On Saints, Warriors, and Lawyers -- a question on Byzantium and the Crusaders

So I have read many times about Emperor Alexios I. having the leaders of the First Crusade swear him fealty. Finally I started to think: Oath of fealty?
Wasn't that a legal concept of the West, where Roman and Germanic laws had fused?
Was Byzantium sufficiently "Germanized" by the Ostrogoths to employ a similar structure?
Or did Alexios refer to (an advanced version of) the Roman concept of patronage? This would mean an implicit misunderstanding ...
Or was it generally agreed that the Western and Eastern concepts were sufficiently comparable to be equated for practical purposes?
Or did the Basileus just charge something from the foreigners they would understand? This seems rather unlikely, as he would rather not embrace foreign legal concepts for his own Empire ...

Gratefully a-waiting your advice!


Boto
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Well, I'd imagine that the whole "Oath of Fealty" thing is merely what the westerners could best relate it too. I'd imagine that the Romans called it something completely different, but the westerners saw it as an oath of fealty.

EDIT: The closest analogy I can think of is European explorers completely misinterpreting native customs during the discovery of America.
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
I believe this was not the traditional feudal oath. Rather, it was an oath of personal loyalty to the emperor. The Crusaders were expected to return any conquered land to the emperor.
 
I believe this was not the traditional feudal oath. Rather, it was an oath of personal loyalty to the emperor. The Crusaders were expected to return any conquered land to the emperor.

Yeah, this. Byzantine legal differences between it and the West were based more around the fact that universal rule by the Emperor never collapsed in the East. Whereas many of the rights given to the Germans originated in Roman law, the took on a life of their own when the Western Empire went away. They would still, however, be recognizable in a place where Roman law remained the norm.
 
I believe this was not the traditional feudal oath. Rather, it was an oath of personal loyalty to the emperor. The Crusaders were expected to return any conquered land to the emperor.
Only the last guy swore personally to the emperor, was it Raymond? I can't remember his name. The others swore as feudal lords, I guess the explanation was Alexius wanted at least something they would be familiar with and maybe keep a bit before betraying him.
 

wormyguy

Banned
Well, considering that the Byzantines invented the idea of feudal lordships (in order to pretend that they still had control of Italy as it collapsed around them), I'd imagine they'd be quite familiar with the idea.
 
As I noted in the other thread, remember that feudal oaths were bidirectional and a lord was expected to aid his vassals. Those who's lord neglected them were then free to choose another master. noblesse oblige was a two way street.

Many of the Crusaders believed that Alexius broke the oath first by not just coming to their aid at Antioch but also by 'conspiring' with the Muslims when he washed his hands of them on their march to Palestine after Antioch. Hindsight being 20/20, if he had showed up at Antioch with even a portion of his army (the battle having been well decided before that), the Byzantines would have kept Antioch and the Normans would have had to look to Aleppo or Shaizar, instead (which was John's ambition towards them after the Crusade), if not Tripoli or the like. Bohemund's propaganda would have been fruitless in the face of the presence of the Emperor and the other leading Crusaders would have been far less sympathetic to it. John the Oxite would still have been reinstated as Patriarch of Antioch and wouldn't have been ejected by the Normans as he was in OTL, either, which hastened the practical effect of the schism.

The oath itself meant nothing to Alexius, though. He was the autokrator, "the ruler of men." He merely used it to try to keep the Franks bound to him by their own custom.
 
Thanks for all your replies!

So far, you tend to either consider the oath of fealty
i) just a Western interpretation of what Alexios really wanted; or
ii) something Alexios knew they would understand ('inculturation').



EDIT: The closest analogy I can think of is European explorers completely misinterpreting native customs during the discovery of America.

Oh, I don't think so. Western and Eastern Europe had formed a common cultural sphere for over a millennium before, and still were something like a system of communicating tubes - in spite of mutual excommunications ...

Well, considering that the Byzantines invented the idea of feudal lordships (in order to pretend that they still had control of Italy as it collapsed around them), I'd imagine they'd be quite familiar with the idea.


This seems to be a very fruitful hint!

Can you tell me more about what you allude to here?
 
Well, I'd imagine that the whole "Oath of Fealty" thing is merely what the westerners could best relate it too. I'd imagine that the Romans called it something completely different, but the westerners saw it as an oath of fealty.

EDIT: The closest analogy I can think of is European explorers completely misinterpreting native customs during the discovery of America.

Yeah, I agree with this. I think Alexios saw the Crusaders more as Foederati troops rather than religious warriors in their own right. Furthermore, the amount of damage that the Crusaders had inflicted on the Roman Balkans heading eastwards might have alarmed poor old Alexios enough into saying whatever he could to get these barbarians out of Imperial territory: another classic Roman tactic.
 
I don't think there was much misunderstanding at work here. The empire had plenty of interaction with the west in the decades/centuries leading up to the Crusades and would have been fully versed on the customs and protocols. The oath of fealty could be likened to that he would give to a barbarian chieftan being incorporated into the empire. Also I don't think the Crusaders were confused with Foederati, as these were incorporated into the imperial army under imperial higher commanders and the Crusaders were obviously not going to do that. They made it clear that they were independent armies heading for Jerusalem, not that they wanted to take service with the emperor.

I think there's merit in the idea that Al saw them as barbarians to be gotten rid of as quickly and with as little damage as possible. When looking at their staggering lack of preparation to face the Turks its not unreasonable to think that they would meet the fate as the Crusade of 1101 and the 2nd Crusade and be destroyed passing through Anatolia. And if they were a lost cause who cares about an oath of fealty. Dumb luck at Doloreym is what made the oaths matter.
 
Thank you very much for your replies!

So far, the only thing we all agree on is that the Basileus knew what Westeners would mean by an "Oath of Fealty" ...
 
Top