Byzantine After the death of Emperor Manuel I (ManueII Komnenos, reigned 1143-1180), the regent government headed by Queen Maria took over the imperial power. The incompetence and "pro-Latin" policies of the regent government were slammed by Byzantine society. In 1182, the noble Andronikos I Komnenos (reigned from 1183 to 1185) launched a rebellion with the help of the anti-Latin sentiment of the Byzantine people and successfully seized the throne. He incited fans to loot the property of Latin in the city of Constantinople , burn down Latin neighborhoods, and massacre the Latin residents in the city. Except for some people who got the news in advance and fled by boat, there are about 60,000 Latin residents living in Constantinople who have become ghosts, prisoners, or are sold as slaves to the East. Modern historians call it "the massacre of Constantinople in 1182" (hereinafter referred to as "the massacre").
There are two diametrically opposed views in the international historian's commentary on the "Holocaust" event. According to one view, the "Holocaust" had an important influence on the deterioration of relations between the Byzantine Empire and the Latin world, was "a milestone in the growing hostility between East and West", "the most important event leading up to the Cataclysm of 1204". The persuasive turning point". Another point of view is that the impact of the "Holocaust" was far less than imagined, on the grounds that there were very few Western historical records, the actual number of Latin casualties was very limited, and the event quickly disappeared from the collective memory of the Latins. . The point of difference between the two views is how to view the historical record of the Holocaust. Obviously, a comprehensive analysis and interpretation of the historical writing of the "Holocaust" event in Latin historical books is a prerequisite for objectively evaluating this historical event.
A
The twelfth century was in many respects a "living and dynamic age" in Western Europe. In the context of the rise of cities and the establishment of bureaucratic states in the early modern period, there was a cultural renaissance in Western Europe. This period not only produced a large number of historical works,Moreover, there is also a trend of diversification in the form of historical compilation. This created the conditions for Latin authors to write about the events of the Holocaust.
With the development of the Crusades, the connection between Western European society and the Eastern Mediterranean world became more and more frequent. The vision of Latin writers broke through the geographical fetters and was no longer limited to the history of the region and the nation, but paid more and more attention to the history of the country. external affairs. In the early Middle Ages, "history was written almost exclusively in the form of chronologies, chronicles, and autobiographies; views were narrow and interests were almost local". After the 12th century, Western European historiography shows two obvious characteristics: first, the content is no longer limited to a few words, but began to make relatively complete records and detailed explanations of certain events; extraterritorial affairs. The Historia rerum Anglicarum (Historia rerum Anglicarum) compiled by the Church of England historian William of Newburgh (1136-1198), in addition to recording the historical events in the country, also has more than half of the content of England and the Frankish Kingdom, Norway Stories related to kingdoms, Norman kingdoms, Germanic kingdoms, Byzantine Empires, and the Crusaders of Jerusalem. The Historia, compiled by the Jerusalem-born chronicler William of Tyre (c. 1130-1186), not only details the activities of the Latins in the Holy Land and the East, but also provides information on the Byzantine Empire , a lot of information on Muslim countries.
Influenced by the cultural revival of the 12th century and the Crusades, Latin authors no longer focus on religious life, but also turn their attention to the secular world, especially the political and cultural life related to the Crusades. In the early Middle Ages, writing was almost entirely done by learned priests, so that "only things of interest to the clergy were preserved in Latin writings". But an entirely different writing environment began to emerge in the twelfth century, with a cultural renaissance that brought "the development of secularism, individualism, and criticism of established authority." Affected by this, clergy, while attaching importance to religious life, are also committed to seeing things from a secular perspective, the most notable example being Geoffrey of Monmouth (about 1095-1155), a clergyman of the Church of England. His Historia Regum Britanniae adopted a more secular mode of historical narrative,Begins the book with the fall of Troy, telling the stories of all the kings of Britain.
It is worth noting that during the cultural renaissance of the 12th century, more and more politicians, diplomats and military officials took on historical tasks. Genoa Diplomat Caffaro of Genoa (about 1080-1164) was the earliest urban chronicler in the Middle Ages and the earliest secular historian in Western Europe. To some extent it is the origin of medieval Italian secular historiography".
The oral records of survivors of the Holocaust became the primary source for Latin writings on the history of the Holocaust. In the heyday of the Middle Ages, due to the conditions of news dissemination, "oral speech became almost the only effective means of communication... Church records were often compiled based on news heard from passers-by". The spread of "Holocaust" news was no exception. Oral accounts by survivors of the Holocaust became the main source of information for the Latin world about the event. During the "Holocaust", a large number of Latin refugees fled Constantinople, some returned to Italy, and some fled east to the Crusaders, so these two places were the first to learn about the relevant news from the survivors. Pisa's famous jurist and diplomat Bernardo Maragone (Bernardo Maragone, about 1108-1188) compiled the "Chronicles of Pisa", detailing 1182 Byzantines in Constantinople The killing of the Latins and the indictment of Andronicus for his evil deeds. Bishop William of Tyre not only learned the plot of the "Holocaust" from the survivors, but also conducted a detailed analysis of the cause of its outbreak.
The story of the messenger is also an important source for the historical writing of the Latin historical book "The Holocaust". Under the dissemination of the messenger, the records of the "Holocaust" are scattered in various documents in Western Europe. Since the daughter of the Frankish king Louis VII (Louis VII, reigned 1137-1180), Agnes of France, was the wife of the Byzantine emperor Alexius II,Andronicus' daughter, Theodora Komnene (Duchess of Austria,?—1184) married Henry II, Duke of Austria (1112—1177). ), so the Frankish Kingdom, the Austrian Duchy and the Byzantine Empire maintained close political ties. When the messengers of the two countries reported the events of the Byzantine Empire in 1182 back to their own countries, the local people paid great attention to the fate of the Frankish princess and the success or failure of the coup of Andronicus. Geoffrey of Vigeois (?—1184), the abbot of Vigeois at that time, recorded this in detail in his "Limousin Chronicle" and in his "Continuation of the History of Zweiter" compiled by an anonymous Austrian author. a situation.
In the Middle Ages, most Latin people had never been to the East, and the number of official messengers was very limited, so the oral stories of travelers or passersby became an important way for Latin authors to know the news of the "Holocaust". Ibn Jubayr (1145-1217) was a famous traveler in Andalusia, Spain, who made a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1183. In 1185, while stopping at Sicily on his return journey, he heard and recorded the story of the "massacre" that was widely circulated on the island. Robert of Torigni (circa 1110-1186) became abbot of Mont Saint Michel in 1154, and traveled to England and Rome many times to obtain information from passers-by about the "Holocaust". A large amount of information, the "Chronicle" is the most detailed historical data on the "Holocaust" other than the works of Bishop William of Tyre. Godfrey of Viterbo (about 1120-1196), a church historian in Viterbo, was a long-term German court messenger and traveled all over Europe. The "Holocaust" episode. Through such channels, news of the "Holocaust" also spread to Britain outside continental Europe,Preserved in Walter Map (1140-about 1210) in Trivia of the Courtiers.
The oral traditions of pilgrims, especially those of the Crusaders, became another source for the historical writing of the Latin "Holocaust". In terms of time, a large number of Latin books describing the "Holocaust" appeared in the late 1280s and early 13th century. This is related to the Third Crusade of 1189-1192 and the Fourth Crusade of 1202-1204. Those who participated in these two crusades learned from the survivors of the Byzantine Empire or the Crusaders the stories of the "Holocaust" that took place in the recent past, and the information was transmitted back to their hometowns, and eventually survived in the writings of the Latins. From the late 1280s onwards, the "Sequel to Anchin Abbey" written by an anonymous chronicler in Flanders, the "Chronicle" written by Robert of Auxerre (about 1156-1212), Works such as the "Cologne Royal Chronicle" completed by an anonymous German writer all recorded the "Holocaust" event. During the Third Crusade, "Frederick I's Crusades", which described the glorious deeds of the German emperor Frederick I (1122-1190), also recorded in detail the beginning and end of the "massacre" event. The Cistercian monk Gunther of Pairis (about 1150-1220), who followed the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople, also mentioned 1182 in his "The Fall of Constantinople". Andronicus launched a massacre of Latinos.
Through the dictation and transmission of survivors, messengers, adventurers, passers-by, pilgrims, and participants of the Crusades, there are more than a dozen works in the contemporary Latin world documenting the events of the "Holocaust". These Latin historical books gave a panoramic description of the incident, creating conditions for future generations to sort out the ins and outs of the "massacre" incident and restore the historical truth.
