Return to Crusades-Encyclopedia Return to Table of Contents
Massacre of Latins in Constantinople, 1182
The political background to the riots begins with the ascension of the Emperor Alexius II Comnenus (b.1167), the son of emperor Manuel I Comnenus and Maria, daughter of Raymond, prince of Antioch. With Manuel's death in 1180, Maria had herself proclaimed regent. Maria reportedly encouraged her son to stay out of government and instead supported the government of Alexius the protosebastos (a cousin of young Alexius II), who was popularly believed to be Maria's lover. The young Alexius and his friends rebelled against his mother's plans, forming a political party for this purpose, and stirred up riots in the capital. Young Alexius II and his allies were defeated in 1182, but Andronicus Comnenus took advantage of the political and civil confusion. In a power grab, Andronicus entered Constantinople with an army, where he was well received, and quickly overthrew the regents. Andronicus' arrival inspired a massacre of the Latins in Constantinople, especially the Venetian merchants, which, known for his hatred of westerners, Andronicus made no effort to stop. He allowed young Alexius II to hold the title of Emperor, but only on the condition that he consent to the death of most of his friends and family, including his mother. Andronicus never allowed Alexius II any real authority.
Violence directed towards westerners living in Constantinople was not unknown before 1182, but often it was committed by other westerners and was less intense. For example, Pisans attacked the Genoese quarter in Constantinople in 1162, killing at least one merchant and forcing the others to flee to their ship, leaving all their valuables behind. In 1171 the Venetians attacked and destroyed the same Genoese quarter. And then, finally, about ten years later, the violence increased considerably when a Byzantine mob destroyed all the Italian quarters in Constantinople during the “Latin massacre” of 1182, reportedly resulting in thousands of deaths. The Byzantine chronicler Nicetas Choniates has described the event as follows.
While Andronikos was still biding his time across the straits, he dispatched all the triremes under
the command of the grand duke, and with his elite troops that had been selected from among the
soldiers who had enlisted in his cause as he made his way through the provinces, he mounted a
war against the Latins in the city. The city's populace regained their courage and incited one another
to fight side by side, and strife broke out on land and sea. Surrounded and hemmed in by both throngs,
the Latin's were unable to resist. They attempted to save themselves as best they could, leaving behind
their homes filled with riches and treasures of all kinds such as are sought by men bent on plunder; nor
did they dare to remain where they were or to attack the Romans or to submit to, and endure, their
onslaught. Some took their chances by scattering throughout the City, others sought asylum in the
homes of the nobility, while yet others borded the long ships manned by their fellow countrymen and
escaped being cut down by the sword. Those apprehended were condemned to death, and all lost their
properties and possessions. The triremes, loaded with refugees, put out from the City's harbors in the
direction of the Hellespont and spent the rest of that day anchored at the seagirt islands which are
neither far from the queen of cities nor far out in the open sea: I speak of Prinkipos and Prote and all
the islands around them rising up from the deep. The next day, after burning down and destroying
several monasteries on these islands, they departed, plying all oars and with sails unfurled. Pursued by
no one and putting in wherever they wished, they inflicted as much injury as possible on the Roman's
in these parts. (1)
[Continued...]
The events of 1182 confused at least one Muslim chronicler, Ibn Jubayr, who mistakenly believed it was Muslims who rampaged and captured Constantinople in 1182, killing 50,000 during the massacre. Below is a selection from an article by Nadia Maria El-Cheikh, describing the confusion and providing a quote from Ibn Jubayr's work.
The Muslim authors of the thirteenth century were aware of the two momentous events in the
recent history of the city, namely, the massacre of the Latins in 1182 and the conquest of the
city by the Latins in 1204.Concerning the events of 1182, Ibn Jubayr relates the following
confused and inaccurate story:
The report had it that the Sovereign of Constantinople had died, leaving his kingdom to his wife
and young son.But his cousin usurped the throne, killed the widow, and seized the boy.The usurper
fell in love with the boy’s sister, who was famed for her beauty.Yet he could not marry her since it
was forbidden for the Ru¯m to take their kinswomen in marriage.Impetuous love, blind and deafening
desire ... impelled him to take her and go to Prince Mas‘u¯d, Sovereign of Konia.... The two of them
embraced Islam ... and got married ... then with the backing of Muslim armies he entered
Constantinople, slaying some fifty thousand of its inhabitants.T he Muslims seized Constantinople,
and all its money was transported to Amir Masu¯d.... This conquest is one of the signs of the Hour,
ashra¯t. al-sa¯‘a.(46) [See footnote below]
Ibn Jubayr, here, has the Muslims conquering Constantinople in 1182.Of course, no Muslim
army captured Constantinople until the Ottoman conquest of 1453, and it was the Latin
inhabitants who were slaughtered by the Byzantines.As for the last phrase on ashra¯t. al-sa¯‘a, it
belongs to the Muslim apocalyptic literature that developed very early on in connection with the
military expeditions against the Byzantine capital in the seventh and eighth centuries.Numerous
traditions going back to the Prophet Muhammad made its conquest one of the six portents of
the Hour signaling the approaching end of the world.47 These traditions, found in the earliest
compilations, are naturally included in the twelfth- and thirteenth-century texts, albeit in an
altered form at times. (2)
The only known surviving Latin text referencing the massacre of 1182 is found in the lengthy history of William of Tyre.
