]] with some ships did not retrieve the Byzantine situation in any respect.{{Cref|d}} The naval battle was decided in the Sicilians' favour, while John Doukas and Alexios Bryennios (along with 4 Byzantine ships) were captured.<ref name="B115">J.W. Birkenmeier, ''The Development of the Komnenian Army'', 115<br />* J. Norwich, ''Byzantium: The Decline and Fall'', 115</ref> Manuel then sent Alexios Axouch to [[Ancona]] to raise another army, but, by this time, William had already retaken all of the Byzantine conquests in Apulia. The defeat at Brindisi put an end to the restored Byzantine reign in Italy; in 1158 the Byzantine army left Italy, and never saw it again.<ref name="B115-116">J.W. Birkenmeier, ''The Development of the Komnenian Army'', 115–116<br />* A.A. Vasiliev, ''History of the Byzantine Empire'', [http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0832/_P1A.HTM VII]</ref> Both [[Nicetas Choniates]] and Kinnamos, the major Byzantine historians of this period, agree, however, that the peace terms Axouch secured from William allowed Manuel to extricate himself from the war with dignity, despite a devastating raid by the Sicilian fleet on the [[Aegean Sea|Aegean]] coast of Greece in 1158.<ref name="M61J">J. Norwich, ''Byzantium: The Decline and Fall'', 116<br />* P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 61</ref>
===Failure of the Church union===
[[Imagem:Pope Hadrian IV.jpg|thumb|Pope Hadrian IV, who negotiated with Manuel against the Norman King [[William I of Sicily]]]]
During the Italian campaign, and, afterwards, during the struggle of the Papal Curia with Frederick, Manuel tried to seduce the Popes by hints of a possible union between the Eastern and Western Churches. Although in 1155 Pope Hadrian had expressed his eagerness to prompt the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches,{{Cref|e}} hopes for a lasting Papal-Byzantine alliance came up against insuperable problems. Pope Hadrian IV and his successors demanded recognition of their religious authority over all Christians everywhere, and wished themselves to reach superiority over the Byzantine Emperor; they were not at all willing to fall into a state of dependence from one emperor to the other.<ref name="Vas7" /> Manuel, on the other side, wanted an official recognition of his secular authority on both East and West.<ref name="B114">J.W. Birkenmeier, ''The Development of the Komnenian Army'', 114</ref> Such conditions would not be accepted by either side. Even if a pro-western Emperor such as Manuel agreed to it, the Greek citizens of the Empire would have rejected outright any union of this sort, as they did almost three hundred years later when the Orthodox and Catholic churches were briefly united under the Pope. In spite of his friendliness towards the Roman Church and his cordial relations with all the Popes, Manuel was never honoured with the title of ''[[Augustus (honorific)|Augustus]]'' by the Popes. And although he sent twice (in 1167 and 1169) an embassy to [[Pope Alexander III]] offering to reunite the Greek and Latin churches, the latter refused, under pretext of the troubles that would follow that union.<ref name="AGB">Abbé Guettée, ''The Papacy'', [http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/guettee10.html Chapter VII]<br />* J.W. Birkenmeier, ''The Development of the Komnenian Army'', 114</ref> Ultimately, a deal proved elusive, and the two churches have remained divided.
The final results of the Italian campaign were limited in terms of the advantages gained by the Empire. The city of Ancona became a Byzantine base in Italy, accepting the Emperor as sovereign. The Normans of Sicily had been damaged, and now came to terms with the Empire, ensuring peace for the rest of Manuel's reign. The Empire's ability to get involved in Italian affairs had been demonstrated. However, given the enormous quantities of gold which had been lavished on the project, it also demonstrated the limits of what money and diplomacy alone could achieve. The expense of Manuel's involvement in Italy must have cost the Treasury a great deal (probably more than 30,000 pounds of gold), and yet it produced only limited solid gains.<ref name="B116">J.W. Birkenmeier, ''The Development of the Komnenian Army'', 116</ref>
===Byzantine policy in Italy after 1158===
[[Imagem:B alexander III2.jpg|thumb|left|Frederick Barbarossa submits to the authority of Pope Alexander III after his defeat at the Battle of Legnano ([[fresco]] in the Palazzo Pubblico in [[Siena]], by [[Spinello Aretino]]).]]
