text:
Andrew II of Hungary

Andrew II (II. András, Andrija II., Ondrej II., Андрій II; c. 1177 – 21 September 1235), also known as Andrew of Jerusalem, was King of Hungary and Croatia between 1205 and 1235. He ruled the Principality of Halych from 1188 until 1189/1190, and again between 1208/1209 and 1210. He was the younger son of Béla III of Hungary, who entrusted him with the administration of the newly conquered Principality of Halych in 1188. Andrew's rule was unpopular, and the boyars (or noblemen) expelled him. Béla III willed property and money to Andrew, obliging him to lead a crusade to the Holy Land. Instead, Andrew forced his elder brother, King Emeric of Hungary, to cede Croatia and Dalmatia as an appanage to him in 1197. The following year, Andrew occupied Hum.

Despite the fact that Andrew did not stop conspiring against Emeric, the dying king made Andrew guardian of his son, Ladislaus III, in 1204. After the premature death of Ladislaus, Andrew ascended the throne in 1205. According to historian László Kontler, "[i]t was amidst the socio-political turmoil during [Andrew's] reign that the relations, arrangements, institutional framework and social categories that arose under Stephen I, started to disintegrate in the higher echelons of society" in Hungary. Andrew introduced a new grants policy, the so-called "new institutions", giving away money and royal estates to his partisans despite the loss of royal revenues. He was the first Hungarian monarch to adopt the title of "King of Halych and Lodomeria". He waged at least a dozen wars to seize the two Rus' principalities, but was repelled by the local boyars and neighboring princes. He participated in the Fifth Crusade to the Holy Land in 1217–1218, but the crusade was a failure.

When the servientes regis, or "royal servants", rose up, Andrew was forced to issue the Golden Bull of 1222, confirming their privileges. This led to the rise of the nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. His Diploma Andreanum of 1224 listed the liberties of the Transylvanian Saxon community. The employment of Jews and Muslims to administer the royal revenues led him into conflict with the Holy See and the Hungarian prelates. Andrew pledged to respect the privileges of the clergymen and to dismiss his non-Christian officials in 1233, but he never fulfilled the latter promise.

Andrew's first wife, Gertrude of Merania, was murdered in 1213 because her blatant favoritism towards her German kinsmen and courtiers stirred up discontent among the native lords. The veneration of their daughter, Elizabeth of Hungary, was confirmed by the Holy See during Andrew's lifetime. After Andrew's death, his sons, Béla and Coloman, accused his third wife, Beatrice d'Este, of adultery and never considered her son, Stephen, to be a legitimate son of Andrew.

Childhood and youth (c. 1177–1197)
Andrew was the second son of King Béla III and Béla's first wife, Agnes of Antioch. The year of Andrew's birth is not known, but modern historians agree that he was born around 1177, considering that Margaret, who was born in 1175 or 1176, was his elder sister, which, however, is far from certain. Andrew was first mentioned in connection to his father's invasion of the Principality of Halych in 1188. That year, Béla III invaded Halych upon the request of its former prince, Vladimir II Yaroslavich, who had been expelled by his subjects. Béla forced the new prince, Roman Mstislavich, to flee. After conquering Halych, he granted it to Andrew. Béla also captured Vladimir Yaroslavich and imprisoned him in Hungary.

After Béla's withdrawal from Halych, Roman Mstislavich returned with the assistance of Rurik Rostislavich, Prince of Belgorod Kievsky. They tried to expel Andrew and his Hungarian retinue, but the Hungarians routed the united forces of Mstislavich and Rostislavich. A group of local boyars offered the throne to Rostislav Ivanovich, a distant cousin of the imprisoned Vladimir Yaroslavich. Béla III sent reinforcements to Halych, enabling Andrew's troops to repel the attacks. Andrew's nominal reign remained unpopular in Halych, because the Hungarian soldiers insulted local women and did not respect Orthodox churches. Consequently, the local boyars allied themselves with their former prince, Vladimir Yaroslavich, who had escaped from captivity and returned to Halych. Duke Casimir II of Poland also supported Vladimir Yaroslavich, and they expelled Andrew and his retinue from the principality in August 1189 or 1190. Andrew returned to Hungary after his defeat.

He did not receive a separate duchy from his father, who only gave him some fortresses, estates and money. According to historian Attila Zsoldos, these landholdings laid in Slavonia. On his deathbed, Béla III, who had pledged to lead a crusade to the Holy Land, ordered Andrew to fulfill his vow. Andrew's father died on 23 April 1196, and Andrew's older brother, Emeric, succeeded him.

Duke of Croatia and Dalmatia (1197–1204)
Andrew used the funds that he inherited from his father to recruit supporters among the Hungarian lords. It is plausible he demanded from his brother to install him as Duke of Slavonia, which became increasingly the title of heir to the throne by the second half of the 12th century. Andrew also formed an alliance with Duke Leopold VI of Austria, and they plotted against Emeric. Their united troops routed the royal army at Mački, Slavonia, in December 1197. Under duress, King Emeric gave Croatia and Dalmatia to Andrew as an appanage, as most historians believe. In contrast, historian György Szabados claims that Emeric never acknowledged Andrew's dominion in Croatia and Dalmatia and that Andrew used the title of duke without his brother's approval. In practice, Andrew administered Croatia and Dalmatia as an independent monarch. He minted coins, granted land and confirmed privileges. In accordance with the agreement, Varaždin and Bodrog counties also belonged to his suzerainty. He cooperated with the Frankopans, Babonići, and other local lords. Some of the prominent barons also supported his aspirations, including their uncle comes Andrew and Macarius Monoszló. The Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre settled in the province during his rule. Taking advantage of Miroslav of Hum's death, Andrew invaded Hum and occupied at least the land between the Cetina and Neretva rivers sometime before May 1198. He styled himself, "By the grace of God, Duke of Zadar and of all Dalmatia, Croatia and Hum" in his charters.

