The Suspicious Case of the Death of Emperor John II Komnenos – Cui Bono? John II Komnenos is one of many medieval monarchs, and indeed Byzantine Emperors, to have died in a hunting accident. His death in the midst of a military expedition that could have changed the political landscape in the Middle East has immediately garnered suspicions of foul play. Robert Browning proposed this in 1961 in his article on the death of John. He proposed the existence of an unknown assassin, based on two lesser-known sources. These both imply that his death was not accidental, contrary to every other historical source both Byzantine or otherwise. In this paper I will seek to understand the circumstances of John’s death by establishing it’s exact context, both on the micro and macro levels, and through this answer the question of cui bono? Through answering this question we can determine whether it was either possible or likely that John was killed by foul play. And either way who it was that benefitted from his death, adding to our understanding of his death. 2. To begin with the micro context, the sources agree that on 1st April 1143 John went hunting in the Taurus mountains (see Fig 1 for a map, though if it were wholly accurate it would have mountains almost everywhere), according to Niketas Choniates along a ravine next to a twin peaked mountain known as the Crows’ Nest, and according to the Armenian Chronicle of Vahram of Edessa near Anazarbus, he came across a wild boar. Choniates and John Kinnamos, our two Byzantine historians, say that he was on foot and impaled the boar with a spear, but that the boars charge was strong enough that his right arm was thrown back and accidentally struck poisoned arrows that the Emperor had on his back, with Kinnamos saying it was his wrist and Choniates that it was along the interdigital folds of his last two fingers. 3. This implies that John either wore a riding quiver with the arrow points facing upwards as on the left contemporary icon, 4. or indeed no quiver at all such as in the right image. William of Tyre, our principal Latin historian, instead says that he had bow in hand and from carelessly pricking his fingers on the arrow whilst drawing it he became poisoned – this being illustrated in various copies of William’s History such as this one: 5. which is from a 15h century manuscript in the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Both the illustration and the details of William’s account are almost certainly untrue in this detail though, as in all periods from ancient to modern, nobody hunts boar with bow and arrow and always with spears due to the thickness of their hide (Richard Almond’s book on medieval hunting did most of the legwork on this point), and because hunting boar on foot with spears was seen as a heroic act. This is fairly established in popular culture these days in media such as game of thrones (which seems to be the ‘in’ popular reference at this conference based on what I’ve heard thus far, so I thought last night I’d get my own reference in here: 6. where we have their King Robert hunting boar with a spear, and indeed he too dies from his battle with the boar – showing perhaps again that why hunting was popular was due to its very real similarity with war in its risk of death and skill at arms, which all of our histories note. Indeed Byzantine strategic manuals such as Maurice’s Strategikon mention a military hunt where 800-1000men per mile were involved, drawn up like a battle line and slowly enclosing game, which gave soldiers both exercise and the ability to negotiate all types of landscape while maintaining position in ranks, in addition to game to supplement provisions. Komnenoi emperors in particular had portrayed themselves as great hunters and warriors in comtemporary Byzantine culture: 7. John’s monastery of Christ Pantokrator in Constantinople has floor decorations with hunting scenes and images of Samson, which relate to the popular romance of Digenes Akrites that dates from this period. The heroic Digenes had a palace decorated with images of Samson and other Old Testament and classical heroes such as Herakles as a hunter, and his father is described in the romance as akin to Samson in his valour. Thus John would most certainly have engaged the boar on foot to live up to his image as a veritable Digenes, particularly as he was no stranger to facing his enemies head on, as shown by his charge on foot against the wagon ramparts of the Pechenegs with his Varangian Guard at the battle of Beroia, mentioned by Choniates and Kinnamos; 8. and the omnipresence of his gold helmet amongst the troops at the siege of Shaizar as reported by William of Tyre, to name but two examples. William’s misrepresentation, and indeed the subsequent illustrations are likely due to assorted monks not having the knowledge that every noble hunter would have, William himself likely being from merchant rather than noble stock. Thus we have the image of how this incident occurred according to our primary sources – the next debate regards the idea of poison as the cause of death, which may have implications as to any possibility of foul play. Every source mentions the arrows being poisoned and this leading to his death – medical doctors and surgeons Lascaratos and Voros, both at the university of Athens, wrote in the journal of wound care in 1998 an article positing that John’s death was not due to poison as supported by historians, but infection, possibly of mixed microbial aetiology, which caused the wound to develop soft necrotic tissue. 