II
Almost all Latin historical texts clearly identify Latins as the victims of the Holocaust. Latin authors such as Bishop William of Tyre, Pisa chronicler Bernardo Maraguene, Germanic Godfrey, and Robert of Torini all used the name "Latin" to refer to the victims of the Holocaust. Bishop William of Tyre said that "the Latin nation has suffered a serious loss",This is "the misfortune of the whole Latin world, which has caused the Latin people to suffer unprecedented humiliation and great losses... This is a long-planned campaign against our Latin people". Robert of Torini also wrote that Andronicus and his supporters "killed many Latins." There are other Latin histories that record the ethnic composition of the victims in more detail, such as the Germanic regional texts mentioning that the victims included "Greeks and Latins", and the Frankish regional chronicles that "Greeks, Franks and English. "Murdered.
Although Latin historical records fail to clearly record the number of victims of the "Holocaust", by comparing each other and combining historical materials at the time, it can be roughly determined that the number of Latin victims was around 60,000. Ibn Jubayr's Travels is the only book that mentions the number of victims, arguing that "more than fifty thousand inhabitants of Constantinople were killed". This number is ambiguous and does not even distinguish whether the deceased was Byzantine or Latin, so we can only roughly infer the size of Latin victims based on the data provided by the available sources. According to statistics, before the 1270s, there were 1,300 pizzas and 1,300 Genoese in the city of Constantinople. Besides Italian merchants, the Franks were another large group living in the Byzantine capital. The Arab Gregory Abu'I-Faraj estimates that there are more than 30,000 French-speaking merchants in the city. Eustasius, the Byzantine Grand Master of Thessaloniki, recorded that "more than 60,000 Latins were densely populated in the capital." From this, it can be calculated that the number of Latinos affected by this "massacre" is huge, and the total number should be as high as 60,000.
The Latin author believes that this massacre showed the characteristics of the participation of the whole population of Byzantine society, and the perpetrators covered all levels of Byzantine society. Ibn Jubayr noted that Andronicus' slaughter of Latins was "supported and supported by the Byzantine populace." Bernardo Maragone also concluded that "the assistance and advice of the Byzantine people and nobles" contributed to the outbreak of the "Holocaust" tragedy. The most detailed description comes from William of Tyre, who believes that "many powerful nobles and royal relatives supported Andronicus, the most important of which was Andronicus. Angelus, Alexius Megalducas, and others",Together with the middle and lower classes, "a mob of monks, priests, robbers, bandits, and villains" killed the Latins.
Latin historical records give a detailed description of the victims of this atrocity and the methods of massacre, and it is believed that even the elderly and the weak were the targets of Andronicus' attacks. Pisa historian Bernardo Maragone said that "children, old people and women who did not leave Constantinople were brutally murdered by the Byzantines", exclaiming that "there has never been such persecution and killing of Latins" . William, Bishop of Tyre, records that only a small number of "Latins, who had secretly obtained information and warnings, managed to escape the Byzantines' slaughter plot by boarding 44 wooden boats", while "the old and infirm, unable to take the boats, Left in the city, they became the target of mob attacks" "Latin refugees who fled to the church were burned alive" "Even the Latin patients in the hospital could not escape, the mob went to the Hospital of the Knights of St. stabbed as many Latinas as they could find" "Those Latins who hid in shelters and dormitories did not escape death and were dragged out and executed by these villains" "More than 4,000 people of all ages, genders and identities. Latin survivors are sold to barbarians for a price".
The Latin author also recreates the scene of the slaughter of the clergy of the Latin Church. The Chronicle of Pisa clearly states: "Andronicus slaughtered all Latin priests and priests in the city of Constantinople." Bishop William of Tyre accused the Byzantines of "killing Latin priests indiscriminately and peacefully." believers, and vented their deeper anger on the high priests of the Roman church”; vividly depicting their frenzied torturing Latin priests: “Pastor John, the emissary of the Roman church, went to Constantinople to deal with the affairs of the church. The Byzantines arrested Lived him and cut off his head, and finally tied his head to a filthy dog's tail as an insult to the church...and more so when the bodies of other Latin priests were pulled from their graves , wantonly dragged on the roads and squares to show an insult to the Latins". Robert of Torini also recreated the scene of John's death: "The perfidious Greeks rushed up to him and killed him, and then they tied his body to the dog so that the dog's tail could be tucked into his body. In the end, the Byzantines dragged him into the street and burned his body in a hole dug at random.”
