This post is part of our series The Context for the First Crusade. In this post, we will explore the relationship between Byzantium and the West.
As discussed in a previous post in which I gave a brief history of Byzantium, the Roman Empire in the West fell. However, we do see the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East in Byzantium. The West became overran by Barbarian tribes, whereas the Byzantine Empire thrived and the inhabitants, as they saw it, preserved their ‘Romanness’.
When Byzantines encountered Westerners in the early medieval period, there was a concern that the ‘barbarians’ might pollute the population the way they did the Western part of the Empire. So when mercenaries were hired there was a deliberate attempt to prevent their customs from influencing residents. For instance, Byzantine citizens were not permitted to wear Germanic clothing, such as boots, and furs. Instead, they were to wear traditional Roman clothes, such as togas and sandals to distinguish themselves from the barbarians hoards that had overtaken the Western Roman Empire. The Byzantines remained Roman, as they saw it.
Charlemagne
Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800 by Pope Hadrain I. In doing so, he set Charlemagne above all other rulers in Europe. This coronation set Charlemagne above the Byzantine Emperor too, who at this time was Pseudo-Emperor Irene. It is likely that Charlemagne proposed marriage to Irene in 802 to solve the two Emperor problem.
However, Irene was disposed of before the message arrived.
It is likely that Charlemagne’s use of the title Emperor did little to heal the long-standing division between Byzantium and the West.
The Normans
The Normans were in operation in Italy from the early 11th century and they were something of a wild card. They saw the opportunity for land, wealth and adventure in Southern Italy and Sicily and involve themselves in the various disputes for territory in this region. The Byzantine Empire held land in this region too.
Initially, the Normans were hired as mercenaries to assist the Lombards in their rebellion against the Byzantines in 1009-1022. Later, in 1038 some Normans served as mercenaries for the Byzantine Emperor Michael IV in his expedition to Sicily in which he intended to take the island from the Muslims and restore Christian rule.
As they were prone to do, the Normans eventually turned on the Byzantines for they had their own ambitions for land and rulership in the region. Taking advantage of the weakness in the Byzantine Empire and perhaps also urged on by the papacy, the Normans gained Sicily and parts of Southern Italy for themselves at the expense of Byzantium.
The final Byzantine outpost in Italy, Bari fell to the Norman Robert Guisard after a 3-year siege in 1071. This victory made Robert Guisadrd the undisputed master of Southern Italy. Thereafter, the Byzantine Emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes sought Norman friendship and the Emperor even offered one of his daughters as a bride to Robert (an offer he refused).
The Latin Church and Byzantium
It wasn’t just the Normans who had soured relations between Byzantium and the West, the Latin Church had a hand in this too. The fall of the Western part of the Roman Empire and the establishment of Byzantium had also seen a split in the Christian Church. Orthodoxy thrived in Byzantium under the Emperor whereas the Latin Church developed in the West. The Papacy as an institution grew throughout the early medieval period and by the 11th century, it was a thriving institution which had come to represent and dominate the Church in the West.
The Byzantine Empire did not recognise the Papacy as holding authority over the Christian Church as the West did. Rather Byzantines looked to Church Councils for rulings on theology. The two Churches were generally speaking mutually tolerant of each other. However, on occasion, the two churches would clash over matters of theology.
Filioque
One disagreement had long been regarding the issue of ‘filioque’ which means ‘from the Son’. It had been agreed at the Council of Constantinople in 381 that the Holy Spirit proceeded ‘from the father’ and there was no need for any additions to this. In 1014, Latins make an alteration to the creed, that the Holy Spirit proceeds ‘from the father and from the son’.
In reality, the Latins had been using this little addition to the Creed since the 6th century. The Church in the East claimed this was a violation of earlier canons and so rejected this addition. This had ramifications for Christianity as the East and West had different interpretations of the Trinity and getting this wrong could essentially (it was perceived) bar one from heaven.
The Pentarchy
The dispute between the East and Western Churches also revolved around the notion of Pentarchy. As the early Church developed, 5 centres of Christianity emerged – Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. As Islam spread throughout the 7th century, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem eventually fell into Muslim hands. Only Rome and Constantinople remained in Christian territory. Each of these centres developed somewhat independently of the other. Disputes regarding their relative importance prevailed throughout the early middle ages.
From the mid-11th century, the Papacy was starting to assert its dominance in matters of Church and State in the West. At the same time, the papacy began to redefine its relationship with Constantinople. Previously, Rome had considered their counterparts in Constantinople as their brothers and they envisaged this relationship to be one of equals. Now, the papacy saw the relationship more akin to parent and child with Rome as the father and Constantinople as the son. Furthermore, the Papacy wanted to convert the Eastern Church to Western Orthodoxy (as the papacy saw it).
The Schism of 1054
All these issues came to a head in 1054 when Pope Leo IX sent a mission to explore common interests in Italy. At this time, Byzantium still held some regions in Southern Italy. The Papacy sought an alliance against the growing Norman threat. Negotiations didn’t go well as each side saw this as an opportunity to correct the errors in the doctrine of the opposing side. In addition to the matters discussed above was the issue of using leavened or unleavened bread in mass. Also the matter of celibacy within the clergy.
On 16 July 1054, the papal legate, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, gave insult to the Byzantines by interrupting mass in the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. On the altar he placed a bill from Leo IX which thereby excommunicated the Patriarch Keroularios of Constantinople and his followers, claiming he had abused his office. The patriarch responded in kind excommunicating Humbert and his companions. Following this breaking point in relations, the Byzantines closed down all Churches in Constantinople which followed the Latin rite.
In 1078, Emperor Michael VII was overthrown by Nikephoros III Botaneiates. Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Nikephoro and publicly gave his blessing to a military expedition organized by the Norman, Robert Guiscard to restore Michael to the throne. And so the practice of Popes excommunicating newly crowned emperors began. Until Pope Urban II.
Pope Urban II and Alexius Comnenus
Pope Urban II tried to unite the East and Western Churches. He lifted the excommunication of Emperor Alexius Comnenus that had been placed on him by Pope Gregory VII. He sent a mission to the Emperor Alexius to open a dialogue. Alexius suggested a council ought to take place to discuss matters of doctrine. Both Urban and Alexius were keen to heal the rifts caused by previous generations and certainly dampened animosity between the two churches.
When Urban called the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont and called his audience in the West to aid their brethren in Byzantium, this was quite a turn of events from preceding decades. Urban saw himself as a unifier, he undoubtedly wanted to be remembered as the Pope who united the East and Western churches. This should be borne in mind when we consider Urban’s motives for the First Crusade. Furthermore, we should also consider the long history of soured relations between Byzantium and the West when we think about the First Crusade, the participants of this expedition and their conduct.
Bibliography
Baldwin, M.W., ‘The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century, in M.W. Baldwin (ed.), A History of the Crusades, Volume 1, The First Hundred Years, pp. 177-219.
Browning, R., The Byzantine Empire (Revised Edition), (1992).
Harris, J., ‘The “Schism” of 1054 and the First Crusade’, Crusades, 12/2014, Vol. 13, Iss. 1, pp. 1-20.
Nicol, D.M., ‘Byzantium and the Papacy in the Eleventh Century’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 04/1962, Vol. 13, Iss. 1, pp. 1-20.
Whalen, B., ‘Rethinking the Schism of 1054: Authority, Heresy, and the Latin Rite’, Traditio, 2007, Vol. 62, pp. 1-24.
Discover more from MancHistorian
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