9. It is my impression that this article is held in awe my most historians who see in it a lot of medical terms and a scientific analysis that would seem to allow a clear answer, and thus other historians religiously cite it. It relates the sequence of events clearly, stating the two accounts of the wound gained on either the wrist or on the fingers, how an ekdora, or thin piece of leather was placed upon it, how originally there was no pain, then an oedema developed which was then lanced with incisions on the advice of John’s physicians, while removing the leather and sprinkling it with anti-inflammatories. The sources say that despite the incisions the oedema returned and spread up his arm, leading to the physicians to recommend amputation, which John refused saying ‘The emperor of the Romans cannot be permitted to steer the ship of state with one hand’, thus leading to his death. Doctors Lascaratos and Voros note that the most common poisons in antiquity were from plants such as Aconitum napellus, Atropa belladonna, Hyosciamus niger and Datura stramonium, as well as venom from certain snakes. They posit, that were one of these poisons to have poisoned John, he would have had immediate symptoms rather than it delaying for most of a day, and that he would have had sweating, nausea, hypotension, tachypnoeia, regional edenopathy, tachycardia and haematalogic and neuro-muscular disorders. Instead it was delayed onset, and produced what in modern times we call a severe necrotising soft tissue infection, which is likely caused by anaerobic microbes such as Clostridium perfringens, Clostridium septicum, Bacteroides or Peptostreptococcus, all of which explain the post-traumatic necrotising tissue, the oedema and compartment syndrome, with its spread up the arm being particularly related to Streptococcus rather than one of the Clostridia. Now this all sounds hugely impressive, with so much medical jargon you can see why historians are inclined to believe it, however it does make two errors with our sources. One is assuming that historians writing half a century after the event (as all the sources mentioned thus far did) would have known, or indeed listed, all the symptoms, I ask would someone really have noted that the Emperor was sweating and vomiting? Let alone the less easily diagnosable symptoms. Secondly they completely ignore the fact that Kinnamos and Choniates note that John experienced not just lack of pain but numbness (greek narkos, the same word narkosin is used in the panygyric in the fourth line from the bottom) around the wound before the pain set in. I don't claim to have the medical experience of these doctors, but it would seem they have missed a symptom. 10. I therefore went on NHS direct and typed in these symptoms – a 56 year old man, suffering numbness for the first 24 hours after an injury, then excruciating pain, oedema, and all the rest (incidentally they did say this man should go to hospital immediately). What came out though – Arsenic or heavy metal poisoning, or alternatively one of these poisons with an infection, which was all too common in the middle ages, and would have expedited the symptoms (recall he did die over the course of 8 days, rather than longer as is more common with both arsenic and heavy metal poisoning). Therefore we must not rule out poison as the cause of death, as historians have tended to do since the article in the journal of wound care. Indeed arsenic is traditionally known as the king of poisons and poison of kings due to its prevalence in the ruling classes killing each other with it, cited by the Byzantine author Zosimus and many others who also describe how it may be gathered, thus any educated medieval noble would have been able to procure some and deliver it to the Emperor in a multitude of ways, with the excuse of a poisoned arrow wound when it started working. For example Choniates tells that the Emperor went back to camp and took dinner, and then the next day came the pain – if I was of a deeply suspicious mind I would suggest Choniates is implying something by mentioning the usual act of having dinner so prominently, but this is purely circumstantial of course. So what other evidence do we have? Or more specifically, what was Browning going on about when he suggested assassination. Almost every historian says: ‘Browning goes too far in his analysis…’ I found this exact phrase in three different works, which as with many things in this paper made me think ‘well does he?’ and look seriously at what he is presenting. As stated, he bases his theory on two lesser-known accounts, an anonymous panygyric to the Patriarch Michael II Oxeites, and a poem that is likely to be by Ioannes Tzetses, possibly about John. On reading his article I came across the first problem: 11. He cites a lot of Greek in this article, assuming that everyone reading it will nod sagely, understanding perfectly, and agree with him, which particularly amongst Latin focused crusade historians is certainly not the case, leading him to come off as someone who provides a piece of untranslated text, then says QED and sits there smugly – for example this section here where he says: “he would hardly ask the question in the penultimate sentence if everyone knew what the answer was”. Failings with his style aside though, has he got anything here? I’ve spent my time translating it all into English to find out. The poem (Fig. 2 on the handout) is anonymous and the Emperor it is describing is unclear. It is contained in two manuscripts with tiny differences in Oxford and Paris that contain other works by Tzetses, and its style is similar to his other poems, therefore Brownings authorial identification would seem sound. As for the Emperor, Alexios and Manuel died in their beds from natural causes, Alexios II was strangled