Roman Emperor Alexios I Komnenos – a quick view

Alexios had been Emperor from 1081–1118. He is often viewed as one of Byzantium’s great emperors, in part because of the memorable impression of his reign in the Alexiad, written by his daughter Anna Komnene. 


He found the empire beset by foreign enemies, which he successively defeated, or at least neutralized. The greatest threat by far was from the Normans. For the first four years of his reign he fought the Normans under Robert Guiscard and Bohemund, whose attack on Dyrrachion was intended as a prelude to an attack on Constantinople. From 1085–1091 he concentrated on defending the northern frontier from incursions by the Pechenegs, who Alexios annihilated at the battle of Mount Lebounion in 1091. After 1091 he turned his attention to the Seljuks of Asia Minor, sending appeals for mercenaries to the West. The response was the First Crusade, which sent thousands of unruly Crusaders to Constantinople, among whom was a Norman contingent led by Alexios’s former enemy Bohemund. Alexios’s handling of the First Crusade was masterful, as seen in his acquisition of Nicaea in 1097. His internal policy consisted of reforms of both court titles and coinage, which included the gold hyperpyron. He defended Orthodoxy by persecuting the Bogomils and John Italos and supporting monastic establishments on Mount Athos and Patmos. However, Alexios’s brilliance staved off decline in the short term. Moreover, his granting of unrestricted trading privileges to Venice in 1082, in return for Venetian help against the Normans, undermined future long-term recovery.

(Source: «Historical Dictionary of Byzantium», by John H. Rosser)

The third son of John Comnenus and a nephew of Isaac I (emperor 1057–59), Alexius came from a distinguished Byzantine landed family and was one of the military magnates who had long urged more effective defense measures, particularly against the Turks’ encroaching on Byzantine provinces in eastern and central Anatolia. From 1068 to 1081 he gave able military service during the short reigns of Romanus IV, Michael VII, and Nicephorus III. Then, with the support of his brother Isaac and his mother, the formidable Anna Dalassena, and with that of the powerful Ducas family, to which his wife, Irene, belonged, he seized the Byzantine throne from Nicephorus III.

Alexius was crowned on April 4, 1081. After more than 50 years of ineffective or short-lived rulers, Alexius, in the words of Anna Comnena, his daughter and biographer, found the empire “at its last gasp,” but his military ability and diplomatic gifts enabled him to retrieve the situation. He drove back the south Italian Normans, headed by Robert Guiscard, who were invading western Greece (1081–82). This victory was achieved with Venetian naval help, bought at the cost of granting Venice extensive trading privileges in the Byzantine Empire. In 1091 he defeated the Pechenegs, Turkic nomads who had been continually surging over the Danube River into the Balkans. Alexius halted the further encroachment of the Seljuq Turks, who had already established the sultanate of Rūm (or Konya) in central Anatolia. He made agreements with Sulaymān ibn Qutalmïsh of Konya (1081) and subsequently with his son Qïlïch Arslan (1093), as well as with other Muslim rulers on Byzantium’s eastern border.

At home, Alexius’s policy of strengthening the central authority and building up professional military and naval forces resulted in increased Byzantine strength in western and southern Anatolia and eastern Mediterranean waters. But he was unable or unwilling to limit the considerable powers of the landed magnates who had threatened the unity of the empire in the past. Indeed, he strengthened their position by further concessions, and he had to reward services, military and otherwise, by granting fiscal rights over specified areas. This method, which was to be increasingly employed by his successors, inevitably weakened central revenues and imperial authority. He repressed heresy and maintained the traditional imperial role of protecting the Eastern Orthodox church, but he did not hesitate to seize ecclesiastical treasure when in financial need. He was subsequently called to account for this by the church.

To later generations Alexius appeared as the ruler who pulled the empire together at a crucial time, thus enabling it to survive until 1204, and in part until 1453, but modern scholars tend to regard him, together with his successors John II (reigned 1118–43) and Manuel I (reigned 1143–80), as having effected only stopgap measures. Judgments of Alexius must be tempered by allowing for the extent to which he was handicapped by the inherited internal weaknesses of the Byzantine state and, even more, by the series of crises precipitated by the western European Crusaders from 1097 onward. The Crusading movement, motivated partly by a desire to recapture the holy city of Jerusalem, partly by the hope of acquiring new territory, increasingly encroached on Byzantine preserves and frustrated Alexius’s foreign policy, which was primarily directed toward the reestablishment of imperial authority in Anatolia. His relations with Muslim powers were disrupted on occasion, and former valued Byzantine possessions, such as Antioch, passed into the hands of arrogant Western princelings, who even introduced Latin Christianity in place of Greek. Thus, it was during Alexius’s reign that the last phase of the clash between the Latin West and the Greek East was inaugurated. He did regain some control over western Anatolia; he also advanced into the southeast Taurus region, securing much of the fertile coastal plain around Adana and Tarsus, as well as penetrating farther south along the Syrian coast. But neither Alexius nor succeeding Comnenian emperors were able to establish permanent control over the Latin Crusader principalities. Nor was the Byzantine Empire immune from further Norman attacks on its western islands and provinces—as in 1107–08, when Alexius successfully repulsed Bohemond I of Antioch’s assault on Avlona in western Greece. Continual Latin (particularly Norman) attacks, constant thrusts from Muslim principalities, the rising power of Hungary and the Balkan principalities—all conspired to surround Byzantium with potentially hostile forces. Even Alexius’s diplomacy, whatever its apparent success, could not avert the continual erosion that ultimately led to the Ottoman conquest.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: