With Alexios III having fled in the face of the Fourth Crusade and the new father-son regime of Isaac II and Alexios IV essentially being pro-crusader, the Senate, people and priests of Constantinople felt they were not receiving imperial protection for the aggression of the Latins. Worse still, they could only watch on in horror as Alexios IV began having many of the city’s icons melted down to pay the 200,000 marks he had promised to the crusaders. And then such sacrilege just failed to provide enough funds, the crusaders began to riot, setting fires in sections of the city.
In such a moment of increasing hopelessness, the Roman Empire had a long history of finding the right man at the right time. And in the midst of the impending calamity, it seemed that the Romans had found another potential saviour in the form of Alexios Doukas, nicknamed Mourtzouphlos (reflecting either his bushy, overhanging eyebrows or a sullen character).
He used his family name and heritage (or at least his claimed membership of the noble Doukai and possible descent from Alexios I Komnenos and/or Alexios IV) to gather enough support to lead an anti-Latin fightback in the city and on the walls. He may not have won any startling military successes but the sheer fact that he was resisting the Crusaders rather than cooperating with these heretics and sacrilegiously paying them off saw Mourtzouphlos gain even more support: enough that during one of his sorties against the Crusaders, when his horse stumbled, a group of archers defended him from capture or death.
Therefore, when the populace of Constantinople rebelled against Isaac II and Alexios IV in late January 1204 and met to elect a new emperor, you might think that their choice would fall upon Mourtzuphlos; however, it appears at this point that he was still considered to be part of the father-son regime, and so was not one of the many candidates the assembly pondered.
Furthermore, it appears that despite the backing of the Senate, church and mob, there was little appetite amongst those who were considered. For three days the assembly investigated various candidates, finding them all either unsuitable or, more worryingly, unwilling. The enormity of the task, both within and without the walls of the city, seems to have scared off many a potential candidate.
Fortunately, for the sanity of all readers of this period’s history, their choice did not fall upon another Alexios. Unfortunately for their own cause, the assembly appears to have failed to find anyone who was really keen on the job...
“They anxiously groped for a successor to the throne, and on impulse proposed as emperor now this scion of the nobility and now that one. Tiring finally of the rabble-rousers and demagogues among them, they exhorted several members of our rank to put on the crown. Alas and alack! What could have been more heartrending and grievous than the trial of that time, or more absurd and mindless than the fatuity of those assembled “Thou hast raiment; be thou our ruler” (Isaiah 3.6) was all that was required.”
Niketas Choniates 562
On 27 January 1204, their choice fell upon a basically unknown noble called Nicholas Kanabos. He is described as “gentle by nature, of keen intelligence, and versed in generalship and war and its business” (Niketas Choniates 564; cf. Novgorod Chronicle’s version of The Tale of the Capture of Constantinople by the Franks calls him a soldier). And yet, with what seems like a strong personal basis for rule, Kanabos seems to have been no more interested in the imperial throne than those others who had rejected it during the three-day assembly.
We must always take care in not exaggerating any reports of reticence to take the imperial throne as there was a practice of refutatio imperii – a deferential and respectful ‘rejection’ of imperial power that had been around in some form since the time of Augustus over 1200 years before the Fourth Crusade came knocking on the walls of Constantinople.
However, it could easily be that with a baying crusader army outside the walls and a ruling father-son regime still ensconced within them, claiming the imperial purple did not look all that appealing. It may even be that despite being elected, Kanabos never accepted his imperial elevation and rather than make any attempt to rally support from the wider populace in the face of crusaders and rival emperors, he took sanctuary in Hagia Sophia.
This is not to say that Kanabos’ proposed elevation was not taken seriously by others, perhaps even more seriously than by Kanabos himself. Isaac II and Alexios IV responded to this usurpation by barricading themselves in the Blachernae Palace and descending further into his pro-crusader stance, negotiating with Boniface of Montferrat, the military leader of the crusaders, “to bring Latin forces into the palace to expel the new emperor and the populace who had elected him in assembly” (Niketas Choniates 563).