Pope Innocent III urged Andrew to lead a crusade to the Holy Land, but Andrew hatched a new conspiracy against Emeric with the help of John, Abbot of Pannonhalma, Boleslaus, Bishop of Vác, and many other prelates and lords. For instance, incumbent Palatine Mog also betrayed Emeric and swore allegiance to the Duke. The Pope threatened Andrew with excommunication if he failed to fulfill his father's vow, but Andrew did not yield. The conspiracy was uncovered on 10 March 1199, when King Emeric seized letters written by Andrew's partisans to Bishop Boleslaus. That summer, royal troops routed Andrew's army in the valley of Rád near Lake Balaton, and Andrew fled to Austria. During Andrew's exile, Emeric appointed his own partisans to administer Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia. A papal legate mediated a reconciliation between Andrew and Emeric, who allowed Andrew to return to Croatia and Dalmatia in 1200. Andrew married Gertrude of Merania sometime between 1200 and 1203; her father, Berthold, Duke of Merania, owned extensive domains in the Holy Roman Empire along the borders of Andrew's duchy, in what is now Slovenia.

When Emeric's son, Ladislaus, was born around 1200, Andrew's hopes to succeed his brother as king were shattered. Pope Innocent confirmed the child's position as heir to the crown, declaring that Andrew's future sons would only inherit Andrew's duchy. Andrew planned a new rebellion against his brother, but King Emeric captured him without resistance near Varaždin in October 1203. In contrast, historian Attila Zsoldos considers it was the king who turned against his brother's province with an army initially convened for a crusade.

"[All] the magnates of the kingdom and almost the whole of the Hungarian army deserted [King Emeric] and unlawfully sided with Duke Andrew. Very few men indeed remained with the king, and even they were terrified at the extent of the insurrection and did not dare to urge the king to hope for success, but rather advised him to flee. Then it happened that one day both sides had drawn close to each other and were beginning to prepare themselves in earnest for battle. ... [After] much wise thought, with inspiration from heaven [King Emeric] found a successful way by which he might recover his right to the kingdom and still remain guiltless of bloodshed. So he said to his men, 'Stay here a while, and do not follow me.' Then he laid down his weapons, and taking only a leafy bough in his hand he walked slowly into the enemy ranks. As he passed through the midst of the armed multitude, he cried out in a loud and strong voice, 'Now I shall see who will dare to raise a hand to shed the blood of the royal lineage!' Seeing him, all fell back, and not daring even to mutter, they left a wide passage for him on either side. And then when [King Emeric] reached his brother, he took him, and leading him outside the body of troops, he sent him to a certain castle for custody."

Andrew was first imprisoned in the fort of Gornji Kneginec, then in Esztergom. Alexander of the Hont-Pázmány clan freed him in early 1204. It is uncertain whether Andrew was freed by his partisans or his release took place with Emeric's consent. Having fallen ill, King Emeric had his son, Ladislaus, crowned king on 26 August. As Pope Innocent already ordered Archbishop Ugrin Csák to perform the coronation in April, it is plausible that the king decided on Andrew's release, therefore, the coronation was not vitally urgent. Andrew reconciled with his dying brother, who entrusted him with "the guardianship of his son and the administration of the entire kingdom until the ward should reach the age of majority", according to the nearly contemporaneous Thomas the Archdeacon.

Nephew's guardian (1204–1205)
King Emeric died on 30 November 1204. Andrew governed the kingdom as Ladislaus's regent, but subsequently he counted his regnal years from the time of his brother's death, showing that he already regarded himself as the lawful monarch during Ladislaus III's reign. Pope Innocent told Andrew that he should remain loyal to Ladislaus, also instructing him to fulfill his vow to lead a crusade, to secure the incomes of Emeric's widow and Ladislaus III's mother, Constance of Aragon, and to keep royal property intact. The pope's letters suggest that serious tensions burdened the relationship between Andrew and Constance after Emeric's death.

Instead, Andrew seized the money that Emeric had deposited for Ladislaus in Pilis Abbey. He also confiscated a significant portion of private wealth from Constance, who deposited it in the Stephanites' convent in Esztergom prior to that, in addition to the denial of her dower. Queen Constance fled from Hungary, taking her son and the Holy Crown to Austria. According to the Annals of Admont, "some bishops and nobles" escorted them, breaking through the blockade that Andrew erected along the Austrian border. Andrew prepared for a war against Leopold VI of Austria, but Ladislaus suddenly died in Vienna on 7 May 1205. Andrew sent Bishop Peter of Győr to Austria, who successfully recovered the Holy Crown.

"New institutions" and campaigns in Halych (1205–1217)
John, Archbishop of Kalocsa, crowned Andrew king in Székesfehérvár on 29 May 1205. Andrew introduced a new policy for royal grants, which he called "new institutions" in one of his charters. He distributed large portions of the royal domain—royal castles and all estates attached to them—as inheritable grants to his supporters, declaring that "the best measure of a royal grant is its being immeasurable." His "new institutions" altered the relations between the monarchs and the Hungarian lords. During the previous two centuries, a lord's status primarily depended on the income he received for his services to the monarch; after the introduction of the "new institutions", their inheritable estates yielded sufficient revenues. This policy also diminished the funds upon which the authority of the ispáns, or heads, of the counties—who were appointed by the monarchs—had been based.

During his reign, Andrew was intensely interested in the internal affairs of his former principality of Halych. He launched his first campaign to recapture Halych in 1205 or 1206. Upon the boyars' request, he intervened against Vsevolod Svyatoslavich, Prince of Chernigov, and his allies on behalf of Daniel Romanovich, the child-prince of Halych, and Lodomeria. Svyatoslavich and his allies were forced to withdraw. Andrew adopted the title of "King of Galicia and Lodomeria", demonstrating his claim to suzerainty in the two principalities. After Andrew returned to Hungary, Vsevolod Svyatoslavich's distant cousin, Vladimir Igorevich, seized both Halych and Lodomeria, expelling Daniel Romanovich and his mother. They fled to Leszek I of Poland, who suggested that they visit Andrew. However, Vladimir Igorevich "sent many gifts" to both Andrew and Leszek, dissuading "them from attacking him" on behalf of Romanovich, according to the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle. Vladimir Igorevich's rebellious brother, Roman Igorevich, soon came to Hungary, seeking Andrew's assistance. Roman returned to Halych and expelled Vladimir Igorevich with the help of Hungarian auxiliary troops.

Andrew confirmed the liberties of two Dalmatian towns—Split and Omiš—and issued a new charter listing the privileges of the archbishops of Split in 1207. Taking advantage of a conflict between Roman Igorevich and his boyars, Andrew sent troops to Halych under the command of Benedict, son of Korlát. Benedict captured Roman Igorevich and occupied the principality in 1208 or 1209. Instead of appointing a new prince, Andrew made Benedict governor of Halych. Benedict "tortured boyars and was addicted to lechery", according to the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle. The boyars offered the throne to Mstislav Mstislavich, Prince of Novgorod, if he could overthrow Benedict. Mstislav Mstislavich invaded Halych, but he could not defeat Benedict.

Queen Gertrude's two brothers, Ekbert of Bamberg, Bishop of Bamberg, and Henry II, Margrave of Istria, fled to Hungary in 1208 after they were accused of participating in the murder of Philip, King of the Germans. Andrew granted large domains to Bishop Ekbert in the Szepesség region (now Spiš, Slovakia). Gertrude's youngest brother, Berthold, had been Archbishop of Kalocsa since 1206; he was made Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia in 1209. Andrew's generosity towards his wife's German relatives and courtiers discontented the local lords. According to historian Gyula Kristó, the anonymous author of The Deeds of the Hungarians referred to the Germans from the Holy Roman Empire when he sarcastically mentioned that "now ... the Romans graze on the goods of Hungary." In 1209, Zadar, which had been lost to the Venetians, was liberated by one of Andrew's Dalmatian vassals, Domald of Sidraga, but the Venetians recaptured the town a year later.

Roman Igorevich reconciled with his brother, Vladimir Igorevich, in early 1209 or 1210. Their united forces vanquished Benedict's army, expelling the Hungarians from Halych. Vladimir Igorevich sent one of his sons, Vsevolod Vladimirovich, "bearing gifts to the king in Hungary" to appease Andrew, according to the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle. A group of discontented Hungarian lords offered the crown to Andrew's cousins, the sons of Andrew's uncle, Géza; they lived in "Greek land" (the Byzantine Empire). However, the cousins' envoys were captured in Split in 1210. In the early 1210s, Andrew sent "an army of Saxons, Vlachs, Székelys and Pechenegs" commanded by Joachim, Count of Hermannstadt, (now Sibiu, Romania) to assist Boril of Bulgaria's fight against three rebellious Cuman chieftains. Around the same time, Hungarian troops occupied Belgrade and Barancs (now Braničevo, Serbia), which had been lost to Bulgaria under Emeric. Andrew's army defeated the Cumans at Vidin. Andrew granted the Barcaság (now Țara Bârsei, Romania) to the Teutonic Knights. The Knights were to defend the easternmost regions of the Kingdom of Hungary against the Cumans and encourage their conversion to Catholicism.

A group of boyars, who were alarmed by the despotic acts of Vladimir Igorevich, asked Andrew to restore Daniel Romanovich as ruler of Halych in 1210 or 1211. Andrew and his allies—Leszek I of Poland and at least five Rus' princes—sent their armies to Halych and restored Daniel Romanovich. Local boyars expelled Daniel Romanovich's mother in 1212. She persuaded Andrew to personally lead his army to Halych. He captured Volodislav Kormilchich, the most influential boyar, and took him to Hungary. After Andrew withdrew from Halych, the boyars again offered the throne to Mstislav Mstislavich, who expelled Daniel Romanovich and his mother from the principality. Andrew departed for a new campaign against Halych in summer 1213. During his absence, Hungarian lords who were aggrieved at Queen Gertrude's favoritism towards her German entourage captured and murdered her and many of her courtiers in the Pilis Hills on 28 September. When he heard of her murder, Andrew returned to Hungary and ordered the execution of the murderer, Peter, son of Töre. However, Peter's accomplices, including Palatine Bánk Bár-Kalán, did not receive severe punishments. A group of Hungarian lords, whom Andrew called "perverts" in one of his letters, was plotting to dethrone Andrew and crown his eldest son, the eight-year-old Béla, but they failed to dethrone him and could only force Andrew to consent to Béla's coronation in 1214.

Andrew and Leszek of Poland signed a treaty of alliance, which obliged Andrew's second son, Coloman, to marry Leszek of Poland's daughter, Salomea. Andrew and Leszek jointly invaded Halych in 1214, and Coloman was made prince. He agreed to cede Przemyśl to Leszek of Poland. The following year, Andrew returned to Halych and captured Przemyśl. Leszek of Poland soon reconciled with Mstislav Mstislavich; they jointly invaded Halych and forced Coloman to flee to Hungary. A new officer of state, the treasurer, was responsible for the administration of the royal chamber from around 1214 onwards. However, royal revenues had significantly diminished. Upon the advice of the treasurer, Denis, son of Ampud, Andrew imposed new taxes and farmed out royal income from minting, salt trade and custom duties. The yearly exchange of coins also produced more revenue for the royal chamber. However, these measures provoked discontent in Hungary.

Andrew signed a new treaty of alliance with Leszek of Poland in the summer of 1216. Leszek and Andrew's son, Coloman, invaded Halych and expelled Mstislav Mstislavich and Daniel Romanovich, after which Coloman was restored. That same year, Andrew met Stephen Nemanjić, Grand Prince of Serbia, in Ravno (now Ćuprija, Serbia). He persuaded Stephen Nemanjić to negotiate with Henry, Latin Emperor of Constantinople, who was the uncle of Andrew's second wife, Yolanda de Courtenay. Stephen Nemanjić was crowned king of Serbia in 1217. Andrew planned to invade Serbia, but Stephen Nemanjić's brother, Sava, dissuaded him, according to both versions of the Life of Sava.

