By Grant Schrama | Queen’s University (Kingston)

Historical Overview

The conquest of Constantinople in 1204 introduced a complex and rather chaotic period in Byzantine history. The former territories of the Byzantine Empire were divided amongst the participants of what modern historians refer to as the Fourth Crusade, and new regions were created in Greece and the Aegean including the Principality of Achaia, the Kingdom of Thessaloniki, and the Duchy of Athens. Three Byzantine successor states were also formed, that of the Empire of Nicaea, the Despotate of Epiros, and the Empire of Trebizond, made up primarily of exiled Byzantines from regions conquered by the Western Europeans. With the addition of Bulgarian, Cuman, Vlach, Turkish, and Genoese actors, the history of Frankish Greece and the Latin Empire of Constantinople can be difficult to follow and properly analyze. Its importance, however, in the history of Western European expansion, the Crusades, and Byzantium in the later Middle Ages cannot be stressed enough.

As a microcosm of the region’s history, Bulgaria’s relationship with the Byzantine successor states is frequently overlooked. The most logical starting point is with the reign of the Bulgarian Tsar Johannitsa (r. 1197-1207), who expanded the Bulgarian territory into parts of Thrace and Macedonia with the aid of Vlach and Cuman soldiers; this put him in direct conflict with the Latin Emperor of Constantinople, Henry of Hainault (r. 1205–16). Johannitsa is most famous for orchestrating the death of Boniface of Montferrat (at least according to several sources), but he also formed an alliance with Theodore Laskaris I of Nicaea (r. 1205–21) to lay siege jointly to Constantinople, one which failed after a month. A similar alliance, this time also including Michael I Komnenos Doukas of Epiros (r. 1205–14/15), was concluded between Johannitsa’s successor, Boril (r. 1207–18), and Theodore I Laskaris. Once more, Constantinople was not taken by the anti-Latin coalition.

The reign of John Asen II (r. 1218–41) marked an important point in Byzantine-Bulgarian relations. Initially forming an alliance with the newly crowned ruler of Thessaloniki, Theodore Komnenos Doukas (r. 1215–30), the agreement soon crumbled and the Bulgarian tsar defeated the Epirot ruler at the Battle of Klokotnitsa on 9 March 1230. Theodore Doukas was captured and eventually blinded, while Asen gained control of Adrianople and expanded his empire from Great Vlachia to Ohrid and as far as Albania, turning it into the most significant political entity in the Balkans.

Much like in the rest of Asia and Eastern Europe during the mid-13th century, the Mongols had a significant impact on Bulgarian expansion. In March 1242, they entered Bulgaria and ravaged the lands, resulting in the Bulgarians having to pay tribute. At the same time, relations between Bulgaria and the Empire of Nicaea deteriorated, with the Nicaean ruler John III Vatatzes (r. 1222–54) invading the tsar’s territories. From September to November 1246, Vatatzes conquered a large tract of Bulgarian territory in Thrace and Macedonia, including Serres and Melnik. As such, the territorial gains that John Asen had made in the 1230s were now lost under the rule of Michael Asen (r. 1246–57) to the expanding Nicaean Empire, which was quickly becoming the new dominant power in the Balkans. In addition, the southern sections of the Second Bulgarian Empire were controlled by Theodore Komnenos Doukas and Michael II Doukas (r. 1230- 66/68), with the latter having conquered Ohrid at some point before 1246. A peace treaty was concluded between Bulgaria and Nicaea in the spring of 1247, where the former recognized its territorial losses and promised to join the Nicaean Empire in its fight against the Latins. Cooperative attacks began against the Latin Empire in summer 1247.

Cordial relations between Byzantium and Bulgaria lasted until the death of John III Vatatzes on 4 November 1254. In late 1254, Michael Asen renewed hostilities against Byzantium and crossed the Maritsa River, conquering the theme of Achridos, as well as Skopion and the regions surrounding Adrianople. In response, the new Nicaean emperor Theodore II Laskaris (r. 1254- 58) advanced along the Maritsa to retake the recently lost territories, reaching as far as Beroe. The two sides would be in conflict until a peace treaty was concluded in 1256. For the remaining years of the period under focus here, Byzantine-Bulgarian relations would waver back and forth between coalition, uneasy peace, and open warfare. Such a fickle relationship was, of course, the result of the chaotic geopolitical nature of the region during the 13th century.

The main sources detailing the Second Bulgarian Empire and its relations to the Byzantine successor states are those originating from Nicaea, Epiros, and Constantinople. The more important authors include Niketas Choniates, George Akropolites, Nikephoros Gregoras, and Demetrios Chomatenos. There are also the Latin chroniclers, including Geoffrey Villehardouin, Robert Clari, and the Chronicle of Morea, as well as the papal registers. Scattered Bulgarian sources do exist though, including the Synodikon of Boril and the Vision of Daniel from the Holy Books. Inscriptions, coins, seals, and frescoes complement the written sources and supplement the lack of literary records from the Bulgarian perspective.

Key Issues and Debates

Bulgaria in the 13th century sits at the crossroads between the historiographies of Byzantium and the Crusades. Much like the other regions impacted by the Fourth Crusade, including the Balkans, the Aegean, and the Eastern Mediterranean, the historical scholarship is still very much scattered and developing. Unlike the multitude of studies on crusading to the Middle East or on Late Byzantine politics and society, the Latin Empire of Constantinople, Frankish Greece, and the Byzantine successor states have received far less attention from modern scholars.

