Foreign and military affairs As a young man, Manuel had been determined to restore by force of arms the predominance of the Byzantine Empire in the Mediterranean countries. By the time he died in 1180, 37 years had passed since that momentous day in 1143 when, amid the wilds of Cilicia, his father had proclaimed him emperor. These years had seen Manuel involved in conflict with his neighbours on all sides. Manuel's father and grandfather before him had worked patiently to undo the damage done by the battle of Manzikert and its aftermath. Thanks to their efforts, the empire Manuel inherited was stronger and better organised than at any time for a century. While it is clear that Manuel used these assets to the full, it is not so clear how much he added to them, and there is room for doubt as to whether he used them to best effect. Manuel had proven himself to be an energetic emperor who saw possibilities everywhere, and whose optimistic outlook had shaped his approach to foreign policy. However, in spite of his military prowess Manuel achieved but a slight degree of his object of restoring the Byzantine Empire. Retrospectively, some commentators have criticised some of Manuel's aims as unrealistic, in particular citing the expeditions he sent to Egypt as proof of dreams of grandeur on an unattainable scale. His greatest military campaign, his grand expedition against the Turkish
Sultanate of Iconium, ended in humiliating defeat, and his greatest diplomatic effort apparently collapsed, when Pope Alexander III became reconciled to the German emperor Frederick Barbarossa at the
Peace of Venice. Historian Mark C. Bartusis argues that Manuel (and his father as well) tried to rebuild a national army, but his reforms were adequate for neither his ambitions nor his needs; the defeat at Myriokephalon underscored the fundamental weakness of his policies. According to
Edward Gibbon, Manuel's victories were not productive of any permanent or useful conquest. His short-term alliances outside the Balkans were made possible through his "immense sum of money". His advisors on western church affairs included the Pisan scholar
Hugh Eteriano.
Internal affairs Choniates criticised Manuel for raising citizen taxes and then excessively spending it. Whether one reads the Greek
encomiastic sources, or the Latin and oriental sources, the impression is consistent with Choniates' picture of an emperor who spent lavishly in all available ways, rarely economising in one sector in order to develop another. Manuel spared no expense on the army, the navy, diplomacy, ceremonial, palace-building, the Komnenian family, and other seekers of patronage. A significant amount of this expenditure was pure financial loss to the Empire, like the subsidies poured into Italy and the crusader states, and the sums spent on the failed expeditions of 1155–1156, 1169 and 1176. The problems this created were counterbalanced to some extent by his successes, particularly in the Balkans; Manuel extended the frontiers of his Empire in the Balkan region, ensuring security for the whole of Greece and
Bulgaria. Had he been more successful in all his ventures, he would have controlled not only the most productive farmland around the Eastern Mediterranean and Adriatic seas, but also the entire trading facilities of the area. Even if he did not achieve his ambitious goals, his
wars against Hungary brought him control of the Dalmatian coast, the rich agricultural region of Sirmium, and the Danube trade route from Hungary to the
Black Sea. His Balkan expeditions are said to have taken great booty in slaves and livestock. This allowed the Western provinces to flourish in an economic revival that had begun in the time of his grandfather Alexios I and continued till the close of the century. Indeed, it has been argued that Byzantium in the 12th century was richer and more prosperous than at any time since the
Persian invasion during the reign of
Heraclius, some five hundred years earlier. There is good evidence from this period of new construction and new churches, even in remote areas, strongly suggesting that wealth was widespread. Trade was also flourishing; it has been estimated that the population of Constantinople, the biggest commercial centre of the Empire, was between half a million and one million during Manuel's reign, making it by far the largest city in Europe. A major source of Manuel's wealth was the
kommerkion, a customs duty levied at Constantinople on all imports and exports. The
kommerkion was stated to have collected 20,000
hyperpyra each day. Furthermore, Constantinople was undergoing expansion. The cosmopolitan character of the city was being reinforced by the arrival of Italian merchants and Crusaders en route to the Holy Land. The Venetians, the
Genoese, and others opened up the ports of the Aegean to commerce, shipping goods from the Crusader kingdoms (
Outremer) and Fatimid Egypt to the west and trading with Byzantium via Constantinople. These maritime traders stimulated demand in the towns and cities of
Greece,
Macedonia, and the Greek Islands, generating new sources of wealth in a predominantly
agrarian economy.
Thessalonica, the second city of the Empire, hosted a famous summer fair that attracted traders from across the Balkans and further to its bustling market. In
Corinth, silk production fuelled a thriving economy. All this is a testament to the success of the Komnenian emperors in securing a
Pax Byzantina in these heartland territories.
