The Triumph of Alexios III and the imperial court (1350-1355)[1]

Αρξει δὲ Τραπεζοῦντος  ̓Αλέξιος ὁ τοῦ  ̓Αλεξίου ἔγγονος τοῦ μεγάλου Κομνηνού.

Alexios, descendant of the Grand Komnenos Alexios, will reign over Trebizond.

-A vision of Eugenios, patron saint of Trebizond, in Lazaropoulos’ Synopsis[2]

Meanwhile in Constantinople, Emperor Ioannes VI Kantakouzenos had a change of heart concerning his selection of the Emperor in Trebizond. Seeing that Michael Megas Komnenos was “unduly blunt and frivolous and also old and childless”,[3] he resolved to send another candidate back to Trebizond. Under his care were Basileios’ other wife, Eirene of Trebizond, and her children. The young Ioannes-Alexios III Megas Komnenos seemed a good fit, so he was officially renamed Alexios after his illustrious grandfather, Alexios II, and promptly sent home under the charge of Joseph Lazaropoulos, a rising Trapezuntine churchman. With assurances from St Eugenios of Trebizond of a safe journey home even in winter, Lazaropoulos’ entourage sailed hastily to the Trapezuntine capital and Alexios arrived in December 1349.[4]

The Scholarioi were searching for a new imperial puppet, obedient and young, for themselves, and Alexios appeared to be the solution. Michael, after years of misgovernance, was forced to abdicate under the combined efforts of the Scholarioi and pressure from the populace. Alexios III was proclaimed Emperor of Trebizond, and crowned in St Eugenios Church, on St Eugenios’ feast day (January 21), in 1350. The young Emperor was destined to not reign in tranquility.

The archontes of Trebizond were once more plotting, notably the family of Doranites. Theodoros “Pileles” Doranites, and his brother Konstantinos, the protovestiarios, were all arrested for this, but later, in 1351, the new protovestiarios Leon Kabazites was also arrested on some charges and Pileles took his place. Now there was a serious first fissure in the Scholarian camp, vengeful Pileles was not going to forget that the steering hand behind the throne, Niketas Scholares, imprisoned him. He took his revenge by seizing the palace and arresting the kingmaker, but people in Trebizond had enough of Pileles’ conspiracies that they rose up and banished his family to Kenchrina. Alexios was evidently traumatized by his capital’s insecurity and took refuge in Tripolis, a city that his great-grandfather once sheltered in while he faced usurpers. While he hid out in the safety of Tripolis, he also planned his counter, and to sure up his position he first married Theodora Kantakouzene, a relative of the Emperor Ioannes VI Kantakouzenos.

Then he began to deal with the opposition. He and his mother, along with Michael Panaretos, the historian participating in history-making for the first time now as Alexios’ loyal protosebastos and protonotarios, marched against the revolting Konstantinos Doranites, who was now governor of Limnia. The imperial trio returned 3 months later, presumably succeeding in pacifying the province. In 1352, the pinkernes Ioannes Tzanichites rebelled and took his ancestral castle of Tzanicha, hoping to revive the fortune of the Tzanichitai, but peace was quickly restored once Alexios went there with his mother. Later, the troublesome Pileles and his family were strangled in Kenchrina, and while his opposants dropped like flies, Alexios innovated strategies to secure more allies. He sent his sister Maria Megale Komnene to marry Kutlu Beg of the Aq Qoyunlu. Constituting the first recorded case of a marriage alliance between a gorgeous Komnenian princess and a Turcomen emir of Eastern Anatolia.

