SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN NICAEA (1204-1261)

Nicaea  Council

The battle of Hadrianople, which had destroyed the strength of the Frankish dominion at Constantinople, saved the Empire of Nicaea from ruin and gave it hope for a new life. Theodore Lascaris, who had escaped the danger from his western neighbor, set to work actively to organize his state. First of all, when Theodore had succeeded in establishing himself firmly at Nicaea, the question was raised of proclaiming him emperor instead of despot. As the Greek patriarch of Constantinople, who after the Frankish invasion had withdrawn to Bulgaria, refused to come to Nicaea, a new patriarch, Michael Autoreanus, was elected there in 1208; he had his residence at Nicaea and crowned Theodore Emperor in the same year.  Nicaea, located about forty English miles from Constantinople, became the capital of the new empire. Its position at the intersection of five or six roads, gave it a special political importance.
Nicaea had achieved fame in Byzantine history as the site of two ecumenical councils, and its inhabitants boasted of the powerful walls, towers, and gates erected in the Middle Ages. These are still well preserved today. A short time before the First Crusade Nicaea had succumbed to the Seljuq Turks, but the crusaders who had taken the city away from them had been compelled, to their great discontent, to return it to Alexius Comnenus. Magnificent palaces and numerous churches and monasteries, of which now not a trace remains, adorned medieval Nicaea The founder of the Empire of Nicaea, “an Empire in exile,” was Theodore Lascaris, a man about thirty years old, related to the house of the Angeli through his wife Anna, daughter of the former Emperor Alexius III, and to the house of the Comneni through Alexius III. The origin of the Lascarids and the name of Theodore’s native city are not known. Under Alexius III he held military command and fought energetically against the crusaders. In all likelihood he had been regarded as a possible emperor of Byzantium by the Constantinopolitan clergy after the flight of Alexius Ducas Murzuphlus (Mourtzouphlos) and up to the very moment of the taking of the capital by the crusaders; but at that time he fled to Asia Minor. There also sought shelter from the invasion of the crusaders numerous representatives of the Byzantine civil and military nobility, some prominent members of the church, and some other fugitives who did not wish to be under the yoke of the foreign power.  The last Greek patriarch of Constantinople, John Camaterus, however, left the capital for Bulgaria and refused to come to Nicaea on Theodore’s invitation. The metropolitan of Athens, Michael Acominatus, who had withdrawn into exile before the invading Latins, wrote a letter in which he recommended to the favorable attention of Theodore Lascaris a certain Euboean. He wrote that the latter had gone secretly to Nicaea, preferring the life of an exile at the palace of a Greek (Romaic) state to a stay in his native country oppressed by the foreigners; in the same letter Michael emphasized the fact that, if the Euboean found shelter at Nicaea, it would greatly impress the whole population of Greece who “would regard Theodore as a single universal liberator,” that is to say, a liberator of the whole of Romania.

