Chapter XXII
The political civil war, so to speak, between the conflict of interests of the upper echelon of Roman society had long captivated the interests of fellow Roman historians, from the likes of Edward Gibbon and J.B. Bury in their respective works. After all, this political confrontation marks the last attempt by a Roman emperor to bring a medieval society and state infrastructure into the emerging modern world and remain part of the Western progressive tradition, which John no doubt saw himself as embodying and representing.
The back and forth banter, and political maneuvering is fitting of the definition of being called “byzantine.” Indeed, the shifting alliances of the lowest rungs of the Greek nobility constantly shifted the political capital of emperor John or the various nobles he was attempting to constrain. After Duke Thomas’ embarrassment of the emperor by refusing the customary triumphal entry on what was both a state (as tradition dictated) and personal (real purpose) visit to Athens, the emperor would not tread lightly on this blatant breach of civic protocol. In place of Duke Thomas, John hoped to stack the higher nobility in his favor, and in particular, to allow for the opening of the imperial treasury to Italian capitalists to found the Imperial Bank of Constantinople.[1]
In a befitting scene of byzantine intrigue, and betrayal, the emperor had invited Duke Thomas a private feast on the outskirts of the city in an old, but currently being reconstructed, church, which was serving as the emperor’s watching eyes and de-facto “palace” outside of Constantinople. When the Duke accepted, out of the norms of the day--for no noble should, let alone could, refuse their titular emperor. When he arrived, in the final writings of Evagrius concerning his unfinished manuscript detailing the reign of John, Thomas was assassinated by men, presumably hired by the emperor.
“...the duke never made it to the dinner. A day after the event was to occur, the emperor and his party found the body of the duke strewn in the Ilisos.”
Of course, for us modern historians, this account of explanation by Evagrius is doubtful, since he was personally employed and a follower, and by all accounts, a close friend of the emperor. More likely, Duke Thomas was assassinated, likely strangled to death, possibly by dried horse hide, or some other nefarious means, then conveniently dumped into the river and found, almost immediately, and the death was promptly seen as “drowning.” These events had happened before, and most notoriously, when the 14 year old Emperor Alexios II was strangled in a chapel by a bowstring that paved the way for the usurpation of Andronikus I. As with Thomas, the young emperor’s death was blamed as an accidental drowning. The mirroring of the two incidents are more than more coincidence for anyone thinking, let alone analyzing, with rationality.
The death of Thomas, anyway, led to the succession of his 13 year old son, Manuel, who was essentially coerced to be a pawn of the emperor as his court, advisers, and followers were all closely associated with the emperor. In addition, the Skanderbeg line of rulers, the despotates of Albania, were easily purchased with the promise of wealth and land to support the reforms of the emperor. Of course, this was not all well, especially in the east and in Morea.
A mosaic of the Greek Renaissance, depicting Greco-Roman nobles during the sixteenth century. This mosaic, when discovered, was affectionately named, "Twilight of the Nobility."
Andronikus, Great Domestic of the Morea, Marches on Athens
The Great Domestic, Andronikus, who held the loyalty of 9,000 soldiers garrisoned in Greece, and the Komnenoi Family in Trebizond, vehemently opposed all efforts of centralization. The Komnenoi, still bitter over family lineage, considered themselves to be the rightful emperors of Constantinople despite the fact that the Palaiologoi had led the charge from Nicaea to retake Constantinople as they sheltered themselves inside the halls and walls of Trebizond. Via the good graces of Emperor John VIII, the Komnenoi were once again properly associated with the empire that once bore their line, and although wielding near absolute power in the east, were nonetheless, not emperors in their own right. Likewise, Androninkus, although a relative of the emperor, as was custom to try and retain some sense of loyalty to the emperor--as was the case with Constantine XI being the Great Domestic and chief of the army under John VIII--had little appetite to see his power and wealth be diminished in favor of his second brother.
