Issue M001 of 15 January 2000

N.B.
All messages in this section are copyrighted by their authors. Anistoriton uses the mailing lists and/or their archives to locate interesting Internet messages.


Byzantine & Crusaders: A Conflict of Cultures?

From marc@interlinx.qc.ca Wed Jan  6 18:12:49 1999
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 01:30:45 -0500
From: Marc Carrier 
Reply-To: BYZANS-L@showme.missouri.edu
To: BYZANS-L@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: Byzantine Ceremony and the Crusaders

Dear list members,

In response to some comments I have received over the last few 
weeks concerning the plausibility that Byzantine ceremony had an 
impact on the relations between the Empire and the Crusaders, I 
have decided to present a better and more complete explanation of 
the project I am now conducting. I thus intend to prove that my 
method of research and my conclusions are not as far fetched as 
some might think. Besides, new ideas are (or should) always be 
welcome in history, especially Byzantine history. Naturally, I hope 
and expect that those who are familiar with the subject might make 
comments on the statements that still seem implausible.

First of all, I must state that I do not contradict the fact that the 
conflict between East and West at the time of the Crusades was 
above all and often political, sometimes religious, and even later 
economic. However, I find that most historians, although they 
briefly admit a cultural conflict, do not always examine it in depth.

What I intend to expose is the conflict of cultures as a narrow 
explanation, a cause among many others.  In no way do I intend to 
find an ultimate truth in my project, but rather an angle that some 
historians might have overlooked (although they are aware of it). 
The conflict had many causes, often due to misunderstandings. 
Cultural misunderstandings might just be one of them.

This idea sprung from two sources. First, a book written by Basile 
G. Spiridonakis (B. G. Spiridonakis. 'Grecs, Occidentaux et Turcs 
de 1054 à 1453: Quatre siècles d^Òhistoire de relations 
internationales.' Thessalonique, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1990, 
291 p.), in which he examines the cultural conflict between East 
and West. Indeed, Mr. Spiridonakis specialises in international 
history between East and West and also in Byzantine Hellenism 
and how it evolved after 1204. According to his research, the 
cultural impact between East and West and the sack of 
Constantinople made the Byzantines aware of their nationality and 
ultimately made them realise that they were no longer 
'universal'. 

Second, the idea sprung from several Western chronicles, such as 
the ones of Odo of Deuil, Geoffroy of Villehardouin, Robert of Clari, 
William of Tyre and Liutprand of Cremona (although he is of the 
10th century). In these chronicles, I was amazed at the cultural 
mockeries made by the chroniclers. Often (especially Odo of 
Deuil), the authors openly mock the Byzantine ceremonial. This, to 
me, is normal, since this is the part of Byzantine culture to which 
foreigners were most subject to when meeting high Byzantine 
officials and which would have surprised them the most (their 
reactions could either be positive or negative). After all, this is why 
they mention them in their chronicles, although not often in detail.  

I am not proposing that ceremonial was absent in the Western 
courts. However, we must admit that it was certainly less 
elaborate. The fact that the chroniclers do not write of the 
Byzantine ceremonial in detail shows that they most likely 
considered it to be superficial (although it certainly wasn't to the 
Byzantines). I will even propose that they did not understand it (or 
refused to understand it). I remember once reading in a source 
(unfortunately I can't remember which one) that the Byzantines 
preferred the Muslims to the Westerners, for the Muslims, like the 
Persians before them, understood the importance, the symbolism 
and the beauty of ceremonial and protocol.

Another fact that we cannot neglect is that the Crusaders were not 
diplomats (at least not during the First crusade). Therefore, they 
often had little care for flattery. Unlike trained diplomats who knew 
to play along with the game, the Crusaders openly saw it for what it 
really was: hypocrisy, bribery and unnecessary flattery. And 
although some of them might have enjoyed the preferential 
treatment by the emperor (Stephen of Blois for example), the 
others despised the fact that they had to bow before this monarch 
and give fealty to him.