In addition, the Latin author details the destruction of the Latin quarters within the city of Constantinople condition.William, Bishop of Tyre, described: "The Byzantines burned down the houses of the Latins, and the entire settlement was reduced to ashes... Not only did they wantonly destroy secular buildings, but they continued to set fire to churches and sanctuaries." Andronicu Si and his supporters also attacked the Latin port, "the port flames spread rapidly ... the place that was burned was the most splendid part of the city of Constantinople". This "massacre" brought huge losses to the Latins. According to the property compensation agreement between Byzantium and the Genoa government in 1185, the former paid a total of 228,000 gold coins to the latter to make up for the losses suffered by the latter in the "massacre". This is only the figure of the Republic of Genoa , if the Republic of Pisa and other western peoples are added, then the "massacre" caused "immeasurable damage to the houses and property of the Latin people".
It can be seen from this that Latin historical records believe that the "Holocaust" had a clear goal, brutal means, participation of the whole people, and heavy losses. It was a collective brutality by the Byzantines against the Latins.
3
Latin authors are not limited to narrating the process and specific scenes of the "Holocaust" event, they also try to explain the reasons for the outbreak from different angles.
Latin authors believe that the root cause of the "Holocaust" was the long-standing hatred of Latins in the Byzantine Empire. Bishop William of Tyre clearly pointed out that the disaster was triggered by the Byzantines' disgust for the Latins and was "a long-planned campaign against our Latin people". Other Latin chroniclers also read between the lines that the Byzantines' killings stemmed from jealousy and resentment toward the Latins. Robert of Auxerre describes: "Andronicus began to incite the Byzantines, chanting 'The Latins will destroy us unless we can destroy them', and the enraged Byzantine people rushed towards the Latins, and both Violent clashes broke out in Constantinople, and all the Latins found in the city were slaughtered." Walter Mapp, a historian of the Church of England, understood the bloody violence of the "Holocaust" as "the Byzantines envied and hated living in Constantinople. the Latins". Almost all Latin history books reflect a consensus formed in the Latin world that the "massacre" was the product of long-standing accumulated dissatisfaction and intensification of contradictions between the two sides.
The Latin author further analyzes the reasons for the hostility of the Byzantines to the Latin nation.William, bishop of Tyre, reasoned that because Emperor Manuel and the regent were interested in the loyalty and ability of the Latins and entrusted them with many important affairs of the empire, the Byzantines poured into the empire and gained prominent positions and power over the Latins. Status dissatisfaction. Robert the Knight of Clary City pointed out that the Latins were favored politically, "Emperor Manuel loved the Frankish kingdom very much and had great trust in the Franks. Because of his generosity and favor with the Franks, he was repeatedly favored by the Byzantines. rebuke". An anonymous historian of Flanders also said: "The Latins were favored by the [Byzantine emperor], and the Byzantines were so disgusted by it that they devised a conspiracy ... and directed this disaster in the following year."
Latin History He also attributes this tragedy to a profound religious contradiction, and believes that this contradiction is mainly reflected in two aspects.
First, the conflict between Latin Catholicism and Byzantine Orthodox Church within Christendom and the struggle for leadership are irreconcilable. Bishop William of Tyre made it clear that "the difference between our Eucharist and the liturgy of the Byzantine Church has intensified suspicion and recriminations on both sides", and the division of the Church and the accusations of heresy intensified the Byzantines' hatred of the Latins , so "Orthodox monks and priests pledged money and rewards, calling on robbers and bandits to rise up and slaughter the Latins." Proceeding from this understanding, Latin historical records regard the papal messengers who were killed in the Holocaust as saints who were martyred for the cause of Christianity. Robert of Torini portrayed the slain papal messenger as a defender and a martyr of the Church, arguing that "Cardinal John refused to flee for the sake of the unity of the Church", in order to "civilize the Byzantines and place the Byzantine Church in Rome" under ecclesiastical law and power". Similar texts appear in the writings of the Cistercian monk Gunther in the 13th century. According to Gunther, John "died by the martyrdom of St. Peter to give admonition and guidance to the Byzantines".