Additionally, the pawn of the Komnenoi in Trebizond, Demetrius of Armenia, formed a new triumvirate in opposition to the emperor, while John himself, George III Skanderbeg, and, symbolically, the coerced Manuel of Athens as the antithesis triumvirate pushing for reform and centralization. The lack of ability to extend permanent reach in the east, partially because of the control of Asia Minor by the Turks, truly did prevent John from being able to centralize the east. In fact, his reach was minimal, and only the state-funded missionary efforts were about as far reaching the power that the emperor had to wield in the east when sheltered under the confines of the walls and palaces of Constantinople. Only under campaigns did the emperor have any direct influence over the directions of the eastern-most provinces.
In Morea, however, the reach of the emperor was more permanent. Macedonia and Lower Greece had been the beneficiary of the emperor’s early centralization efforts that targeted the rebuilding of local infrastructure and a genuine attempt at improving the general welfare of his subjects. However, the Morea had become the stronghold of the Roman military outside of Constantinople. And ever since the Roman disaster at the hands of Hannibal at Cannae, in which the surviving veterans of the battle were exiled to Sicily, which is the beginning of the shift of military loyalties in Roman history, the soldiers in the Morea had a fond attachment to the Great Domestic more than the “far-away” king beside the Golden Horn.
To make his display of power known, Andronikus marched on Athens on what was described as “routine military training”, although all observers of the modern day understand why the march was undertaken. To hedge the efforts of John from extending his reach south of Athens. John, of course, not wanting to risk outright civil war, listened and understood the threat. In retaliation, he invited Italian bankers into Constantinople to establish the Imperial Bank. He also unsheltered the navy, and blockaded the southern ports of the Morea, and directed trans-Mediterranean trade away from the fortified city of Mystras, the military capital of the Morea, and a center of trade in the Peloponnese.
Needless to say, this move was a form of economic diplomacy. It did not hurt the empire since the trade was directed back to Constantinople, but it had the splitting effect of who it benefitted. The move created a greater sense of importance and power to Constantinople, and, helped to centralize the imperial authority as a result. So, John and the people of Constantinople benefitted from this political civil war, so to speak, instead of Andronikus and the people of the Peloponnese.
[1]This reflects my idea progress, in Administration, the Economics group, under which I advanced to National Bank at this point in the game.
The Curious Death of Duke Thomas
The political civil war, so to speak, between the conflict of interests of the upper echelon of Roman society had long captivated the interests of fellow Roman historians, from the likes of Edward Gibbon and J.B. Bury in their respective works. After all, this political confrontation marks the last attempt by a Roman emperor to bring a medieval society and state infrastructure into the emerging modern world and remain part of the Western progressive tradition, which John no doubt saw himself as embodying and representing.
The back and forth banter, and political maneuvering is fitting of the definition of being called “byzantine.” Indeed, the shifting alliances of the lowest rungs of the Greek nobility constantly shifted the political capital of emperor John or the various nobles he was attempting to constrain. After Duke Thomas’ embarrassment of the emperor by refusing the customary triumphal entry on what was both a state (as tradition dictated) and personal (real purpose) visit to Athens, the emperor would not tread lightly on this blatant breach of civic protocol. In place of Duke Thomas, John hoped to stack the higher nobility in his favor, and in particular, to allow for the opening of the imperial treasury to Italian capitalists to found the Imperial Bank of Constantinople.[1]
In a befitting scene of byzantine intrigue, and betrayal, the emperor had invited Duke Thomas a private feast on the outskirts of the city in an old, but currently being reconstructed, church, which was serving as the emperor’s watching eyes and de-facto “palace” outside of Constantinople. When the Duke accepted, out of the norms of the day--for no noble should, let alone could, refuse their titular emperor. When he arrived, in the final writings of Evagrius concerning his unfinished manuscript detailing the reign of John, Thomas was assassinated by men, presumably hired by the emperor.
“...the duke never made it to the dinner. A day after the event was to occur, the emperor and his party found the body of the duke strewn in the Ilisos.”
Of course, for us modern historians, this account of explanation by Evagrius is doubtful, since he was personally employed and a follower, and by all accounts, a close friend of the emperor. More likely, Duke Thomas was assassinated, likely strangled to death, possibly by dried horse hide, or some other nefarious means, then conveniently dumped into the river and found, almost immediately, and the death was promptly seen as “drowning.” These events had happened before, and most notoriously, when the 14 year old Emperor Alexios II was strangled in a chapel by a bowstring that paved the way for the usurpation of Andronikus I. As with Thomas, the young emperor’s death was blamed as an accidental drowning. The mirroring of the two incidents are more than more coincidence for anyone thinking, let alone analyzing, with rationality.
