The Byzantine Concept of Martyrdom, Heraklios-Theophanes.

1. The Byzantine concept of Martyrdom 

Those historians who argue for a type of Byzantine Holy War rely primarily on military harangues and chronicles while neglecting ecclesiastical sources. Aside from the very obviously charged speech of such documents the approach itself is detrimental to the argument because the most famous example of Nikephoros Phokas and the canon of St Basil reveals the separation between the imperial prerogatives and those of the church. Attributing more importance to military sources, gives the false impression that the Byzantines held the same belief in spiritually meritorious warfare as the crusaders. This assertion is effected by a limited interpretation of the use of the word “martyr” in battlefield exhortations to incorrectly mean one who achieves sanctification through dying or killing in battle. Theophanes puts the following speech into Heraklios’ mouth before battle, “Brothers, do not be troubled by your enemies numbers for, God willing, one will chase thousands. Let us sacrifice ourselves to God for the salvation of our brothers. Let us take the Martyrs’ crown so the future will applaud us and God will give us our reward.”[1] According to Leo’s Tactica, the most important ability of a general is to exhort his troops so that they “despise death” unsurprisingly religious catechism is not mentioned in the same text.[2] The speech and more importantly the use of the word martyr itself reflect the literary style of heroic epics, the theme of noble sacrifice inherited from Hellenic literature should not be considered as purely Christian or even religious simply because the empire was. The Byzantines were very familiar with many types of martyrdom or “witness” through the lives of the saints, the example of the monastic renunciation, Christian marriage where the bride and groom are fitted with martyrs crowns and military saints. Martyrdom in its true sense is to the glory of God and never, even in the case of military saints in service to a prince. The fact that the most revered soldier martyrs were themselves martyred by the Roman military during periods of Christian persecution and not in battle reveals the precedence Byzantines gave to spiritual warfare.[3] How those who heard Heraklios’s speech encouraging them to “take up the martyrs crowns” interpreted it cannot be known in certainty.[4] From what we do know of the Byzantine understanding of martyrdom we can deduce that it meant a kind of heroic and praiseworthy deed in service to the empire as Saint Athanasios had written.[5] Given the religious significance of Heraklios’ recovery of the cross and documented use of the word “infidel” to describe the enemy it is tempting to assign Heraklios’ wars a religious character. Theophanes also recounts how Heraklios released 50,000 prisoners in thanksgiving to God for granting him victory. Setting free infidels whose destruction is pleasing to God is hardly a fitting sacrifice for one adhering to holy war ideology. It is necessary at this point to acknowledge that Byzantine spirituality emphasized individual responsibility for participation in the Divine Energies as the main salvific path. In contrast to the Byzantine view, the western church held that the ecclesiastic body of the temporal church alone dispensed salvific grace. The authority of the heir of St Peter to meter out salvation or martyric status to those who die in service to the church was easily justified by centuries of Roman Catholic theological development. Byzantine theology did not maintain that grace was only attainable through the visible head of the church and never accounted corporate salvation to the will of a hierarch. They never accepted that participating in the sinful enterprise of war brought them closer to divine likeness (theosis) regardless of what an emperor said before battle. Here we find a difference not only in the role of the Emperor to that of the Pope but also in the basic understandings of martyrdom and the spiritual life. 

---

[1] Confessor, Theophanes. Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. P.19.

[2] VI, Leo. The Taktika of Leo VI. P.21.

[3] Meitanis, PHD.121

[4] Confessor, Theophanes. Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. P. 19.

[5] Swift, L. J., The Early Fathers on War and Military Service. P. 95. “One is not supposed to kill, but killing the enemy in battle is both lawful and praiseworthy. For this reason individuals who have distinguished themselves in war are considered worthy of great honors, and monuments are put up to celebrate their deeds. Thus, at one particular time, and under one set of circumstances, an act is not permitted, but when time and conditions necessitate it, it is both allowed and condoned.” 

