Villehardouin's Success In The Battle Of Byzantium

After the election of Baldwin of Flanders as emperor of Constantinople in 1204, the Latins’ control of Byzantium faced constant pressure from Greeks both inside and outside the city. Despite this adversity, they remained in control of Constantinople up until 1261. The struggle to both capture the city and then maintain it is described in Geoffrey of Villehardouin’s Conquest of Constantionple up through the death of Marquis Boniface in 1207. Villehardouin attributes the Latins’ success in conquering Byzantium to the grace and will of God. Furthermore, he claims that the losses they face are a part of God’s plan as well. Despite this, it clear that it was fear of Johanitsa, king of Vlachia, as well as the actions of the Greeks in response to
this fear that allowed the Latins to preserve Byzantium for as long as they did. In reality, it was not Latin actions that saved Byzantium but rather a combination of factors outside of Latin control. During the initial push to seize Byzantium, the Latins were able to capture many Greek cities in a short period of time with few troops.
The first few cities “welcomed them very warmly and swore their loyalty to the emperor” (Villehardouin 72). The Greek historian Niketas Choniatēs also describes the early surrenders in his history, O City of Byzantium. Choniatēs states that the western territories had “all together submitted servilely within a year’s time to the Latin nations” (Choniatēs 335). It is possible that a majority of the Greeks surrendered partially out of fear given the recent battle for Constantinople, which would give credit to the military prowess of the Crusaders. However, Choniatēs also describes a situation where the inhabitants of the Hellas “submitted to the marquis” even though “he led an army of no great numbers” (Choniatēs 334). A possible explanation for this comes from Villehardouin’s description of one city, Salonika, that surrenders on the condition that they “maintain the usages and customs upheld by the Greek emperors” (Villehardouin 76). These Greeks want to maintain the status quo and they think that that is possible under the Latins. Hence, it seems that the Crusader’s ease at conquering the first cities in Byzantium can be attributed to the Greeks desire to avoid conflict. This does shows some amount of respect for the Crusaders military force, yet it also illustrates that from the start, Latin control of Byzantium was partially independent of any specific Crusader
actions. This pattern of success is turned around when the Latins disrupt the political state. Villehardouin claims that when the Latins “began to exploit their lands unjustly,” it caused the Greeks to “despise them and bear ill will towards them in their hearts” (Villehardouin 82). Villehardouin correlates the rebellion of the Greeks to the greed of the Latins, and by extension supports the idea that it was Greek tolerance that allowed the early conquering rather than Latin strength. Once the Greeks begin to rebel, the Latins need to use force in order to subdue the discord and continue conquering cities. While Villehardouin describes many factors that lead to the victories, he is persistent in attributing these successes to God. There is one battle between the Latins and Theodore Lascaris’ Greek army where despite incredible differences in the strength of their armies – Villehardouin claims that the enemy had “a staggering number of men, while [the Latins] had no more than 140 knights alongside a number of mounted sergeants” – the Latin army is still successful through the Lord’s “grace and his good will” (Villehardouin 86). Villehardouin presents no other explanation for this victory. Similarly, Villehardouin depicts a battle where the Latins had “no more than 500 mounted men while their opponent had more than 5,000” (Villehardouin 89). Despite these odds, the Latins “fought the Greeks and overcame and defeated them, inflicting heavy losses” which Villehardouin attributes to the Lord, who grants fortune as he pleases” (Villehardouin 89). Choniatēs presents an alternative view to these first battles after the Greek rebellion. He states that the Latins recognized that the Greeks were “not arrayed for battle, were not employing military stratagems, and were poorly armed” (Choniatēs 336). This prompts a quick attack from the Latins who slaughter the entire Greek army; “no one was spared” (Choniatēs 336). This situation depicts the Latin success as correlated to the inexperience of the Greeks which shows both that the Latins had a capable military force and also that the Crusader’s success can be partially attributed to the Greek’s failure to prepare.