Religious affairs There were three major theological controversies in the Byzantine empire in the second half of the 12th century, during Manuel's reign. The first regarded the question whether Christ had not only given, but received the sacrifice enacted in the
Eucharist. A synod was held in January 1156, which concluded that all of the
Holy Trinity received sacrifice, but the originator of the affair,
Nikephoros Basilakes, found an ally in Patriarch of Antioch-elect
Soterichos Panteugenos and continued the opposition to this. Panteugenos demanded to defend the view before Manuel, the
Council of Blachernae in May 1157 again concluded the same outcome, and when Panteugenos stubbornly defended the oppositve view before Manuel, he was subsequently dismissed from office as demanded by the senior prelates present. Ten years later, a controversy arose as to whether the saying of Christ, "My Father is greater than I", referred to his divine nature, to his human nature, or to the union of the two. Demetrius of Lampe, a Byzantine diplomat recently returned from the West, ridiculed the way the verse was interpreted there, that Christ was inferior to his father in his humanity but equal in his divinity. Manuel, on the other hand, perhaps with an eye on the project for Church union, found that the formula made sense, and prevailed over a majority in a synod convened on 2 March 1166 to decide the issue, where he had the support of the patriarch
Luke Chrysoberges and later Patriarch
Michael III. Those who refused to submit to the synod's decisions had their property confiscated or were exiled. According to Michael Angold, after the controversy of 1166 Manuel took his responsibilities very seriously, and tightened his grip over the church. 1166 was also the year in which Manuel first referred in his legislation to his role as the disciplinarian of the church (
epistemonarkhes). The political dimensions of this controversy are apparent from the fact that a leading dissenter from the Emperor's doctrine was his nephew Alexios Kontostephanos. A third controversy sprung up in 1180, when Manuel objected to the formula of solemn
abjuration, which was exacted from Muslim converts. One of the more striking
anathemas of this abjuration was that directed against the deity worshipped by
Muhammad and his followers: "And before all, I anathematize the God of Muhammad about whom he [Muhammad] says, "He is God alone, God made of solid, hammer-beaten metal; He begets not and is not begotten, nor is there like unto Him any one." The emperor ordered the deletion of this anathema from the Church's catechetical texts, a measure that provoked vehement opposition from both the patriarch and bishops.
Legacy Manuel is representative of a new kind of Byzantine ruler who was influenced by his contact with western Crusaders. He arranged
jousting matches, even participating in them, an unusual and discomforting sight for the Byzantines. Endowed with a fine physique, Manuel has been the subject of exaggeration in the Byzantine sources of his era, where he is presented as a man of great personal courage. According to the story of his exploits, which appear as a model or a copy of the romances of
chivalry, such was his strength and exercise in arms that Raymond of Antioch was incapable of wielding his lance and buckler. In a famous tournament, he is said to have entered the lists on a fiery
courser, and to have overturned two of the stoutest Italian knights. In one day, he is said to have slain forty Turks with his own hand, and in a battle against the Hungarians he allegedly snatched a banner, and was the first, almost alone, who passed a bridge that separated his army from the enemy. On another occasion, he is said to have cut his way through a squadron of five hundred Turks, without receiving a wound; he had previously posted an ambuscade in a wood and was accompanied only by his brother and Axouch. To the
rhetors of his court, Manuel was the "divine emperor". A generation after his death, Choniates referred to him as "the most blessed among emperors", and a century later John Stavrakios described him as "great in fine deeds".
John Phokas, a soldier who fought in Manuel's army, characterised him some years later as the "world saving" and glorious emperor. Manuel would be remembered in France, Italy, and the Crusader states as the most powerful sovereign in the world. A Genoese analyst noted that with the passing of "Lord Manuel of divine memory, the most blessed emperor of Constantinople ... all Christendom incurred great ruin and detriment." William of Tyre called Manuel "a wise and discreet prince of great magnificence, worthy of praise in every respect", "a great-souled man of incomparable energy", whose "memory will ever be held in benediction." Manuel was further extolled by
Robert of Clari as "a right worthy man, [...] and richest of all the Christians who ever were, and the most bountiful." A telling reminder of the influence that Manuel held in the Crusader states in particular can still be seen in the
church of the Holy Nativity in
Bethlehem. In the 1160s the nave was redecorated with mosaics showing the councils of the church. Manuel was one of the patrons of the work. On the south wall, an inscription in Greek reads: "the present work was finished by Ephraim the monk, painter and mosaicist, in the reign of the great emperor Manuel Porphyrogennetos Komnenos and in the time of the great
king of Jerusalem,
Amalric." That Manuel's name was placed first was a symbolic, public recognition of Manuel's overlordship as leader of the Christian world. Manuel's role as protector of the Orthodox Christians and Christian holy places in general is also evident in his successful attempts to secure rights over the Holy Land. Manuel participated in the building and decorating of many of the basilicas and Greek monasteries in the Holy Land, including the church of the
Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, where thanks to his efforts the Byzantine clergy were allowed to perform the Greek liturgy each day. All this reinforced his position as overlord of the Crusader states, with his hegemony over Antioch and Jerusalem secured by agreement with
Raynald,
Prince of Antioch, and Amalric, King of Jerusalem respectively. Manuel was also the last Byzantine emperor who, thanks to his military and diplomatic success in the
Balkans, could call himself "ruler of
Dalmatia,
Bosnia,
Croatia,
Serbia,
Bulgaria and
Hungary". Manuel died on 24 September 1180, having just celebrated the betrothal of his son Alexios II to the daughter of the king of France. He was laid to rest alongside his father in the
Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople. Thanks to the diplomacy and campaigning of Alexios, John and Manuel, the empire was a great power, economically prosperous, and secure on its frontiers; but there were serious problems as well. Internally, the Byzantine court required a strong leader to hold it together, and after Manuel's death stability was seriously endangered from within. Some of the foreign enemies of the Empire were lurking on the flanks, waiting for a chance to attack, in particular the Turks in Anatolia, whom Manuel had ultimately failed to defeat, and the Normans in Sicily, who had already tried but failed to invade the Empire on several occasions. Even Venice, the single most important western ally of Byzantium, was on bad terms with the empire at Manuel's death. Given this situation, it would have taken a strong emperor to secure the Empire against the foreign threats it now faced, and to rebuild the depleted imperial treasury. But Manuel's son was a minor, and his unpopular
regency government was overthrown in a violent ''
coup d'état''. This troubled succession weakened the dynastic continuity and solidarity on which the strength of the Byzantine state had come to rely. ==Genealogy==