2001•Unpublished venueRequires access

Restoration and Fall (1204–1461)

Warren T. Treadgold

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The best proof of Byzantium’s underlying strength is that Byzantine states survived for more than two and ahalf centuries after the seemingly fatal Fourth Crusade. Strong and unified leadership was certainly not the reason. When the Crusaders stormed Constantinople, the deposed Alexius III Angelus still held the region of Thessalonica, while his son-in-law Theodore Lascaris held the northwest part of Byzantine Anatolia, supposedly in Alexius’ interest. The fugitive Alexius V held most of eastern Thrace. Alexius Comnenus, a grandson of the late emperor Andronicus, had seized the northern coast of Anatolia and declared himself emperor at Trebizond. Yet though he claimed to be the Byzantine emperor, Alexius, whom today we call the Emperor of Trebizond, was merely a local potentate. The rebels in southern Greece and southwest Anatoliahad purely local ambitions. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The best proof of Byzantium’s underlying strength is that Byzantine states survived for more than two and ahalf centuries after the seemingly fatal Fourth Crusade. Strong and unified leadership was certainly not the reason. When the Crusaders stormed Constantinople, the deposed Alexius III Angelus still held the region of Thessalonica, while his son-in-law Theodore Lascaris held the northwest part of Byzantine Anatolia, supposedly in Alexius’ interest. The fugitive Alexius V held most of eastern Thrace. Alexius Comnenus, a grandson of the late emperor Andronicus, had seized the northern coast of Anatolia and declared himself emperor at Trebizond. Yet though he claimed to be the Byzantine emperor, Alexius, whom today we call the Emperor of Trebizond, was merely a local potentate. The rebels in southern Greece and southwest Anatoliahad purely local ambitions. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The best proof of Byzantium’s underlying strength is that Byzantine states survived for more than two and ahalf centuries after the seemingly fatal Fourth Crusade. Strong and unified leadership was certainly not the reason. When the Crusaders stormed Constantinople, the deposed Alexius III Angelus still held the region of Thessalonica, while his son-in-law Theodore Lascaris held the northwest part of Byzantine Anatolia, supposedly in Alexius’ interest. The fugitive Alexius V held most of eastern Thrace. Alexius Comnenus, a grandson of the late emperor Andronicus, had seized the northern coast of Anatolia and declared himself emperor at Trebizond. Yet though he claimed to be the Byzantine emperor, Alexius, whom today we call the Emperor of Trebizond, was merely a local potentate. The rebels in southern Greece and southwest Anatoliahad purely local ambitions. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Key concepts: Emperor, Byzantine architecture, Ancient history, History

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Restoration and Fall (1204–1461) — Research Paper | ScholarLens