Just War and Holy War in Byzantium

The motivation for warfare

 The Byzantines held a concept of just war, Leo stresses that war can only be made when  “The God of justice is on your side.”[1] Making war to pacify an enemy or to defend territory in the role of the non-aggressor was the only just cause. Appeals for divine assistance and thanksgiving in victory were frequent but do not indicate a religious motivation. Religious imagery was equally used in warfare with co-religionists as with other faiths. For example Emperor Basil II (976-1025) made use of the highly revered Hodegetria icon as a shield while dueling Bardas Phokas (878-968).[2] The use of mercenaries, treaties and subterfuge were standard in Byzantium, consequently a knightly caste did not develop as in the west. Another important difference between the Byzantine wars and the Crusades is the lack of civilian participation on the Byzantine side compared to the mass involvement of western civilians. The lack of non military involvement further weakens the argument of a religiously motivated Byzantine war. Byzantine military ideology made peacemaking the sole purpose of its wars; Leo’s Tactica states that a general should “treat war as a physician treating an illness”.[3] Later in the same treatise Leo explains root of war itself “Out of reverence for the image and the word of God, all men ought to have embraced peace and fostered love for one another instead of taking up murderous weapons in their hands to be used against their own people. But since the devil, the original killer of men, the enemy of our race, has made use of sin to bring men around to waging war, contrary to their basic nature, it is absolutely necessary for men to wage war in return against those whom the devil maneuvers and to take their stand with unflinching resolve against nations who want war.”  Leo identifies peace as the religious duty of ‘all men” and though he asserts that war is inevitable consequence of sin he does not advocate war against others but rather stresses the necessity of self-defense. The identification of the enemy as “nations who want war” reflects the Byzantine view of the world, it does not refer to enemies as infidels to be destroyed or converted as in Holy War but reveals the pragmatic belief that those outside of the empire were all of a relatively even and barbarian standing in Byzantine estimation. The requirements of defensive warfare were flexible in practice because the re-conquest of any of the land previously held by the Roman Empire was considered a legitimate target for liberation. Being under non-roman rule regardless of the duration did not disqualify a territory from Byzantine military defense. [4] The early Byzantine perception of the Crusades as a type of defensive war (at least in principle) accounts for the lack of polemics against the Latin theological element of the crusades when compared to that post 1204.[5] The Byzantine wars were imperial and though appeals for the protection of Christian sites or retribution for crimes against Christianity were common there is no evidence for a religiously motivated Byzantine war.[6]

---

[1] VI, Leo. The Taktika of Leo VI. Translated by George T. Dennis. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010.p .37.

[2]Psellus, Michael. Michael Psellus (1018-after 1078): Chronographia. Translated by E R. Sewter. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953,p.132.

[3]VI, Leo. The Taktika of Leo VI., p.33

[4] Stouraitis, Ioannis, ‘Byzantine Approaches to Warfare (6th to 12th Centuries)’, Byzantine War Ideology Between Roman Imperial Concept and Christian Religion, ed. I. Stouraitis and J. Koder (Vienna,2012), p.10-11.

[5]  Kolbaba notes the lack of Byzantine complaint to Crusade indulgence prior to 1204, Kolbaba, Tia. "Fighting For Christianity.", p. 216.

[6] Dennis, Three Byzantine Military Treatises Dennis states that religion in the Roman military should not be considered a specific feature of Byzantium’s Christian identity “nor should their wars be viewed as particularly holy or religious.”

Niketas Byzantios explores Jihad

The Church as the source of Holy War

The Byzantine state differed from the Latin and Islamic worlds in its retention of a powerful administration that alone had responsibility for the military. The Byzantine Church had no authority to interfere in military matters and held those who transgressed this rule accountable through rigorously enforced canon law.[1] The separation of the sacred nature of the Church and the profane duty of the imperium to wage war had meant that no Byzantine Patriarchs had pursued military ends as the Popes had done.[2] Byzantine churchmen supported the military activities of the empire as envoys and by their presence at army encampments without ever taking part in combat. A prominent example of the role carried out by Byzantine churchmen is Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos (901-907, 912-925) by his letters of mediation with Symeon of Bulgaria (893-927). In these letters he appeals for peace between Bulgaria and Byzantium and reminds the Archbishop of Bulgaria that his obligation “beyond all else (was) to serve the cause of peace’.[3] The mixture of the two spheres of society was considered abhorrent in Byzantium as witnessed by the damning accounts of Latin clergy participation in the crusades vividly described by Anna Komnene.[4] 

