International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Maximilian Lau
Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan; 
[e-mail]
Emperor John II Komnenos and the Imperial Crisis of 1126
The reign of John II Komnenos has often been overlooked in favour of his father Alexios 
and his son Manuel, with most research on his reign only carried out as part of broader regional 
or bilateral studies, such as those regarding Byzantium in the Balkans, Byzantium and Venice or 
Byzantium and the Turks. Coupled with this is an overreliance on narratives whose focus is not 
John, particularly Kinnamos and Choniates, who often omit or misrepresent information as part of 
their broader narrative goals or lack of knowledge. 
The sources problem can, however, be overcome through use of both occasional court texts 
from rhetors such as Prodromos, Basilakes and Italikos, and regional texts such as those of the 
Priest of Diokleia and Michael the Syrian. Equally, recent archaeology can provide an intersection 
between rhetoric and the reality on the ground, such that the narrative provided by Kinnamos and 
Choniates can be re-evaluated. 
Incorporating these sources therefore illuminates previously unclear events of his reign, and 
in particular the 1120s, where the basic chronology has for many years open to debate. Particularly, 
when exactly John campaigned against the Serbs and when he fought a war with Hungary has 
long been a matter of opinion due to contradictory sources. Equally his war with Venice has been 
interpreted as a pointless endeavour, particularly as the emperor’s efforts may have been better 
expended in Anatolia. 
This paper will delineate that through using all of these sources, a coherent chronology can 
be established, and one that clarifies the emperor’s actions and policies in the Balkans. This is in 
addition to highlighting how the Constantinopolitan sources marginalise or omit actions in which 

---

539
the emperor did not take part. Equally, the reason why peace with Venice was sought at this time 
can be determined, as far from a humiliating climb down such a course of action was the lesser 
evil in comparison with developing situations in both the Balkans and Anatolia. The coincidence 
of three fugitive princes of Diokleia, Hungary and Ikonion seeking support in Constantinople 
simultaneously has not previously been recognised, and John’s attempt to deal with them all while 
prosecuting a war with Venice caused overextension, revolt in Trebizond and thus a crisis of empire 
that scholarship has previously overlooked.
Faced with multiple fronts, John focused on ending the Serb insurrection and defending his 
lands from Stephen of Hungary, whilst still financing Mas’ud to retake Ikonion. He reformed his 
fleet after making a treaty with Venice, and with the Balkans settled he re-entered the Anatolian 
theatre with Mas’ud as an ally to take on both the Danishmendids and push through towards the 
rebellious Trebizond. 
This paper will thus rewrite the historical narrative and open up a new dimension on how 
John’s foreign policy operated: his cumulative acquisition of client rulers to pursue increasingly 
ambitious campaigns. As such, it will raise broader questions regarding the nature of empire after 
the crises of the eleventh century, and thus the nature of the twelfth-century Komnenian restoration.