The Latin Empire of Constantinople

(1204–1261): Rise and Fall of a ­

Short-Term State in the Romania

Ekaterini Mitsiou

1 Introduction

What is an Empire? A simple question which usually leads to complex answers.

Theories on statesmanship and power are taken into consideration which very often
results in opposite definitions and approaches. Charles S. Maier argued that an “Empire
is a territorially extensive structure of rule that usually subordinates diverse ethnolin-
guistic groups or would-be nations and reserves preponderant power for an executive
authority and the elites with whom this power is shared. Thus an empire is character-
ized by size, by ethnic hierarchization, and by a regime that centralizes power but
enlists diverse social and/or ethnic elites in its management.”1 This definition stays
very close to the one by Jürgen Osterhammel, who understands the term “Imperium”
as a “großräumiges, hierarchisch aufgebautes, zuweilen mit monarchischer Spitze aus-
gestattetes Herrschaftsbilde polyethnischer und multireligiöser Art, dessen Verbund
durch Administration, Gewaltpotenziale, Zusammenarbeit mit den Einheimischen
sowie Eliten-Symbolik und einem Anspruch des Universalismus gewährleistet wird”.2
Important elements in relation to the phases of formation and structuring of empires are a

1Maier 2006: 31.

2Osterhammel 2004: 172–173; Gehler and Rollinger 2014: 3.

E. Mitsiou (*) 
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria
e-mail: Ekaterini.Mitsiou@assoc.oeaw.ac.at

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 103

R. Rollinger et al. (eds.), Short-term Empires in World History, Universal-
und kulturhistorische Studien. Studies in Universal and Cultural History,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29435-9_5
104 E. Mitsiou

territorial expansion, “control by conquest or coercion”, and the “control of the political
loyalty of the territories it subjugates”.3
Some theorists include the empires under the notion of states, and more accurately to
the more permanent type of state formation4; other draw a clear line between state and
empire emphasising that “Empires are more than large states; they move in a world of
their own”.5 Empires bear specific hallmarks of strong ideological character. They are
the creators of order and defenders of chaos; they intervene in internal affairs of other
states in order to fulfil the imperial mission”.6
Empires are strongly connected with expansion, consolidation of power and lon-
gevity.7 Rome is the most prominent among them influencing modern scholarship on
its understanding of European imperial formations. There are, however, some empires
which collapse only a few years despite a promising start; they are the short-term
empires. Many explanations about their “failure” have been offered: structural deficien-
cies, problems in their internal organisation, a focus on war, conquest and predation, an
inability to “effectively coerce or persuade support and resources”8 and finally external
factors.
Generally speaking, short-term empires fail in reaching the so-called “Augustan
threshold”,9 the phase of consolidation after the phase of expansion. In the early stages
of their existence, they do not achieve the necessary military and economic superiority
which blocks them from moving to the next phase. Yet, military and economic power
are of paramount importance in the formative years of empires; only in the consolidation
phase, they play political and ideological power a more important role.10
The 13th century offers a unique example of a short-term empire formed through
conquest,11 which lasted less than 60 years. Interestingly, this imperial entity coexisted
with a maritime state which based its power on the economic penetration in the Eastern
Mediterranean. The first one was the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261), the
second was Venice. The first resulted from a military confrontation at the beginning of

3Maier 2006: 24–25.

4Goldstone and Haldon 2009: 3–29.
5Münkler 2007: viii and 4–6.

6Münkler 2007: viii.

7Gehler and Rollinger 2014: 17.

8Goldstone and Haldon 2009: 7: “Some historical states have been represented by claims to legiti-

macy based on consensus, having little or no power of coercion, and have survived generally for
only a relatively short time. Those state elites that have military coercion at their disposal, at least
in the early stages of their development, may remain relatively isolated from the social structures
they live off, surviving only as long as they are able effectively to coerce or persuade support and
resources.”
9Doyle 1984: 93–97.

10Mann 1986: 22–28; Münkler 2007: 47.

11Münkler 2007: 48.

The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 105

the 13th century, the second had started taking “the command of the sea” since the 11th
century.12 Yet, after 1204 Venice transformed slowly into an Empire through the conquest
of Crete, the occupation of important strongholds in Peloponnesus and of holding prop-
erty in Euboea.13 The formation and later decline of a land Empire and its coexistence
in the same space with a maritime power should be also taken into consideration in any
discussion of short longevity.14

2 Current Research and Sources

The Latin Empire of Constantinople is normally not included in the scholarly debate on
world Empires, probably because a thorough analysis of its entire history is still miss-
ing. Whenever studies on the neighbouring states refer to it, it is in connection to mili-
tary confrontations, diplomatic relations, as well as ideological influences. Until recently
only a few books offered a full or partial narration of its history.15 R.L. Wolff never
published his thesis but he presented his research in miscellaneous articles such as the
chapter in the “History of the Crusades”.16 Benjamin Hendrickx worked extensively
on its institutional history,17 while David Jacoby focused on the economy and its rela-
tions to the Frankish states.18 Only some conferences were dedicated exclusively to the
Latin Empire,19 whereas few studies have addressed the prosopography and the marriage
alliances.20 Otherwise, books on the history of the Crusades and the Frankish states in
Greece21 incorporated the Latin Empire in their chapters. In the last years, the schol-
arly interest grows. After 2010, various dissertations and monographs were written and
published shading light on ideological and institutional aspects, as well as on its foreign
policy.22
The Latin Empire of Constantinople lacks its own contemporary account. On recon-
structing its history, formation and organisation we rely on sources of diverse origin,

12Lane 1973: 67–73; Papadia-Lala 2008: 195–210; Brandes 2008.

13Jacoby 2015: 186.
14Jacoby 2006: 19–80.

15du Cange 1826; Gerland 1905; Longnon 1949; Verlinden 1945; Carile 1978.

16Wolff 1962: 187–233; Wolff 1976.

17Hendrickx 1974a; Hendrickx, 1974b; Hendrickx 1974c; Hendrickx 1977; Hendrickx 1999.

18Jacoby, 1993; Jacoby 1999.

19Van Aalst and Ciggaar 1990.

20Longnon 1978; Angold 2011.

21Miller 1908; Lock 1995: 35–67; Balard 2006: 216–220; Dourou-Iliopoulou 2012: 77–80;

Chrissis 2012; Tsougarakis and Lock 2015.

22Papayianni 2000; van Tricht 2011; Burkhardt 2014. Cf. also van Tricht 2001: 219–38 and 409–

438; Kindlimann 1969; Sinogowitz 1944.

106 E. Mitsiou

languages and aims. The corpus of written sources encompasses the chronicles of the
Fourth Crusade, foremost the ones by Geoffrey of Villehardouin and Robert of Clari.
Villehardouin covers the years up to 1207, while Robert de Clari narrates the events up
to 1216. The chronicle of Henry of Valenciennes, the sequel of Villehardouin, deals with
the period 1208–1209. These authors present the capture of Constantinople and the exist-
ence of the Latin Empire as legitimate acts23. The letters written by crusaders and sent
to friendly Western princes and authorities during and shortly after 1204 reflect a similar
attitude.24 The Chronica by Alberic of Trois-Fontaines (written between 1227 and 1251)
is helpful for the period 1204–1241.25 Credible and valuable insight offer also Philippe
Mouskes and Matthew of Paris. The first covers the period until circa 1243, whereas the
second until 1259.26 Although of various credibility, one should also include the Venetian
chronicles which present the Serenissima’s point of view.27
The Gesta Innocentii28 endorse the papal perspective which does not always coincide
with the historiography. On the other hand, the papal registers include valuable material
on the political and ecclesiastical organisation for the period 1204–1261.29 Critical to the
events of 1204 and to the Latin Empire is the Devastatio Constantinopolitana30 Other
sources like the Hystoria Constantinopolitana emphasise the participation of monks and
priests in the Crusade. Their involvement was strongly connected to the acquisition of
relics in Constantinople and their transfer to the West.31
Only a few documents of the Latin Emperors are known, related mostly to exter-
nal affairs.32 Equally fragmentary is the material on the internal administration of the
empire, the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople,33 the monastic orders and their founda-
tions.34 The Venetian diplomatic material provides some data on the economic history of

23Faral1938–1939; Sollbach, 1998; Shaw 1963; Lauer 1924a; Dufournet 2004; Longnon 1948.
24Martène and Durand 1717; Waitz 1880: 203–208; Bouquet 1879: 517–519; Tafel and Thomas
1856–1857: vol. 1, 304–311; Pokorny 1985: 203–209; Andrea 2000: 177–201.
25Scheffer-Boichorst 1874; Andrea 2000: 291–309.

26De Reiffenberg 1938; Luard 1872–1883.

27Simonsfeld 1883; Pastorello 1938–1958; Limentani 1972; Papadopoulou 2000.

28Gress-Wright 2000; Powell 2004.

29Hageneder et al., 1964; Pressutti 1888, 1895. Some complete texts of letters, in Horov 1878–

1880; Wolff 1954: 225–303; Auvray 1899–1910; Berger 1884–1910; Bourel de la Ronciire
1902–1931.
30Andrea 1993: 131–149.

31Orth 1994; Andrea 1997; Assmann 1956.

32Prevenier 1964–1971; Hendrickx 1988; Prevenier 1990. See also Longnon 1943. On the letters

of the Latin emperors see Tafel and Thomas 1856–1857; Lauer 1924b; Teulet 1866; du Bouchet
1661; Dölger 1931.
33Wolff 1948; Wolff, 1954; van Dieten 1990; Santifaller 1938.

34Golubovich 1906–1927; Golubovich, 1919; Wadding 1931–1934; Tsougarakis 2012.

The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 107

the period. Yet, it depicts mostly the interests of the Serenissima not simply in the newly
established Latin Empire but also in the entire Eastern Mediterranean.35
Extremely valuable are the Greek sources such as Niketas Choniates, George
Akropolites and Nikolaos Mesarites.36 However, they are biased against the Latin state
focusing on the Nicaean revival. The only pro-Latin source in Greek is the Chronicle
of Morea written probably by a French with anti-Greek feelings.37 Sources from the
Kingdom of Cilician Armenia38, the Seljuk Sultanate39, the Latin States in Syria and
Palestine, and the neighbouring Islamic principalities offer additional data.40
Finally, seals and coins enlighten issues of imperial ideology and monetary policies,41
whereas archaeological findings and manuscripts enrich aspects of the monastic life and
literary production during that period.42

3 The Latin Empire and the “Roots of Evil” Conquest,

Division and Expansion

The reasons for the short longevity of this Empire can be traced on its weak points. At
first one should focus on the phase of its formation.
The Latin Empire is an immediate result of the Fourth Crusade.43 The collapse of
the Byzantine Empire sealed the end of destabilising processes and a period of upris-
ings that had shaken the state creating a high degree of instability.44 Τhe internal prob-
lems of Byzantium gave the opportunity to foreign powers to interfere. The invitation of
prince Alexios to the Crusaders to help his father Emperor Isaakios II to gain back the
Byzantine throne served as the excuse for the deviation from the original plan. It is not
the place here to discuss the diversion of the Fourth Crusade;45 however, what followed
the capture of Zara set the base of the events in 1204. The Crusaders started in 1202 for
the Holy Land but ended up in the Byzantine capital; for almost a year they had military

35Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo 1940; Tafel and Thomas 1856–1857; Theiner 1863–1875;

Theiner 1859–1860.
36Van Dieten 1975; Heisenberg and Wirth 1978; Angold 2017; Heisenberg and Wirth 1978.

37Kalonaros 1940; Lurier 1964; Egea 1996; Shawcross 2009; Shawcross 2012b.

38Langlois1863; Wallis Budge 1932; Dédéyan 1980.

39Duda 1959.

40On the Western chronicles from the Holy Land and from the neighbouring Islamic principalities,

see van Tricht 12–13.

41On the coins and seals see below. On Byzantine coinage s. Hendy 1969 and Hendy 1985.

42Jolivet-Lévy 2012.

43On the Fourth Crusade see Angold 2003; Laiou 2005. Lilie 2004: 157–180; Queller and Madden

1997; Madden 2008.

44Cheynet 1990; Preiser-Kapeller 2012.

45On the diversion of the Fourth Crusade see Angold 2003.

108 E. Mitsiou

and diplomatic confrontations in front of the city’s walls. On April 13, 1204, the soldiers
of the Fourth Crusade conquered Constantinople after a final attack from land and sea
and the Latin Empire of Constantinople was established.
Perhaps not initially planned but in the end a fact, this Empire differs from the other
Crusader States in the Near East (the county of Edessa, the principality of Antioch, the
county of Tripolis, and the kingdom of Jerusalem).46 Constantinople was the capital of a
long-lived Christian Empire47 and its new lords aimed at continuing its imperial tradition.48
Similar ideological aspirations bore also the three Greek successor states (Nicaea, Epirus
and Trebizond), which have formed in the periphery of the former Byzantine Empire.
The most successful concurrent was the Empire of Nicaea whose troops reconquered in
1261 Constantinople.49 Byzantium demonstrated once more ability of readjustment and
resilience.50
Although empires are rarely a consequence of deliberate planning, the Latin Empire
is an example of the opposite. It is as well an “Empire of conquest”. At least one month
prior to the capture of the city (13 April 1204), the leaders of the crusader army and the
Venetians (Boniface of Montferrat, Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut, Louis of Blois and
Hugh of Saint-Pol, and the Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo) decided to capture the city.
Actually, the so-called pact of March 1204 (Partitio Romanie), followed by later agree-
ments up to October 1205, set the constitutional framework of the Latin Empire, which
had to replace the Byzantine one. From the view of political theories, Partitio Romaniae
was the planning of a “state death” which had to be later executed.51 Starting from the
centre (Constantinople) they aimed at conquering regions in Europe and Asia Minor.
One-quarter of the territories, including the imperial palaces, belonged to the emperor.
The other three-quarters were to be divided between the Venetians and the peregrini. It
has been proven that the crusaders based their knowledge on fiscal documents and on an
inspection of the Byzantine territories.52
Baldwin I, who was elected emperor on May the 9th 1204 and was crowned on the
16th of May53, had to receive part of Constantinople and of Thrace, Asia Minor and
some islands in the Aegean. However, he gave some of these lands as fiefs to high-rank-
ing crusaders: the duchy of Nicaea to Louis de Blois, the duchy of Philippoupolis (today

46Amouroux-Mourad 1988; MacEvitt 2008; Asbridge 2000; Prawer 1972; Riley-Smith 1997; Lilie
1993; Balard 2001: 69–130; Schlumberger 1882; Schlumberger 1879; Metcalf 1989; Metcalf
1995; Metcalf and Porteous 1989.
47On Byzantium in the discussion about Empires see Haldon 2009.

48Jacoby 1989.

49On the Empire of Nicaea see Angold 1975; Mitsiou 2006.

50On the patterns of resilience see Zolli and Healy 2012: 9–23.

51Fazal 2007.

52Carile, 1965; Carile 1978; Oikonomidès 1980; Oikonomides 1992; Balard 2006: 177–179.

53Ciggaar 1990; Wolff 1952.

The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 109

Plovdiv) to Renier de Trit, the duchy of Philadelpheia (today Alaşehir) to Etienne de

Perche, Nicomedia (today İzmit) to Thierry de Loos, and Adramyttion (today Edremit)
to Henry de Hainaut.54 Reason for this decision may have been that all these territories
had still to be conquered. Even during the period of expansion and stabilisation (1204–
1228), only a limited number of them belonged effectively to the Latin Empire and its
feudal lords, such as the region around Nicomedia and the coastal cities in Bithynia.
Other Asiatic districts and cities like Adramyttion, Achyraus, and Lopadion were parts of
the Empire only for short periods of time. After 1221, the Nicaean Empire succeeded in
bringing under its control most of the Latin fiefdoms in Europe and Asia Minor.55
The majority of the crusaders received lands in Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly.
Yet, the conquest of the Balkan Peninsula proved also highly problematic. Boniface of
Montferrat was promised initially Crete but he could not conquer the island. During a
campaign to conquer Thessaloniki and being in need of money, he exchanged Crete with
the Venetians for 1000 marcs of silver. The capture of Thessaloniki provoked a danger-
ous conflict with the Emperor, which was set aside only after the intervention of the
calmest.56 Boniface conquered a great part of Southern Greece distributing part of the
conquered lands among Frankish nobles. The region of Athens was given to Othon de
la Roche, Negroponte to Jacques d’Avesnes, Bodonitsa to Guy Pallavicini and Salona to
Thomas d’ Autremencourt.57 On the other hand, Geoffrey de Champlitte and Geoffrey de
Villehardouin conquered Peloponnesus and founded the Principality of Achaia, a vassal
of the Emperor, with twelve baronies.58
The distribution and possession of the fiefs followed the rules and obligations of feu-
dalism.59 According to the Partitio, Venetian and non- Venetian crusaders were given
fiefs for life; they were also hereditary through the male and the female line; the recipi-
ents had given a fidelity oath and were obliged to offer military service to their lord.60 In
order to just give an impression of their size, we should mention that their annual income
of each of these fiefs could have a value between ca. 1300 and 1600 hyperpyra (gold
coins)61 in some cases.

54Hendrickx 2015.
55Angold 1975; Stolte 1990.
56Longnon 1943: 58–61; Balard 2006: 217.

57Longnon 1943: 69–76; Lock 1995: 57–58 and 68–74.

58On the conquest of Peloponess see Bon 1969; Haberstumpf 2003.

59On feudalism see Reynolds 2001.

60van Tricht 2011: 43; Carile 1965; Topping 1949 and in Topping 1977.

61Carile 1978: 203; van Tricht 2011: 110–111.

110 E. Mitsiou

4 The Emperor and the Elites

Some roots of the later difficulties of the Latin Empire can be traced already in the pact
of March 1204 and its superficial character of the description of the relationship between
the emperor and the vassal states. Van Tricht has argued that “…the emperorship itself
was still to be assigned, which certainly must have contributed to the fact that not all the
parties involved had yet developed a definitive perspective as to the position of the impe-
rial powers within the empire as a whole. In this respect, the basic pact of March 1204
already foreshadowed the contrast between centripetal and centrifugal forces that were to
characterize the Latin Empire.”62 If we put it on the broader discussion about Empires,
we have here an example of an empire which “can be built on a congeries of client states
(or “friendly kings”) and need not rest on total subjugation and direct rule. Even when
imperial authorities remain formally sovereign over the lands they count as possessions,
they often accept varying degrees of local autonomy”.63
In spite of the original planning, enough ground was left for negotiating a better deal
with the counterparts-especially the Emperor. Agents or imperial garrisons represented
the Emperor on a local level. In many instances, the Emperor intervened whenever con-
flicts arose. These internal elite disputes proved critical for the fate of the Empire. Two
major events related to the kingdom of Thessaloniki: the confrontation of Baldwin I and
Boniface of Montferrat in relation to the rule upon the city and the second was the revolt
of the barons of Thessaloniki after the death of Baldwin I. They were demonstrations of
internal dislikes and separate aims which caused the loss of energy, money and soldiers.
In reality, the vassal states followed their own policies. Some of them were extremely
successful and long lived (Principality of Achaia),64 while others (the Kingdom of
Thessaloniki until 122465) became pray of the other players in the region, Bulgarians66
and Greeks. The loss of these territories signified also the geographical, political and
economic weakening of the Empire which after the death of Henry of Hainaut in 1216
but especially after 1228 (death of Robert of Courtenay, 1221–1228) was reduced into a
city state around Constantinople.
“Empires are about elites, that means inequality and stratification.”67 The Latin
Empire was a political construction that can be characterized as fundamentally Western,
both as regards its institutional organisation and its political elite. Regarding the insti-
tutional organisation, this was organised on western models mixed with Byzantine ele-
ments. On the top were the emperor, his private council and the Council of the Empire

62Van Tricht 2011.

63Maier 2006: 35; Braund 1984.
64Bon 1969; ­Dourou-Iliopoulou 2012.

65Wellas 1987; Bredenkamp 1996.

66Gjuzelev 1975.

67Maier 2006: 34.

The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 111

consisting of the Frank barons, the Venetian doge (later the podestà), and six Venetians.68
The most important military offices were the ones senescalus, constabularius and mares-
calus.69 The buticularius, panetarius and the major cocus were responsible for the provi-
sion of the palace.70 Finally, the imperial chancery was administered by the chancellor
(cancellarius) who had at his service the notaries and scribes (notarii, scriptores, capel-
lani and clerici).71 However, Byzantine administrative mechanisms have been retained
on a central level. Also, titles and offices of Byzantine origin such as protovestiarus
(defence of the city and the palace) are attested.72 Finally, in the justice system, a system
of special jurisdiction was at work in mixed Byzantine-Latin cases.73
In the decision-making procedures was involved the political elite concentrating
power in the hands of a small number of persons. This was the private council of the
emperor and the Council of the Empire. However, up to 1217, they did not represent
the aristocracy of the entire empire. Only the territories and principalities surrounding
Constantinople were represented in the imperial politics. After the death of Emperor
Henry I started a period of tension within this group. The reason was the arrival of
Western newcomers in the capital. The newcomers wished to assure themselves of a
place at the imperial court and in policymaking, and to some extent, therefore, needed to
enter into competition with the established elite. Because of their Western background,
it was in a way natural that in doing so they contested an existing model of cooperation
between Westerners and Greeks.74
Another crucial factor was the relations of the Emperor to the local Greek elites.75
We must not forget that “empires are a particular form of state organization in which
the elites of differing ethnic or national units defer to and acquiesce in the politi-
cal leadership of the dominant power”.76 Moreover, “all empires rest on transnational
elites…empire came to mean rule over others”.77 But certainly “the elites who accept
an empire by conquest is different from the style of rule accepted by those who believe
they are joining a federation designed to hold off a greater evil”.78 Many members of the
Byzantine elite abandoned the conquered areas and fled to the Greek successor states in
the periphery of the former Byzantium; however, other aristocratic families remained and

68Hendrickx 1999: 91–103.

69Hendrickx 1999: 110–113; Hendrickx 1977: 196–203.
70Hendrickx 1999: 113–115; Hendrickx 1997: 203–206.

71Dourou-Iliopoulou 2012: 79–80; Longnon 1949: 63–64.

72Hendrickx 1999: 109; Hendrickx 1977: 206–211; Carile 1978: 217.

73Hendrickx 1999: 139–116.

74van Tricht 2011: 280–304.

75Gilles 2010.

76Maier 2006: 33; cf. Drews 2018.

77Maier 2006: 36.

78Maier 2006: 35.

112 E. Mitsiou

cooperated with the Latin rulers. The citizens of Constantinople were given the choice
of staying or leaving; some stayed and worked for the new administration.79 Among
them was Constantine Tornikes, whose son, Demetrios Tornikes, served in the Empire of
Nicaea. The most prominent example, however, is Theodore Branas who governed three
cities in Thrace and even married his daughter to a Westerner.80 The names of various
other Greeks serving at the Latin administration are known; nevertheless, key-positions
were occupied by Latins.

5 “The Lords of the Quarter and Half of the Empire”

Venice played a prominent role in the Fourth Crusade using the crusader armies for the
consolidation and expansion of its power in the Eastern Mediterranean in the disad-
vantage of its enemies. Its penetration in the area started already in the 9th century81
but the privileged position of Serenissima in Byzantium was strengthened and sealed
through a series of chrysobulls (gold bull documents) by the Byzantine emperors espe-
cially after 1082.82 However, the “anti-Latin” measures and the attacks in 1171 against
the Venetians emphasised the necessity for a Western control of the Straits, in order to
secure the Venetian mercantile activities.83 A maritime Empire in the making profited
from the presence of a land empire in Constantinople, in which it had an exclusive and
privileged position keeping possessions and rights attained prior to 1204. Through these
possessions, the Serenissima gained control over the maritime routes from the Adriatic
Sea to Constantinople. Venice received one fourth of the capital and the empire as well
as half of the other three quarters. The doge was called “lord of the quarter and half of
the Empire of Romania”84 since he received “quarte partis et dimidie totius Imperii
Romanie”. A further proof for the prominent position of the Venetians is that they had
not given an oath of subordination to the emperor; on the contrary, they hold their veto
right against the selection of an unfriendly towards the Serenissima person. Moreover,
everyone coming from cities and states at war with Venice could not enter the empire.
They had their own podesta—Marino Zeno— and after a treaty in 1205, the Venetians
had an autonomy inside the state. The Venetian fief holders gave an oath of fidelity to
doge and they had military and fiscal obligations only towards the Commune.85

79See van Tricht 2011: 34–36 on the Byzantine imperial elite families which remained in territories
under the Latin rule.
80Shawcross 2012a: 212–213.

81McCormick 2001.

82Lilie 1984; Gerolymatou 2008; On gold bulls s. Grierson 1966.

83Kindlimann 1969.

84Balard 2006: 177 and 178.

85Jacoby 2002: 153–170.

The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 113

On the other hand, while being part of the Council of the Empire, the Venetians
retained their own administrative apparatus next to the one of the emperor (judges, treas-
urers etc.).86 Imperial authority was often questioned by the Serenissima; on their turn,
the emperors had acted in many instances without consulting the Venetians.87 Finally, in
matters of foreign policy, Venice followed her own interests; she concluded trade treaties
with enemies of the Latin Empire, whereas the emperors avoided any relations to powers
unfriendly to Venice, such as Genoa.88

6 The Unconnected Empire

Despite their initial successes in conquering areas in Asia Minor and in central Greece,
the new lords of Constantinople miscalculated the importance of some neighbor-
ing states and failed paramount in creating strong alliances. The first significant exter-
nal opponents were the Bulgarians. At first, they sought for an alliance with Baldwin I
against the Greek state of Nicaea. Their proposal was rejected. Kalojan, the Bulgarian
ruler, called then the Greeks of Didymoteichon to revolt against them. In the battle of
Adrianople in May 1205, the Bulgarians captured the Latin emperor Baldwin I who died
the next year in captivity whereas prominent crusaders like Louis de Blois died on the
battlefield.89 Henry I, brother of Baldwin I, was crowned emperor in August 1206. He
proved to be an excellent diplomat and military leader. Under his rule started a consoli-
dation phase of the Empire which ended with his death. Henry I followed a policy of
either signing treaties with or military defeating the enemies. Around 1208, he signed a
treaty with the Greeks of Nicaea while he defeated the Greeks of opponent Epirus under
Michael I (1205–1215) as well as the Bulgarians. In 1214 and after a successful expedi-
tion in Asia Minor, a treaty defined the boarders with the Nicaean emperor Theodore I
Laskaris.90
Henry’s successors failed to continue his work. Under Robert of Courtenay91, Asia
Minor fell to the Nicaean troops, while Thessaly, Macedonia and Thessaloniki to the
Epirus state. The decline continued under John of Brienne92 and especially under
Baldwin II. However, after 1230 (battle of Klokotnitsa), the Bulgarians and the Nicaeans
made an alliance against the Latin Empire and sieged Constantinople (1235). The rise of
the Empire of Nicaea to the greatest power in Asia Minor and the Balkans under John III

86van Tricht 2011; Hendrickx 1999.

87van Tricht 2011: 215–219 (imperial authority and Venice).
88van Tricht 2011: 192–193 (foreign policy of Venice and latin Empire).

89Longnon 1949: 66–80; Morrisson 2011: 5.

90Balard 2006: 216–217.

91van Tricht 2013.

92Perry 2013: 149–188.

114 E. Mitsiou

Vatatzes (1221–1254) continued in the following decades until the recapture of 1261.93
In its final days, the Empire was reduced into a city-state reminding the situation in 1453
when the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans was inevitable.
Apart from failing in creating the necessary military alliances, the Latin emperors
failed as well in creating “a common dynastic framework” as Michael Angold has named
it. Although Henry I has used marriage alliances in order to strengthen the position of
the Empire among its neighbors, his successors were reluctant in engaging in intermar-
riages with the Greek and Bulgarian neighbors, even at the moment when their weakness
became obvious.94 Such entanglements would have established a supportive network in
the Romania without relying strongly on the help of France, Venice or the Papacy. The
lack of dynastic connections on a local level allowed the other powers of the region to
cooperate against the lords of Constantinople. Moreover, it transformed quickly the Latin
Empire from the most important player in 1216 into the weakest link in the power arena
of the Eastern Mediterranean.