After 1158 and under the new conditions, the aims of the Byzantine policy changed. Now Manuel decided to oppose the tendency of the [[Hohenstaufen]] dynasty to annex Italy, which Frederick believed should acknowledge his power. When the war between Frederick and the north Italian cities started, Manuel actively supported the [[Lombard League]] with money subsidies. The walls of [[Milan]], demolished by the Germans, were restored by the aid of the Byzantine Emperor.<ref name="MV84">P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 84<br />* A.A. Vasiliev, ''History of the Byzantine Empire'', [http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0832/_P1A.HTM VII]</ref> Frederick's defeat at the [[Battle of Legnano]], on [[May 29]], [[1176]] seemed rather to improve Manuel's position in Italy. According to Kinnamos, [[Cremona]], [[Pavia]], and a number of other "[[Liguria]]n" cities went over to Manuel;<ref name="M84">[[João Cinamo|J. Cinnamus]], ''Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus'', 231<br />* P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 84</ref> his relations were also particularly favourable in regard to [[Genoa]], [[Pisa]], but not in regard to [[Republic of Venice|Venice]]. In March 1171 Manuel had suddenly broken with Venice, ordering all the Venetians on imperial territory (10,000 Venetians in Constantinople alone) to be arrested and their property confiscated.<ref name="MV93">P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 93</ref> Venice, incensed, sent a fleet of 120 ships against Byzantium, which, owing to an epidemic and being pursued by 150 Byzantine ships, was forced to return without great success.<ref name="Nor4">J. Norwich, ''Byzantium: The Decline and Fall'', 131</ref> In all probability, friendly relations between Byzantium and Venice were not restored in Manuel's lifetime.<ref name="Vas7" />
== Balkan frontier ==
On his northern frontier Manuel expended considerable effort to preserve the conquests made by [[Basil II]] over one hundred years earlier and maintained, sometimes tenuously, ever since. Due to distraction from his neighbours on the [[Balkan Peninsula|Balkan frontier]], Manuel was kept from his main objective, the subjugation of the Normans of Sicily. Relations had been good with the [[Serbs]] and [[Hungarians]] since 1129, so the Serb rebellion came as a shock. The Serbs of [[Rascia]], being so induced by Roger II of Sicily, invaded Byzantine territory in 1149.<ref name="Stone" />
[[Imagem:Hyperryron-Manuel I-sb1965.jpg|thumb|A ''[[Byzantine coinage|Hyperpyron]]'', a form of Byzantine coinage, issued by Manuel. One side of the coin (left image) depicts Christ. The other side depicts Manuel (right image).]]
Manuel forced the rebellious Serbs, and their leader, Uroš II, to vassalage (1150–1152).<ref name="CSxxiii">Curta, ''Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages'', xxiii</ref> He then made repeated attacks upon the Hungarians with a view to annexing their territory along the [[Sava (river)|Sava]]. In the wars of 1151–1153 and 1163–1168 Manuel led his troops into Hungary and a spectacular raid deep into enemy territory yielded substantial war booty. In 1167, Manuel led an army of 25,000 men and scored a decisive victory at the [[Battle of Sirmium]] which enabled him to conclude a peace with the [[Kingdom of Hungary|Hungarian Kingdom]] by which [[Syrmia]], [[Bosnia (region)|Bosnia]], [[Croatia]], and [[Dalmatia]] were ceded to him. By 1168 nearly the whole of the eastern Adriatic coast lay in Manuel's hands.<ref name="JWS372">J.W. Sedlar, ''East Central Europe in the Middle Ages'', 372</ref>
Efforts were also made for diplomatic annex. The Hungarian heir [[Bela III of Hungary|Béla]], younger brother of the Hungarian king [[Stephen III of Hungary|Stephen III]], was sent to Constantinople to be educated in the court of Manuel, who intended the youth to marry his daughter, [[Maria Komnene (Porphyrogenita)|Maria]], and to make him his heir, thus securing the union of Hungary with the Empire. In the court Béla assumed the name Alexius and received the title of ''[[Despotism|Despot]]'' which had previously been applied only to the Emperor himself. However, two unforeseen dynastic events drastically altered the situation. In 1169, Manuel's young wife gave birth to a son, thus depriving Béla of his status as heir of the Byzantine throne (although Manuel would not renounce the Croatian lands he had taken from Hungary). Then, in 1172, Stephen died childless, and Béla went home to take his throne. Before leaving Constantinople, he swore a solemn oath to Manuel that he would always "keep in mind the interests of the emperor and of the Romans". Béla III kept his word: as long as Manuel lived, he made no attempt to retrieve his Croatian inheritance, which he only afterwards reincorporated into Hungary.<ref name="JWS372" />
==Relations with Russia==
Manuel Komnenos attempted to draw the Russian principalities into his net of diplomacy directed against Hungary, and to a lesser extent Norman Sicily. This polarised the Russian princes into pro- and anti-Byzantine camps. In the late 1140s three princes were competing for primacy in Russia: prince [[Iziaslav II of Kiev]] was related to [[Géza II of Hungary]] and was hostile to Byzantium; Prince [[Yuri Dolgoruki]] of [[Suzdal]] was Manuel's ally (''symmachos''), and Vladimirko of [[Galicia (Central Europe)|Galicia]] is described as Manuel's vassal (''hypospondos''). Galicia was situated on the northern and northeastern borders of Hungary and, therefore, was of great strategic importance in the Byzantine-Hungarian conflicts. Following the deaths of both Iziaslav and Vladimirko, the situation became reversed, when Yuri of Suzdal, Manuel's ally, took over [[Kiev]] and Yaroslav, the new ruler of Galicia, adopted a pro-Hungarian stance.
In 1164-5 Manuel's cousin [[Andronikos I Komnenos|Andronikos]], the future emperor, escaped from captivity in Byzantium, and fled to the court of Yaroslav in Galicia. This situation, holding out the alarming prospect of Andronikos making a bid for Manuel's throne sponsored by both Galicia and Hungary, spurred the Byzantines into an unprecedented flurry of diplomacy. Manuel pardoned Andronikos and persuaded him to return to Constantinople (1165). A mission to Kiev, then ruled by Prince [[Rostislav I of Kiev|Rostislav]], resulted in a favourable treaty and a pledge to supply the Empire with auxiliary troops; Yaroslav of Galicia was also persuaded to renounce his Hungarian connections and return fully into the imperial fold. As late as the year 1200 the princes of Galicia were providing invaluable services against the Empire's, at this time [[Cuman]], enemies.<ref>D. Obolensky, ''The Byzantine Commonwealth'', 299-302.</ref>
The restoration of relations with Galicia had an immediate benefit for Manuel when, in 1166, he dispatched two armies to attack the eastern provinces of Hungary in a vast pincer movement. One army crossed the [[Walachian Plain]] and entered Hungary through the Transylvanian Alps ([[Southern Carpathians]]), whilst the other army made a wide circuit to Galicia, and with Galician aid, crossed the [[Carpathian Mountains]]. Since the Hungarians had most of their forces concentrated on the [[Sirmium]] and [[Belgrade]] frontier they were caught off guard by the Byzantine invasion and the Hungarian province of [[Transylvania]] was thoroughly ravaged by the Byzantine armies.<ref>M. Angold, ''The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1204'', 177.</ref>
==Invasion of Egypt==
===Alliance with the Kingdom of Jerusalem===
[[Imagem:Maria Comnena Amalric I.jpg|thumb|left|The marriage of Amalric I of Jerusalem and Maria Comnena at [[Tyre (Lebanon)|Tyre]] in 1167 (from a manuscript of [[William of Tyre]]'s ''Historia'', painted in Paris c. 1295–1300, ''Bibliothèque Municipale'', [[Épinal]]).]]
Control of Egypt was a decades-old dream of the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, and king [[Amalric I of Jerusalem]] needed all the military and financial support he could get for his policy of military intervention in Egypt.<ref name="M73">P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 73</ref> Amalric also realised that if he were to pursue his ambitions in Egypt, he might have to leave Antioch to the hegemony of Manuel who had paid 100,000 [[dinars]] for the release of [[Bohemond III]].<ref name="Har">J. Harris, ''Byzantium and The Crusades'', 107</ref><ref name="MR73">P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 73<br />* J.G. Rowe, ''Alexander III and the Jerusalem Crusade'', 117</ref> In 1165, he sent envoys to the Byzantine court to negotiate a marriage alliance (Manuel had already married Amalric's cousin [[Maria of Antioch]] in 1161).<ref name="M74">P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 74</ref> After a long interval of two years, Amalric married Manuel's grand-niece [[Maria Komnene, Queen consort of Jerusalem|Maria Komnene]] in 1167, and "swore all that his brother Baldwin had sworn before."{{Cref|f}} A formal alliance was negotiated in 1168, whereby the two rulers arranged for a conquest and partition of Egypt, with Manuel taking the coastal area, and Amalric the interior. In the autumn of 1169 Manuel sent a joint expedition with Amalric to Egypt: a Byzantine army and a naval force of 12 large warships (carrying arms, engines, and machines of war), 150 galleys, and 60 transports (carrying horses), under the command of the ''[[megas doux]]'' Andronikos Kontostephanos joined forces with Amalric at [[Ascalon]].<ref name="M74" /><ref name="Ian">I. Heath, ''Byzantine Armies: AD 1118-1461'', 17</ref> William of Tyre, who negotiated the alliance, was impressed in particular by the large transport ships which were used to transport the cavalry forces of the army.<ref name=William>William of Tyre, ''A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea''</ref>
Although such a long range attack on a state far from the centre of the Empire may seem extraordinary (the last time the Empire had attempted anything on this scale was the failed invasion of Sicily over one hundred and twenty years earlier), it can be explained in terms of Manuel's foreign policy, which was to use the Latins to ensure the survival of the Empire. This focus on the bigger picture of the eastern Mediterranean and even further afield thus led Manuel to intervene in Egypt: it was believed that in the context of the wider struggle between the crusader states and the [[Islam]]ic powers of the east, control of Egypt would be the deciding factor. It had been becoming clear that the ailing [[Fatimid]] [[Caliphate]] of Egypt held the key to the fate of the crusader states. If Egypt came out of its isolation, and joined forces with the Muslims under Nur ad-Din, the crusader cause was in trouble.<ref name="M73" />
A successful invasion of Egypt would have several further advantages for the Byzantine Empire. Egypt was a rich province, and in the days of the Roman Empire had supplied much of the grain for Constantinople before it was lost to the [[Arabs]] in the 7th century. The revenues that the Empire could have expected to gain from the conquest of Egypt would have been considerable, even if these would have to be shared with the Crusaders. Furthermore, Manuel may have wanted to encourage Amalric's plans, not only in order to deflect Latins' ambitions away from Antioch, but also in order to create new opportunities for joint military ventures that would keep the King of Jerusalem in his debt, and also allow the Empire to share in territorial gains.<ref name="M73" />
===Failure of the expedition===
[[Imagem:BN MS FR 2628 Folio205 Amalric and Manuel.png|thumb|Manuel and the envoys of Amalric – arrival of the crusaders in [[Pelusium]] (from the Manuscript of [[William of Tyre]]'s ''Historia'' and ''Old French Continuation'', painted in [[Acre, Israel]], 13th century, [[Bibliothèque nationale de France]]).]]