Andrew's crusade (1217–1218)
In July 1216, the newly elected Pope Honorius III once again called upon Andrew to fulfill his father's vow to lead a crusade. Andrew, who had postponed the crusade at least three times (in 1201, 1209 and 1213), finally agreed. Steven Runciman, Tibor Almási and other modern historians say that Andrew hoped that his decision would increase his likelihood of being elected as Latin Emperor of Constantinople, because his wife's uncle, Emperor Henry, had died in June. According to a letter written by Pope Honorius in 1217, envoys from the Latin Empire had actually informed Andrew that they planned to elect either him or his father-in-law, Peter of Courtenay, as emperor. Nonetheless, the barons of the Latin Empire elected Peter of Courtenay in the summer of 1216.

Andrew sold and mortgaged royal estates to finance his campaign, which became part of the Fifth Crusade. He renounced his claim to Zadar in favor of the Republic of Venice so that he could secure shipping for his army. He entrusted Hungary to Archbishop John of Esztergom, and entrusted Croatia and Dalmatia to Pontius de Cruce, the Templar prior of Vrana. In July 1217, Andrew departed from Zagreb, accompanied by Dukes Leopold VI of Austria and Otto I of Merania. His army was so large—at least 10,000 mounted soldiers and uncountable infantrymen—that most of it stayed behind when Andrew and his men embarked in Split two months later. The ships transported them to Acre, where they landed in October.

The leaders of the crusade included John of Brienne, King of Jerusalem, Leopold of Austria, the Grand Masters of the Hospitallers, the Templars and the Teutonic Knights. They held a war council in Acre, with Andrew leading the meeting. In early November, the Crusaders launched a campaign for the Jordan River, forcing Al-Adil I, Sultan of Egypt, to withdraw without fighting; the crusaders then pillaged Beisan. After the crusaders returned to Acre, Andrew did not participate in any other military actions. Instead, he collected relics, including a water jug allegedly used at the marriage at Cana, the heads of Saint Stephen and Margaret the Virgin, the right hands of the Apostles Thomas and Bartholomew and a part of Aaron's rod. If Thomas the Archdeacon's report of certain "evil and audacious men" in Acre who "treacherously passed him a poisoned drink" is reliable, Andrew's inactivity was because of illness.

Andrew decided to return home at the very beginning of 1218, even though Raoul of Merencourt, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, threatened him with excommunication. Andrew first visited Tripoli and participated in the marriage of Bohemond IV of Antioch and Melisende of Lusignan on 10 January. From Tripoli, he travelled to Cilicia, where he and Leo I of Armenia betrothed Andrew's youngest son, Andrew, and Leo's daughter, Isabella. Andrew proceeded through the Seldjuk Sultanate of Rum before arriving in Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). His cousins (the sons of his uncle, Géza) attacked him when he was in Nicaea. He arranged the marriage of his oldest son, Béla, to Maria Laskarina, a daughter of Emperor Theodore I Laskaris. When he arrived in Bulgaria, Andrew was detained until he "gave full surety that his daughter would be united in marriage" to Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria, according to Thomas the Archdeacon. Andrew returned to Hungary in late 1218. Andrew's "crusade had achieved nothing and brought him no honor", according to historian Thomas Van Cleve. Oliver of Paderborn, James of Vitry and other 13th-century authors blamed Andrew for the failure of the crusade. Stephen Donnachie says that "...from examining Honorius’s registers and the diplomatic communications between Andrew and the papal curia, Andrew’s genuine commitment to the crusade should not be doubted nor his extensive preparations for the campaign dismissed, even if he did ultimately bungle his opportunity."

Golden Bull (1218–1222)
When he returned to Hungary, Andrew complained to Pope Honorius that his kingdom was "in a miserable and destroyed state, deprived of all of its revenues." A group of barons had even expelled Archbishop John from Hungary. Andrew was in massive debt because of his crusade, which forced him to impose extraordinarily high taxes and debase coinage. In 1218 or 1219, Mstislav Mstislavich invaded Halych and captured Andrew's son, Coloman. Andrew compromised with Mstislavich. Coloman was released, and Andrew's youngest son and namesake was betrothed to Mstislavich's daughter. In 1220, a group of lords persuaded Andrew to make his eldest son, Béla, the duke of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia.

Andrew employed Jews and Muslims to administer royal revenues, which caused a discord between Andrew and the Holy See starting in the early 1220s. Pope Honorius urged Andrew and Queen Yolanda to prohibit Muslims from employing Christians. Andrew confirmed the privileges of clergymen, including their exemption from taxes and their right to be exclusively judged by church courts, but also prohibited the consecration of udvornici, castle folk and other serfs in early 1222. However, a new conflict emerged between Andrew and the Holy See after he persuaded Béla to separate from his wife, Maria Laskarina. An "immense crowd" approached Andrew around April 1222, demanding "grave and unjust things", according to a letter of Pope Honorius. Actually, the royal servants—who were landowners directly subject to the monarch's power and obliged to fight in the royal army—assembled, forcing Andrew to dismiss Julius Kán and his other officials. Andrew was also forced to issue a royal charter, the Golden Bull of 1222. The charter summarized the liberties of the royal servants, including their exemption from taxes and the jurisdiction of the ispáns. The last clause of the Golden Bull authorized "the bishops as well as the other barons and nobles of the realm, singularly and in common" to resist the monarch if he did not honor the provisions of the charter. The Golden Bull clearly distinguished the royal servants from the king's other subjects, which led to the rise of the Hungarian nobility. The Golden Bull is commonly compared with England's Magna Carta – a similar charter which was sealed a few years earlier in 1215. A significant difference between them is that, in England, the settlement strengthened the position of all the royal subjects but, in Hungary, the aristocracy came to dominate both the crown and the lower orders.

Conflicts with son and the Church (1222–1234)
Andrew discharged Palatine Theodore Csanád and restored Julius Kán in the second half of 1222. The following year, Pope Honorius urged Andrew to launch a new crusade. If the report of the Continuatio Claustroneuburgensis is reliable, Andrew took the cross to show that he intended to launch a new crusade, but no other sources mention this event. Andrew planned to arrange a new marriage for his eldest son, Béla, but Pope Honorius mediated a reconciliation between Béla and his wife in the autumn of 1223. This angered Andrew, and Béla fled to Austria. He returned in 1224 after the bishops persuaded Andrew to forgive him.