7 Ideological Conformity and Continuation

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Latin Empire of Constantinople relates to
its ideological framework.95 The imperial ideology of the new emperors was based on
the Byzantine one mixed however with western elements. Their aim was to legitimise
their presence on the former Byzantine territories and to give a sense of continuity to the
Greek inhabitants. The Byzantine influence is attested in ceremonies and rituals, as well
as in documents, coins, seals and in the imperial title.
Byzantine influence demonstrated already the first imperial actions of the new inhab-
itants of Bukoleon palace in Constantinople. Robert de Clari described in detail the
coronation ceremony of Baldwin I on May 16 1204. He focused on the sequence of
events but also on gestures, robes and insignia.96 Modern scholars cannot identify the
exact Byzantine model since we lack a book like the De Cerimoniis for the 12th cen-
tury. But as Theresa Shawross correctly argued, the Crusaders had a specific model in
mind, perhaps the coronation of Alexios IV Angelos, which they personally had seen and
experienced.97
In the ideological framework of the Latin Empire were incorporated not only the
ritual aspects of Byzantine ideology. Also, the objects of communication with foreign

93Longnon 1949; Lock 1995: 51–66; Balard 2006: 220; Balard 2001: 242–243; Morrisson 2011a:

4–11; Papayianni 2000.

94Wolff 1962: 200 ff; Angold 2011: 47–67.

95Shawcross 2012a: 181–220; Lock 1994; van Tricht 2011: 65–90.

96Shawcross 2012a: 184–193.

97Shawcross 2012a: 190.

The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 115

powers and their citizens (documents, seals and coins) offered the necessary legitima-
tion of the new emperors. In relation to the chancery, the strategy followed was to imitate
Byzantine practices for imperial charters foremost the usage of menologema for dating
the documents.98 The emperors signed by their own hand the charters with the excep-
tion of Baldwin I who was illiterate. However, the charters do not lose their Flemish ele-
ments, especially those addressed to western powers. Perhaps two separate departments
may have existed in the imperial chancery (a Byzantine and a Western one) with a work
division based on the type, aim and recipient of the documents.99
The documents are important testimonies of the imperial ideology of the new state
on the Bosporus. The imperium Constantinopolitanum, as the Latin Empire was called
in its earliest testimonies, was perceived as the continuation of Byzantium staying in no
opposition to the Holy Roman Empire.100 Baldwin I bore the title “Balduinus Dei gra-
tia fidelissimus in Christo imperator a Deo coronatu, Romanorum moderator et semper
augustus, Flandrie et Hayn[onie] Comes”.101 Baldwin’s seals follow partially French
models. On the obverse, the legend reads in Greek: ΒΑΛΔΟVΙΝΟΣ ΔΕΣΠΟΤΗΣ
(despot Balduin) and on the reverse in Latin: „Balduinus die gratiae imperator
Romanorum Flandrie Hainonie“. The ruler is represented according to western models.
In the following years, the title remained in its core elements unchanged.
Also Henry I followed a bilingual system with a mixture of Greek and Latin.
Three types of seals have been identified. The first two have in the obverse ΕΡΡΙΚΟΣ
ΔΕΣΠΟΤΗΣ (Henry despot) and on reverse: Henricus Die gratia imperator Romaniae
or Romanorum. The third type had a Latin obverse (Henricus die gratia Imperatoris
Constantinopolitani) and a Greek reverse which declares Henry autokrator and despot of
Constantinople.102
The seals of both Baldwin I and Henry I are interesting also for the use of Romani(a)
e and Romanorum in relation to “imperator” since the first combination adheres to the
ideological aspirations upon the land whereas the second combination complies with the
Byzantine traditional claims.
The last emperor, Baldwin II, was born in Constantinople in 1217 in the Porphyra
chamber, the room where traditionally the children of the Byzantine emperor were born;
he was, therefore, Porphyrogennetos (= born in the purple). He added this to his seals.
The known examples represent Baldwin on the obverse on horseback and on the reverse
seated and wearing a crown, divitision and loros, holding a scepter and globus cruciger.
The legend on the obverse is in Greek: “Βαλδουΐνος δεσπότης Πορϕυρογέννητος ο

98Shawcross 2012a: 200 with further details and bibliography.

99van Tricht, 2011: 126–131. Hendrickx 1999: 127–132 and others have, however, emphasised
more on the Flemish character of the documents.
100van Tricht 2011: 61; Jacoby 1989.

101van Tricht 2011: 62; Morrisson and Blet-Lemarquand 2008: 151–167.

102van Tricht 2011: 69.

116 E. Mitsiou

Φλάνδρας” (Balduin of Flandres, the despot, Porphyrogennetos) while on the reverse is

in Latin: “Balduinus dei gratia Imperator Romanorum semper augustus”.103
Similarly important to the seals are the coins. The coinage in use continued to circu-
late until the struck of the new coins. The Latin emperors minted billon aspron trachy or
histamenon, copper tetarteron and half tetarteron, and perhaps also a gold coin (hyper-
pyron): the latter remains however uncertain.104 Like all other powers in the region, they
imitated the Byzantine coins of the Comnenoi and Angeloi but also the ones of their
neighbors (foremost the ones of Nicaea).105 The last point was addressed in the treaty
between Nicaea and Venice of 1219 where one of the clauses was not to imitate the coin-
age of the other party.106
It becomes clear that the rituals and objects of representation imitated the Byzantine
predecessors in order to demonstrate ideological continuation not only to the elites but
also to the lower strata. Continuation characterised as well the position of the peas-
antry under the new regime. The capture of Constantinople did not signalise at first any
radical change in their lives. They even mocked the Constantinopolitan aristocrats and
state officials, when after 1204 they traveled as penniless refugees through Thrace and
Macedonia. In various instances we hear of Greek citizens who praised Latin rulers like
Henry I. Yet, the Byzantine population was not always in favour of the new masters.
Those living in frontier regions such as Thrace suffered greatly from the constant mili-
tary operations and revolted against fief holders and central authority. In this they were
supported occasionally by foreign powers. On a political level, neighbouring states very
often tried to undermine the Latin authority by addressing the religious feelings of the
orthodox population.

8 The Catholic Church in a Byzantine Space

Next to the new political power in Constantinople, also a new ecclesiastic order
was established. If Pope Innocent III finally accepted the plunder of a Christian city
was due to his hope of the submission of the Orthodox Church to the papal author-
ity. Shortly after the election of Baldwin I, also a Latin Patriarch was chosen. The first
Latin Patriarch in the Queen of Cities was a Venetian, Thomas Morosini, following the
arrangements of the Partitio Romaniae. The establishment of a Latin Patriarchate in
Constantinople did not, however, solved the problems with the Orthodox nor with Rome.

103Morrisson 2003–2005; van Tricht 2013.

104Pegolotti mentioned perperi Latini which may have been imitation of Nicaean coins under John
III Vatatzes, s. Hendy 1999: 477; Papadopoulou 2007: 276–277.
105Shawcross 2012a: 203–204; Morrisson and Papadopoulou 2003–2005: 135–143; Morrisson

2011b: 133–164; Malloy and Berman 1994: 316–324.

106Pieralli 2006: 138; Heyd 1879: vol. I, 336–337.
The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 117

Innocent III was for months unaware of this fact and when he finally heard about dis-
liked the decision. Finally, he accepted the situation and even tried to legitimise the exist-
ence of a Latin Patriarch in Constantinople with the hope once more of a Union of the
Churches.
To this cause, the Latin Church was reinforced through the presence of various monas-
tic orders. In Latin Constantinople as in other former byzantine areas, the Cistercians
and the Benedictines were present early on. Later also Franciscans and Dominicans
were added and received churches and monasteries in Constantinople. They were early
on involved in the discussions between Latin and Orthodox Church and participated in
missions to the Empire of Nicaea. Very early were established in the Romania the mili-
tary orders -the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller and the Teutonic Knights- which
possessed properties also in the Kingdom of Thessaloniki and in Central Greece. They
played though a less significant role than it would be expected.107
Yet, all the efforts for a Union of the Churches failed due to the feelings of the
Greeks, but also due to the persons involved. Moreover, the existence of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate in the Greek State of Nicaea gave negotiation power to the Orthodox. The
Latin dogma did not reach the lower strata of society despite the new organisation of
the metropolitan sees and the tolerance of the Papacy towards the orthodox bishops who
stayed on their seats but refused obedience to the Latin Patriarch. There were internal
fights since the Popes wanted to reduce the power of the Venetians as factors of the
Patriarchate. On the other hand, the emperors of Constantinople considered the Pope and
not the Latin Patriarch as discussion partner on religious matters.
Equally important were quarrels related to the church finances. The one fifteenth of
the land properties outside Constantinople had to be given to the Latin Church for its
support. The laity except for the Greeks had to pay tithes. However, later agreements
were needed to solve the problem of the Church property since the Venetians were origi-
nally exempted.108

“We are in need of money,…, and without money, nothing can be done that ought to be
done” (Demosthenes, Olynthiakos I)

A significant systemic weakness is related to the economic power of the Empire; it was
soon proved to be one of the major defective elements of this hybrid state. The first
financial resource was the booty of the pillage of Constantinople.109 Its value was about
400,000 silver marks. A part of it (50,000) was used to pay the debt to the Venetians
while the rest was distributed among the crusaders (35,000) and the Venetians (17,000

107Tsougarakis 2012; Koumanoude 2012; Violante 1999; Lock 1995: 222–239; Mitsiou 2015.
108Wolff 1954; Wolff 1948; Richard 1989: 45–62; Van Tricht 2011: 307–339; Coureas 2015:
145–184.
109Perry 2015.
118 E. Mitsiou

silver marks). However, in the following months, the city was deprived of statues, works
of art and architectural parts which were transferred to the West or were used for minting
coins. Apart from this booty, knights and Venetians, monks and priests participated in an
enormous trade of relics which continued throughout the following years.110
The later economic history of the Latin Empire is difficult to reconstruct due to the
lack of sources. The major source of income were the imperial domains and the fiscal
revenues from these areas. Yet, the extensive military expenditure on wars on various
fronts meant important revenue losses. An image of need and deprivation appears in the
sources especially after the territorial losses in Asia Minor and Thrace. An income of
about 500,000 hyperpyra was reduced to the half or even more than the half,111 whereas
the provisioning of the capital became more difficult. The deprivation is vividly pre-
sented by the case of the thorn-wreath. In 1238, it was pawned to the Venetians for circa
13,000 hyperpyra. King Louis IX the Saint recovered the precious relic and brought it
together with other ones to Paris.
This is being represented also on the urban space of Constantinople where areas
under the imperial authority gave a desolate impression.112 The picture is different for
the Venetians in Constantinople. They had their own district as before 1204, where the
economic activity of the town actually was concentrated. They financed the restoration of
the sea walls and kept their district in the highest level of urban structural competence.113
Trade was the main interest for the Venetians. Merchants and bankers such as
Zaccaria Stagnario, Giovanni Martinaccio, Giberto Querini spent long periods of time in
Constantinople engaging in international trade.114 Constantinople remained a transit zone
for most of the trade between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Yet, the Venetian
penetration to the Black Sea was strengthened especially after 1240 and the Mongol
conquest of the region.115 Despite the positive effects of the Venetian trade and credit
activities, it became evident that Constantinople was marginalised inside the world trade
systems.
Moreover, merchants and producers focused less on the supply of the state’s center
and more on their own profit by selling the surpluses to the West, where the demand
was becoming higher.116 Through this and due to the territorial losses in Asia Minor,
Thrace, and Macedonia the “urban metabolism” failed for the capital. After the first suc-
cessful years, Constantinople was cut by land from the vassal states of the South such
as the Principality of Achaia depending strongly on the sea routes dominated by the

110Rakova 2008; Barber 2005; Kolia-Dermitzake 2008.

111Van Tricht 2011: 133 ff.
112Talbot 2001: 329–343; Kidonopoulos 1994: 232–242; Kidonopoulos 2007: 101–105.

113Jacoby 2001; Balard 2006: 218–219.

114Jacoby 1998: 181–204; Mitsiou and Preiser-Kapeller 2018.

115Jacoby 2005: 195–214.

116Jacoby 2005; Jacoby 2015.

The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 119

Venetians. On the other hand, the emperors were unable to fulfill what has been called
imperial ecology” (= the management of particular flows of resources and population by
the imperial center).117 According to D. Jacoby: “After 1204 it was merely the capital
of a reduced territorial entity. There was no flow of cash and goods to Constantinople,
whether in the form of fiscal revenue or self-supply of elite households from their pro-
vincial estates. The Latin emperors of Constantinople were chronically impoverished”.118

9 Human Resources

After 1204 many Westerners from different regions and their retinue (foremost France
and Italy) arrived in continental Greece and in the Aegean islands in search of landed
fiefs or trade activities. On the other hand, settlers who had abandoned the city prior to
its capture returned to Constantinople. However, already in its first years, the Empire
faced a shortage of human resources (settlers and soldiers). Already in 1205, 7000
knights left the Latin Empire; one year later also 50 more. As an answer to this prob-
lem, the quick movement of the knights from one region to another one which needed
urgently help was chosen as a typical pattern of military response.119 Henry I addressed
the reasons for the shortage of military man power in a letter to the West: many soldiers
were killed in battles, others returned to their homelands and the remaining ones fought
on various fronts.120 Another reason was the engagement of Latin mercenaries in the
armies of Nicaea and Epirus. Very often the emperors asked for reinforcements in order
to keep the conquered regions;121 rarely did they reach Constantinople. The Latin Empire
became actually an unattractive workplace for mercenaries and other settlers. Since fiefs
went lost, not enough land was available for distribution to them; and the trade was in
the hands of the Venetians, who were the only Westerners still interested in the salvation
of the state. The lack of actual support from the West had many reasons. The Western
powers and the Papacy were preoccupied with political problems in Europe but also with
the situation in the Holy Land. It should not be forgotten that the diversion of the Fourth
Crusade to Constantinople and the foundation of the Latin Empire derived the Crusader
States of knights and means. In the second decade of the 13th century, a new Crusade
was organised but the Latin Empire was unable to contribute substantially to the expedi-
tion despite its promises.122

117White 2011; Preiser-Kapeller 2019.

118Jacoby 2015: 189.
119Papayianni 2000: 68.

120Lauer 1924b: 201.

121Prinzing 1973: 417–418.

122van Tricht 2011: 460–465.

120 E. Mitsiou

Finally, a population drain marked the entire period. At first were the Greeks or their
children who abandoned the city and found a new home in the Greek successor states.
From circa 225,000 inhabitants in 1204, Latin Constantinople had in 1261 only 3000,
mostly Venetians.123 The Empire was slowly decapitated.

10 Conclusions

The Latin Empire of Constantinople was the result of conquest and military effort of
Western elites on a culturally different area. According to Wolff “…its eventual collapse
was probably inevitable; founded on alien soil, amid hostile Greeks who soon had lead-
ers around whom they might rally, dependent on a flow of money and men from the west
which might be cut off at any time, the Latin empire could have survived, if at all, only
through statesmanship so far sighted and astute that one would be unrealistic in demand-
ing it of flesh-and-blood crusaders and Venetians”.124
Yet, the sustainability of a system depends on coherence. The Partitio’s plan to
divide and distribute the conquered lands among the emperor and the barons proved the
Achilles’ heel of the Latin Empire. It created a chain of clusters in this new network
of power. The later developments proved that the subgroups of the network could sup-
port the center only if they remained entangled in a direct way. However, the loss of the
Kingdom of Thessaloniki broke the land connections of the Constantinople cluster to the
ones in Central Greece and Peloponessus destabilising the robustness of the system.
Moreover, the existence of parallel centres in decision making procedures and the dif-
ferent policies followed by the various parts (Emperor, Venetians, barons, fief holders)
strengthened centrifugal tendencies. On the other hand, the significant territorial losses
after the two first decades of its existence did not allow for a social and political stabili-
sation. The consequent reduce of the state income contributed further to the crisis since
no investments could be made for the army, the civil administration or the infrastructure.
The Latin emperors notoriously failed to develop any mechanisms of stabilisation by
attracting new settlers and by developing a network of support in the Romania. Finally,
although they were successful in their ideological claims and the imitation of ritual prac-
tices of their Byzantine predecessors, they were unable to consolidate the power they
gained through military means. It would be therefore not incorrect to say that the Latin
Empire of Constantinople was short-lived and died on what Davies called “the political
counterpart of infant mortality”.125

123vanTricht 2011: 133–138.

124Wollf1962: 199–200.
125Davies 2011: 737.
The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 121

References

Amouroux-Mourad, M. 1988. Le comté d’Édesse, 1098–1150, Paris: P. Geuthner.

Andrea, A. J. 1993. The Devastatio Constantinopolitana, a Special Perspective on the Fourth
Crusade: An Analysis, New Edition, and Translation. Historical Reflections 19: 131–149.
Andrea, A. J. 1997. The Capture of Constantinople: The “Hystoria Constantinopolitana” of
Gunther of Pairis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Andrea, A. J. 2000. Contemporary Sources for the Fourth Crusade. Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill.
Angold, M. 2003. The Fourth Crusade: event and context. Harlow: Longman.
Angold, M. 2011. The Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204–1261: Marriage strategies, in:
Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, eds. J. Herrin/G.
­Saint-Guillain, 47–67. Farnham-Burlington: Ashgate.
Angold, Μ. 1975. A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society under the Laskarids
of Nicaea 1204–1261. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Angold, M. 2017. Nicholas Mesarites: his life and works. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Asbridge T. 2000. The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098–1113. Woodbridge: Boydell
Press
Assmann, E. 1956. Gunther von Pairis. Die Geschichte der Eroberung von Konstantinopel.
Cologne–Graz: Böhlau.
Auvray, L. 1899–1910, Les Registres de Grégoire IX, 3 vols. Paris: E. de Boccard.
Balard, M. 2001. Croisades et Orient Latin, XIe siècle-XIVe siècle. Malakoff: Armand Colin.
Balard, M. 2006. Les Latins en Orient (Xe–XVe siècle). Paris: Presses. Univ. de France.
Barber, M. 2005. The Impact of the Fourth Crusade in the West: The Distribution of Relics after
1204, in: Urbs capta. The fourth Crusade and its consequences, ed. A. Laiou, 325–334.
Paris: Lethielleux.
Bendall, S. 2006. The Arms of the Latin Emperors of Constantinople and a Possible Byzantine
Prototype. Numismatic Circular 114: 327–329.
Berger, E. 1884–1910. Les Registres d’Innocent IV, 4 vols. Paris: Thorin, Fontemoing.
Bon A. 1969. La Morée franque. Recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques sur la
Principauté d’Achaïe (1205–1430). Paris: de Boccard.
Bouquet, M. 1879. Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, 18 vol. 517–519.
Paris:Victor Palmé.
Bourel de la Ronciire, C. 1902–1931. Les Registres d Alexandre IV, 2 vols. Paris: A. Fontemoing.
Brandes, J.-D. 2008. Mare Venetiarum. Die Agäis im Mittelmeer. Leipzig: Eudora.
Braund, D. 1984. Rome and the friendly king: the character of the client kingship. London and
Canberra: Croom Helm, and New York: St Martin’s Press.
Bredenkamp, F. 1996. The Byzantine Empire of Thessaloniki (1224–1242). Thessaloniki:
Municipality of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki History Center.
Burkhardt, St. 2014. Mediterranes Kaisertum und imperiale Ordnungen: Das lateinische
Kaiserreich von Konstantinopel. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Carile, A. 1965. Partitio terrarum imperii Romanie. Studi Veneziani 7: 123–305.
Carile, A. 1978. Per una storia dell’impero latino di Costantinopoli: 1204–1261. Bologna: Pàtron.
Cheynet, J.-C. 1990. Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance (963–1210). Paris: Éditions de la
Sorbonne.
Chrissis, N. G. 2012. Crusading in Frankish Greece: A Study of Byzantine-Western Relations and
Attitudes, 1204–1282, Turnhout: Brepols.
Ciggaar, K. 1990. Flemish Counts and Emperors, in: Van Aalst and Ciggaar 1990, 33–62.
Coureas, N. 2015. The Latin and Greek Churches in former Byzantine Lands under Latin Rule, in:
Companion to Latin Greece, eds. N. Tsougarakis and P. Lock, 145–184. Leiden: Brill.
122 E. Mitsiou

Davies, N. 2011. Vanished kingdoms: the history of half-forgotten Europe. London: Allen Lane.
De Reiffenberg, F. 1938. Chronique rimée de Philippe Mouskes, 2 vols. Bruxelles: M. Hayez.
Dédéyan, G. 1980. La Chronique attribuee au Connetable Smbat. Paris: P. Geuthner.
Dölger, F. 1931. Facsimiles byzantinischer Kaiserurkunden. Munich: Mittel- und Neugriech.
Seminar der Universität.
Dourou-Iliopoulou, M. 2012. Από τη Δυτική Ευρώπη στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο. Οι
σταυροϕορικές ηγεμονίες στη Ρωμανία (13ος–15ος αιώνας). Πολιτικές και θεσμικές
πραγματικότητες. Athens: Editions Gutenberg.
Doyle, M. 1984. Empires, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Drews, W. (ed.), Die Interaktion von Herrschern und Eliten in imperialen Ordnungen des
Mittelalters, Berlin – Boston 2018.
du Bouchet, J. 1661. Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de Courtenay. Paris: Jean du Puis.
du Cange Ch. 1826. Histoire de l’empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs français, in:
Collection des chroniques nationales Françaises, ed. J. A. Buchon, vols. 1–2. Paris: Verdière.
Duda, H.W. 1959. Die Seltschunkengeschichte des Ibn Bibi. Kopenhagen: Munksgaard.
Dufournet, J. 2004. Robert de Clary. La conquête de Constantinople: édition bilingue. Paris:
Champion.
Egea, J.M. 1996. La Crónica de Morea. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Faral, E. 1938–1939. Geoffrey de Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, 2 Bde. Paris: Soc.
d’Éd. “Les Belles Letters”.
Fazal, T. M. 2007. State Death: the Politics and Geography of Conquest, Occupation, and
Annexation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gehler, M. and Rollinger, R. 2014. Imperien und Reiche in der ­Weltgeschichte-Epochenübergreifende
und globalhistorische Vergleiche, in: Imperien und Reiche in der Weltgeschichte.
Epochenübergreifende und globalhistorische Vergleiche, ed. by M. Gehler/R. Rollinger, Part 1, 1–3.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Gerland, E. 1905. Geschichte des lateinischen Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel. Teil 1.
Geschichte der Kaiser Balduin I. und Heinrich 1204–1216. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges (reprint
of the edition of 1905).
Gerolymatou, M. 2008. Αγορές, έμποροι και εμπόριο στο Βυζάντιο (9ος–12ος αι.). Athens:
Ethniko Idryma Ereunon.
Gilles, E. J. 2010. “Nova Francia?”: Kinship and identity among the Frankish aristocracy in con-
quered Byzantium, 1204–1282, Phd Dissertation, Princeton University: unpublished.
Gjuzelev, V. 1975. La Bulgarie, Venise et l’Empire latin de Constantinople au milieu du XIIIe siè-
cle. Bulgarian Historical Review 4: 38–49.
Goldstone, J. A. and Haldon, J. F. 2009. Ancient States, Empires, and exploitation: Problems and
Perspectives, in: The dynamics of ancient Empires. State Power from Assyria to Byzantium, ed.
by I. Morris/W. Scheidel: 3–29, New York: Oxford University Press.
Golubovich, G. 1906-1927. Biblioteca bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell’ Oriente
Francescano, 5 vols. Quaracchi: Tipografia del Collegio di S. Bonaventura.
Golubovich, G. 1919. Disputatio Latinorum et Grecorum. Archivum Franciscanum historicum 7:
418–470.
Gress-Wright, D. 2000. The Gesta Innocentii III. Text, introduction and commentary. Ann Arbor:
UMI.
Grierson, P. 1966. Byzantine Gold Bullae. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 20: 239–254.
Haberstumpf, W. 2003. Dinasti Latini in Grecia e nell’Egeo (secoli XII–XVII). Turin: Il segnalibro.
Hageneder, O. et al. 1964, Die Register Innocenz’ III. Graz-Cologne-Rome-Vienna: Verlag der
österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 123

Haldon, J. 2009. The Byzantine Empire, in: The dynamics of ancient Empires. State Power from
Assyria to Byzantium, eds. I. Morris and W. Scheidel, 205–254. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Heisenberg, A. and Wirth P. 1978. Georgii Acropolitae opera vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner.
Hendrickx, B. 1974a, Les institutions de l’empire latin de Constantinople (1204–1261): Le pouvoir
imperial (l’empereur, l’imperatrice, les regents). Byzantina 7: 85–154.
Hendrickx, B. 1974b. Les institutions de l’empire latin de Constantinople: la diplomatie. Acta
Classica 17:105–119.
Hendrickx, B. 1974c. The Main Problems of the History of the Latin Empire of Constantinople
(1204–1261). Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 52: 787–799.
Hendrickx, B. 1977. Les Institutions de l’Empire latin de Contantinople (1204–1261): la Cour et
les Dignitaires. Byzantina 9: 187–217.
Hendrickx, B. 1988. Regestes des empereurs latins de Constantinople: 1204–1272. Byzantina 14:
7–221.
Hendrickx, B. 1999. Οι πολιτικοί και στρατιωτικοί θεσμοί της Λατινικής αυτοκρατορίας
της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως κατά τους πρώτους χρόνους της υπάρξεώς της. Athens:
Dimiourgia.
Hendrickx, B. 2015. Les duchés de l’Empire latin de Constantinople après 1204: origine, struc-
tures et statuts. Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 93 (2): 303–328.
Hendy M. 1969. Coinage and Money 1081–1261. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for
Byzantine Studies.
Hendy, M. 1985. Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300–1450. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Hendy M. 1999. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in
the Whittemore Collection, 4/I-II. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine
Studies.
Heyd, W. 1879. Geschichte des Levantehandels im Mittelalter, vols 2. Stuttgart: Verlag der J.G.
Cotta’schen Buchhandlung (Nachdruck Hildersheim–Zürich–New York 1984).
Horov, C. A. 1878–1880. Honorii III Romani pontificis opera omnia, 4 vols. Paris: Imprimerie de
la Bibliothèque ecclésiastique.
Jacoby, D. 1989. From Byzantium to Latin Romania: Continuity and Change, in: Latins and
Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, eds. B. Arbel, B. Hamilton and D. Jacoby,
1–44. London: Cass.
Jacoby, D. 1993. The Venetian Presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261):
the Challenge of Feudalism and the Byzantine Inheritance. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen
Byzantinistik 43: 141–201.
Jacoby, D. 1998. Venetian settlers in Latin Constantinople (1204–1261). Rich or poor, in:
Πλούσιοι και ϕτωχοί στην κοινωνία της ελληνολατινικής Ανατολής, ed. C. Maltezou, 181–
204. Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini.
Jacoby, D. 1999. The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Frankish States in Greece, in:
The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. V: c. 1198–c. 1300, ed. D. Abulafia, 525–542.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jacoby, D. 2001. The Urban Evolution of Latin Constantinople (1204–1261), in: Byzantine
Constantinople. Monuments, Topography and everyday Life, ed. by N. Nečipoglu, 277–297.
Leiden–Boston–Cologne 2001.
Jacoby, D. 2002. The Venetian presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople from 1082 to 1261,
in: Novum Millenium. Studies on Byzantine History and culture dedicated to Paul Speck, 19
December 1999, eds. C. Sode and S. Takacs, 153–170. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate.
124 E. Mitsiou