The Byzantine understanding of violence

The main obstacle in attaching a religious meaning to Byzantine wars is that the Byzantines viewed war as a symptom of the fallen world a tragedy and always sinful[5]. As a consequence of its perception of violence the Byzantines never developed a concept of meritorious killing, on the contrary Constantine Porphyrigenitos ridicules jihad in his De Administrando Imperio categorizing the belief “he who slays an enemy or is slain by an enemy enters into paradise” as “nonsense”.[6] Constantine’s repulsion at the idea of meritorious killing is representative of the Byzantine perception of Jihad and violence for the entire span of Byzantine history. “If, then, it has been demonstrated that all murder, insofar as it is murder, is bad, it is evident that it is also not licit.”[7] Niketas Byzantios’s (9^th Century) dialogue with an “Agarene” is a polemical yet typically Byzantine explanation of the nature of killing (here murder). The segment above is a response to his Muslim correspondent’s letter explaining the Islamic belief in both licit and illicit murder. The criterion for licit murder according to the Muslim correspondent is the will of God.[8] As discussed above Byzantines attributed the existence of violence to the fall and therefore the devil, to attribute any war or killing to the will of God would have seemed completely alien.

---

[1] We have decreed that those who have been enrolled in the clergy or have become monks sheall not join the army or obtain ant secular office, Let those who dare do this and will not repent..be anathama, Chalcedon 7 RP 2;232

[2] A clear statement defining the roles for the classes of people in Byzantine society is found in “Holy orders have been established for the worship of God..through whom all things came into being and are governed in the ways of goodness known to him alone. Legal institutions are established to bring about justice.. laws and judges have been established to pronounce judgement .. to aid people in living together in peace.” Dennis, George T., ed. Three Byzantine Military Treatises, (Washington, 1985). p.13.

[3] Nicholas I, Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters. Trs. R. J. H. Jenkins, L. G. Westerink, Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1973. p. 82.

[4] Comnena, Anna, The Alexiad, ed. E. R. A. Sewter.  (London 2009), p. 285. Regarding the battle between Marianos and a priest defending count Prebentzas “The Latin customs with regard to priests differ from ours. We are bidden by canon law and the reaching of the Gospel, “touch not, taste not, hanfle not- for thou art consecrate’. But your Latin barbarian will at the same time handle sacred objects, fasten a shield to his left arm and grasp a spear in his right. He will communicate the Body and Blood of the Deity and meanwhile gaze on bloodshed and become himself “a man of blood”. Thus the race is no less devoted to religion than to war”…. “It was as if he were officiating at a ceremony, celebrating as though war was a holy ritual.”

[6] Porphyrogenitus Constantine, De Administrando Imperio, Trans. R j. Jenkins (Washington 1985),p 79.

[7] Krausmüller, Dirk. “Killing at god's command: Niketas Byzantios' polemic against Islam and the Christian tradition of divinely sanctioned murder.” Al-Masaq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 16:1, (Carfax, 2004), p. 167

[8] Arberry, A J., ed. The Koran Interpreted. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.

p. 207 “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.”)

George Akropolites describes the Laskarid army (Final look at the Byzantine perception of violence in the wake of the 4th Crusade)).

Demetrius

In 1207, the death of the invading Bulgarian Tsar Kalojan was attributed to the the patron saint of Thessaloniki, St.Demetrius. The Thessalonian attribution of violent acts to a saint and the crusader belief of Deus Vult both make the will of God the motivating force for violence. The encomia of Demetrius that recall his are unique in orthodox hagiography and in some cases appear contrary to the writings of Basil and Leo.[1] The city of Thessaloniki, second of the empire was defined by the frequent attacks upon it, its patron saint Demetrius is an extraordinary example of the flexibility of the Byzantine attitude to violence in light of contemporary events. The power of Demetrius’ cult also reflects the increased autonomy and confidence of Thessalonica as a city independent of Constantinople.[2] Demetrius was not originally represented in iconography as a soldier but in the plain tunic associated with martyrdom. During the tenth century military saints began to be recognized as a separate caste and were adopted as the patrons of imperial and noble families.[3] The high profile of the military under Basil II (958-1025) popularized the military saints, especially Demetrius to whom ten churches were dedicated in Constantinople.[4] In the 11^th century he was given the title Stratelates a term equivalent to “General” and later Myrovlytes meaning myrrh gushing in reference to his relics.[5] The earliest example of Demetrius’ intercession is an account of the defense of the city in 586 written by John of Thessaloniki in the mid 7^th century. Despite Demetrius’ activity as a protector of the City from the 7^th century on the earliest evidence of his portrayal as a military saint is not until the 11^th century.[6] In the development of his status from martyr to General we see a microcosm of the wider change in attitude toward violence that happened throughout the empire in the 12^th and 13^th centuries.[7] How widely accepted the violent acts attributed to Demetrius were within the church is difficult to judge. George Akropolites for example reported that Kalojan died of pleurisy “though some attributed his death to the wrath of God.”[8] There is no discernable trend in the editing of the miracles but it is clear that some emphasized Demetrius’ moral courage and inspirational leadership over his violent punishments.[9]