This change of affairs spread consternation among the Latins, for they feared that the citizens
would make sudden attack upon them; in fact they had already received warning of such intention
from certain people who had private knowledge of the conspiracy. Those who were able to do so,
therefore, fled from the wiles of the Greeks and the death which threatened them. Some embarked
on forty-four galleys which chanced to be in the harbor, and others placed all their effects on some
of the many other ships there. The aged and infirm, however, with those who were unable to flee,
were left in their homes, and on them fell the wicked rage which the others had escaped. For
Andronicus, who had secretly caused ships to be prepared, led his entire force into the city. As
soon as they entered the gates these troops, aided by the citizens, rushed to that quarter of the
city occupied by the Latins and put to the sword the little remnant who had been either unwilling
or unable to flee with the others. Although but few of these were able to fight, yet they resisted
for a long time and made the enemy’s victory a bloody one.
Regardless of treaties and the many services which our people had rendered to the empire, the
Greeks seized all those who appeared capable of resistance, set fire to their houses, and speedily
reduced the entire quarter to ashes. Women and children, the aged and the sick, all alike perished
in the flames. To vent their rage upon secular buildings alone, however, was far from satisfying
their unholy wickedness; they also set fire to churches and venerated places of every description
and burned, together with the sacred edifices, those who had fled thither for refuge. No distinction
between clergy and laymen, except that greater fury was displayed toward those who wore the
honorable habits of high office or religion. Monks and priests were the especial victims of their
madness and were put to death under excruciating torture. Among these latter was a venerable
man named John, a subdeacon of the holy Roman church, whom the pope had sent to Constantinople
on business relating to the church. They seized him and, cutting off his head, fastened it to the tail
of a filthy dog as an insult to the church. In the midst of such frightful sacrilege, worse than
parricide, not even the dead, whom impiety itself generally spares, were suffered to rest undisturbed.
Corpses were torn from the tombs and dragged through the streets and squares as if the insensate
bodies were capable of feeling the indignities offered them.
The vandals then repaired to the hospital of St. John, as it is called, where they put to the sword
all the sick they found. Those whose pious duty it should have been to relieve the oppressed,
namely the monks and priests, called in footpads and brigands to carry on the slaughter under
promise of reward. Accompanied by these miscreants, they sought out the most secluded retreats
and the inmost apartments of homes, that none who were hiding there might escape death. When
such were discovered, they were dragged out with violence and handed over to the executioners,
who, that they might not work without pay, were given the price of blood for the murder of these
wretched victims. Even those who seemed to show more consideration sold into perpetual slavery
among the Turks and other infidels the fugitives who had resorted to them and to whom they had
given hope of safety. It is said that more than four thousand Latins of various age, sex, and
condition were delivered thus to barbarous nations for a price. In such fashion did the perfidious
Greek nation, a brood of vipers, like a serpent in the bosom or a mouse in the wardrobe evilly
requite their guests—those who had not deserved such treatment and were far from anticipating
anything of the kind; those to whom they had given their daughters, nieces, and sisters as wives
and who, by long living together, had become their friends. (3)
[Continued...]
Catholic scholar Dr. Warren Carroll has connected the events of 1182 with the events of 1204 and the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. He wrote,
Horrible and utterly indefensible as the sack was, it should in justice be remembered that it was
not totally unprovoked; more than once (as in the massacre of 1182) the Greeks of Constantinople
had treated the Latins there as they were now being treated ... Historians who wax eloquent and
indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople ... rarely if ever mention the
massacre of the Westerners in Constantinople in 1182 ... a nightmarish massacre of thousands [about
2000 Greeks were killed in Constantinople in 1204, according to secular historian Will Durant].... in
which the slaughterers spared neither women nor children, neither old nor sick, neither priest nor
monk.Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the
streets at the tail of a dog; children were cut out of their mother's wombs; bodies of dead Westerners
were exhumed and abused; some 4,000 who escaped death were sold into slavery to the Turks. (4)
Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, while addressing the historical legacy of mistrust between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, has also commented on the events of 1182.
Each [Catholics and Orthodox] ... must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance.
Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to
prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for
example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine
period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182,
when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (5)
1. Niketas Choniates. O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates. trans. Harry J. Magoulias.(Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984), 140-141.
2. Nadia Maria El-Cheikh. "Byzantium through the Islamic Prism from the Twelfth to the Thirteenth Century." [PDF] In The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. (Washington, D.C.: Dumberton Oaks, 2001), 60. Also, the footnote citing the source for the Ibn Jubayr quote is reproduced as follows. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 327–29.Andronikos was the cousin of Emperor Manuel, and he did kill his widow as well as the young emperor Alexios II.However, Andronikos did not fall in love with his cousin, although he was famous for his adventurous love affairs.The girl he married, after he became emperor, was the thirteen year- old widow of Alexios II, daughter of Louis VII.
3.William of Tyre: A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea. Selection taken from the E.A. Babcock Translation (Columbia, 1943).
4. Warren Carroll. The Glory of Christendom , (Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1993), 157, 131.
5. Kallistos Ware. The Orthodox Church , (NY: Penguin, 1980), 70.
(c) Andrew Holt, January 2005- Permission is granted for electronic copying and distribution in print for educational and personal use. No permission is granted for commercial use.