To me, these reactions show a cultural misunderstanding. Not 
towards the ceremonial itself, but to the message that the 
ceremonial conveyed. Indeed, this message conveyed the 
Byzantine values. Ceremonial was therefore a form of propaganda.
In the introduction of the Book of Ceremonies, Constantine 
Pophyrogenitos does admit that his aim is to once more impress 
foreign nations. This propaganda was naturally the Emperor's 
foreign propaganda. N. K. Koutrakou has examined such a theory 
in 'La propagande byzantine: persuasion et réaction (VIIIe ^Ö Xe 
siècles)', Athens, 1994, 459 p. The values are therefore that of the 
emperor (or of the aristocracy, which usually defined, especially in 
the 11th Century, what the imperial ideal should be). And what 
values were important to the Emperor and the aristocracy? 
Universality, beauty, symbolism, wealth, splendour, generosity, 
religion, marriage, family, militarisation (especially in the 11th 
century), etc. (these are only a few among many others). These 
are the values that the Westerner's were subject to when they met 
the emperor and witnessed other imperial ceremonies (I am 
ruling out religious ceremonies for this project).

Of course, these values also existed in the West, but they had 
different shades of meaning. Also, to have them shoved in their 
faces would certainly have been frustrating to some Crusaders, 
especially the Byzantine claim to universality (Frederick 
Barberossa gives a good example of a negative reaction). 

I am therefore convinced that imperial values were present in the 
ceremonial. Using ceremonial as a tool for research is not new to 
many historians. Gilbert Dagron, for instance, examined through 
ceremonial how the emperor attempted to lay claim over the 
Church and to demonstrate his superiority over the Patriarch (G. 
Dagron. 'Empereur et prêtre: étude sur le 'césaropapisme^Ò 
byzantin.' Paris, Gallimard, 1996, 435 p.) Also, the fact that the 
ceremonial reflects imperial ideals is not surprising: the Book of 
Ceremonies was after all put together by an emperor. 

However, there are several important note to be made. First, I do 
not intend to use the Book of Ceremonies as a 'Bible'. After all, the 
De ceremoniis and the De Administrando were put together before 
the true conflict between East and West arose. However, 
Byzantine ceremonial was not static; although the core remained 
the same from the 10th century to the 12th, it was often adapted 
(slightly) to political or social situations. Therefore, I believe that 
some of the values of the 11th and 12th centuries might have been 
added to the ceremonial.

Second, I do not wish to simply compare Byzantine values with 
Western ones (the scope of such a project would be incredible). I 
will rather limit my research to the Crusader perception of these 
values and attempt, in a limited way, to explain the reason for it. 
Now, whether the Crusaders understood the real cultural meaning 
of the Emperor's propaganda (for they had to decode it through the 
ceremonial) and reacted to it, or whether they were simply trying to 
be arrogant and racist toward the Greeks, I think none of us will 
never be able to answer. However, bringing up the idea and the 
possibility might only, according to me, bring up other theories and 
new debates.

Third, I am not proposing that the Byzantines adapted their 
ceremony on purpose, simply to frustrate the Crusaders. As Tim 
Dawson pointed out, they did not act any differently with the 
Crusaders than with any other foreigner. This is exactly my point: 
Byzantines cared little about learning in depth about foreign 
cultures, since they were themselves 'universial'. They would not, 
therefore, have adapted their protocol to the Crusaders. And, 
keeping my previous line of thought, such negligence could have 
led to cultural misunderstandings (for example, you do not greet a 
Frank the same way you greet a Russian).

Fourth, the fact that some Western countries might have 'borrowed' 
certains forms of Byzantine ceremonial is debatable, but if true, 
simply proves my point. If the Westerners were frustrated at the 
Byzantine pretensions, it is because they themselves have similar 
pretensions. Therefore, it would only be natural for them to include 
them in their own ceremonies.

Finally, my project is but a 'prototype' to further research. 
Therefore, I intend to skim the surface of this subject (without, let 
us hope, affecting the quality of the project) by demonstrating only 
several of the main values conveyed by the Byzantines and the 
Crusader reactions to these. Also, I will not examine all of the tools 
of propaganda, such as coinage, imagery, etc. And, as a 
final note, I will probably not examine forms of address in official 
letters to foreign rulers, even though I do intend to briefly examine 
forms of address during official meetings with the emperor.

If anyone wishes to comment on the above statements, please feel 
free to do so. I do not pretend to have the whole thruth on the 
matter and new input, either positive or negative, is always 
welcome. After all, debates and criticism is what drives historians 
to become better.

Thank you,

*******************************
Marc Carrier
Étudiant 2e cycle
Université de Sherbrooke
*******************************
Marcus dixit, ergo verum est...
Constantinople under siege by Crusaders in 1204
(a dramatization)


Message & Threads located at: BYZANS-L
Search for:


Back to Cover



This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page