Peace in thewestern Balkans was equally hard-won. There the greatest menace
was posed by the Normans who had come to dominate southern Italy,
and wished to expand across the Adriatic into the theme of Dyrrachium. A
Norman invasion, led by Robert Guiscard and his son Bohemond, accompanied
Alexios I’s accession in April 1081 (see above, pp. 610–11), and the
earliest indications for the new emperor were not good. First, the citizens of
Dubrovnik and other unspecified ‘Dalmatians’ provided transport ships for
Norman troops.72 Next, advance forces were handed the citadel at Corfu
by its defenders, and proceeded to capture the ports of Vonitsa, Butrint and
Avlona without difficulty.73 Evidently, the greatest concern for the emperor
was retaining the loyalty of the native population. Anna Komnena records
that ‘Alexios sent letters to the leaders (h¯egemones) of the coastal towns and
to the islanders earnestly exhorting them not to lose heart, nor to relax
their efforts in any way.’ Guiscard’s intention was to secure, through intimidation
and persuasion, the support of these same h¯egemones. Moreover,
the Norman had taken a crucial measure to secure their defection: he had
in tow a man claiming to be the deposed emperor Michael VII. Clearly,
Guiscard was aware that the population of Dyrrachium was loyal to the
empire, but not necessarily to the current emperor. The Byzantine doux
in Dyrrachium, George Palaiologos, kept the emperor informed of developments
with regular despatches.74 From his missives ‘the emperor learnt
that . . . countless hosts from all directions were rallying thick as winter
snowflakes, and the more frivolous folk, believing that the false Michael
was in truth the emperor, were joining Robert.’75
As he marched to the city Alexios I received news that Palaiologos had lost
a pitched battle and been badly wounded. The emperor lost a second battle
on 18October 1081, in military terms a worse defeat for the Byzantines than
the infamous rout at Manzikert.76 Many magnates fell, and the emperor
barely escaped, leaving Dyrrachium at the mercy of the Normans. A saving
grace appeared to be the retention of the citadel by the Venetians, Alexios’
allies who shared the imperial antipathy towards Norman expansion across
the Adriatic, and rallied to the Byzantine cause in return for exceptional
trading privileges. The Venetian doge Domenico Silvio was granted the
title doux of Dalmatia and Croatia, and the elevated rank of pr¯otosebastos,
placing him fourth in the new imperial hierarchy devised by Alexios.77
Venetian support was instrumental in the Byzantine recovery of territory
and authority in Dyrrachium after 1082. The doge maintained vigilant
guard over the Adriatic sea lanes while the emperor slowly clawed back
land. The turning-point came at Larissa, where the emperor took advice
from locals and determined to ‘lay an ambush there and so defeat the
Latins by guile’.78 Alexios won his first significant victory by avoiding
pitched battle, tricking the Norman cavalry into a chase and shooting at
their horses from a distance. When Guiscard returned in full force in 1084
he was confronted by the Venetians, who achieved important victories at
sea. Then, having landed and advanced into the interior of the theme of
Dyrrachium, the Normans were caught between a vigorous naval blockade
and the mountains, where the Byzantines vigilantly guarded the passes.
Guiscard withdrew to the port of Jericho where he was trapped for two
months by adverse winds and the allied ships.79 Up to 10,000 Normans are
said to have starved to death before a withdrawal was effected. Guiscard
died the following year, 1085. Alexios had discovered how best to use the
natural defences of Dyrrachium and the services of his allies. These tactics
would serve him well again, in 1106–7.
The city of Dyrrachium was returned to the empire, and thereafter the
command was considered sensitive enough only to be granted to close
relatives of the emperor, including Alexios’ brother-in-law John Doukas
and his nephew John Komnenos, the son of the sebastokrat¯or Isaac.80 This
second John led an unsuccessful campaign against the Dukljans, suffering
many casualties through inexperience and impetuousness. However, John
retained his command and in 1096 was the Byzantine commander who
first encountered an entirely new menace from the west: the First Crusade.
It has been demonstrated that during the course of the crusade the
emperor enjoyed particularly close ties with Bohemond.81 In spite of their
earlier conflict, indeed probably because of the familiarity that encounter
engendered, Alexios had received favourably Bohemond’s proposals to act
as his intermediary with the crusading leaders, and promised him lands
and office in the east. However, the agreement was abandoned at Antioch,
where a remarkable victory left Bohemond in command of the city.
While in the following years the emperor accepted the crusaders’ conquests,
and acknowledged their local jurisdiction in exchange for recognition of
his overlordship, he would never accept the Norman domination of Antioch.
Thus, Bohemond returned to the west in autumn 1104 to recruit new
troops, and proposed a crusade directed against his foe in Constantinople.