Second, Latin histories suggest that Andronicus converted to Islam and became an enemy of Christianity. Ibn Jubayr described the ceremony of Andronicus' conversion to Islam in detail: "In the presence of Roma Sultan Masood I, Andronicus and Theodora converted to Islam, a A gold cross, heated by fire, was placed at the foot of Andronicus, the ultimate sign of renunciation of Christianity and loyalty to the Muslim faith.The apostate image of Andronicus also appeared in the works of English and Germanic church historians, and was given many unique labels. An anonymous German historian said: "Andronicus was a tyrant, a traitor , once refused to recognize Christianity. "The Royal Chronicle of Cologne" states that Andronicus was "an ally of the Turks" who "became apostate to paganism but returned to Christianity under the indoctrination of Emperor Manuel". Walter Mapp emphasized that Andronicus betrayed Christianity not only once but three times, and he had fled to Nur al-Din in Damascus and the court of the Turkmen king before 1182, "twice rejecting the faith. Christianity in order to obtain the help of the Turks" and in 1182 "he refused for the third time to be a Christian".
Latin writers thus assert that Andronicus was the initiator of the "Holocaust", he In collusion with the Muslim forces, he planned this bloody and brutal massacre. The Latin author not only firmly believed that Andronicus had converted to paganism, but also agreed that his allies were followers of Islam, and insisted that Turkic Muslims participated in the massacre. The Latin chronicle of this event, written by the Pisa chronicler Bernardo Maraguene, states that "Andronicus, having done many bad things with the Turks, invaded Constantinople. ”, followed by killing the Latins. Another message from Ibn Jubail’s Travels: “Andronicus brought Muslim troops into Constantinople... Muslims took control of the city, countless The property was transported to the palace of the Emir Masood of the Roma Sultanate, where 40,000 Muslim cavalry were stationed in the city of Constantinople, which is now a city in Muslim territory. William of Tyre also emphasized that "Andronicus led a large barbarian army back to Constantinople", of which "barbarian army" refers to the pagan Turks.
Andronicus The news that his supporters were Turkic Muslims also spread to the west coast of continental Europe, and appeared in the Germanic, Frankish, and British regions. Ronicus, with the help of the Turks and other peoples, marched into Constantinople. "Viterbo Godfrey records: "Andronicus led the Turkic army into Constantinople. Another chronicle also describes: "Andronicus marched into Constantinople with strong Turkic soldiers.In the Frankish region, Geoffrey of Verjoy claimed that Andronicus had been "aided by Ruben III, Lord of the Mountains (Ruben III, reigned 1175-1187), the Sultan of Rome, and the Viceroy of Greece", and that An anonymous chronicler's work records that "Andronicus led the Saracenites of the Roma Sultanate into Constantinople. "Similar records appear in the "Chronicles" compiled by Robert of Torini. Nor did the English chronicler Walter Mapp omit such records: "Andronicus in the aid of a large Saracen army down, into Byzantine territory.
According to the above historical materials, it can be clearly seen that the Latin historians mainly explained the reasons for the "Holocaust" from the perspective of the victims, and concluded that this was an outright anti-Latin action, a result of Byzantine hatred and hatred. The product of the intensification of religious conflicts is the result of the collusion between the Byzantines and foreign hostile forces. It is because of this understanding that Latin history books are full of harsh accusations and strong indignation against the Byzantine and Andronicus, calling the Byzantine Man is a "perfidious nation" and Andronicus is "Christian's most vicious enemy".
4
By combing through the above records, we can find that although the Latin historical records give a comprehensive account of the "Holocaust" and detailed writing, but it should still be noted that all Latin authors were not witnesses to the "Holocaust" events, and their sources were all derived from the accounts of others. Therefore, we have every reason to question the Latin historical records on the "Holocaust" event. Whether the historical writing of the "massacre" accurately and objectively restores the whole picture of the event, and whether it is exaggerated and over-exaggerated.
In order to get as close to the truth as possible, the author believes that it is necessary to use Byzantine literature for comparison, and place the event in 12 The historical background of the end of the century and the beginning of the thirteenth century. There are two documents in the Byzantine Empire that recorded the "massacre" event. The first is the "Notes" compiled by the Byzantine historian Nikitas Honiatis. The author was in 1182 He returned to Constantinople in 2009 to hold an important position, and was most likely an eyewitness to the event, so his account should have high historical value. The other was written by Eustasius, the Grand Master of Thessaloniki "The Fall of Thessaloniki." In the book, Youshi described in detail the murderous atrocities of the Byzantines in 1182, and talked about the resulting retribution from the Latins, which led to the fall of Thessaloniki to Nova in 1185. Hand of the Man,The Byzantines suffered what the Latins suffered in 1182.
By comparing the relevant records of Byzantine documents, we can make the following judgments on the historical writing of the "Holocaust" event in Latin historical books.