The death of Thomas, anyway, led to the succession of his 13 year old son, Manuel, who was essentially coerced to be a pawn of the emperor as his court, advisers, and followers were all closely associated with the emperor. In addition, the Skanderbeg line of rulers, the despotates of Albania, were easily purchased with the promise of wealth and land to support the reforms of the emperor. Of course, this was not all well, especially in the east and in Morea.
A mosaic of the Greek Renaissance, depicting Greco-Roman nobles during the sixteenth century. This mosaic, when discovered, was affectionately named, "Twilight of the Nobility."
Andronikus, Great Domestic of the Morea, Marches on Athens
The Great Domestic, Andronikus, who held the loyalty of 9,000 soldiers garrisoned in Greece, and the Komnenoi Family in Trebizond, vehemently opposed all efforts of centralization. The Komnenoi, still bitter over family lineage, considered themselves to be the rightful emperors of Constantinople despite the fact that the Palaiologoi had led the charge from Nicaea to retake Constantinople as they sheltered themselves inside the halls and walls of Trebizond. Via the good graces of Emperor John VIII, the Komnenoi were once again properly associated with the empire that once bore their line, and although wielding near absolute power in the east, were nonetheless, not emperors in their own right. Likewise, Androninkus, although a relative of the emperor, as was custom to try and retain some sense of loyalty to the emperor--as was the case with Constantine XI being the Great Domestic and chief of the army under John VIII--had little appetite to see his power and wealth be diminished in favor of his second brother.
Additionally, the pawn of the Komnenoi in Trebizond, Demetrius of Armenia, formed a new triumvirate in opposition to the emperor, while John himself, George III Skanderbeg, and, symbolically, the coerced Manuel of Athens as the antithesis triumvirate pushing for reform and centralization. The lack of ability to extend permanent reach in the east, partially because of the control of Asia Minor by the Turks, truly did prevent John from being able to centralize the east. In fact, his reach was minimal, and only the state-funded missionary efforts were about as far reaching the power that the emperor had to wield in the east when sheltered under the confines of the walls and palaces of Constantinople. Only under campaigns did the emperor have any direct influence over the directions of the eastern-most provinces.
In Morea, however, the reach of the emperor was more permanent. Macedonia and Lower Greece had been the beneficiary of the emperor’s early centralization efforts that targeted the rebuilding of local infrastructure and a genuine attempt at improving the general welfare of his subjects. However, the Morea had become the stronghold of the Roman military outside of Constantinople. And ever since the Roman disaster at the hands of Hannibal at Cannae, in which the surviving veterans of the battle were exiled to Sicily, which is the beginning of the shift of military loyalties in Roman history, the soldiers in the Morea had a fond attachment to the Great Domestic more than the “far-away” king beside the Golden Horn.
To make his display of power known, Andronikus marched on Athens on what was described as “routine military training”, although all observers of the modern day understand why the march was undertaken. To hedge the efforts of John from extending his reach south of Athens. John, of course, not wanting to risk outright civil war, listened and understood the threat. In retaliation, he invited Italian bankers into Constantinople to establish the Imperial Bank. He also unsheltered the navy, and blockaded the southern ports of the Morea, and directed trans-Mediterranean trade away from the fortified city of Mystras, the military capital of the Morea, and a center of trade in the Peloponnese.
Needless to say, this move was a form of economic diplomacy. It did not hurt the empire since the trade was directed back to Constantinople, but it had the splitting effect of who it benefitted. The move created a greater sense of importance and power to Constantinople, and, helped to centralize the imperial authority as a result. So, John and the people of Constantinople benefitted from this political civil war, so to speak, instead of Andronikus and the people of the Peloponnese.
[1]This reflects my idea progress, in Administration, the Economics group, under which I advanced to National Bank at this point in the game.
Last edited:
