Ꭶ 4. The marriage of the emperor Henry with the daughter CHAP. IV. of Boniface, king of Saloniki, preserved union between these two sovereigns. But after Boniface was unfortunately killed in the war with the Bulgarians, discussions arose between the emperor and the guardians of the kingdom. Demetrius, the son of Boniface by his second marriage with the dowager-empress Margaret, widow of Isaac II., succeeded to the crown of Saloniki by his father's will.1 The empress Margaret acted as regent for her son, who was only two years old; but count Biandrate, a Lombard noble connected with the family of Montferrat, was elected by the nobles and the army as bailly and guardian, to carry on the feudal administration and lead the vassals of the crown.2 The policy of the bailly was directed to strengthening as far as possible the connection of the kingdom of Saloniki with Italy, and with the marquisate of Montferrat, and to dissolving the feudal ties that bound it to the empire of Romania. He was accused by the Flemings of endeavouring to transfer the crown of the young Demetrius to the head of the marquis William, his elder brother; but it does not appear that his plan really extended beyond effecting a close union between the power and dominions of the two brothers, and garrisoning all the fortresses of the kingdom of Saloniki with Lombard troops, whom he was compelled to recruit in Italy in great numbers. The conduct of count Biandrate rendered it necessary for the emperor Henry to subdue the spirit of independence which manifested itself among the Lombards without loss of time, or the empire of Romania would have been soon dissolved. The count was accordingly and Bonifice had not allowed. Ephræmius, v. 7335, and 7414. Branas, who married Agnes of France, sister of Louis VII., and widow of the tyrant Andronicus, seems to have been the only Greek who held any command during the reign of Baldwin.-Nicetas, 332. 1 The empress Margaret was the daughter of Bela III., king of Hungary. 2 Count Biandrate is called Blandras by the old French writers. § 4. CHAP. IV. summoned to do homage at the imperial court for the young king, and to deliver up the fortresses of the kingdom, to be guarded by the Suzerain according to the obligations of the feudal law; and the emperor marched with a body of troops towards Thessalonica, to hold a court for receiving the oath of fealty. But Biandrate replied to the summons, that the kingdom of Saloniki had been conquered by the arms of the Lombards; and he boldly refused to allow the emperor to enter Thessalonica, except on the condition of recognising the claim of the king of Saloniki to the immediate superiority over the country actually conquered by the Crusaders, as well as all the unconquered territory south of Thessalonica and Dyrrachium, including the great fiefs of Boudonitza, Salona, Thebes, Athens, Negrepont, and Achaia.1 Henry now found himself sorely embarrassed; for, not contemplating any serious opposition, he had quitted Constantinople with few troops, and was encamped in the open country of Chalkidike, where the winter suddenly set in with intense severity. All his councillors advised him to consent to any terms that might be offered, in order to save the lives of his followers, by gaining immediate shelter within the walls of Thessalonica. The clergy who attended the expedition promised to 1 Henri de Valenciennes, 191, edit. Buchon. Buchon, on the authority of the Chronicle of the Conquest of the Morea, ascribes the acquisition of a superiority over Athens, Negrepont, and Achaia to Boniface, when he led the crusading army into Greece in 1205; and this is said to have been the case by Nicetas, 410. If the king of Saloniki really exacted this homage, which is not mentioned either by Villehardoin or Henri de Valenciennes, there can be no question that he did so in direct violation of the constitution of the feudal empire of Romania. But Buchon also states that the king of Saloniki transferred the suzerainty over all the great fiefs in Greece to the prince of Achaia. This is a manifest error, and the authority of the Chronicle of the Conquest is of no value. The text of the treaty concluded by the Crusaders before the conquest of Constantinople, the negotiations with count Biandrate, and the proceedings at the parliament of Ravenika, all prove it to be a mere fable, invented in later times to flatter the house of Anjou of Naples, to which the Lombard pretensions at this period gave a colouring. It is easy to refute the chronicle in detail. The passage of the Greek text, 59, v. 221, is wanting in the older French text, p. 37, though the same thing occurs, p. 102. But the Chronicle is full of the grossest blunders. It is indeed absurd to suppose that Ravan dalle Carcere, great feudatory of Negrepont, who paid a tribute to the absolve him from any sin he might commit, by subsequently violating the engagements that necessity compelled him to accept, if they should be contrary to the feudal constitution of the empire. Under these circumstances, the emperor promised everything that the Lombards demanded; but he soon found a pretext for violating his promises, after he had succeeded in establishing his troops in Thessalonica. In order to determine definitively the feudal relations of all the subjects of the empire, in