With Constantinople back in Roman hands we explore the one vantage point we’ve ignored: the last Latin Emperor Baldwin II. Dr John Giebfried returns to give us Baldwin’s biography.
Pic: Seal of Baldwin II
John completed his PhD in Medieval History at St Louis University in 2015 and has subsequently worked at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Georgia Southern University, East Georgia State College, and since 2022 has been a faculty member at the University of Vienna, where he teaches History and Digital Humanities. His academic work focuses on the Crusades, the Crusader-States, and European interactions with the Mongols.
Period: 1215-61
Stream: Baldwin II with John Giebfried
Download: Baldwin II with John Giebfried
RSS Feed: The History of Byzantium
If you want to send in feedback to the podcast:
– Either comment on this post.
– Or on the facebook page.
– Leave a review on Itunes.
The History of Byzantium 
John Giebfried’s take on Constantinople being the sole thing that defines a ‘Byzantine’ emperor had me cringing the entire time. I mean, if Byzantine is how you see this empire and it’s people then maybe, but when you are more interested in history than fantasy then no, Constantinople was not the sole requirement to be a Roman Emperor. Control of the City was of course important when Romans were fighting Romans, but to suggest ethnicity didn’t play a bigger role I think is another way we dismiss the medieval Roman identity as being merely Greeks larping or, God forbid, Byzantines. I believe there was a 15th century rebuttal by a Roman when Mehmed II referred to himself as being Caesar of the Romans, and this is no different. And then for him to suggest that these Syrian and Armenian dynasties are somehow not Roman is simply denying the fact that individuals can have multiple identities, that ethnicity is a lot more fluid than people appreciate, and that these dynasties were very much deep-seated in the cultural roots of Rome, tracing their cultural heritage to Aeneas fleeing Troy unlike Baldwin II and the Latin emperors. Sure they may have called themselves the Emperors of the Romans, but they did not call themselves Romans on a daily basis as far as I’m aware (nor did anyone in the west but for the people of elder Rome), and when the east Romans themselves didn’t consider the crusaders to be the true emperors, I believe that has a far more significant role in determining the Roman Emperor than merely controlling the City. It didn’t matter if you were from Cappadocia, Armenia, Antioch or Greece, just like in antiquity, in the Medieval period the Roman identity was not confined to just one city; cultural heritage and ethnic Identity are the key factors. What it meant to be a Roman changed throughout the ages, yes, just like what it means to be American has, but that does not negate the authenticity of one’s ethnicity. Constantine and Justinian being Christian did not make him any less Roman than Augustus or Diocletian.
Great episode beyond that. I always appreciate your work and look forward to it every week.
First-time commenter but long time listener.
I am also skeptical of the argument for a Flemish dynasty for the same reasons as the poster above.
If I have to guess I’d say Doctor Giebfried has fallen into the trap of many revisionist historians (not to be confused with negationist ones, despite how much the latter try to tie themselves to the former) and upon seeing a certain bias in historiography they overcorrect and go too far in the other direction.
In this case he isn’t wrong that the perspective and inner workings of the Latin side tend to be underrepresented in the Historiography of the period these days and that Baldwin II is a more interesting figure than the usual caricature that is painted of him. Furthermore, his argument against considering the Nicean emperors to be Byzantine emperors like all others is also compelling. When you think about a lot of their claims to that title do indeed come from the fact they win at the end and are therefore tainted with presentism. While he goes too far in the other direction by making the case for a Flemish dynasty I think a rather strong case could be made for this period to be considered a ”Byzantine Interegnum”, where nobody would be THE Basileus.
Hopefully in a few decades or so we’d see a post-revisionist school of history on the period emerge, which would find a more accurate stance between the takes of traditional and revisionist historians who preceded it.
I agree with you both. I think lots of scholars seem to assume that the Roman Empire is an authoritarian dictatorship and so anyone in power could be the Emperor. As you mention this is then attributed to the Ottomans by some.
This ignores both the ethnic component of being Roman but also the job description. Anthony Kaldellis’ new book sets out the duties and expectations of a Roman Emperor. When someone failed in these they were seen as illegitimate. Protecting Orthodoxy was certainly one of these and so Latins and Turks can not in my eyes claim the title. Nor could a Latin king really protect the Roman way of life since they had no respect for it.
I don’t disagree with the contentions above, but I wonder what might have happened in the unlikely event that the Latin Empire ended up succeeding? Henry of Flanders was more generous to the Romans than most, and had his enterprise paid off and ultimately risen instead of Nicaea or Epirus, I wonder would history remember them as Roman Emperors or as conquerors like the Ottomans?
While the 4th Crusade was a shocking event, Robin was right to point out that it was perceived locally as more or less a civil war, at least at first, and the reality is that the lines were starting to blur between the Latin and Roman worlds even in Manuel’s day, with more and more dynastic interconnection and, as time progressed, more and more pushes for church union. I wouldn’t consider Michael VIII or John VIII Palaiologos illegitimate Emperors, for instance, and both pushed hard for union with the Catholics.