Page 173 - 1

It is (not only) the will of god»: the king-doms of Cyprus and Cilician Armenia... 173

of Byzantium’s eastern politics. Throughout the twelfth century, espe-
cially after the fall of Edessa in 1144, for instance, Antioch grew into
one of the primary targets for the empire, which sought to enforce
Greek authority in the region, with some success. The fall of Edessa
was so disastrous for the Antiochenes that a shift of allegiance was
inevitable even though there was a considerable anti-imperial senti-
ment among them. In the twelfth century, Byzantine emperors visited
Antioch three times, offering military support, forging marriage alli-
ances, and installing a Greek patriarch (by Manuel I Komnenos, dur-
ing his visit in 1158), all of which was intended to implement imperial
superiority . Nonetheless, the status of the empire fell from 1182 on-
85
wards, after Andronikos Komnenos took the throne. In this period, the
Principality of Antioch stood between two larger polities, Byzantium
and Jerusalem. Its shift of loyalties was directly related to the political
atmosphere. Events in the latter half of this century changed the rela-
tions between Byzantium and the Principality of Antioch, and, after
the defeat of Myriokephalon crippled the empire's power, it became
less favorable for Antiochenes to sustain an alliance with the empire .
86
Byzantium, therefore, sought to exercise its authority widely in the
twelfth century, with Cilician Armenia playing a role in that.
To return to Cilician Armenia in this context, Emperor Henry, who
had already welcomed the opportunity to crown Aimery, sent Conrad
of Hildesheim and a papal legate, Archbishop Conrad of Mayence to
arrange the coronation of Leo. The papacy made the unification of the
churches a condition and requested that important feast days, canon-
ical hours, fasts, and rituals should follow the Latin Christian calen-
dar exactly, and that Armenian prelates should swear to implement
these conditions before the coronation . Although Nerses, a pro-Latin,
87

85 A.D. Buck, The Principality of Antioch and its Frontiers in the Twelfth Century, The
Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2017, p. 189-190. For the diplomatic consequences of the
overlordship see I. Auge, Byzantins, Arméniens et Francs au temps de la Croisade : Poli-
tique Religieuse et Reconquête en Orient sous la Dynastie des Comnènes, 1081–1185,
Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris, 2007, pp. 108-113. For a historiographical
discussion about the politics and the Principality of Antioch, see A. D. Buck, Politics
and Diplomacy in the Latin East: The Principality of Antioch in Historiographical Perspec-
tive, «History Compass», 15-9 (2017), pp. 1-9.
86 A.D. Buck, The Principality of Antioch, cit., p. 214; H.E. Mayer, Varia Antiochena:
Studien zum Kreuzfahrerfürstentum Antiochia im 12. und frühen 13. Jahrhundert, MGH
Studien und Texte, Harrassowitz, Hannover, 1993, p. 163; C. Mutafian, The Brilliant
Diplomacy of Cilician Armenia, cit., p. 97.
87 P. Halfter, Papacy, Catholicosate and Kingdom of Cilician Armenia, cit., p. 118.
Early requests of the papacy focused on a number of matters, such as celebrating the
days of the saints on the same calendar, alterations to fasts such as the Nativity and
Lent, and locating Church organisation inside church buildings; B. Hamilton, The Ar-
menian Church and the Papacy cit., pp. 70-71. It is also said that Leo told the bishops

Mediterranea - ricerche storiche - Anno XIX - Aprile 2022
ISSN 1824-3010 (stampa) ISSN 1828-230X (online)