Saint Louis and the Jochids

Research objectives: To provide an analysis of the relations between the Jochids and the French monarch, Louis IX. Particular attention is dedicated to the channels used by the Tatars to obtain information about the political conditions in Western Europe. Research materials: Contemporary Western sources including the report of the Franciscan traveler, William of Rubruck, and German chronicles in which Berke’s embassy to the French king in 1260 has been recorded. Results and novelty of the study: The Tatar view of Medieval Europe is an insufficiently researched topic. In the decades that followed the Mongol invasion of Central Europe in 1241–1242, the accounts of Western travelers and chroniclers remain the sole material from which glimpses of the Jochid perspective of the Western world may be discerned. Nonetheless, fragmentary sources at our disposal reveal that the Jochids used Western travelers and envoys to learn more about the Christendom. In this way, the image of Louis IX as the leader of the Christian world was firmly entrenched among the Jochids by the early second half of the thirteenth century. It is attested by Berke’s mission sent to Paris in 1260, and also by testimony of William of Rubruck, recorded several years earlier. According to the Flemish Franciscan author, Batu’s son Sartak, who regarded Louis IX to be “the chief ruler among the Franks”, had heard about the French king from an earlier envoy from Constantinople, Baldwin of Hainaut. The report of Rubruck and other sources at our disposal indicate the importance of the rather neglected Jochid relations with the Latin empire of Constantinople as a channel through which the Tatars gathered valuable reports about the political conditions in the West.

Греки, болгары и латиняне: противостояние раннего XIII века во Фракии и Малой Азии

The article describes and analyzes the armed conflicts in Thrace and Asia Minor between the Byzantines, the Bulgarians and the Latin Empire of Constantinople during the first decades following the Fourth Crusade. The conflicts took the form of pitched battles, “indirect” warfare and sieges while was common practice between the opponents to form and broke alliances in an attempt to exploit each other’s difficulties. Finally the role of ideology and religion during these wars is briefly investigated. Аннотация В статье рассматриваются и анализируются вооруженные конфликты во Фракии и Малой Азии между ромеями, болгарами и Латинской империей Константинополя в первые десятилетия, последовавшие за Четвертым крестовым походом. Конфликты эти принимали форму открытых сражений, рейдов и осад, причем все эти формы сопровождались заключением и разрывом союзов, призванных эксплуатировать слабость другой стороны. В заключении кратко рассматриваются роли идеологии и религии в указанных конфликтах.

Latin Emperors and Serbian Queens: Anna and Helena

Latin Constantinople in the 1240s and 1250s has often been considered a ripe fruit waiting to fall into the hands of one of the competing political entities in the region (Nicaea, Epiros, Bulgaria, etc.). This paper argues, on the contrary, that under Emperor Baldwin II (1240-1273) the Latin Empire remained a dynamic power in the post-1204 Byzantine world. The basis for this re-evaluation is a revisionist study of the genealogical relations between a number of leading families in the region (among others the Villehardouin, Da Verona, and Cayeux), creating networks both within Latin Romania and beyond. One of the main hypotheses advanced is that two Serbian queens – Stefan Nemanja’s third wife Anna (of Hainaut) and Stefan Uroš I’s wife Helena (Angelos/Courtenay) – were in fact what one might call Latin imperial princesses. This in turn leads to a reconsideration of Latin-Serbian relations in the period 1204-1261.

Innocent III and South-eastern Europe: Orthodox, Heterodox, or Heretics?

In the beginning of the pontificate of Innocent III (1198–1216) the necessity of creating a large coalition for a better organization of the Fourth Crusade convinced the pope to establish diplomatic relations with Bulgaria and Serbia, and to support Hungarian expansion in Bosnia. His aim was to surround Constantinople with a ring of states loyal to the Roman Church, thus forcing the empire to participate in the crusade. In order to achieve this result, Innocent was more than willing to put aside his concerns for strict religious orthodoxy and allow the existence, to a certain extent, of non-conforming practices and beliefs in the lands of South-eastern Europe. While this plan was successful at first, and both Bulgaria and Serbia recognized pontifical authority in exchange for political legitimization, the establishment of the so-called Latin empire of Constantinople in 1204 changed the picture. Its relations with Bulgaria were extremely conflicted, and the threat posed by Bulgaria to the very existence of the empire forced again Innocent III to a politics of compromise. The survival of the Latin empire was of the greatest importance, since Innocent hoped to use it as a launching point for future crusades: yet, he tried until possible to maintain a conciliatory politics towards Bulgaria as well.

Rex or Imperator? Kalojan’s Royal Title in the Correspondence with Innocent III

In the correspondence between Innocent III and Kalojan of Bulgaria (1197–1207), the title of the Bulgarian ruler is recorded both as rex and imperator. While the pope consistently employs the title rex, Kalojan refers to himself, in every occasion, with the title imperator. Some scholars have speculated that the use of this title was a deliberate political move: styling himself imperator, Kalojan was claiming a much greater political dignity than that of king of Bulgaria, putting himself on the same level as the emperor of Constantinople. On the other hand, while Innocent’s letters were obviously written in Latin, Kalojan’s letters were originally in Bulgarian, translated in Greek, and finally translated from Greek to Latin. Therefore, the use of the word imperator may be just an attempt at translating the term βασιλεύς, not in the sense of Emperor of the Romans but merely in that of autocrat, a ruler whose power was fully independent from any other external political authority. This recognition was of a fundamental importance for Kalojan, since the rulers of Bulgaria’s neighbouring states, the kingdom of Hungary, the Byzantine empire, and especially the Latin empire of Constantinople, were not willing to recognize his legitimacy as an independent sovereign.