First, the Byzantine documents confirm that the "Holocaust" was a bloody massacre against the Latins, which confirms the authenticity and credibility of the writings in Latin historical books about the brutality of the massacre and the heavy loss of personal and property.
Eustasius made it clear that the Byzantines attacked the old, the weak and the Latin priests. The Byzantines, he wrote, "repelled not only the Latins who fought against them with arms, but also killed those Latins who were in a state of helplessness, and women and children were killed by their swords... The priests of the Latin Church were killed horribly. , the remains of Latin priests are scattered in the streets”. Nikitas pointed out that the Latins were not only killed, but also lost their homes and homes, and were plundered of various gold and silver wealth. Ushi's record also confirms the claim that the Latins suffered great losses. He described: "The fire covered the property of the Latins, their wealth was plundered, the Byzantines threw flaming flasks at the ships that fled in a hurry, and the raging fire engulfed the ships." It can be seen that the Latin historical records are restoring the scene of the "Holocaust" On the one hand, it is consistent with the records of Byzantine literature.
Second, the Byzantine literature did not deny the mass participation in the "massacre", which once again proved the correctness of the views of the Latin authors.
Eustasius believes that people from all walks of life in Byzantine society were involved in the slaughter of the Latins: "Andronicus not only had the support of the royal family and the powerful Anjurus family, He was also supported by other nobles, upper-class elites, the people of the city, and it could even be said that the whole city supported him.” “People who like revolutionary activities” also participated in “the attack on the Latins.” Nikitas also pointed out that the society The lower classes played an important role in the massacre because "these people want to plunder money and wealth". It can be seen that the writings of Latin historical records on the composition of the perpetrators of the "Holocaust" are objective and accurate.
Third, the Byzantine texts' explanation of the cause of the "Holocaust" is different from the Latin historical accounts.
According to Byzantine historians, the "Holocaust" occurred because the Latins supported the regent government and "chief nobleman" Alexius,Andronicus and his supporters were forced to kill Latins in order to seize power. Nikitas explained in detail why the Byzantines killed the Latins. He said: "In order to prevent Andronicus from taking power, Alexius the 'Chief Noble' spent a lot of money to get the Latins to join the fight, because he believed that the Latins were the strongest and most valiant people, so he was more Relying on the help of the Latins." Apparently, in Nikitas' view, Andronicus killed them in the process of overthrowing the regency because the Latins supported Alexius, the "chief noble." Eustasius made it clear that the Latins were killed because they had joined the opposition and prevented Andronicus from overthrowing the regency. He wrote: "The Byzantines blamed the Latins for their support of the 'Chief Noble' and the Queen Mary, and through them to do harm to the Byzantines. The 'Chief Noble' and the Queen . . . Instigated them to participate in the battle, and the Latins were also involved in the so-called 'holy war'." It can be seen from this that, in the view of Byzantine historians, Andronicus' attack on the Latins mainly considered political factors, eradicating the city Dissident forces, so as to realize the ambition to seize the throne.
The exposition of the Latin historical texts is quite different from the interpretation of the Byzantine texts, and this difference is mainly caused by the differences in the historian's observation angle, political position and ideology. Latin writers see this as an outright attack on Latinos, both closely related to their identity as victims of the Holocaust, as well as to the social environment and background of the time. There was indeed a kind of hatred of Latins within the Byzantine Empire at the end of the twelfth century, which became the best reason for the Latin world to explain the "Holocaust" event.
On the one hand, economic and official competition contributed to Byzantine society's growing dissatisfaction with the Latin nation. Since the Komnenos dynasty, the Latins have gained trade privileges in the Byzantine Empire, being able to sell their goods at lower prices than their competitors, which not only brought them high economic returns, but also allowed their trade activities Unrestricted, commercial strongholds spread throughout the Adriatic, Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean region, seriously harming the interests of Byzantine merchants. The contemporary Byzantine historian John Kinnamos (circa 1143-1185) described this before the "massacre": "With the exemption of sea and commodity taxes,The Venetians' unbridled extraction of wealth led them to become arrogant. Not only did they treat ordinary Byzantine people like slaves, but they even mocked Byzantine nobles and officials. "The contemptuous attitude of the Latin merchants towards the Byzantines is bound to lead to the growth of Byzantines hatred.