Jacoby, D. 2005. The economy of Latin Constantinople, 1204–1261, in: Urbs capta. The fourth
Crusade and its consequences, ed. A. Laiou, 195–214. Paris: Lethielleux.
Jacoby, D. 2006. The Venetian government and administration in Latin Constantinople, 1204–
1261: a state within a state, in: Quarta Crociata. Venezia – Bisanzio – Impero Latino, vol. 1,
eds. G. Ortalli, G. Ravegnani and P. Schreiner 19–80. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere
ed Arti.
Jacoby, D. 2015. The Economy of Latin Greece, in: Companion to Latin Greece, ed. N.
Tsougarakis and P. Lock, 185–216. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Jolivet-Lévy, C. 2012. La peinture à Constantinople au XIIIe siècle. Contacts et échanges avec
l’Occident, in: Orient et occident méditerranéens au XIIIe siècle. Les programmes picturaux
eds. J.-P. Caillet and F. Joupert, 21–40. Paris: Picard.
Kalonaros, P. 1940. Το Χρονικόν του Μορέως. Athens: Demetrakos.
Kidonopoulos, V. 1994. Bauten in Konstantinopel 1204–1328: Verfall und Zerstörung,
Restaurierung, Umbau und Neubau von Profan- und Sakralbauten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kidonopoulos, V. 2007. The Urban Physiognomy of Constantinople from the Latin Conquest
through the Palaiologan Era, in: Byzantium, Faith, and Power (1261–1557): Perspectives on
Late Byzantine Art, ed. S. T. Brooks, 98–117. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Kindlimann, S. 1969. Die Eroberung von Konstantinopel als politische Förderung des Westens im
Hochmittelalter. Studien zur Entwicklung der Idee eines Lateinischen Kaiserreiches in Byzanz.
Zürich: Fretz and Wasmuth.
Kolia-Dermitzake, A. 2008. Λεηλασία και μεταϕορά λαϕύρων και κινητών πολιτισμικών
αγαθών στη Δύση, in: The fourth crusade and the Greek world, ed. N. Moschonas, 299–326.
Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation.
Koumanoude, M. 2012. Όψεις του Δυτικού Μοναχισμού στην Ελληνολατινική Ανατολή
κατά το Μεσαίωνα, in: Μοναστήρια, Οικονομία και Πολιτική. Από τους μεσαιωνικούς
στους νεώτερους χρόνους, ed. I. Kolobos, 69–115. Herakleion: Panepistemiakes Ekdoseis
Kretes.
Lane, F. C. 1973. Venice: A Maritime Republic. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
Langlois 1863, Le Trésor des chartes d’Arménie. Venise: Typographie arménienne de Saint-Lazare.
Lauer P. 1924a. Robert de Clari. La conquête de Constantinople. Paris: Champion.
Lauer, P. 1924b. Une lettre inedit d’Henri Ier d’Angre, empereur de Constantinople, aux prélats
latins, in: Melanges offerts a M. Gustave Schlumberger, vol 1, 191–201. Paris: Geuthner.
Lilie, J.-R. 1984. Handel und Politik zwischen dem byzantinischen Reich und den italienischen
Kommunen Venedig, Pisa und Genua in der Epoche der Komnenen und der Angeloi (1081–
1204). Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Lilie, R.-J. 1993. Byzantium and the Crusader States, 1096–1204. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lilie, J.-R. 2004. Byzanz und die Kreuzzüge. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Limentani, A. 1972. Martin da Canal, Les estoires de Venise: cronaca veneziana in lingua
francese dalle origini al 1275. Florenz: Olschki.
Lock, P. 1994. The Latin Emperors as Heirs to Byzantium, in: New Constantines: the rhythm of
imperial renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th centuries; papers from the Twenty-sixth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St. Andrews, March 1992, ed. P. Magdalino, 295–304.
Aldershot: Variorum.
Lock, P. 1995. The Franks in the Aegean 1204–1500. London: Longman.
Longnon, J. 1943. La diplomatique de l’empire latin de Constantinople. Comptes-rendus des
séances de l’année – Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 87 (3): 406–407.
Longnon, J. 1948. Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de l’Empereur Henri de Constantinople. Paris:
Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 125

Longnon, J. 1949. L’Empire latin de Constantinople et la Principauté de Morée. Paris: Payot.

Longnon, J. 1978. Les compagnons de Villehardouin. Recherches sur les croisés de la quatrième
croisade. Geneva-Paris: Droz.
Luard, H.R. 1872–1883. Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora. Rerum Britanicarum Medii Aevi
Scriptores, vol. LVII/1-7. London: Longman et al.
Lurier, H. E. 1964. Crusaders as Conquerors: The Chronicle of Morea. New York: Columbia Univ.
Press.
MacEvitt, Ch. 2008. The Crusades and the Christian World of the East. Rough Tolerance,
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Madden, Th. F. 2008. The Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath, and Perceptions. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Maier, Ch. S. 2006. Among Empires: American ascendancy and its predecessors. Cambridge
Massachusetts-London: Harvard Univ. Press.
Malloy, A.G., Berman, A. G. 1994. Coins of the crusader states 1098–1291. New York: Attic
Books.
Mann, M. 1986. The sources of social power. 1: A history of power from the beginning to A.D.
1760, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martène, E. and Durand, U. 1717. Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, vol. 1, 784–788 (letters of Hugh
IV, Count of Saint-Pol). Farnborough/Hants: Gregg.
McCormick, M. 2001. Origins of the European Economy. Communications and Commerce. AD
300–900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Metcalf, D.M. 1989. Crusader Coinage with Arabic inscriptions, in: A History of the Crusades, ed.
K.M. Setton, vol 6, 421–482: Madison, Wis.: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Metcalf, D.M. 1995. Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East in the Ashmolean Museum
Oxford. London: Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East.
Metcalf, D.M. and Porteous, J. 1989. Crusader Coinage with Greek or Latin inscriptions, in: A
History of the Crusades, ed. K.M. Setton, vol 6, 354–419. Madison, Wis.: The University of
Wisconsin Press.
Miller, W. 1908. The Latins in the Levant, a History of Frankish Greece (1204–1566). New York:
E.P. Dutton and Company.
Mitsiou, E. 2006. Untersuchungen zu Wirtschaft und Ideologie im ‚Nizänischen‘ Reich. Vienna:
unpublished.
Mitsiou, E. 2015. Die Netzwerke einer kulturellen Begegnung: byzantinische und lateinische
Klöster in Konstantinopel im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert, in: Abrahams Erbe: Konkurrenz, Konflikt
und Koexistenz der Religionen im europäischen Mittelalter, eds. L. Lieb, Kl. Oschema and J.
Heil, 359–374. Berlin, Munich and Boston: De Gruyter.
Mitsiou, E. and Preiser-Kapeller, J. 2018. Moving Hands: Types and Scales of Labour Mobility
in the Late Medieval Eastern Mediterranean (1200–1500 CE), in: Micro-Spatial Histories
of Global Labour, eds. A. Gerritsen and Chr. De Vito, 29–67. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan,
Springer Nature.
Morozzo della Rocca R. and Lombardo, A. 1940. Documenti del commercio veneziano nei secoli
XI–XIII. Rome: Ed. Libraria Italiana
Morrisson, C. 2003–2005. Sceaux et bulles des empereurs latins de Constantinople: l’assimilation
de l’héritage byzantin, Revue française d’héraldique et de sigillographie 73–75: 117–120.
Morrisson, C. 2011a. La quatrième croisade et la nouvelle organisation politique (1204–1258), in:
Le Monde Byzantin III. L’Empire grec et ses voisins XIIIe-XVe siècle, eds. A. E. Laiou and C.
Morrisson (eds.), 3–11. Paris: Presses Univ. de France.
Morrisson, C. 2011b, Thirteenth-century Byzantine ‘Mettalic Identities’, in: Identities and
Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, eds J. Herrin and G. Saint-Guillain, 133–
164. Farnham-Burlington: Ashgate.
126 E. Mitsiou