Just when the advent of peace seemed so eminent, the scheming Niketas Scholares was exiled to Kerasous and reignited the sparks of civil conflict in 1354. He equipped a small fleet with his son and the protovestiarios, Basileios Choupakas, to assault Trebizond in 1355, but he figured that the odds were against them and retreated after much negotiation with the imperial government. Alexios in turn led his own navy to seize Kerasous. Scholares was away in Kenchrina and the Emperor easily returned the city back to the imperial fold. Then, combining maritime and siege warfare, Alexios blockaded Kenchrina with his cavalry. Soon, the Scholarian loyalist city of Kenchrina submitted, but Scholares and his party holed inside and Alexios couldn’t do anything about it for now. Elsewhere, other dissidents arose: the doux of Chaldia, Ioannes Kabazites, took over Cheriana and ex-Emperor Michael Megas Komnenos made an advance as far as Soulchation. However, none of their efforts achieved anything, and the civil war finally ended in October; Alexios’ generals, Meizomates and Sampson, perhaps the very Gregorios Meizomates and Michael Sampson who once were Niketas’ closest ally and father-in-law, marched against Kenchrina and dragged Scholares out. Peace was restored to the Empire of Trebizond, at last.

Reevaluation[5]

…ὑπὸ τὸν ἀπίστον τῶν ἀρχόντων αὐτοῦ Καβαζίταν καὶ τὸν Σχουλαριώτων…

…his archontes the faithless Kabazitai and Scholarioi…

-15^th century Trapezuntine obit[6]

By 1355, Alexios III Megas Komnenos had restored the tranquility and prosperity that governed Trebizond in the age of his grandfather Alexios II Megas Komnenos, and opened a new era for the Komnenian Dynasty despite innumerable obstacles like his great great great grandfather Alexios I Megas Komnenos; he could now rest easy on his laurels. Or could he?

Glancing at later Trapezuntine history in the 15^th century, we would notice that the Komnenoi reigned without challenge, they were the sole legitimate monarchs of Pontos, and no one dared to dream of replacing them, heirs of the original Komnenian Dynasty of Constantinople. In the 1430s, Bessarion of Trebizond had to again reiterate that the Komnenoi and Megaloi Komnenoi were in perfect continuity, and how spectacular the achievement of maintaining four centuries of sovereignty over the same people was. In his words:

“The fact that the Komnenos family and their descendants have already ruled us for so long and so many of them have succeeded each other is a unique characteristic and without parallel… In every other land and city, once a family of rulers has continued for four or five generations they are succeeded by another family. The same happens to the latter in turn and they pass their power on to yet others, and so it always is. It is impossible to find a family of rulers, tyrants, or emperors that has remained in power forever. But our masters and emperors have done well even in this respect and have surpassed the others. Once they took possession of this land and ascended this throne, neither time, nor fortune, nor a change of circumstances has swept them away. Instead, as if they were immortal rulers, the members of this same family and its bloodline have continued to reign perpetually over us.”[7]

So it appears that the victory of the Megaloi Komnenoi over their archontes was complete, as shown by this feat… however, it must be considered that this was always the status quo, even before and after the civil war. This dynasty had become the byword for imperial legitimacy in Pontos; as “Caesar” and “Augustus”, the names of individuals like Julius and Octavian, had evolved into titles of the highest esteem due to the prestige of its original bearer, so too has “Megas Komnenos” transformed into a name for a leadership role in the Pontic region.[8] Even in Constantinople, it was common knowledge that, in the words of historian Nikephoros Gregoras, there was an “inviolable law” that none but a Komnenos shall be accepted by the people of Trebizond to govern them[9]; thus, Kantakouzenos has never sent anyone who was not a Komnenos as his approved candidate to the throne. When the son of Emperor Ioannes V Palaiologos, Michael, attempted to usurp the Trapezuntine throne from Alexios III in 1376, no military action was required before the pretender realized his attempt could never succeed.

The Scholarioi and Amytzantarantai also never attempted to usurp the purple for one of their own, and merely sought to install and manipulate a Komnenos/Komnene who shared their own ideologies and furthered their interests. They perfectly understood in their hearts that none of them possessed the required imperial legitimacy, so that even if they, the aristocracy, could subdue the monarch, the Populus would never accept them and overwhelm them. This wasn’t just another petty power grab by the grandees of the realm against their liege lord, while the people below suffer and watch on the side, so prevalent in other medieval societies. As stated already, the popular element of Trapezuntine society was dominating, as the Roman Populus in any previous era was. All the three classes were actively involved in the civil conflict.