In his Diploma Andreanum of 1224, Andrew confirmed the privileges of the "Saxons" who inhabited the region of Hermannstadt in southern Transylvania (now Sibiu, Romania). The following year, he launched a campaign against the Teutonic Knights, who had attempted to eliminate his suzerainty. The Knights were forced to leave Barcaság and the neighboring lands. Andrew's envoys and Leopold VI of Austria signed a treaty on 6 June, which ended the armed conflicts along the Hungarian-Austrian border. As part of the treaty, Leopold VI paid an indemnification for the damages that his troops had caused in Hungary. Andrew made his oldest son, Béla, Duke of Transylvania. Béla's former duchy was given to Andrew's second son, Coloman, in 1226. Duke Béla started expanding his suzerainty over the Cumans, who inhabited the lands east of the Carpathian Mountains. Andrew launched a campaign against Mstislav Mstislavich in 1226 because the latter refused to grant Halych to Andrew's youngest son despite a previous compromise. Andrew besieged and captured Przemyśl, Terebovl, and other fortresses in Halych. However, his troops were routed at Kremenets and Zvenigorod, forcing him to withdraw. Despite his victories, Mstislavich ceded Halych to Andrew's son in early 1227.

In 1228, Andrew authorized his son, Béla, to revise his previous land grants. Pope Honorius also supported Béla's efforts. Béla confiscated the domains of two noblemen, Simon Kacsics and Bánk Bár-Kalán, who had taken part in the conspiracy to murder Queen Gertrude. In 1229, upon Béla's proposal, Andrew confirmed the privileges of the Cuman chieftains who had subjected themselves to Béla. Robert, Archbishop of Esztergom, made a complaint about Andrew to the Holy See, because Andrew continued to employ Jews and Muslims. Pope Gregory IX authorized the archbishop to perform acts of religious censure to persuade Andrew to dismiss his non-Christian officials. Under duress, Andrew issued a new Golden Bull in 1231, which confirmed that Muslims were banned from employment, and empowered the Archbishop of Esztergom to excommunicate the king if he failed to honor the provisions of the new Golden Bull. In the second half of the year, Andrew invaded Halych and restored his youngest son, Andrew, to the throne.

Archbishop Robert excommunicated Palatine Denis and put Hungary under an interdict on 25 February 1232, because the employment of Jews and Muslims continued despite the Golden Bull of 1231. Since the archbishop accused the Muslims of persuading Andrew to seize church property, Andrew restored properties to the archbishop, who soon suspended the interdict. Upon Andrew's demand, Pope Gregory sent Cardinal Giacomo di Pecorari as his legate to Hungary and promised that nobody would be excommunicated without the pope's special authorization. Although Andrew departed for Halych to support his youngest son in a fight against Daniel Romanivich, he continued his negotiations with the papal legate. On 20 August 1233, in the forests of Bereg, he vowed that he would not employ Jews and Muslims to administrate royal revenues, and would pay 10,000 marks as compensation for usurped Church revenues. Andrew repeated his oath in Esztergom in September.

Andrew and Frederick II, Duke of Austria, signed a peace treaty in late 1233. Andrew, who had been widowed, married the 23-year-old Beatrice D'Este on 14 May 1234, even though his sons were sharply opposed to his third marriage. John, Bishop of Bosnia, put Hungary under a new interdict in the first half of 1234, because Andrew had not dismissed his non-Christian officials despite his oath of Bereg. Andrew and Archbishop Robert of Esztergom protested against the bishop's act at the Holy See.

Last years (1234–1235)
Danilo Romanovich laid siege to Halych, and Andrew's youngest son died during the siege in the autumn of 1234. However, Andrew stormed Austria in the summer of 1235, forcing Duke Frederick to pay an indemnification for damages that his troops had caused while raiding Hungary. Upon Andrew's demand, Pope Gregory declared on 31 August that Andrew and his sons could only be excommunicated by the authorization of the Holy See. Andrew died on 21 September, and was buried in Egres Abbey.

Family
Andrew's first wife, Gertrude of Merania, was born around 1185, according to historian Gyula Kristó. Their first child, Mary, was born in 1203 or 1204. She became the wife of Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria. Andrew's eldest son, Béla, was born in 1206. He later succeeded his father as king. Béla's younger sister, Elisabeth, was born in 1207. She married Louis IV, Landgrave of Thuringia. She died in 1231 and was canonized during Andrew's life. Andrew's second son, Coloman, was born in 1208. His third son, Andrew, was born around 1210. Coloman and Andrew each ruled the Principality of Halych for a short period.

Two years after his first wife was murdered, Andrew married Yolanda de Courtenay, who was born around 1198. Their only child, Yolanda, was born around 1219 and married James I of Aragon. Andrew's third wife, Beatrice D'Este, was about twenty-three when they married in 1234. She gave birth to a son, Stephen, after Andrew's death. However, Andrew's two older sons, Béla and Coloman, accused her of adultery and considered her child to be a bastard. Her grandson, Andrew, became the last monarch of the House of Árpád.

title: Andrew II of Hungary


text:
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a book by the Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume, published in English in 1748. It was a revision of an earlier effort, Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, published anonymously in London in 1739–40. Hume was disappointed with the reception of the Treatise, which "fell dead-born from the press," as he put it, and so tried again to disseminate his more developed ideas to the public by writing a shorter and more polemical work.

The end product of his labours was the Enquiry. The Enquiry dispensed with much of the material from the Treatise, in favor of clarifying and emphasizing its most important aspects. For example, Hume's views on personal identity do not appear. However, more vital propositions, such as Hume's argument for the role of habit in a theory of knowledge, are retained.

This book has proven highly influential, both in the years that would immediately follow and today. Immanuel Kant points to it as the book which woke him from his self-described "dogmatic slumber." The Enquiry is widely regarded as a classic in modern philosophical literature.

Content
The argument of the Enquiry proceeds by a series of incremental steps, separated into chapters which logically succeed one another. After expounding his epistemology, Hume explains how to apply his principles to specific topics.

1. Of the different species of philosophy
In the first section of the Enquiry, Hume provides a rough introduction to philosophy as a whole. For Hume, philosophy can be split into two general parts: natural philosophy and the philosophy of human nature (or, as he calls it, "moral philosophy"). The latter investigates both actions and thoughts. He emphasizes in this section, by way of warning, that philosophers with nuanced thoughts will likely be cast aside in favor of those whose conclusions more intuitively match popular opinion. However, he insists, precision helps art and craft of all kinds, including the craft of philosophy.

2. Of the origin of ideas
Next, Hume discusses the distinction between impressions and ideas. By "impressions", he means sensations, while by "ideas", he means memories and imaginings. According to Hume, the difference between the two is that ideas are less vivacious than impressions. For example, the idea of the taste of an orange is far inferior to the impression (or sensation) of actually eating one. Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas.

Hume accepts that ideas may be either the product of mere sensation or of the imagination working in conjunction with sensation. According to Hume, the creative faculty makes use of (at least) four mental operations that produce imaginings out of sense-impressions. These operations are compounding (or the addition of one idea onto another, such as a horn on a horse to create a unicorn); transposing (or the substitution of one part of a thing with the part from another, such as with the body of a man upon a horse to make a centaur); augmenting (as with the case of a giant, whose size has been augmented); and diminishing (as with Lilliputians, whose size has been diminished). (Hume 1974:317) In a later chapter, he also mentions the operations of mixing, separating, and dividing. (Hume 1974:340)

However, Hume admits that there is one objection to his account: the problem of "The Missing Shade of Blue". In this thought-experiment, he asks us to imagine a man who has experienced every shade of blue except for one (see Fig. 1). He predicts that this man will be able to divine the color of this particular shade of blue, despite the fact that he has never experienced it. This seems to pose a serious problem for the empirical account, though Hume brushes it aside as an exceptional case by stating that one may experience a novel idea that itself is derived from combinations of previous impressions. (Hume 1974:319)

3. Of the association of ideas
In this chapter, Hume discusses how thoughts tend to come in sequences, as in trains of thought. He explains that there are at least three kinds of associations between ideas: resemblance, contiguity in space-time, and cause-and-effect. He argues that there must be some universal principle that must account for the various sorts of connections that exist between ideas. However, he does not immediately show what this principle might be. (Hume 1974:320-321)

4. Sceptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding (in two parts)
In the first part, Hume discusses how the objects of inquiry are either "relations of ideas" or "matters of fact", which is roughly the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions. The former, he tells the reader, are proved by demonstration, while the latter are given through experience. (Hume 1974:322) In explaining how matters of fact are entirely a product of experience, he dismisses the notion that they may be arrived at through a priori reasoning. For Hume, every effect only follows its cause arbitrarily—they are entirely distinct from one another. (Hume 1974:324)

In part two, Hume inquires into how anyone can justifiably believe that experience yields any conclusions about the world:

 * "When it is asked, What is the nature of all our reasonings concerning matter of fact? the proper answer seems to be, that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect. When again it is asked, What is the foundation of all our reasonings and conclusions concerning that relation? it may be replied in one word, experience. But if we still carry on our sifting humor, and ask, What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience? this implies a new question, which may be of more difficult solution and explication." (Hume 1974:328)

He shows how a satisfying argument for the validity of experience can be based neither on demonstration (since "it implies no contradiction that the course of nature may change") nor experience (since that would be a circular argument). (Hume 1974:330-332) Here he is describing what would become known as the problem of induction.

5. Sceptical solution of these doubts (in two parts)
According to Hume, we assume that experience tells us something about the world because of habit or custom, which human nature forces us to take seriously. This is also, presumably, the "principle" that organizes the connections between ideas. Indeed, one of the many famous passages of the Enquiry is on the topic of the incorrigibility of human custom. In Section XII, Of the academical or sceptical philosophy, Hume will argue,

 * "The great subverter of Pyrrhonism or the excessive principles of skepticism is action, and employment, and the occupations of common life. These principles may flourish and triumph in the schools; where it is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible, to refute them. But as soon as they leave the shade, and by the presence of the real objects, which actuate our passions and sentiments, are put in opposition to the more powerful principles of our nature, they vanish like smoke, and leave the most determined skeptic in the same condition as other mortals." (Hume 1974:425)

In the second part, he provides an account of beliefs. He explains that the difference between belief and fiction is that the former produces a certain feeling of confidence which the latter doesn't. (Hume 1974:340)

6. Of probability
This short chapter begins with the notions of probability and chance. For him, "probability" means a higher chance of occurring, and brings about a higher degree of subjective expectation in the viewer. By "chance", he means all those particular comprehensible events which the viewer considers possible in accord with the viewer's experience. However, further experience takes these equal chances, and forces the imagination to observe that certain chances arise more frequently than others. These gentle forces upon the imagination cause the viewer to have strong beliefs in outcomes. This effect may be understood as another case of custom or habit taking past experience and using it to predict the future. (Hume 1974:346-348)

7. Of the idea of necessary connection (in two parts)

By "necessary connection", Hume means the power or force which necessarily ties one idea to another. He rejects the notion that any sensible qualities are necessarily conjoined, since that would mean we could know something prior to experience. Unlike his predecessors, Berkeley and Locke, Hume rejects the idea that volitions or impulses of the will may be inferred to necessarily connect to the actions they produce by way of some sense of the power of the will. He reasons that, 1. if we knew the nature of this power, then the mind-body divide would seem totally unmysterious to us; 2. if we had immediate knowledge of this mysterious power, then we would be able to intuitively explain why it is that we can control some parts of our bodies (e.g., our hands or tongues), and not others (e.g., the liver or heart); 3. we have no immediate knowledge of the powers which allow an impulse of volition to create an action (e.g., of the "muscles, and nerves, and animal spirits" which are the immediate cause of an action). (Hume 1974:353-354) He produces like arguments against the notion that we have knowledge of these powers as they affect the mind alone. (Hume 1974:355-356) He also argues in brief against the idea that causes are mere occasions of the will of some god(s), a view associated with the philosopher Nicolas Malebranche. (Hume 1974:356-359)