while still a child and therefore would not have bled as noted in the poem, and nor did he win great victories as the beginning of the poem says. Andronikos I also did not win great victories, and equally was slowly tortured to death by the Constantinopolitan mob which would not have earned him such a lament, Alexios III died in a monastery, Isaac II died in shock at the arrest of his son having been already blinded, that son being Alexios IV who was strangled by Alexios V and who in turn was blinded and thrown from the top of Theodosius’ column in the Forum Tauri on the orders of Latin Emperor Baldwin I. Browning points out that this fairly grim laundry list goes far beyond any lifespan of Tzetses or any other Komnenian poet, thus the only great conqueror worthy of mourning who was struck down before his time is John II. On reading the poem though, the crucial sentence is: 12. But O mighty crowned master, earth and heaven are confused and dark, how was he allowed to fall, how was he wholly overpowered in this way and he was hit easily? This would seem to imply an assasin, but then it could also be the poet lamenting fate striking the Emperor down so this is hardly conclusive, and even if it does refer to a human agent it is as much a conspiracy theory as one we might make today. So I turn to Brownings second source. This (Fig. 3 on the handout) is an anonymous panygyric on Patriarch Michael (who was in office between 1143 and 6, thus was hugely proximate to the time unlike the 50 or so year gap of the other sources) that contains a list of John’s victories with Manuel at his side, and then this account of John’s death and Manuel’s succession. 13. Again, there is one crucial part in the account of his death: O arrow out of reach and unexpected wound: O right hand unmoved and untrembling, unmoving, unknown under who’s urging your untiring right hand was benumbed, who ungoverable drew in those hands? This being the question I referred to Browning asking before, when he asks why would the panegyricist write this if the answer was just John did it. Again though, the panegyricist could just be referring to fate, or indeed providence that brought Manuel to power early, so this is hardly good evidence of foul play. However, the source goes on (part 2 of Fig 3) and then we do find something interesting. 14. We seem to have the army, and specifically the Varangian guard, saluting Manuel as Emperor, and then John just nodding assent. Indeed the reference to counting the pebbles refers to the classical Greek system of voting for the most worthy leader. This exact phrase, epipsefizetai tais psefois, is also used by Choniates, though he places it after John gives a very long speech justifying why Manuel should be Emperor due to his finer qualities vis-a-vis John’s other son Isaac who was in Constantinople, and includes the army saluting Manuel as Emperor after this speech, as does Kinnamos and William of Tyre, who also report this lengthy speech or parts of it in the latter case. We would seem therefore to have three sources from 50 years later, that would seem to have preserved a very lengthy speech explaining why Manuel should be Emperor. As in all good police work, it would seem that everyone has got together and got their story agreed on, aside from the source that comes from the time that puts these events in a slightly different, but crucially different, order. May I posit that John was incapacitated by pain for much of these 8 days, and that Manuel took advantage of the situation by arranging the army, and specifically the Varangian guard to get behind him, and then John assented after the fact, or indeed there was a short visit to the tent followed by Manuel coming out saying his father had ‘assented’, with the lengthy speech by ‘John’ crafted after the fact? This possibility is supported by the fact that Manuel’s older brother Isaac had to be incarcerated at the monastery of Christ Pantokrator until Manuel could take control of the capital, before he was finally exiled, showing the threat he posed. Also in an incident recorded by Kinnamos in 1144-6 where John Auxouch, John’s second in command and childhood friend, praised Emperor John and his son Isaac to the detriment of Manuel in public and has a short duel with Manuel’s cousin Andronikos that had to be broken up by Manuel, which is expounded upon in an article by Paul Magdalino. Auxouch was to die from old age soon after this, but his son was shortly to be accused of witchcraft, hugely unusual in this period and particularly of someone who who had married a member of the imperial family, and then exiled, in what Kinnamos also mentions are fabricated charges. It would seem therefore that for those in the camp in 1143, John’s wishes as to the succession were hardly clear cut if John’s best friend doubted Manuel should be Emperor. It should also be noted that the Varangians, like the scholae, exhubitores and indeed Praetorian Guard before them, had often played the decisive role in imperial successions, see Alastair Carroll’s unpublished thesis on “The Role of the Varangian guard in Byzantine rebellions and usurpations, 988-1204” for multiple examples time pressures forbid me from going into today. Thus it would seem in the micro context that murder was a possibility, and even were it not done, Manuel would definitely seem to have taken advantage of the situation. Now in the last part of my paper I turn to the macro context to establish motives, and answer the question of who else benefitted from John’s death. 