His resolve and status were strengthened when he married the elder
daughter of Philip I of France (see above, p. 624).
Alexios I responded swiftly to the Norman’s mission: he wrote to potentates
throughout Europe denying charges levelled by Bohemond and urging
against a second armed pilgrimage. He was peculiarly keen to prevent
any alliance that would expose the empire’s western flank to attack, and
Anna emphasises his concern over approaches to the Italian maritime cities
of Venice, Pisa and Genoa.82 Alexios had a further concern: the possibility
of an aggressive Norman–Hungarian alliance. In 1097 Bohemond’s
cousin, Roger of Sicily, had forged a marriage alliance with theHungarians.
Alexios could not afford to let Bohemond reach a similar understanding,
which would expose the empire to a massive invasion through the northern
marches. A simultaneous assault on the coast at Dyrrachium would
have led to the loss of the whole of the western Balkans. Thus the emperor
orchestrated an extraordinary diplomatic initiative. In 1104 an embassy was
sent to the court of the Hungarian king, and it was arranged that Piroska,
the daughter of the late King Ladislas I (1077–95), should be betrothed to
John, heir to the Byzantine throne. Bohemond was left to launch his assault
on the southern Adriatic littoral, and the emperor had sufficient time to
make suitable preparations.
The emperor had learned from earlier campaigns to use the terrain of
Dyrrachium to his advantage, and took great pains to seal the mountain
passes to the east of Dyrrachium. Even after Alexios was betrayed by certain
Arbanoi, who showed Bohemond the mountain tracks, the Normans
could neither advance nor easily retreat.83 An effective naval blockade,
mounted with Venetian assistance, prevented further supplies and troops
fromreaching the invasion force.84Norman foraging partieswere frequently
ambushed and returned empty-handed, if they returned at all. In this way
Bohemond’s spirit was broken, and he sued for peace, agreeing the treaty
of Devol which is recorded in full by Anna Komnena.85 Bohemond was
to receive the elevated imperial rank of sebastos and command of the cities
of Antioch and Edessa, both of which would revert to imperial control
upon his death. However, Bohemond never returned to Antioch, and the
carefully constructed clauses of the treaty of Devol were not implemented.
Consequently, Alexios and his successor John II (1118–43) were committed
to an arduous military and diplomatic struggle to regain Antioch, devoting
little attention to the empire’s Balkan lands. Into this vacuum stepped two
expansionary powers, the Venetians and Hungarians.
The need to secure first Venetian and thenHungarian assistance for wars
against the Normans saw the Byzantines delegate authority in Dalmatia
and Croatia. As early as 1081–2 the Venetian doge was granted the title
‘doux of Dalmatia and Croatia’, ostensibly acting for the emperor, but
in reality advancing his own interests. The Hungarians did likewise, and
in 1102 Coloman completed the annexation of Croatia to his kingdom
and had himself crowned King of Croatia in Biograd.86 The betrothal in
1104 of Piroska and John Komnenos gave this act Byzantine recognition,
and also appears to have offered tacit imperial support to a Hungarian
invasion of Dalmatia, which took place against Venetian interests in 1105.
The inhabitants of the maritime cities surrendered to the Hungarian king
in return for certain privileges, the details of which have been preserved in
extant charters.87 Venetian retaliation was delayed until 1115–16, when the
doge recovered the major cities. Despite Hungarian efforts, the Venetians
retained control of most of Dalmatia into the 1140s.
During this time John II showed little interest in the northern Balkans.
In 1122 he achieved a significant victory over an invading force of ‘Scythians’,
possibly Pechenegs, but probably Cumans. His only subsequent military
venture into the region was brief and opportunistic. Niketas Choniates
notes that in 1127 the Hungarians sacked Braniˇcevo and Sofia, and in
response John sailed ‘along theDanube from the Black Sea, falling upon the
foe by both land and water . . . captured Frangochorion [between the Sava
andDanube] . . . and Semlin, and attackedHaram, from which he wrested
great spoils. After further struggles, he offered peace.’88 For the remainder
of John’s reign the treaty signed with the Hungarian king was honoured.
Furthermore, stability was guaranteed by the good relations John enjoyed
with the German rulers Lothar III (1125–37) and Conrad III (1138–52). In
1136 Byzantine troops took part in Lothar’s campaign which pressed into
Norman-occupied southern Italy. Relations with Conrad were even better,
and from 1140 were destined to be cemented by the marriage of John’s
fourth son,Manuel, to Conrad’s sister-in-law,Bertha of Sulzbach (see above,
pp. 636–7). Thus John was free to concentrate on his eastern campaigns,
and it was in Cilicia in 1143 that he was killed in a hunting accident. The
younger of his two surviving sons, Manuel, succeeded.
World History