Some examples of the crucial role the people played[10]:

• When the conduct of Basileios Megas Komnenos became overly unacceptable for the majority of Trebizond, the people demonstrated their frustration with stones during the solar eclipse of 1336
• The Constantinopolitan candidate for the throne chosen by Ioannes VI Kantakouzenos, Michael Megas Komnenos, was contained by the Trapezuntine people before he could even attempt a coup against Empress Anna in 1341
• The Scholarioi’s enthronement of Ioannes III Megas Komnenos would not have succeeded, had Trebizond’s inhabitants not rebelled against their Empress Anachoutlou from within in 1342
• When the Doranitai revolted and imprisoned Niketas Scholares, it was the populace that forced them to release the minister of Alexios III and foiled their plot in 1351

It may be observed that the people were in 1341 anti-Scholarioi; in 1342 anti-Amytzantarantai; in 1351 pro-Scholarioi… A difference between the Byzantine populus in Constantinople and Thessaloniki during the contemporary Second Palaiologan Civil War, and the Pontic Populus in the Trapezuntine Civil War, is that while the Byzantines showed their discontent towards their corrupt nobles by supporting their monarch of choice, Ioannes V Palaiologos, and opposing the aristocratic champion, Ioannes VI Kantakouzenos, the Trapezuntines did not rally into the archontic alliances of Scholarioi or Amytzantarantai; rather, they acted in their own interests. Their actions were at times beneficial for one faction, other times detrimental, constituting something of a “third party” like the triangle Polybius described. Peter Charanis proposes that the people were actually on the side of a strong central imperial government, their only refuge from the oppressive lords, both Scholarioi and Amytzantarantai.[11] Yet if this were true, it would be difficult to explain why the people violently assaulted an Emperor that held together the realm with effective if somewhat questionable authority in 1336, risking destabilization of the Empire.  

It is my view, then, that the people were in support of not only someone with Komnenian imperial legitimacy and the capacity to govern a diverse state, but also a ruler whose behavior was acceptable and accountable to them. Not only did they have qualms with the aristocracy, but also with the imperial government. Their preferred candidate in the end was Alexios III Megas Komnenos, but they did not hesitate to threaten their champion with the possibility of rioting should he make overly rash decisions, as they demonstrated in 1362 when the Emperor considered making a marriage alliance so hastily between the Emir of Limnia and his daughter.

And yet, upon closer inspection of 15^th century Trapezuntine history, after the reign of Alexios III, there is diminishing of both popular participation and the projected imperial authority. Polybius’ opinion on the Roman Republican system has sometimes been accused of deliberate distortion, aggrandizing the role of the consuls and the populace in respect to that of the true powerhouse, the Senate, in order to paint a more balanced triad. Due to the prominence of the senators and archontes in both late Republican and Trapezuntine contexts, a final inspection of the aristocratic class and their story is now due as a concluding remark.

Niketas Scholares languished in custody, and that daring kingmaker died along with his endless schemes in 1361. By then, young Alexios had established himself on the throne, familiarized himself with the duties of an Emperor and began constructing his own grand dynasty. Relieved, but also deeply grieved by the passing of Scholares, who despite his conniving was a competent administrator of the Empire and raised Alexios to the imperial dignity in the first place, the grateful protégé personally led a funeral procession for Niketas in white robes of mourning. Yet the sense of security gained from the passing of Scholares was false.

In 1362, ex-Emperor Ioannes III Megas Komnenos also attempted a coup like his father Michael, but also failed and escaped to Genoese lands, never heard of again. The pitiful endeavor was not a cause of much concern, but an event the following year was. In 1363, while Emperor Alexios was sitting by St Gregorios River, he suffered an attack on his life under broad daylight; the would-be assassins were various members of the Kabazites family and Georgios Scholares, a relative of the late Niketas. Alexios turned heels and fled into the safety of his citadel, while the conspirators pursued him all the way until they realized their cause was doomed. The Kabazitai were arrested, Georgios fled to Amisos and was only allowed to return home with the mediation of a Genoese. Further investigation from the Emperor revealed the complicity of the Metropolitan of Trebizond, Niphon, in the conspiracy, so he was exiled and Alexios’ supporter Joseph Lazaropoulos was elected as the succeeding Metropolitan.

The reason for this failed takeover is unclear, perhaps it was related to Alexios’ dismissal of Ioannes Kabazites from his post as the doux of Chaldia in 1360, or simply the Kabazitai and Georgios Scholares were under the impression that there was still a window of opportunity to make a power grab before young Alexios firmly reinforces his imperial legitimacy. In any case, having experienced his share of trauma from civil discord, the policies of Alexios in his later reign were designed to curtail the influence of the Trapezuntine archontes and prevent such blatant affronts to imperial authority once more. A combination of “carrot and stick” ensured his success: there were open rehabilitations with certain families, like the Doranitai, and Alexios’ commitment to personally involving himself in every affair of the Empire, from military to religious, limited the impact of grandees who usually occupied themselves with these matters. The Emperor’s strategies proved to be effective, and no more insurrections were known in his lifetime; he gained the acceptance and devotion of all Trapezuntine society by the end of his long and fruitful reign in 1390.

Regrettably, that stalwart central authority that Alexios III strived relentlessly for didn’t last long after his death. The historian Michael Panaretos also passed away along with his lord, and the rest of his chronicle is unclear and laconic, so history of the 1390s and the 15^th century is riddled with ambiguity. Regardless of what happened in Trebizond in the subsequent years, by the time someone left a clear account of the Empire again, it was during the reign of Alexios III’s son, Manuel III Megas Komnenos, in 1404, after Anatolia weathered first the lighting expansion of the Ottoman Empire then the terrible wrath of Timur Beg. That year, the Spanish traveler Clavijo was on his way to the court of Timur, and passing by Trebizond, he describes the Empire: in the days of Manuel III, it has reduced greatly in size and influence, and the Emperor himself only retained control over a small portion of Pontos along the coast. Previous Trapezuntine cities, if not overrun by Turks, were property of regional Roman archontes, like the Kabazitai, who left an ugly impression on the Spaniard. Clavijo recalls with contempt how the Emperor’s escorts feared to accompany him beyond Palaiomatzouka, for in the south the Kabazitai reigned supreme. They held the great fortresses along the important Zigana Pass and the border, allowing them to extract high tolls to pass through their territory.[12]  This victim of Kabazitic abuse also relates how party politics became rampant again when Manuel III was opposed by his son Alexios IV and the aristocrats rallied around one or another, conducting a civil war in the capital just like the one in 1340 between the Scholarioi and Amytzantarantai, perhaps including nobles like the Kabazitai once more.[13] The rest of 15^th century Trapezuntine history was not harmonious either, as Alexios IV got along even less with his son Ioannes IV Megas Komnenos than with his father Manuel III, and father and son waged war on each other. In 1429, the Kabazitai, who acted as Alexios IV’s bodyguards, betrayed their Emperor and let some men of Ioannes IV into his father’s tent, where they murdered the sleeping monarch rather than capture him like his son wished.[14] Having failed to assassinate one Alexios, they succeeded in inadvertently abetting the assassins of another Alexios. These complacent regicides continued their business as usual, occupying high posts in the administration and overlording key provinces of the Empire, thriving under the fragile imperial government that ruled Trebizond in its last decades. This insignificant family before 1340 had risen to the forefront of Trapezuntine history by the 15^th century, profiting from the demise of the Tzanichitai, Scholarioi and other archontes under the victorious Alexios III to fill in their roles, especially from constructing their vital Chaldian power base; then, years later, undeterred from their failed regicidal attempt, again profiting from the decline of Alexios’ dynasty to climb ever higher, leaving later Emperors helpless against them. The long-term winner of the Trapezuntine Civil War, then, was the House of Kabazites, not Komnenos.