The joined forces of Manuel and Amalric laid siege to [[Damietta]] on [[October 27]] [[1169]], but the siege was unsuccessful due to the failure of the Crusaders and the Byzantines to co-operate fully.<ref name="R84-86">R. Rogers, ''Latin Siege Warfare in the Twelfth Century'', 84–86</ref> According to Byzantine forces, Amalric, not wanting to share the profits of victory, dragged out the operation until the emperor's men ran short of provisions and were particularly affected by famine; Amalric then launched an assault, which he promptly aborted by negotiating a truce with the defenders. On the other hand, William of Tyre remarked that the Greeks were not entirely blameless.<ref>William of Tyre, ''Historia'', XX [http://thelatinlibrary.com/williamtyre/20.html#15 15–17]</ref> Whatever the truth of the allegations of both sides, when the rains came, both the Latin army and the Byzantine fleet returned home, although half of the Byzantine fleet was lost in a sudden storm.<ref name="TM68">T.F. Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades, 68</ref>
Despite the bad feelings generated at Damietta, Amalric still refused to abandon his dream of conquering Egypt, and he continued to seek good relations with the Byzantines in the hopes of another joined attack, which never took place.<ref name="TM68-69">T.F. Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades, 68–69</ref> In 1171 Amalric came to Constantinople in person, after Egypt had fallen to [[Saladin]]. Manuel was thus able to organise a grand ceremonial reception which both honoured Amalric, and underlined his dependence: for the rest of Amalric's reign, Jerusalem was a Byzantine satellite, and Manuel was able to act as a protector of the Holy Places, exerting a growing influence in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.<ref name="MM75">P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 75<br />* H.E. Mayer, ''The Latin East'', 657</ref>
==Kilij Arslan II and the Seljuk Turks==
[[Imagem:Crusades surprised by turks.jpg|right|thumb|left|This image by [[Gustave Doré]] shows the Turkish ambush at the pass of Myriokephalon. This ambush destroyed Manuel's hope of capturing Konya]]
{{details|Battle of Myriokephalon}}
Between 1158–1161, a series of Byzantine campaigns against the [[Seljuk Turks]] resulted in a treaty favourable to the Empire. According to the agreement certain frontier regions, including the city of [[Sivas]], should be handed over to Manuel in return for some quantity of cash.<ref>I. Health, ''Byzantine Armies'', 4</ref> However, when it became clear that the Seljuks had no intention of honouring their side of the bargain, Manuel decided that it was time to deal with the Turks once and for all.<ref name="P140">K. Paparrigopoulos, ''History of the Greek Nation'', Db, 140</ref> Therefore, he assembled the full imperial army, and marched against the Seljuk capital, [[Iconium]] ([[Konya]]). Manuel's strategy was to prepare the advanced bases of [[Dorylaeum]] and Sublaeum, and then to use them as to strike as quickly as possible at Iconium.<ref name="JB128">J.W. Birkenmeier, ''The Development of the Komnenian Army'', 128</ref> In 1177, a fleet of 150 ships was also sent by Manuel I to invade Egypt, but returns home after appearing off Acre due to the refusal of Count [[Philip of Flanders]] and many important nobles of the [[Kingdom of Jerusalem]] to help.<ref name="Har">J. Harris, ''Byzantium and The Crusades'', 109</ref>
Yet Manuel's army (25,000 men) was large and unwieldy – according to a letter which Manuel sent to King [[Henry II of England]], the advancing column was ten miles (16 km) long.<ref name="JB128" /> Manuel marched against Iconium via [[Laodicea on the Lycus|Laodicea]] and [[Chonae]]. Just outside the entrance to the pass at Myriokephalon, Manuel was met by Turkish ambassadors, who offered peace on generous terms. Most of Manuel's generals and experienced courtiers urged him to accept the offer. However, the younger and more aggressive members of the court urged Manuel to attack; he took their advice and continued his advance.<ref name=Norwich />
Manuel made serious tactical errors, such as failing to properly scout out the route ahead.<ref name="JBr176">J. Bradbury, ''Medieval Warfare'', 176</ref> These failings caused him to lead his forces straight into a classic ambush. On [[September 17]], [[1176]] Manuel was decisively defeated by [[Kilij Arslan II]] at the Battle of Myriokephalon (in highlands near the Tzibritze pass), in which his army was ambushed while marching through the narrow mountain pass.<ref name="MN102">D. MacGillivray Nicol, ''Byzantium and Venice'', 102</ref> The Byzantines were too dispersed, and were surrounded.<ref name="JBr176" /> The army's siege equipment was quickly destroyed, and Manuel was forced to withdraw – without siege engines, the conquest of Iconium was impossible. According to Byzantine sources, Manuel lost his nerve both during and after the battle, fluctuating between extremes of self-delusion and self-abasement;<ref name="M98">P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 98</ref> according to William of Tyre, he was never the same again.