The description of the army

Theodore Laskaris was presented as a new Constantine by Choniates who specifically compared the battle of the Maeander to the battle of Milvian Bridge by noting the Nicaeans wore the cross as an ensign. As noted above there were a large number of Latin mercenaries in the Nicaean army but Akropolites states that “in the Lord Christ whose name we pious people bear as an ensign or seal” implying that all present wore the cross.[10] The comparison of Theodore to Constantine is an important one because Constantine, one of the very few Byzantine emperors considered a saint personified the reconciliation of kingship and Christian faith. It was upon Constantine’s conversion that Eusebios formulated what would become the Byzantine understanding of the emperor as a mirror of divine rule and perfection.[11] Theodore increased the religious tone of the Nicaean campaigns by proposing a truce between Latin Constantinople and Nicaea ultimately rejected by Innocent III in order to combine their forces against the Muslims.[12] The rejection of the treaty with by Innocent III in favour of an alliance with the Turks lent Theodore legitimacy in his position as a Christian ruler.[13]

           

Conclusion

            The sources indicate that there was an element of Byzantine culture outside of the “ecclesiastical tradition” that believed from the 6^th Century that divine punishment in the form of physical violence was administered by one of God’s saints. It was standard practice that those at the very height of the Byzantine Church supported the emperor’s military role as the bringer of justice to the world. Choniates believed that warfare for the sake of Christ was not a sin that was immediately forgiven by oikonomia but meritorious. The violent acts of Demetrius far predate the coming of the crusades and serve as an example of the reactive nature of Byzantine culture under external pressure. Demetrius’ interventions make the actions of Autoerianos seem less influenced by crusade ideology and more of a regression to basic Eusebian principles. The flexibility of war ideology was possible because the Christian empire had been established by violent means. The wearing of crosses on the battlefield should therefore be associated more with the battle of Milvian Bridge than with the crusades. The pressure placed on Byzantium by the crusades enlarged the place traditionally accorded to military valor. Crusade ideology on the other hand does not appear to have had any significant influence on Byzantium. Plenary indulgences were continually condemned, those Byzantines who argued for meritorious violence appealed to the writings of their own saints and others believed that God had protected them on the battlefield through saints long before and after the crusades.

---

[1] There were two other popular military saints, George and Theodore though the literature surrounding Demetrius eclipses both there are similarities between all three, in particular their martyrdom.

[2] Eugenia Russell, St Demetrius of Thessalonica, Cult and Devotion in the Middle Ages. (2010) p. 9-18.

[3] Walter, Christopher. The Warrior saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2003. 79.

[4] ibid., p.77.

[5] “Demetrios’ ability to produce a substance by the same name as the sacramental oil of unction could be used as a challenge to patriarchal monopoly” By this she means the Chrism that is produced once a year only by the Patriarchs of the Local Autocephalous Churches of Orthodox Christianity.

Ruth J. Macrides, “Subversion and loyalty in the cult of St. Demetrios”, Byzantinoslavica 51 1990, 189-97.

[6] Walter, Christopher. The Warrior saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2003.p 22.

[7] The first recorded iconographic representation of Demetrius as a stratelates is dated 1108. Lexikon der Christliche Ikonographie, 6 (1974), p.43.