In addition, a large number of Latins served as diplomatic officials in the Byzantine imperial government, or were responsible for court affairs and taxation, and even many religious affairs were carried out by the Latins Handling, such as the Pisa theologian Hugh Etriano, who was appointed to draft the religious dossier on the birth of the Holy Spirit. The Latins enjoyed an advantage in imperial affairs, causing complaints from many bureaucrats within the Manuel government. The Great Ephesus The patriarch George Tornikes had tried to secure a position at the court for his uncle, but he found the Byzantines in fierce competition with the barbarian-accented Latins in every corner of the court, from the market to the court. And the "barbarians" were more popular than the Byzantines. Obviously, the loss of political status also contributed to the Byzantines' hatred of the Latins.
On the other hand, the development of the Crusades gave birth to the Byzantines' sense of national crisis , created an insurmountable gulf between the Byzantine Empire and the Latin world. As early as during the Second Crusade, John Kinnamos realized that the goal of the Latins was to occupy Constantinople: "All Western The powers have already moved, using all kinds of pretexts... but the real purpose is to acquire Roman (Byzantines) territory through aggression and plunder along the way. "The development of the Crusades also made the Byzantines more and more aware of the great difference between Latin Christians and Byzantine Orthodox believers. The despicable acts and brutal methods of the Crusaders made it difficult for the Byzantines to believe that they were Christians, Manu El I had doubts and complaints about them: "These people are arrogant, stubborn, inhuman, and trained to be very bloodthirsty. "And the doctrinal disputes about eating leavened or unleavened bread, how to draw a cross, and how to carry out Mass have deepened the friction and distrust between the two sides. In this context, Latin authors attributed the outbreak of the "Holocaust" to the cause It is not surprising that the hatred of the Byzantines.
Fourth, the Byzantine texts categorically deny that Andronicus colluded with Turkic Muslims, let alone that Andronicus converted to Islam, which is in contrast to the Latin The historical records are quite different.
Byzantine historians explicitly mention that,The armed supporters of Andronicus were not Turks, but Pavlagonians who lived in the eastern part of the empire. Nikitas wrote: "Andronicus and his elite troops, the Pavlagonians, waged a war against the Latins in Constantinople." Eustasius also noted : "The Pavlagonians, on the orders of Andronicus, launched an attack on the Latin peoples."
The information provided by Byzantine historians is more consistent with historical facts than the accounts of Latin historical records. Geographically, Paphragonia is located on the coast of and Black Sea in northern Anatolia, bordering Pontus and Bithynia in the east and west respectively. . Although it is remote in northern Asia Minor, it has always played an important role in the Byzantine Empire. Andronicus has been in exile in the eastern region of the Byzantine Empire for a long time. Emperor Manuel appointed him as the governor of this province before his death. It can be said that he is not only very familiar and understanding of the region, but also has a deep network foundation and a huge influence. power, and was able to quickly call up the Paphragonian army. On the other hand, the Paphlagonians have always played an indispensable role in Byzantine society, and the Byzantine emperor Michael IV the Paphlagonian (reigned 1034-1041) was the Paphlagonian The Nians, and even the Komnen family, have ties to the Paphragonias. The life experience of Nikitas Honiatis also supports the reliability of his records. During his early career, he served in the governments of Pontus or Paphragonia, until 1182 when he held the post of court secretary. It can be seen that he is very familiar with the Pontus area and the Paphragonians, so his record of the Pavlagonian joining the Andronicus rebellion is worth believing.
Historically, Andronicus did not form a partnership with the Turks of the Roma Sultanate, nor did he form an ally with Reuben III. Instead, they were all enemies of the Byzantine Empire. The contemporary Latin writer Jubayr mentions in other chapters of his work that he was told by a pilgrim from Spain that in 1183-1184 Arslan captured some 25 Byzantine cities. Nikitas Honiatis also confirmed: "In 1183 the Roma sultan occupied Sozopolis and plundered the surrounding towns, leaving the Byzantines under the rule of the Roma sultanate,They also kept Antalya's greatest city under siege for a long time, and eventually captured many towns such as Kutahya. "Byzantine historians even provide a description of Andronicus' anger and revenge against the Turks: after the surrender of Nicaea, Andronicus was still full of resentment and killed the Turks in Nicaea. He died and was nailed to the city wall. The alliance between the Armenian prince Reuben and the Roma Sultan Arslan II is even more well known in the Eastern Crusaders Kingdom. After the Battle of Miele Osephalon in 1176, Reuben III had already Byzantium adopted a policy of aggression and turned to the Roma sultanate. Probably because of Ruben III's alliance with the Roma sultan, the Latin chronicles mistakenly portrayed the Armenian prince as a companion of Andronicus' coup.