The terms by which Seljuk Sultan Kilij Arslan II allowed Manuel and his army to leave were that he should remove his forts and armies on the frontier at Dorylaeum and Sublaeum. However since the Sultan had already failed to keep his side of the earlier treaty of 1162, Manuel only ordered the fortifications of Sublaeum to be dismantled, but not the fortifications of Dorylaeum. Nevertheless, defeat at Myriokephalon was an embarrassment for both Manuel personally and also for his empire. The Komnenian emperors had worked hard since the [[Battle of Manzikert]], 105 years earlier, to restore the reputation of the empire. Yet because of his over-confidence, Manuel had demonstrated to the whole world that Byzantium still could not defeat the Seljuks, despite the advances made during the past century. In western opinion, Myriokephalon cut Manuel down to a humbler size: not that of Emperor of the Romans but that of King of the Greeks.<ref name="MN102" />
The defeat at Myriokephalon has often been depicted as a catastrophe in which the entire Byzantine army was destroyed. Manuel himself compared the defeat to Manzikert; it seemed to him that the Byzantine defeat at Myriokephalon complemented the destruction at Manzikert. In reality, although a defeat, it was not too costly, and did not significantly ruin the Byzantine army.<ref name="MN102" /> Most of the casualties were borne by the right wing, largely composed of allied troops commanded by Baldwin of Antioch, and also the baggage train, which was the main target of the Turkish ambush.<ref name="JBP">J.W. Birkenmeier, ''The Development of the Komnenian Army'', 128<br />* K. Paparrigopoulos, ''History of the Greek Nation'', Db, 141</ref> The limited losses inflicted on native Byzantine troops were quickly made good and in the following year Manuel's forces defeated a force of "picked Turks".<ref name="JB128" /> John Vatatzes, who was sent by the Emperor to repel the Turkish invasion, not only brought troops from the capital but also was able to gather an army along the way which allowed him to score a victory over the Turks at the [[Battle of the Meander Valley]]; a sign that the Byzantine army remained strong and that the defensive program of western [[Asia Minor]] was still successful.<ref name="JB196">J.W. Birkenmeier, ''The Development of the Komnenian Army'', 196</ref>
However, the battle did have a serious effect upon Manuel's vitality; henceforth he declined in health and in 1180 succumbed to a slow fever. Furthermore, like Manzikert, the balance between the two powers began to gradually shift – Manuel never again attacked the Turks and, after his death, they began to move further and further west, deeper into Byzantine territory.
== Doctrinal controversies (1156–1180)==
[[Imagem:Johnchrysostom.jpg|thumb|left|A millennium-old [[Byzantine]] [[mosaic]] of [[John Chrysostom]] ([[Hagia Sophia]]) – The controversy of 1156–1157 was about the interpretation of John's liturgy for the [[Eucharist]], "Thou art He who offers and is offered and receives."]]
During Manuel's reign three major theological controversies occurred. In 1156–1157 the question was raised, whether [[Jesus|Christ]] had offered himself a sacrifice for the sins of the world to the [[God the Father|Father]] and to the [[Holy Spirit]] only, or also to [[Jesus Christ the Logos|the Logos]] (i.e., to himself).<ref name="K265-266">J.H. Kurtz, ''History of the Christian Church to the Restoration'', 265–266</ref> In the end a [[synod]] held at Constantinople in 1157 adopted a compromise formula, that [[Jesus|the Word]] made flesh offered a double sacrifice to the [[Holy Trinity]], despite the dissidence of Patriarch of Antioch-elect Soterichus Panteugenus.<ref name="Stone" />
Ten years later, a controversy arose as to whether the saying of Christ, "My Father is greater than I" referred to his divine nature, to his human, or the union of these two natures.<ref name="K265-266" /> Demetrius of Lampe, a Byzantine diplomat recently returned from the West, ridiculed the way the verse was interpreted there, that Christ was inferior to his father in his humanity, but equal in his divinity. Manuel on the other hand, perhaps with an eye on the project for Church union, found that the formula made sense, and prevailed over a majority in a synod convened on [[March 2]], [[1166]] to decide the issue, where he had the support of the patriarch Luke Chrysoberges.<ref name="Stone" /> Those who refused to submit to the synod's decisions had their property confiscated or were exiled.{{Cref|g}} The political dimensions of this controversy are apparent from the fact that a leading dissenter from the Emperor's doctrine was his nephew Alexios Kontostephanos.<ref name="M217">P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 217</ref>
A third controversy sprung up in 1180, when Manuel objected to the formula of solemn [[abjuration]], which was exacted from Moslem converts. One of the more striking [[anathema]]s of this abjuration was that directed against the deity worshipped by [[Muhammad]] and his followers:
{{cquote|And before all, I anathematize the God of Muhammad about whom he [Muhammad] says, "He is God alone, God made of solid, hammer-beaten metal; He begets not and is not begotten, nor is there like unto Him any one."<ref name="Hanson55">G.L. Hanson, ''Manuel I Komnenos and the "God of Muhammad"'', 55</ref>}}