[8] Akropolites 23

[9] Lemerle, P. Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de saint Démétrius: Vol. 1. Le texte (Paris, 1979).p 177-8

[10] George Akropolites, Opera,p. 129

[11] Angold, Michael. A Byzantine Government in exile; Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea 1204-1261. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. P.38

[12] Gardner, Alice. The Laskarids of Nicaea ; The Story of an Empire in Exile. London: Methuen, 1912. p. 80-81.

[13] One of the most persistent Crusader accusations/criticisms against Byzantium was their supposed alliance with Muslims. An alliance between the Crusaders and the Muslims must have been very disenfranchising for many Latin Knights.

Patriarch Michael Autoreianos (Byzantine perceptions of violence during The Crusades part 3)

Patriarch Michael Autoreianos

A great break in Byzantine ecclesiastical tradition came to pass in the form of an indulgence issued by Patriarch Michael Autoreianos in 1208. The indulgence appears to be almost identical to the plenary indulgence of the crusaders.[1] It is preserved in a single copy of a letter from Patriarch Michael Atoureianos and his synod of refugee bishops in Nicaea; no record of a similar case has come down to us.[2] Tellingly, neither Niketas Choniates nor George Akropolites (1220-1282) mention the incident, suggesting that the practice was short lived. The Nicaean Empire under Theodore Laskaris (r 1204-1222) ceased to continue many important 12^th century traditions including the regular issuing of Chrysobulls, hyperya and employment of court rhetors. The absence of these staples of 12^th century Byzantium gives the picture of an austere household government in Nicaea.[3] Theodore II Laskaris (r 1254-1258), son of Theodore I remarked upon the emperors dislike for  “refined words”, if Theodore I requested intervention by the church he would have certainly preferred it to be straightforward over theologically nuanced.[4] At first the letter does not differ much from the established tradition of exhortation by Byzantine clergymen to military authorities. The main body of the text stresses the importance of monarchy and the divine assistance offered to the Byzantines because of their “immaculate” orthodox faith. The tone of the letter is reminiscent of the correspondence of Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos (r 901-907 / 912-925) who by his unique position as regent and hierarch is a close parallel of the dependant relationship of Laskaris and Autoreianos. Autoreianos’ letter calls to mind the harangues of Emperor Heraclius more than we may expect of a Churchman but Nicholas had already set a president for clerical involvement in military matters. In 915 he (Nicholas) wrote to the governor of Longbardia to congratulate him for a recent victory and thank him for not disappointing him.[5]  Again Nicholas advises his emperor to “train his men and be prepared.”[6] Even earlier though in more desperate circumstances Patriarch Sergios I (610-38) called for aid for Heraclius by asking all Bishops to contribute financially to the war effort. In light of the correspondence between the aforementioned clergy we see little change in Byzantine attitude towards violence in the main body of Autoreianos’ letter. The advice and support offered by these bishops had a common limit, they consistently refused to honor soldiers as martyrs and banned military participation by clergy.[7] In reference to clergy participation in warfare there are several examples of a strongly enforced policy of deposition even in cases of self-defense.[8] Additionally, when Nicholas discovered that clergymen had been drafted into the Byzantine army along the Bulgarian frontier he demanded their release explaining “to convert to common use anything whatever that has once been sanctified is culpable.”[9] The reluctance to accord the sacrifice of a soldier a double dedication, one to state and one to God or conversely with a clergyman is found in Autorianos’ letter by the inclusion of the so called indulgence as a post-script apart from the body of the letter.

Παρ᾽ ῟ου καὶ ἡμεῖς, τὴν μεγάλην δωρεὰν τῆς αὐτοῦ δεξάμενοι χάριτος, συγχωροὖμεν ὑμῖν, τοῖς ὑπερμαχοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὰ ἐν τῷβίω πεπλημμελημένα ύμιν, ὅσοις τῶν πατριδων προκινδυνεύουσι τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ λυτρῶσεως ἐπισυμβαιη καὶ θάνατος[10]

“ Having received from God the great gift of his grace, We forgive those trespasses committed in life those who die in the defense of our salvation and the liberation of our people.”