Having dispensed with these alternative explanations, he identifies the source of our knowledge of necessary connections as arising out of observation of constant conjunction of certain impressions across many instances. In this way, people know of necessity through rigorous custom or habit, and not from any immediate knowledge of the powers of the will. (Hume 1974:361)

8. Of liberty and necessity (in two parts)
Here Hume tackles the problem of how liberty may be reconciled with metaphysical necessity (otherwise known as a compatibilist formulation of free will). Hume believes that all disputes on the subject have been merely verbal arguments—that is to say, arguments which are based on a lack of prior agreement on definitions. He first shows that it is clear that most events are deterministic, but human actions are more controversial. However, he thinks that these too occur out of necessity since an outside observer can see the same regularity that he would in a purely physical system. To show the compatibility of necessity and liberty, Hume defines liberty as the ability to act on the basis of one's will e.g. the capacity to will one's actions but not to will one's will. He then shows (quite briefly) how determinism and free will are compatible notions, and have no bad consequences on ethics or moral life.

9. Of the reason of animals
Hume insists that the conclusions of the Enquiry will be very powerful if they can be shown to apply to animals and not just humans. He believed that animals were able to infer the relation between cause and effect in the same way that humans do: through learned expectations. (Hume 1974:384) He also notes that this "inferential" ability that animals have is not through reason, but custom alone. Hume concludes that there is an innate faculty of instincts which both beasts and humans share, namely, the ability to reason experimentally (through custom). Nevertheless, he admits, humans and animals differ in mental faculties in a number of ways, including: differences in memory and attention, inferential abilities, ability to make deductions in a long chain, ability to grasp ideas more or less clearly, the human capacity to worry about conflating unrelated circumstances, a sagely prudence which arrests generalizations, a capacity for a greater inner library of analogies to reason with, an ability to detach oneself and scrap one's own biases, and an ability to converse through language (and thus gain from the experience of others' testimonies). (Hume 1974:385, footnote 17.)

10. Of miracles (in two parts)
The next topic which Hume strives to give treatment is that of the reliability of human testimony, and of the role that testimony plays a part in epistemology. This was not an idle concern for Hume. Depending on its outcome, the entire treatment would give the epistemologist a degree of certitude in the treatment of miracles.

True to his empirical thesis, Hume tells the reader that, though testimony does have some force, it is never quite as powerful as the direct evidence of the senses. That said, he provides some reasons why we may have a basis for trust in the testimony of persons: because a) human memory can be relatively tenacious; and b) because people are inclined to tell the truth, and ashamed of telling falsities. Needless to say, these reasons are only to be trusted to the extent that they conform to experience. (Hume 1974:389)

And there are a number of reasons to be skeptical of human testimony, also based on experience. If a) testimonies conflict one another, b) there are a small number of witnesses, c) the speaker has no integrity, d) the speaker is overly hesitant or bold, or e) the speaker is known to have motives for lying, then the epistemologist has reason to be skeptical of the speaker's claims. (Hume 1974:390)

There is one final criterion that Hume thinks gives us warrant to doubt any given testimony, and that is f) if the propositions being communicated are miraculous. Hume understands a miracle to be any event which contradicts the laws of nature. He argues that the laws of nature have an overwhelming body of evidence behind them, and are so well demonstrated to everyone's experience, that any deviation from those laws necessarily flies in the face of all evidence. (Hume 1974:391-392)

Moreover, he stresses that talk of the miraculous has no surface validity, for four reasons. First, he explains that in all of history there has never been a miracle which was attested to by a wide body of disinterested experts. Second, he notes that human beings delight in a sense of wonder, and this provides a villain with an opportunity to manipulate others. Third, he thinks that those who hold onto the miraculous have tended towards barbarism. Finally, since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous—that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle—any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating. (Hume 1974:393-398)

Still, Hume takes care to warn that historians are generally to be trusted with confidence, so long as their reports on facts are extensive and uniform. However, he seems to suggest that historians are as fallible at interpreting the facts as the rest of humanity. Thus, if every historian were to claim that there was a solar eclipse in the year 1600, then though we might at first naively regard that as in violation of natural laws, we'd come to accept it as a fact. But if every historian were to assert that Queen Elizabeth was observed walking around happy and healthy after her funeral, and then interpreted that to mean that they had risen from the dead, then we'd have reason to appeal to natural laws in order to dispute their interpretation. (Hume 1974:400-402)

11. Of a particular providence and of a future state
Hume continues his application of epistemology to theology by an extended discussion on heaven and hell. The brunt of this chapter allegedly narrates the opinions, not of Hume, but of one of Hume's anonymous friends, who again presents them in an imagined speech by the philosopher Epicurus. His friend argues that, though it is possible to trace a cause from an effect, it is not possible to infer unseen effects from a cause thus traced. The friend insists, then, that even though we might postulate that there is a first cause behind all things—God—we can't infer anything about the afterlife, because we don't know anything of the afterlife from experience, and we can't infer it from the existence of God. (Hume 1974:408)

Hume offers his friend an objection: if we see an unfinished building, then can't we infer that it has been created by humans with certain intentions, and that it will be finished in the future? His friend concurs, but indicates that there is a relevant disanalogy that we can't pretend to know the contents of the mind of God, while we can know the designs of other humans. Hume seems essentially persuaded by his friend's reasoning. (Hume 1974:412-414)

12. Of the academical or skeptical philosophy (in three parts)
The first section of the last chapter is well organized as an outline of various skeptical arguments. The treatment includes the arguments of atheism, Cartesian skepticism, "light" skepticism, and rationalist critiques of empiricism. Hume shows that even light skepticism leads to crushing doubts about the world which - while they ultimately are philosophically justifiable - may only be combated through the non-philosophical adherence to custom or habit. He ends the section with his own reservations towards Cartesian and Lockean epistemologies.