The emperor ordered the deletion of this anathema from the Church's catechetical texts, a measure that provoked vehement opposition from both the Patriarch and bishops.<ref name="Hanson55" />
==Chivalric narrations==
[[Imagem:Maria of Antioch.jpg|thumb|200px|Manuscript miniature of Maria of Antioch (part of double portrait with Manuel I Komnenos, [[Vatican Library]], [[Rome]])]]
Manuel is representative of a new kind of Byzantine ruler who was influenced by his contact with western Crusaders. He arranged [[jousting]] matches, even participating in them, an unusual and discomforting sight for the Byzantines. Endowed with a fine physique, Manuel has been the subject of exaggeration in the Byzantine sources of his era, where he is presented as a man of great personal courage. According to the story of his exploits, which appear as a model or a copy of the romances of [[chivalry]], such was his strength and exercise in arms, that Raymond of Antioch was incapable of wielding his lance and buckler. In a famous tournament, he is said to have entered the lists on a fiery [[courser (horse)|courser]], and to have overturned two of the stoutest Italian knights. In one day, he is said to have slain forty Turks with his own hand, and in a battle against the Hungarians he allegedly snatched a banner, and was the first, almost alone, who passed a bridge that separated his army from the enemy. On another occasion, he is said to have cut his way through a squadron of five hundred Turks, without receiving a wound; he had previously posted an ambuscade in a wood, and was accompanied only by his brother and Axouch.<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]], ''[[The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]'', 73<br />* K. Paparrigopoulos, ''History of the Greek Nation'', Db, 121</ref>
Manuel had two wives. His first marriage, in 1146, was to [[Bertha of Sulzbach]], a sister-in-law of Conrad III of Germany. She died in 1159. Children:
# [[Maria Komnene (Porphyrogenita)|Maria Komnene]] (1152–1182), wife of [[Renier of Montferrat]].
# Anna Komnene (1154–1158).<ref>Garland-Stone, [http://www.roman-emperors.org/bertha.htm Bertha-Irene of Sulzbach, first wife of Manuel I Comnenus]</ref>
Manuel's second marriage was to [[Maria of Antioch]] (nicknamed ''Xene''), a daughter of [[Raymond of Antioch|Raymond]] and [[Constance of Antioch]], in 1161. By this marriage, Manuel had one son:
* [[Alexios II Komnenos]], who succeeded as emperor in 1180.<ref name="V155">K. Varzos, ''Genealogy of the Komnenian Dynasty'', 155</ref>
Manuel had several illegitimate children:
By Theodora Batatzina:
* Alexios Komnenos (born in the early 1160s), who was recognised as the emperor's son, and indeed received a title (''sebastokrator''). He was briefly married to Eirene Komnene, illegitimate daughter of [[Andronikos I Komnenos]], in 1183–1184, and was then blinded by his father-in-law. He lived until at least 1191 and was known personally to Choniates.<ref name="K102">Každan-Epstein, ''Change in Byzantine Culture'', 102</ref>
By Maria Taronitissa, the wife of John Komnenos ''Protovestiarios'', whose legitimate children included [[Maria Komnene, Queen consort of Jerusalem]]:
*Alexios Komnenos ''Pinkernes'' ("the Cupbearer"), who fled Constantinople in 1184 and was a figurehead of the Norman invasion and the siege of [[Thessalonica]] in 1185.
By other lovers:
#A daughter whose name is unknown. She was born around 1150 and married Theodore Maurozomes before 1170. Her son was [[Manuel Maurozomes]], and some of her descendants ruled the [[Seljuk Turks|Seljuk]] [[Sultanate of Rûm]].<ref>C.M. Brand, ''The Turkish Element in Byzantium'', 1–25''<br />* P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 98</ref>
#A daughter whose name is unknown, born around 1155. She was the maternal grandmother of the author [[Demetrios Tornikes]].<ref name="V157">K. Varzos, ''Genealogy of the Komnenian Dynasty'', 157a</ref>
===Foreign and military affairs===
As a young man, Manuel had been determined to restore by force of arms the predominance of the Byzantine Empire in the Mediterranean countries. By the time he died in 1180, 37 years had passed since that momentous day in 1143 when, amid the wilds of Cilicia, his father had proclaimed him emperor. These years had seen Manuel involved in conflict with his neighbours on all sides. Manuel's father and grandfather before him had worked patiently to undo the damage done by the battle of Manzikert and its aftermath. Thanks to their efforts, the empire Manuel inherited was stronger and better organised than at any time for a century. While it is clear that Manuel used these assets to the full, it is not so clear how much he added to them, and there is room for doubt as to whether he used them to best effect.<ref name="M3" />
{| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5"
| style="text-align: left;" | "The most singular feature in the character of Manuel is the contrast and vicissitude of labour and sloth, of hardiness and effeminacy. In war he seemed ignorant of peace, in peace he appeared incapable of war."