15. First – the Armenian Cilicians. John’s first expedition against Antioch in 1137 had begun with a lightning campaign of conquest through Cilicia. Our sources are hugely unclear as to who owned what in Cilicia - William of Tyre saying Antioch owned it all, Choniates that it was all Armenian – an imperial oration by Michael Italikos suggests that there was an Armenian part and a Frankish part, and yet there are also talks of Turks around in Armenian sources (who suggest that the Byzantines invited them in to torment the Armenians) and Byzantine poems, where a multitude of ‘Persian’, meaning Turkish, slaves were taken in the area. The picture that emerges is of a lawless, heavily fortified region controlled by local warlords, rather than many distinct powers competing for this area. What is clear is that with the arrival of John, the Byzantines once again became top dog, and John sought to embed the Byzantine state back into the region. One of William of Tyre’s few criticisms of John is his installing of Greek bishops in the area, replacing both Latin and Armenian prelates. A letter from a Jewish doctor in Seleucia to his relatives in Egypt commends the security Jews felt there and asks them to join him, though Seleucia had previously been under attack by Baron Leo, and by Manuel’s reign Kinnamos notes ‘native soldiers’ were being raised there, while Robert Edward’s study on the castles of Armenian Cilicia notes much building work done during the reign. With the death of John, Thoros II, sometimes known as the Great, who had been imprisoned together with his brother Roupen and father Leo in Constantinople by John, managed to escape in the confusion of the succession whilst disguised as a shepherd, to return to Armenia and be a thorn in Manuel’s side for his entire reign. Therefore certainly Thoros and the Armenians benefitted from the death of John. 16. Secondly – Zengi and the Muslims of the Middle East. John’s first expedition had shown that when the Crusaders were reinforced by the Byzantines they could certainly threaten the Muslim states, as John taking Shaizar and moving onto Aleppo was only stopped by the reticence of Raymond, Prince of Antioch and Joscelin II of Edessa to get involved, with William of Tyre providing us with the image of them playing dice while John conducts the siege. It was through this fear and his own martial skills that Zengi had been able to become atabeg of Mosul, Aleppo, and Hama in the last few years, and with the death of John he was able to take Edessa too and found the Zengid dynasty, thus he too is surely a beneficiary of John’s death. 17. Crucially though, one of the key beneficiaries would be Raymond of Poitiers, Prince of Antioch. Unlike John’s first Antioch campaign, this one had been accompanied by a cunning diplomatic offensive in both Europe and the other crusader states. John had passified the Pope through an exchange of letters preserved in the Vatican where he had even proposed to Innocent II and he could bring unity to the old Roman empire through alliance. At the same time embassies were sent to the Western Emperor Conrad III to keep him onside and the Normans of Sicily occupied by the Germans, whilst Venice and Pisa were also given gifts and trade privileges. At the same time John had proposed a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to lend his support there, even though King Fulk had refused, allegedly on account of not being able to feed John’s army though more likely due to his own wariness, leading to John sending golden candelabra and funds to the Holy Sepulchre. Indeed a poem by Theodore Prodromos implies that it was John, and not Manuel, who paid to have the couch of the Holy Sepulchre covered in gold (This is Fig 4 on the handout). 18. Ralph-Johannes Lilie characterizes the reign of John as being ‘the height of conflict’ between the crusader states and the Byzantines, while that of Manuel adopted more of a soft power approach with acts such as the patronizing of churches. It would seem though that John’s second expedition had already adopted this approach – in his first campaign John had siege weapons attack Antioch to bring them to the negotiation table, this time Choniates says he ‘forbade warfare with Christians’ and only allowed his troops to pillage the suburbs, and specifically to raid the Antiochene fruit trees, for provisions. This softer approach combined with the threat of a large army was what would gain Manuel the city and Prince Raynalds whole-hearted allegiance in 1159, thus it is easy to assume that had John lived this later status quo would have been established earlier, and possibly under more restrictive terms. Browning himself notes that there were many Latins in John’s army and that Manuel was their commanding officer, and that all our sources note how popular Manuel was with the Latins, and that they may well have convinced him to seize power to improve their own situation. The answer to the question of who benefitted from John’s death would therefore seem to be a long one, but a conspiracy of Manuel, the Latins and possibly some Armenian Cilician Lords during the slow winter months would not seem wholly outrageous, if not in arranging his death then certainly in taking advantage of it. 19. To conclude, we do not have enough evidence to say that John was murdered during his hunt in Cilicia, though nor do we have enough evidence to exclude the possibility as most historians have thought. What we certainly do have, is a list of beneficiaries from his death, and source evidence stating that Manuel’s succession was possibly not ordained in the same way that our later sources state. Whether we will ever fully answer this question is uncertain, but from this paper I hope you see that the debate is far from determined as may have been thought previously. Thank you.