the month of May 1209 Henry convoked a high court of his vassals, or a parliament of Romania, to meet at the small town of Ravenika.1 His principal object was to receive the homage and oath of fealty from all the tenants-in-chief in the country south of the kingdom of Saloniki, and to grant such investitures of fiefs and offices as might be required to put an end to all pretensions of superiority similar in nature to those advanced by count Biandrate. The claim of the bailly of the kingdom of Saloniki rendered this step absolutely necessary, for the Lombards had already made considerable encroachments on the possessions of the great feudatories who had received their portion of the spoils of the empire in Greece. Otho de la Roche, the signor republic of Venice to secure protection, could think of doing homage to a petty prince of Achaia, who was then, and for many years after, unable to complete the conquest of his own principality.-Buchon, Histoire des Conquêtes et de l'Etablissement des Français dans les Etats de l'Ancienne Grèce, tom. i. p. 262. 1 Ravenika is in the ancient Chalkidike, almost fifty miles from Thessalonica, near Hierissos or Erisso, the ancient Akanthos. It now contains about two hundred houses. Fallmerayer describes its romantic position, but he passed through it without recalling its historical associations. Colonel Leake writes the name Reveniko; Fallmerayer, Ravanikia.-Leake's Travels in Northern Greece, iii. 161. Fallmerayer, Fragmente aus dem Orient, ii. 63. The date of the parliament of Ravenika is fixed by the fact that Geffrey Villehardoin was bailly of Achaia at the time it was held, having received the office of seneschal of Romania at its meeting, in order to make him a great feudatory of Romania, instead of a vassal of the prince of Achaia.-Henri de Valenciennes, 205. Now Geffrey takes the title of seneschal in an act dated September 1209, and is so styled by Innocent III. in March 1210, tom. ii. p. 409, edit. Baluze. The parliament must have been held amidst the chestnut forest of Ravenika, between the months of June and August, to escape the heat and the fever of Thessalonica. A. D. 1209. § 4. CHAP. IV. of Athens, had been deprived of Thebes. The parliament of Ravenika was consequently viewed with favour by the barons of the south, who were not Lombards, and who naturally preferred to remain direct feudatories of the emperor of Romania, in his distant capital at Constantinople, to being converted into subordinate vassals of a neighbouring Italian king. On this occasion the constable and marshal of the kingdom of Saloniki, the barons of Boudonitza, Negrepont, Athens, and Naxos, the bailly of Achaia, and other tenants-in-chief of the empire in Greece, whose names and possessions have not been preserved, made their appearance at the court of Henry, and fulfilled their feudal obligations. Everything was done by Henry that lay in his power, in order to attach the great vassals to the imperial crown. Thebes was restored to Otho de la Roche, who received the investiture both of it and Athens; Mark Sanudo was invested with his conquest of Naxos, and other islands, under the title of Duke of the Archipelago; and Geffrey Villehardoin the younger, bailly of Achaia, in the absence of his prince, William de Champlitte, was appointed seneschal of Romania, that he might become a great feudatory in virtue of his office. A determined effort was also made to restrain the ecclesiastical power. This became necessary, from the facility with which the Crusaders, who were on the point of returning home, lavished their possessions on the church. To such an extent was this liberality carried, that there seemed to be some danger of the ecclesiastics acquiring possession of the greater part of the fiefs throughout the empire, in which case the country would have been left without military defenders. Henry and the great barons now ratified an edict which had been already published, prohibiting all grants of land to the church or to monasteries, either by donation or testament; leaving sinners to purchase their peace with heaven, 1 through the agency of the priesthood, out of the proceeds Count Biandrate and the Lombard army continued nevertheless to resist the emperor and the parliament, and determined to defend their possessions with the sword. Henry, therefore, found himself compelled to take the field against them, in order to establish the imperial power in Greece on a proper feudal basis. He met with no resistance until he arrived at Thebes, in which count Biandrate had assembled the best portion of the Lombard troops. The army of Henry was repulsed in an attempt to take the place by assault; and it was not without great difficulty, and more by negotiation than force, that the imperial army at last entered Thebes. 1 Ducange, Histoire de Constantinople, 56. 2 The original text of this act is contained in the Bullarum Amplissima Collectio, Rome, 1740, tom. iii. No. xlii.; and in Buchon, Nouvelles Recherchesavant propos, 49. There is also a translation of it in Buchon, Histoire des Conquêtes des Français, 150; but this author, as is too frequently the case, omits to mention that the text is to be found in one of his own prior publications. For the confirmation, see Epist. Innocent. III, tom. ii. p. 496, edit. Baluze. A. D. 1209. |