The meaning is clear, remission of sins for those who die fighting, a contrary view to the established position of the church and a potential endorsement of the crusader ideology of spiritually meritorious violence. Autoreianos informs Theodore that the letter was sent to the military authorities, suggesting that the indulgence may have been requested by Theodore to motivate his men. To introduce an alien and Latin practice at the time of the Latin occupation is perplexing, we have such conclusive evidence revealing the Byzantine understanding of Crusade ideology and such strong condemnation of the Islamic parallel that to imagine a scenario where Autoreianos dreamt up this indulgence without consciously adopting a Latin practice is very difficult indeed.[11] Constantine Stilbes’ (mid 12^th Century) Against the Latins refutes plenary indulgencies and repeatedly accuses Latins of conducting violence for the salvation of their souls[12] It is possible that the indulgence was intended to appeal to the large Latin contingent of Theodore’s army alone.[13] Upon his Consecration as Latin Patriarch of Constantinople Thomas Morosini (1204-1211) had immediately anathematized and excommunicated the Latins who failed to accompany him on a campaign against Orestias in 1204. In 1210, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) excommunicated those who took up arms against the empire of Constantinople and her allies.[14] The Latin contingent was therefore thoroughly excommunicated by the Western church and it is conceivable that Theodore wanted to ease their consciences with something more than just a higher rate of pay. Autoreianos’ indulgence does not however, go as far as it first appears, specifically it does not offer the title of Martyr to the fallen, rather “remission of the sins of this life” an important distinction to the plenary indulgence of the Roman Church. Emperor Nikeporos Phokas (912-969) specifically requested the dead be recognized as martyrs and the speech given to Heraclius’ by Theophanes refers to the crowns of martyrdom to be acquired in battle.[15] The phrase “sins committed in this life” could broadly reference the necessary act of killing in battle. Byzantine war ideology had consistently viewed killing in battle as a sin exceptionally forgiven by God through his grace and oikonomia. Interpreting the letter as a reiteration of the traditional Byzantine ideology being addressed to an army immediately strips it of the character of an indulgence and accounts for its simplistic language.

---

[1] Killing in war was believed to be a sin exceptionally forgiven by God through Oikonomia but requiring atonement.

[2]  The Latin accusation that Patriarch Dositheos had stated that killing Latins was spiritually beneficial but there is no corroborating Greek source that relates specifically to this point.

[3] Angelov, Dimiter. Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204-1330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.p. 40

[4] Theodore 11 encomio

[5] Nicholas I, Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters. Trs. R. J. H. Jenkins, L. G. Westerink, Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1973.p.458

[6] Nicholas I, Letters. P.336

[7] Specifically the seventh canon of Chalcedon. G.A Rhalles and M. Potles, Συνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ίερῶν κανόνων,(Αthens, 1852-59). Vol, 2, p.232 “We have decreed that those who have been enrolled in the clergy or have become monks shall not join the army or obtain ant secular office, Let those who dare do this and will not repent ..be anathema.”

[8] Demetrios, Chomiatianos Decisiones, p 324

[9] Nicholas I, Letters. P. 467

12 Autorianos, Michael, Act,s ed.,Oikonomidès Nicolas. “Cinq actes inédits du patriarche Michel Autôreianos.” In: Revue des études byzantines, 25, 1967. pp. 113-145.

[11]  Angelov concludes that the remission of sins offered by Autoreianos was a true indulgence, identical to those issued by the popes and was a conscious adoption of crusader practice. Angelov, Dimiter. Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204-1330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.p. 100.

[12] Darrouzès Jean. Le mémoire de Constantin Stilbès contre les Latins. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 21, Paris, 1963. pp. 50-100 “The massacre of Christians is seen favourably by their bishops and especially by the pope and they declare the killings a means of salvation for those who perform them.”

[13] Akropolites, George. Opera. Translated by A Heisenberg. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903. p. 16 Akropolites recorded the number of Latin Knights to be 800.

[14] Haluscynski, Theodosios, ed. Acta Innocentii pp, III, 1198-1216 E Registris Vaticanis Aliisque Fontibus. 1944. No. 114, 345-8.

[15] Confessor, Theophanes. Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. Translated by Cyril Mango and Rodger Scott. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.p.19 And Nikephoros; Skylitzes, John. A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057. Translated by John Wortley. London: Cambridge University Press, 2012.p.263  (Nikephoros) was pressing the patriarch

And the bishops to agree to this doctrine but some of them vigorously withstood him and frustrated his intent. They produced in evidence the canon of [St] Basil the Great which requires that a man who has slain his enemy in battle to remain three years excommunicate