This planned act of what was essentially treason against the Roman people was entrusted to someone who at this point still seemed to profess loyalty to the Angeloi regime – Alexios Doukas Mourtzouphlos himself.
Unsurprisingly though for someone who had already begun to set himself up as the focus of anti-crusader/Latin hatred in Constantinople, being tasked with such a treacherous action sparked Mourtzouphlos into escalating his anti-crusader actions into a usurpation of his own.
Unlike Kanabos, Mourtzouphlos was proactive in promoting his cause, using his professed loyalty to Isaac II and Alexios IV to gain access to the imperial treasury, which he then used to bribe the Varangian Guard to rebel against the father-son regime and proclaim him Alexios V, possibly on the same day as the elevation of Kanabos or a couple of days later.
Backed by the Varangians, Alexios V had Isaac and Alexios IV arrested, imprisoned and executed (the blind Isaac might have died of shock or ill-health), but rather than immediately do the same to Nicholas Kanabos, Alexios V offered a compromise. Recognising the Kanabos’ election by an assembly of military, religious and civic leaders gave him some authority, Mourtzouphlos wrote to Kanabos in his Hagia Sophia hidey-hole…
“I have captured your enemy, Isaac’s son [Alexios IV]. I am now your emperor, and I am appointing Nicholas to be the senior courtier [protostrator?]; take off the crown!”
Novgorod Chronicle’s version of The Tale of the Capture of Constantinople by the Franks
Regardless of Kanabos’ thoughts on such a unification, it seems that his supporters, possibly emboldened by the fact that Mourtzouphlos reached out to them at all, rejected the removal of their claimant to the imperial throne, exclaiming “To hell with anyone who abandons Nicholas!” (Novgorod Chronicle’s version of The Tale of the Capture of Constantinople by the Franks). However, within days, this was proven to be a mistake.
“Inasmuch as the worst elements prevail among the Constantinopolitans... [Alexios] grew stronger and increased in power, while [Kanabos’] splendour grew dim like a waning moon”
Niketas Choniates 563
Alexios V’s attempts to resist the Fourth Crusade militarily and the financial power offered by his control of what was left of the imperial treasury increased his popularity, while Kanabos’ sanctuary in Hagia Sophia quickly sapped any support he still had.
Within a week of Kanabos’ elevation - “six days and six nights” (Novgorod Chronicle’s version of The Tale of the Capture of Constantinople by the Franks), his support had subsided so much that during the night, he was left largely unprotected, allowing Alexios V to have Nicholas and his wife arrested, an act that surely saw the breaching of the sanctuary offered by Hagia Sophia.
The lack of riposte from supporters of Kanabos reflects not only the hour and success of Alexios’ operation, but also how completely support for Kanabos had collapsed. After being placed in a dungeon, Nicholas Kanabos was executed, likely through beheading, although given the execution method used against Alexios IV by followers of Alexios V, strangulation cannot be ruled out.
Alexios V Mourtzouphlos might have been more forthright in his leadership than Nicholas Kanabos and more popular with the Constantinopolitan citizenry than Isaac II and Alexios IV, but ultimately he could do nothing to prevent the imperial cataclysm that his predecessors had brought upon the Roman Empire. Just over two months after the abortive usurpation of Nicholas Kanabos, Constantinople was captured by the forces of the Fourth Crusade, its empire in the process of being carved apart and Alexios V fleeing for his life.
Bibliography
Savignac, D. ‘The Medieval Russian Account of the Fourth Crusade - A New Annotated Translation’ (2020)
Giarenis, I. ‘The Crisis of the Fourth Crusade in Byzantium (1203–1204) and the Emergence of Networks for Anti-Latin Reaction and Political Action’, Mediterranean World 23 (2017) 73-80
Hendrickx, B. and Matzukis, C. ‘Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouphlos: His Life, Reign and Death (?–1204)’, Hellenika 31 (1979) 111-117
Madden, T.F. ‘The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, 1203–1204: A Damage Assessment’, BZ 84-85 (1992) 72–93.
Madden, T.F. ‘Outside and Inside the Fourth Crusade’, IHR 17 (1995) 726-743
Comments