| style="text-align: left;" | '''''Edward Gibbon'''''<ref name="G74">[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]], ''[[The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]] (Volumes 1-6, 1776–1788)'', 74</ref>
Manuel had proven himself to be an energetic Emperor who saw possibilities everywhere, and whose optimistic outlook had shaped his approach to foreign policy. However, in spite of his military prowess Manuel achieved but in a slight degree his object of restoring the Byzantine Empire. Retrospectively, some commentators have criticised some of Manuel's aims as unrealistic, in particular citing the expeditions he sent to Egypt as proof of dreams of grandeur on an unattainable scale. His greatest military campaign, his grand expedition against the Turkish [[Sultanate]] of Iconium, ended in humiliating defeat, and his greatest diplomatic effort apparently collapsed, when Pope Alexander III became reconciled to the German emperor Frederick Barbarossa at the [[Peace of Venice]]. Historian Mark C. Bartusis argues that Manuel (and his father as well) tried to rebuild a national army, but his reforms were adequate for neither his ambitions nor his needs; the defeat at Myriokephalon underscored the fundamental weakness of his policies.<ref name="B5-6">M. Bartusis, ''The Late Byzantine Army'', 5–6</ref> According to [[Edward Gibbon]], Manuel's victories were not productive of any permanent or useful conquest.<ref name="G74">[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]], ''[[The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]'', p. 74.</ref>
===Internal affairs===
Choniates criticised Manuel for raising taxes and pointed to Manuel's reign as a period of excession; according to Choniates, the money thus raised was spent lavishly at the cost of his citizens. Whether one reads the Greek [[encomium|encomiastic]] sources, or the Latin and oriental sources, the impression is consistent with Choniates' picture of an emperor who spent lavishly in all available ways, rarely economising in one sector in order to develop another.<ref name="P121">K. Paparrigopoulos, ''History of the Greek Nation'', Db, 134</ref> Manuel spared no expense on the army, the navy, diplomacy, ceremonial, palace-building, the Komnenian family, and other seekers of patronage. A significant amount of this expenditure was pure financial loss to the Empire, like the subsidies poured into Italy and the crusader states, and the sums spent on the failed expeditions of 1155–1156, 1169, and 1176.<ref name=Niketas1>N. Choniates, ''O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates'', 96–97<br />* P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 173</ref>
The problems this created were counterbalanced to some extent by his successes, particularly in the Balkans; Manuel extended the frontiers of his Empire in the Balkan region, ensuring security for the whole of [[Greece]] and [[Bulgaria]]. Had he been more successful in all his ventures, he would have controlled not only the most productive farmland around the Eastern Mediterranean and Adriatic seas, but also the entire trading facilities of the area. Even if he did not achieve his ambitious goals, his wars against Hungary brought him control of the Dalmatian coast, the rich agricultural region of Sirmium, and the Danube trade route from Hungary to the [[Black Sea]]. His Balkan expeditions are said to have taken great booty in slaves and livestock;<ref name="M174">P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 174</ref> Kinnamos was impressed by the amount of arms taken from the Hungarian dead after the battle of 1167.<ref name="G172">[[João Cinamo|J. Cinnamus]], ''Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus'', 274</ref> And even if Manuel's wars against the Turks probably realised a net loss, his commanders took livestock and captives on at least two occasions.<ref name="M174" />
This allowed the Western provinces to flourish in an economic revival which had begun in the time of his grandfather Alexios I, and which continued till the close of the century. Indeed it has been argued that Byzantium in the twelfth century was richer and more prosperous than at any time since the [[Persians|Persian]] invasion during the reign of [[Heraclius|Herakleios]], some five hundred years earlier. There is good evidence from this period of new construction, and new churches even in remote areas strongly suggest that wealth was widespread.<ref name=Angold>M. Angold, ''The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1204''</ref> Trade was also flourishing; it has been estimated that the population of Constantinople, the biggest commercial center of the Empire, during Manuel's reign was between half a million and one million, making it by far the largest city in Europe. A major source of Manuel's wealth was the ''kommerkion'', a customs duty levied at Constantinople on all imports and exports.<ref name="kom">J. Harris, ''Byzantium and the Crusades'', 25</ref> The ''kommerkion'' was stated to have collected 20,000 gold pieces each day.<ref name="kom2">J. Harris, ''Byzantium and the Crusades'', 26</ref>
Furthermore, the Byzantine capital was a city undergoing expansion. The cosmopolitan character of Constantinople was being reinforced by the arrival of Italian merchants and Crusaders en route to the Holy Land. The Venetians, the [[Genoa|Genoese]] and others opened up the ports of the Aegean to commerce, shipping goods from the Crusader kingdoms of Outremer and Fatimid Egypt to the west and trading with Byzantium via Constantinople.<ref name="Day">G.W. Day, ''Manuel and the Genoese'', 289–290</ref> These maritime traders stimulated demand in the towns and cities of Greece, [[Macedonia (region)|Macedonia]] and the Greek Islands, generating new sources of wealth in a predominantly [[agrarian]] economy.<ref name="M143-144">P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 143–144</ref> [[Thessaloniki]], the second city of the Empire, hosted a famous summer fair which attracted traders from across the Balkans and even further afield to its bustling market stalls. In [[Corinth]], silk production fuelled a thriving economy. All this is a testament to the success of the Komnenian Emperors in securing a ''Pax Byzantina'' in these heartland territories.<ref name=Angold />
[[Imagem:Byzantium1173.JPG|thumb|350px|right|Map of the Byzantine Empire under Manuel, c. 1180.]]