Morrisson, C. and Blet-Lemarquand M. 2008. Le métal des chrysobulles (XIe-XIIe siècle). Revue
Numismatique 164: 151–167.
Morrisson, C. and Papadopoulou, P. 2003–2005, L’éclatement du monnayage dans le monde byz-
antin après 1204: apparence ou réalité ? Revue française d’héraldique et de sigillographie
73–75: 135–143
Münkler, H. 2007. Empires. The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to the United
States, translated by Patrick Camiller. Cambridge: Polity press.
Oikonomidès, N. 1980. La décomposition de l’empire byzantin à la veille de 1204 et les origi-
nes de l’empire de Nicée: à propos de la Partitio Romaniae, in: XVe Congrès International
d’Études Byzantines, Athènes, 1976, vol 1 (1), 3–28. Athens 1980, and in: Oikonomides 1992,
no. 20.
Oikonomides, N. 1992. Byzantium from the Ninth Century to the Fourth Crusade. Aldershot:
Variorum.
Orth, P. 1994. Gunther von Pairis, Hystoria Constantinopolitana: Untersuchung und kritische
Ausgabe, ed. Hildesheim-Zurich: Weidmannsche Hildesheim.
Osterhammel, J. 2004. Europamodelle und imperiale Kontexte. Journal of Modern European
History 2: 157–182.
Papadia-Lala, A. 2008. Ο ελληνοβενετικός κόσμος (1204–1797). Θεσμοί, πολιτισμός,
ιδεολογία, in: Le repubbliche marinare italiane: Amalfi, Pisa, Genova, Venezia e il mediterra-
neo orientale, ed. N.G. Moschonas, 195–210. Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation.
Papadopoulou, E. 2000. Μαρίνος Σανούδος Τορσέλλο. Ιστορία της Ρωμανίας. Athens: Ethniko
Idryma Ereunon.
Papadopoulou, P. 2007. De l’Unité à l’Eclatement: La Monnaie et son Usage dans le Monde
Byzantin (1092–1261), 3 vols. Thesis. Université de Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne).
Papayianni, A. 2000. Aspects of the Relationship between the empire of Nicaea and the Latins,
1204-1254. Thesis. University of London: unpublished.
Pastorello E. 1938–1958. Andreas Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta. Bologna:
Zanichelli.
Perry, D.M. 2015. Sacred Plunder. Venice and the aftermath of the fourth crusade. Pennsylvania:
The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Perry, G. 2013. John of Brienne: King of Jerusalem, Emperor of Constantinople, c. 1175–1237.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pieralli, L. 2006. La corrispondenza diplomatica dell’imperatore bizantino con le potenze estere
nel tredicesimo secolo (1204–1282). Città del Vaticano: Archivio Segreto Vaticano.
Pokorny, R. 1985. Zwei unedierte Briefe aus der Frühzeit des lateinischen Kaiserreichs von
Konstantinopel. Byzantion 55: 203–209.
Powell, J. M. 2004. The Deeds of Pope Innocent III by an Anonymous Author. Washington D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press.
Prawer, J. 1972. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Preiser-Kapeller, J. 2012. Complex historical dynamics of crisis: the case of Byzantium, in: Krise
und Transformation, eds. S. Jalkotzy-Degger and A. Suppan, 69–127. Vienna: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Preiser-Kapeller, J. 2019. Networks and the Resilience and Fall of Empires: a Macro-Comparison
of the Imperium Romanum and Imperial China Siedlungsforschung: Archäologie – Geschichte
– Geographie 36/2019, pp. 59–98).
Pressutti P. 1888, 1895. Regesta Honorii papae III, 2 vols. Rome: Ex typographia Vaticana.
Prevenier, W. 1964–1971. De oorkonden van de graven van Vlaanderen (1191-aanvang 1206), 3
vols. Brüssel: Palais der Academiën.
The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): Rise and Fall … 127

Prevenier, W. 1990. La chancellerie de l‘ Empire Latin de Constantinople (1204–1261), in: Van

Aalst and Ciggaar 1990, 63–81.
Prinzing, G. 1973. Der Brief Kaiser Heinrichs von Konstantinopel vom 13. Januar 1212.
Überlieferungsgeschichte, Neuedition und Kommentar, in: Byzantion 43: 395–431.
Queller, D. E. and Madden, Th. F. 1997. The Fourth Crusade. The Conquest of Constantinople.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Rakova, S. 2008. Constantinople in Latin period. Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World,
Constantinople. http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=11723/ Accessed: 08 October 2018.
Reynolds, S. 2001. Fiefs and Vassals. The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Richard J. 1989. The Establishment of the Latin Church in the Empire of Constantinople (1204–
1227), in: Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, ed. B. Arbel, B.
Hamilton and D. Jacoby, 45–62. London: Cass.
Riley-Smith, J. 1997. The First Crusaders, 1095–1131, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Santifaller, L. 1938. Beiträge zur Geschichte des lateinischen Patriarchats von Konstantinopel.
Weimar: Böhlau.
Scheffer-Boichorst, P. 1874. Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium, a monacho Novi
Monasterii Hoiensis interpolata, MGH, Scriptores 23, 631–950. Hannover: K. W. Hiersemann.
Schlumberger, G. L. 1879. Sceaux et bulles de l’Orient latin au moyen-âge. Paris: Ve A. Morel &
cie.
Schlumberger, G. L. 1882. Numismatique de l’Orient Latin, Paris: E. Leroux.
Shaw, M. R. B. 1963. Chronicles of the Crusades. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Shawcross, T. 2009. The Chronicle of Morea: historiography in crusader Greece. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Shawcross, T. 2012a. Conquest Legitimised: The Making of a Byzantine Emperor in Crusader
Constantinople (1204–1261), in: Byzantines, Latins, and Turks in the Eastern Mediterranean
world after 1150, eds. J. Harris, C. Holmes and E. Russell, 181–220. Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press.
Shawcross, T. 2012b. Greeks and Franks after the Fourth Crusade: Identity in the Chronicle of
Morea, in: Languages of Love and Hate: Conflict, Communication, and Identity in the Medieval
Mediterranean, ed. S. Lambert and H. Nicholson, 141–57. Turnhout: Brepols.
Simonsfeld, H. 1883. Chronicon Venetum Quod Vulgo Dicunt Altinate, Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Scriptores 14. Hannover: K. W. Hiersemann.
Sinogowitz, B. 1944. Die abendländische Politik der griechischen Staatenwelt zur Zeit des
Lateinischen Kaiserreichs (1204–1205). Maschinenschr. Thesis. Munich: unpublished.
Sollbach, G. E. 1998. Chroniken des vierten Kreuzzugs: die Augenzeugenberichte von Geoffroy de
Villehardouin und Robert de Clari. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus-Verl.-Ges.
Stolte, B. H. 1990. Vatatzes versus Baldwin. The case of the sovereignity of Constantinople, in:
Van Aalst and Ciggaar 1990, 127–132.
Tafel, G. L. Fr. and Thomas, G. M. 1856–1857. Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und
Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, 3 vols. Vienna: Kaiserlich-königliche Hof- und
Staatsdruckerei.
Talbot A.-M. 2001. Building Activity in Constantinople under Andronikos II: The Role of Women
Patrons in the Construction and Restoration of Monasteries, in: Byzantine Constantinople:
Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, ed. N. Necipoğlu, 329–343. Leiden and Boston:
Brill.
Teulet, A. 1866. Layettes du trisor des chartes, II, III. Paris: H. Plon.
Theiner, A. 1859–1860. Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, 2 vols.
Rome: Typ. Vaticanis.
128 E. Mitsiou

Theiner, A. 1863–1875. Vetera monumenta Slatorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia, 2 vols.

Rome: Typis Vaticanis.
Topping, P. 1949. Feudal Institutions as Revealed in the Assizes of Romania, the Law Code
of Frankish Greece: Translation of the Text of the Assizes with a Commentary on Feudal
Institutions in Greece and in Medieval Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
and in: Topping 1977.
Topping, P. 1977. Studies on Latin Greece (1205–1715). London: Variorum Reprints.
Tsougarakis, N. I. 2012. The Latin religious orders in medieval Greece, 1204–1500. Turnhout:
Brepols.
Tsougarakis, N. I. and Lock, P. 2015. Companion to Latin Greece. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
van Aalst, V.D. and Ciggaar K. 1990. The Latin Empire. Some Contributions. Hernen: A. A.
Bredius Foundation.
van Dieten J. L. 1975. Nicetae Choniatae historia. 2 vols. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter.
van Dieten J.-L. 1990, Das lateinische Kaiserreich von Konstantinopel und die Verhandlungen über
kirchliche Wiedervereinigung, in: Van Aalst and Ciggaar 1990, 93–125.
van Tricht, F. 2001. La politiques étrangère de l‘ empire de Constantinople, de 1210 à 1216. Sa
position en Méditerranée orientale; problèmes de chronologie et d’interpretation. Le Moyen
Âge 107, 219–38 and 409–438.
van Tricht F. 2011. The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium. The Empire of Constantinople (1204–1228),
translated by P. Longbottom. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
van Tricht, F. 2013. Robert of Courtenay (1221–7): An Idiot on the Throne of the Constantinople?
Speculum 88(4), 996–1034.
van Tricht F. 2018. The Horoscope of Emperor Baldwin II: Political and Sociocultural Dynamics
in Latin-Byzantine Constantinople. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Verlinden, Ch. 1945. Les empereurs belges de Constantinople. Bruxelles: Dessart.
Violante, T. M. 1999. La provincia domenicana in Grecia. Rome: Istituto storico domenicano.
Wadding, L. 1931–1934, Annales Minorum. Florence: Ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi).
Waitz, G. 1880. Chronica regia Coloniensis (Annales maximi Colonienses), Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 18, 203–208. Hannover: K. W. Hiersemann.
Wallis Budge, E A. 1932. Bar-Hebraeus. The chronography of Gregory Abu’l Faraj. London:
Oxford University Press.
Wellas, M. B. 1987. Das westliche Kaiserreich und das lateinische Königreich Thessalonike.
Athens: Stefanos Basilopoulos editions.
White, S. 2011. The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, R. L. 1948. The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204–1261.
Traditio 6, 33–60; published also in Wolff, R. L. 1976. Studies in the Latin Empire of
Constantinople. London: Variorum Reprints.
Wolff, R.L. 1952. Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut. First Latin Emperor of Constantinople: His
Life, Death, and Resurrection, 1172–1225. Speculum 27, 281–332.
Wolff, R. L. 1954. Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204–1261. DOP 8, 225–
303; published also in Wolff 1976.
Wolff, R. L. 1962. The Latin Empire of Constantinople, in: A History of the Crusades, ed. K.M.
Setton, vol. 2., 187–233. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wolff, R. L. 1976. Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople. London: Variorum Reprints.
Zolli A. and Healy, A. M. 2012, Resilience. Why things bounce back. New York: Simon and
Schuster.