Within the Anglo historiography of the Fourth Crusade and its aftermath, Byzantine-Latin relations tend to be the focus of scholarly works, while Bulgaria’s role is often included in larger, more general ones. George Finlay, Charles Brand, John V.A. Fine Jr., Florin Curta, Filip Van Tricht, and Jean-Claude Cheynet have all discussed the Second Bulgarian Empire within their broader studies on Byzantine and Balkan late medieval history. An exception is Alexandru Madgeau’s recent monograph in English on the Asanids, which contains relevant discussion of the Second Bulgarian Empire’s relationship with its neighbours, including the Byzantine successor states and the Latin Empire of Constantinople. Francesco Dall’Aglio has also published several articles on the Bulgarian Empire, but his primary focus has been on the tsars’ relationships with the papacy. Despite this lack of scholarship in the West, Bulgarian and Romanian scholars have written more extensively on Bulgaria in the 13th century, although they often write in their native language, and thus their studies are not as accessible.

Byzantine-Bulgarian relations during the period of exile have received even less attention in modern historiography. Alicia Simpson and Ruth Macrides examined the perceptions of the Bulgarians by Niketas Choniates and George Akropolites respectively, although such discussion was included in their larger examinations of the authors’ works themselves. Dimiter Angelov explored cultural relations between the two from the perspective of the Bulgarian sources. Angelov highlighted not only the very few written sources we have from Bulgaria during the period, but also the invaluable insights one can gain from the material evidence, including inscriptions, church frescoes, and official seals. These non-literary sources reveal Bulgaria’s perceptions of the geopolitical world, as well as how the tsars perceived themselves in the much larger sphere of post-1204 Byzantium.

In his work, Angelov noted that “The feeling of cultural affinity with Byzantine civilization among the Bulgarians in the early thirteenth century is a large and complex question.” For the few works that examine the relationship between the two in the post-1204 period, the religious identity of the Bulgarians is often explored. Bulgaria’s Orthodoxy, and in general the cultural influence from Byzantium, forms a core aspect of the relevant historiography. In the period under focus here, Angelov rightly argues that Bulgaria’s union with the Pope between 1204 and 1232 (which itself has a growing historiography) had no significant impact on its Orthodox identity or its cultural ties to Byzantium. John Asen’s tendency toward Orthodoxy and his ambitions to rebuild the Byzantine Empire around the Orthodox faith have been highlighted by scholars, as well as his turning away from Catholicism. Bulgaria, as a frontier region, has thus been viewed as a battleground between the religious spheres of Latin Christendom and Byzantine Orthodoxy. Modern scholars have viewed other peripheral territories, such as Lithuania, in a similar light.

There is importance then in examining Byzantium’s relationship with Bulgaria during the 1204- 61 era. Bulgaria played a key role in the geopolitical sphere of the post-1204 Byzantine world, and was briefly the dominant power in the Balkans during the period. Through their alliances and military campaigns, the Bulgarian tsars had a role in shaping the political structure of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, as well as the reconquest of the imperial capital by the emperor in Nicaea. Bulgaria also best represents the period’s complex political and cultural aspect, manifested in its changing alliances, union with the papacy, and continued connection to Orthodoxy. In sum, these embody the chaotic nature of thirteenth-century Byzantium.

Further Reading

Akropolites, George. The History, translated, with an introduction and commentary, by Ruth Macrides. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

The first English translation of Akropolites’ work, Macrides’ edition also includes a thorough analysis of the Nicaean author, including his life and the formation of his History. Pages 90–92 include a discussion of Akropolites’ perception of the Bulgarian tsars.

Angelov, Dimiter. “Prosopography of the Byzantine World (1204–1261) in the Light of Bulgarian Sources.” In Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, edited by Judith Herrin and Guillaume Saint-Guillain, 101–119. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011.

This study offers a useful discussion of the extant Bulgarian sources for the 13th century and what they reveal about Byzantine-Bulgarian relations and the self-perception of the tsars.

Curta, Florin. Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300). Volume 1. Leiden: Brill, 2019.

As the most recent survey on the Balkans, this volume provides an introduction to the major historical trends in the region, including sections on the Crusades and the Second Bulgarian Empire.

Dall’Aglio, Francesco. Innocenzo III e i Balcani: fede e politica nei Regesta pontifici. Naples: Università Degli Studi di Napoli ‘L’Orientale,’ 2003.

Primarily focusing on Pope Innocent III’s correspondence with the rulers of the Second Bulgarian Empire, Dall’Aglio’s work studies the relationship between the two parties, including how each perceived the other and viewed their own role in the socio-political events of the period.

Fine Jr., John V.A. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1987.

This is a detailed survey of Balkan history in the late Middle Ages. It offers an excellent introduction to the major political and cultural events in the region from the 1180s to just after 1453; the study is useful as a textbook.

Madgearu, Alexandru. The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire (1185–1280). Leiden: Brill, 2017.

This is one of the very few studies in English centered on the Second Bulgarian Empire. The book is an excellent overview of the Bulgarian political situation and offers an extensive bibliography for further research.

Simpson, Alicia. Niketas Choniates: A Historiographical Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

This study examines the composition, structure, and concepts of Niketas Choniates’ History, including the history of its various manuscripts, its narrative structure, and the sources available to the author. For our purposes here, Appendix 3 includes a brief discussion of Niketas Choniates’ perception of the Second Bulgarian Empire and its rulers.

This contribution was sponsored by the Mary Jaharis Center for Byzantine Art and Culture at Hellenic College Holy Cross.