grouped by Liz James 24-10-03:
Abstract paper a-
In his letter to Pope Innocent III of 16 May 1204, Baldwin of Flanders cited the practice of securing ‘deadly friendships with the infidels’ by the Byzantine emperors as one of the justifications for the recent capture of Constantinople. In doing so Baldwin was following a well-established practice, first employed by Bohemond of Antioch in 1105. This paper traces the Western interpretation of Byzantine diplomatic techniques as a betrayal of the crusade ideal.
Abstract paper b-
Odo of Deuil was the main historian of the Second Crusade who accompanied King Louis VII of France in his journey overland (1147-1149). He made a geographical description of the Balkans and took a closer look at the diplomatic relatiotins between East and West. He was impressed by the garments of the Greek ambassadors and the body language of the Emperor. His information was coloured by prejudices and misunderstandings of Greek Civilisation and cultural codes whose roots come from East. Could we call it ‘clash of cultures’ or just interaction? It will be the thought-provoking topic of this paper.
Abstract paper c
History has judged that many of the adversities encountered by the army of King Louis VII of France in Anatolia during the Second Crusade, 1147-8, were due to the policies pursued by the Byzantine emperor Manuel Comnenus and, in particular, his support of Seljuk Turk attacks on Louis’ army to protect Byzantine interests.
The paper aims to diverge from a discussion within the prevalent customary arena of high politics contained within this context to suggest that perhaps Manuel had little influence over the king’s assailants and, indeed, neither did the Seljuk powers in Iconium. It will be maintained that the Turks who harassed Louis’ army were in fact irregular autonomous nomadic warriors. Such an insufficiently explored perspective may at least go some way to exonerating Manuel for the immediate martial afflictions the curasedrs encountered