According to Byzantine historians, Andronicus not only did not convert to Islam, on the contrary he was a devout Christian. Nikitas Honiatis, in his account of Andronicus' exile in the East, stated that It was a Christian messenger: "Andronicus preached and proclaimed the name of Christ before all as a messenger as he passed through almost all the Gentile nations. This statement is also corroborated by Eastern texts, Persian The poet Af dal al-Din Ibrahim Khaqani called Andronicus "a messenger of glory" and "a sincere friend of the Messiah." ".
Latin and Byzantine texts have very different histories about the image of Andronicus' supporters and Andronicus himself, which deserves further consideration as to the reasons for this difference. .
It must be seen that Latin authors were susceptible to stereotypes when writing about the events of the Holocaust. Byzantine Empire and Muslim collusion against Latins was a common topic and a common accusation in the Latin world in the 12th century. During the Second Crusade, Otto of Deye accused the Byzantines and Muslims of colluding against the Crusades, saying "(Turkic and Byzantines) are our common enemies" "They planned to destroy the Franks in many ways. Although they were enemies before, they made an agreement for this particular goal”.
In addition, Latins were also influenced by social environment and political factors in the process of reducing the “Holocaust”.” Bias plays a role in selecting topics and determining research goals when exposed.” “Every prejudice is contextual.”The revival and resurgence of ancient slanders, accusations, and prejudices against the Byzantines in Latin history is closely related to the presence of strong anti-Byzantine forces in Western Europe and the Crusaders at the end of the twelfth century. The Western Germanic Emperor Frederick I (Frederick I Barbarossa, reigned from 1152 to 1190) and Norman King William II (reigned from 1171 to 1189) have been watching the throne of Constantinople, calling for a new cross military movement. The relationship between Byzantium and Jerusalem also deteriorated. In 1186, Guy of Lusignan (reigned 1186-1192) inherited the throne of the Crusader King and has always opposed cooperation with Byzantium; and the Duchy of Antioch also opposed Byzantine Territorial eyeing, occupied Byzantine towns in Silesia (Cilicia). The killing of the Latins by Andronicus in 1182 provided the material for their anti-Byzantine political propaganda, accompanied by various political and religious stories, making it a tarnished and demeaning Andronicus. and anti-Byzantine propaganda tools, which not only enabled Andronicus to gain anti-Latin notoriety, but also to conceal his ambitions and gain the support of the Latin people.
Five
In general, the records of Latin authors are close to the historical truth of the "Holocaust", and their descriptions of casualties, property damage, methods of killing, and the nature of the participation of the whole people have been obtained from Byzantine literature. 's evidence. Therefore, the conclusions drawn by some modern scholars mentioned at the beginning of this article are unconvincing based on the lack of historical records, the lack of details of the massacre, and the negligible number of casualties.
It should also be noted that when we use these Latin historical books, we cannot ignore the omissions and misinformation they carry. This is because: on the one hand, limited by the backward communication and transportation conditions in the Middle Ages, information dissemination often needs to overcome the barriers of time and space, which leads to the inevitable occurrence of memory blur and information bias in survivors and paraphrases. On the other hand, influenced by the inherent cognitive prejudice of the Latin people and the exaggeration of the anti-Byzantine power in the Western world, Latin authors have the subjective intention of using the original content to add fuel to the story and fabricate facts to make them anti-Byzantine propaganda materials.
Due to the killing of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182,Almost all Latin authors therefore portray Andronicus as a Turkic associate and a Christian apostate. The generation of this image is not only the product of the tension and fear created by the "Holocaust", but also truly reflects the orientation of public opinion in the Latin world. As Marc Bloch put it, “A false narrative can only spread and come alive if it caters to public prejudice. It thus becomes a mirror of collective consciousness.” These false rumors continue to generate separation, misunderstanding and mistrust in the exchanges between the two sides, further intensifying the confrontation and hatred between the Latin world and the Byzantine Empire, and eventually lead to direct armed conflict. Therefore, we say that the events of "the massacre of Constantinople in 1182" planted the seeds for the "fall of Constantinople in 1204".
The author is a doctoral student at the School of History, Nankai University; the original text is in the 2020 Issue 4 of History Monthly, and the notes are omitted. The article is reproduced from the WeChat public account of "History Monthly".
.