The Emperors of Nicaea were always concerned with the problems of the internal life of their state. Economic prosperity was one of their very important aims. In this respect John Vatatzes is especially noticeable; his varied and strenuous external activity did not prevent him from paying adequate attention to the economic wealth of his country. He encouraged agriculture, vineyards, and stock-breeding. To quote a source, “in a short time, all the warehouses have been filled to overflowing with fruits; roads, streets, all stalls, and enclosures have been filled with flocks of cattle and fowls.” The famine which at that time befell the adjacent Sultanate of Rum compelled the Turks to crowd into the Nicene dominions to buy, at a high price, the means of subsistence. Turkish gold, silver, Oriental stuffs, jewels, and other articles of luxury poured in abundance into the hands of the Nicene Greeks and filled the imperial treasury.
By diminishing taxes Vatatzes succeeded in raising the economic prosperity of the Empire. In times of dearth the large supplies of corn collected in granaries were distributed among the people. Having at his disposal considerable amounts of money Vatatzes erected all over the country forts, and such buildings as hospitals, almshouses, and poorhouses. John Vatatzes was anxious “that, having everything at home he needed, no one should be induced to lay a grasping hand on simple and poor men, and that thereby the state of the Romans might be completely purified from injustice.”
Vatatzes himself was a large landowner and many of his nobles also possessed considerable tracts of land, and derived a sufficient living from their estates. These estates seem to have been granted by the Emperor to the members of his officeholding nobility, and resemble the western European beneficium or Byzantine pronoia, that is to say, land granted by the emperors or, in their name, by their ministers, to subjects for their services to the state on condition that they furnish military service. Perhaps the large landowners were sometimes discontented with Vatatzes’ regime and renounced allegiance to him. Towards the close of his reign some confiscations by the Emperor of movable and immovable property took place, and this very interesting phenomenon may be explained by an antagonism between the throne and the large landowners, on which there is no information.
A recent historian even judged it possible to aver that such risings of the aristocracy against Vatatzes actually took place. From the social standpoint, Vatatzes may be regarded as a protector of the peasantry and urban class; he endeavored, first of all, to raise their wealth and prosperity; and this circumstance might have evoked the dissatisfaction of the landed aristocracy, which brought about severe measures in retaliation against them. When Theodore II ascended the throne, the officeholding aristocracy persecuted by his father looked upon the new Emperor with confidence, hoping to regain their lost wealth and influence. But they were disappointed in their expectations.
Theodore’s policy was to diminish the influence of the aristocracy, and severe measures were apparently taken against many of its members; a long list of names of high officials who suffered under Theodore II is given by a contemporary writer. The aristocracy was put down under Theodore II, and men of humble origin surrounded his throne; owing everything to Theodore they were obedient tools in his hands. After Theodore’s death, under his son, who was only a child, the aristocracy again increased their influence.
In connection with Theodore’s military enterprises the taxes were considerably augmented, and in his letter to Nicephorus Blemmydes, who accused the Emperor of extorting too many taxes from the population, Theodore explained that the reason for his policy was his military activities. The Emperors of Nicaea were also very much interested in the development of commercial relations with other states, and especially with Venice. In August, 1219, Theodore I Lascaris made an alliance and a commercial treaty with the Venetian podestá in Constantinople, which secured to the Venetian merchants the privilege of trading free of dues on land and sea, all over the Empire of Nicaea (per totum Imperium meum et sine aliqua inquisitione).
Western goods imported by the Venetians according to this treaty competed successfully with eastern goods which had to pass through the whole territory of the Sultanate of Iconium. Eastern and Italian stuffs were in special demand, and the population spent enormous amounts of money for their purchase. Seeing this John Vatatzes, under pain of “dishonor,” that is to say, of losing their social position, forbade his subjects to purchase and wear foreign stuffs and ordered them to be satisfied “only with that which the land of the Romans produces and which the hands of the Romans are able to prepare.” How long this regulation, which was intended to support local production, remained in force, is not known; probably it was soon forgotten.

The friendly relations with Venice did not last long, and under Vatatzes the Republic of St. Mark was hostile to Nicaea. At that time Vatatzes had some difficulties with the former imperial governor of the island of Rhodes, Leon Gabalas, who, soon after 1204, had styled himself “Lord of the Cyclades,” and even “Caesar.” When Vatatzes opened hostilities against him, Leon, unable to protect the island with his own forces, made an offensive and defensive alliance with Venice, which broke down the treaty concluded with Theodore I Lascaris. In the treaty of 1234 between Leon Gabalas and Venice the latter was granted vast commercial privileges. In this very interesting document Leon Gabalas called himself “dominus Rhode et Cicladum insularum Ksserus Leo Gavalla,” “lord of Rhodes and the Cyclades, Caesar Leo Gavalla.” Vatatzes sent an expedition to Rhodes and the island became the possession of the Emperor of Nicaea.
Just before the taking of Constantinople the Genoese gained the upper hand over their Venetian rivals when, in 1261, Michael Palaeologus signed the treaty of Nymphaeum. According to this treaty the Genoese obtained commercial supremacy in the Levant. After the restoration of the Byzantine Empire Michael Palaeologus continued his friendly relations with the Genoese.

By A.A. Vasiliev in the book 'History of the Byzantine Empire', University of Wisconsin Press, 1958, p. 480-483.. Adapted and illustrated to be posted by Leopoldo Costa.