To the [[rhetor]]s of his court, Manuel was the "divine emperor". A generation after his death, Choniates referred to him as "the most blessed among emperors", and a century later John Stavrakios described him as "great in fine deeds". John Phokas, a soldier who fought in Manuel's army, characterised him some years later as the "world saving" and glorious emperor.<ref name="DH">J. Harris, ''Byzantium and the Crusades''<br />* P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 3</ref> Manuel would be remembered in [[France]], Italy and the Crusader states as the most powerful sovereign in the world.<ref name="Stone" /> A Genoese analyst noted that with the passing of "Lord Manuel of divine memory, the most blessed emperor of Constantinople ... all Christendom incurred great ruin and detriment."<ref name="DM">G.W. Day, Manuel and the Genoese, 289–290<br />* P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 3</ref> William of Tyre called Manuel "a wise and discreet prince of great magnificence, worthy of praise in every respect", "a great-souled man of incomparable energy," whose "memory will ever be held in benediction." Manuel was further extolled by [[Robert de Clari|Robert of Clari]] as a "a right worthy man, [...] and richest of all the Christians who ever were, and the most bountiful."<ref name=RoC>Robert of Clari, "Account of the Fourth Crusade", [http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/clari1.htm 18]</ref>
A telling reminder of the influence that Manuel held in the Crusader states in particular can still be seen in the church of the Holy Nativity in [[Bethlehem]]. In the 1160s the nave was redecorated with mosaics showing the councils of the church.<ref>B. Zeitler, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0422/is_n4_v76/ai_16547936/pg_20 Cross-cultural interpretations]</ref> Manuel was one of the patrons of the work. On the south wall, an inscription in Greek reads: "the present work was finished by Ephraim the monk, painter and mosaicist, in the reign of the great emperor Manuel Porphyrogennetos Komnenos and in the time of the great king of Jerusalem, Amalric." That Manuel's name was placed first was a symbolic, public recognition of Manuel's overlordship as leader of the Christian world. Manuel's role as protector of the Orthodox Christians and Christian holy places in general is also evident in his successful attempts to secure rights over the Holy Land. Manuel participated in the building and decorating of many of the basilicas and Greek monasteries in the Holy Land, including the church of the [[Holy Sepulchre]] in Jerusalem, where thanks to his efforts the Byzantine clergy were allowed to perform the Greek liturgy each day. All this reinforced his position as overlord of the Crusader states, with his hegemony over Antioch and Jerusalem secured by agreement with Raynald, Prince of Antioch, and Amalric, King of Jerusalem respectively. Manuel was also the last Byzantine emperor who, thanks to his military and diplomatic success in the Balkans, could call himself "ruler of Dalmatia, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Hungary".<ref name="S372-373">J.W. Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 372–373</ref>
Byzantium looked impressive, when Manuel died in 1180, having just celebrated the betrothal of his son Alexios II to the daughter of the king of France.<ref name="M194">P. Magdalino, ''The Medieval Empire'', 194</ref> Thanks to the diplomacy and campaigning of Alexios, John, and Manuel, the empire was a great power, economically prosperous, and secure on its frontiers; but there were serious problems as well. Internally, the Byzantine court required a strong leader to hold it together, and after Manuel's death stability was seriously endangered from within. Some of the foreign enemies of the Empire were lurking on the flanks, waiting for a chance to attack, in particular the Turks in Anatolia, whom Manuel had ultimately failed to defeat, and the Normans in Sicily, who had already tried but failed to invade the Empire on several occasions. Even the Venetians, the single most important western ally of Byzantium, were on bad terms with the empire at Manuel's death in 1180. Given this situation, it would have taken a strong Emperor to secure the Empire against the foreign threats it now faced, and to rebuild the depleted Imperial Treasury. But Manuel's son was a minor, and his unpopular regency government was overthrown in a violent ''[[coup d'état]]''. This troubled succession weakened the dynastic continuity and solidarity on which the strength of the Byzantine state had come to rely.<ref name="M194" />

Menu de navegação