When the civil wars of the Late Republic ended, and Augustus emerged as the ultimate victor, the Polybian mixed constitution saw a severe curtailing of the power of the aristocratic element, the Senate, for the Populus, exhausted after a century of infighting between the elites of society, would prefer the barely disguised dictatorship of an imperator who could bring peace, to the endless bickering of 600 privileged old men and their feuding with talented generals. For the rest of Roman history, from Augustus onwards, the importance of Senate was in constant decline, and it completely disappeared, even as an honorary institution, in the Eastern Roman Empire by the 14^th century. In Imperial Rome, a more direct relationship between the monarchical and democratic components of society was established, and it functioned incredibly well in a highly centralized Empire; this lasted until the end of Late Antiquity, when the Roman order collapsed.

The West, after the Fall of Rome and the rise of the barbarian kingdoms, yielded to feudalism, and powerful landowning lords, the new aristocracy, dominated their world. The East resisted this trend for much longer, due to the authority of Constantinople, but the rise of a new nobility, the dynatoi, took place all throughout the Middle Byzantine Period (mid 7^th to mid 11^th century). The emergence of these great families, the Doukai, Phokades, Komnenoi, Palaiologoi, etc., took centuries, but eventually the imperial reins were taken over by them, and imperial dynasties were their monopoly in Late Byzantium (12^th to 15^th century).

None contributed more to this shift than the Komnenoi. Alexios I Komnenos worked tirelessly to completely overhaul the old Roman administration, in shambles after the Battle of Manzikert. The imperial bureaucracy became staffed with the Emperor’s kin, and the aristocracy once more took ascendancy in the Roman world; the Senate withered, but the dynatoi flourished and took their place. Once more, the monarchical and democratic were faced with a potent aristocratic element that influenced the Roman Empire, and this time it stayed for good, like in the medieval West, after the breakdown of the central authority of the Komnenoi in the 1180s. There has been much debate as to whether the Eastern Empire ever feudalized, with scholars like Ostrogorsky championing the view that from the Komnenian Dynasty onwards it did, but in either case, it was evident that lords with land held considerable sway in the latest stage of the Empire. The Palaiologoi, the last imperial dynasty in Constantinople, were able to rise to power in the first place through the widespread support of the nobility in the Empire of Nicaea, who became disillusioned with the Laskarid imperial dynasty and brutally murdered the guardian of young Emperor Ioannes IV Laskaris, putting Michael VIII Palaiologos in charge. Although Michael’s dynasty reigned for two centuries, they suffered their fair share of headache from those very nobles, who spurred the Palaiologoi on into several ruinous civil wars.

This was not a fate that the Megaloi Komnenoi, offspring of Alexios I Komnenos, could avoid. It seemed only natural that a cunning archontic family would profit considerably from their strife and prosper henceforth in Pontos. 

---

[1] Sourced from Panaretos, 23-29.

[2] Lazaropoulos, 341.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Sourced from Panaretos 35-57.

[6] Bryer, Faithless, 310

[7] Bessarion, 183-185.

[8] Bryer, A. (1975). Greeks and Turkmens: The Pontic Exception. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 29, 137.

[9] Gregoras, 682.

[10] Karpov, 227.

[11] Charanis, P. (1973). Internal Strife in Byzantium during the Fourteenth Century, in Social, Economic and Political Life in the Byzantine Empire. Variorum Publishing, 218.

[12] Karpov, 228.

[13] Bryer, Faithless, 317.

[14] Ibid, 318.