In the second section he returns to the topic of hard skepticism by sharply denouncing it.

 * "For here is the chief and most confounding objection to excessive skepticism, that no durable good can ever result from it; while it remains in its full force and vigor. We need only ask such a skeptic, What his meaning is? And what he proposes by all these curious researches? He is immediately at a loss, and knows not what to answer... a Pyrrhonian cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his principles universally and steadily to prevail." (Hume 1974:426)

He concludes the volume by setting out the limits of knowledge once and for all. "When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Critiques and rejoinders
The criteria Hume lists in his examination of the validity of human testimony are roughly upheld in modern social psychology, under the rubric of the communication-persuasion paradigm. Supporting literature includes: the work of social impact theory, which discusses persuasion in part through the number of persons engaging in influence; as well as studies made on the relative influence of communicator credibility in different kinds of persuasion; and examinations of the trustworthiness of the speaker.

The "custom" view of learning can in many ways be likened to associationist psychology. This point of view has been subject to severe criticism in the research of the 20th century. Still, testing on the subject has been somewhat divided. Testing on certain animals like cats have concluded that they do not possess any faculty which allow their minds to grasp an insight into cause and effect. However, it has been shown that some animals, like chimpanzees, were able to generate creative plans of action to achieve their goals, and thus would seem to have a causal insight which transcends mere custom.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Asteroid

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hniclarsen. Peer reviewers: Hniclarsen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What's missing?
Hi, , , ! (I picked several people who either edit this article recently or some other astronomy-related ones.) I tried to update and rewrite the article that was heavily outdated, unsourced and just noot that good. I'd like to bring it eventually to GA, but right now I get stuck - maybe you can tell me what can be added/updated/rewritten so the article can be better? (I know that some sections are still poorly sourced, I would work on it when I'll have time.) I would be grateful for any comments you (or anybody else, of course) can give. Artem.G (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks for including me. I had now a quick look and attended mainly to the lead images which were a bit overloading and without purpose/concept. Other than that I didnt have time to look into it. But it would be a nice project to participate to get this rather straight forward article to higher standards. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, it would be great to work on this together! Artem.G (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Well I've only had a brief time to look it over, but a few thoughts come to mind:
 * It might be in need of a tactical re-org; some statements appear to belong in other sections.
 * It would be great if you can point me what statements you think should be relocated. Artem.G (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The IAU definition of an asteroid is missing.
 * There is no official definition by IAU, I've added two sentences to clarify it (with refs)
 * The topic of formation is covered by the Asteroid belt article, so what parts need to be mentioned here? Perhaps it needs a more tactical discussion?
 * 'Formation' section is really small here, and I think it's needed for such an 'overview'-article. Do you think it should be trimmed or expanded?
 * How did asteroid discovery change in 1998? Perhaps we need a section on modern ground-based exploration including radar mapping and the Vera Rubin Observatory.
 * How is information about asteroids obtained, such as rotation, size, mass, and shape modelling? What new information is obtained via infrared observation?
 * It can talk about meteorites and how their source asteroids are determined. For example, the source for the Chicxulub impactor.
 * It could describe active asteroids to clarify whether they are asteroids or comets (or both).
 * Added
 * There is no mention of the yorp effect, which could be covered in the rotation section.
 * Were the Martian moons originally asteroids?
 * Added
 * I'm sure there are more. Praemonitus (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks, ! I would try to address it all soon, your comments are really useful. Artem.G (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the ping, . I might be able to do minor copyediting or add the occasional citation, but I don't have time to offer detailed feedback for several weeks. If you're still working on it then, I'll gladly join in, and ping me again if need be. ComplexRational (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, it would be great to have any feedback from you when you'll have time! Artem.G (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did the size distribution table come from? Is it just another holdover from the days when people were like, "I'm an astronomy nerd with a database, so I'll calculate numbers and put them into Wikipedia"? XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * XOR, thanks for looking at the article! If you're talking about this small table - I don't know the source, it's probably from times immemorial. I'll try to find some modern sources on sizes distribution, though I'm not even sure that such table is useful. Artem.G (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the one. I usually see that kind of information presented as a graph, maybe with some fit parameters. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was adapted from Fig 4 from Ref 81, that was really presented as a graph. Would try to find a newer reference, not from 2011. Artem.G (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh. I added Ref. 81 yesterday, figuring that it might be a little outdated but not too much so for the big picture. So the table came from reading numbers off a graph in a source that wasn't even in the article? XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm, I checked the numbers and no, it's not the source (I looked from mobile, and thought that I remembered the numbers in the table - turned out I didn't.) I think the table can be deleted, this size distribution is only a model, and I think not widely discussed one. Quick search didn't give me any newer source, but I'll check few more books. Artem.G (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for the time being. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Spoken WP
starting work on a spoken version -- Vonfraginoff (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Asteroid


text:
André de Longjumeau

André de Longjumeau (also known as Andrew of Longjumeau in English) was a French diplomat and Dominican missionary and one of the most active Occidental diplomats in the East in the 13th century. He led two embassies to the Mongols: the first carried letters from Pope Innocent IV and the second bore gifts and letters from Louis IX of France to Güyük Khan. Well acquainted with the Middle East, he spoke Arabic and "Chaldean" (thought to be either Syriac or Persian).

Mission for the holy Crown of Thorns
André's first mission to the East was when he was asked by the French king Louis IX to go to Constantinople to obtain the crown of thorns that had been sold to him by the Latin emperor Baldwin II in 1238, who was anxious to obtain support for his empire. André was accompanied on this mission by a Dominican friar, brother Jacques.

Papal mission to the Mongols (1245–1247)
André of Longjumeau led one of four missions dispatched to the Mongols by Pope Innocent IV. He left Lyon in the spring of 1245 for the Levant. He visited Muslim principalities in Syria and representatives of the Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox Church in Seljuk Persia, finally delivering the papal correspondence to a Mongol general near Tabriz. In Tabriz, André de Longjumeau met with a monk from the Far East named Simeon Rabban Ata, who had been put in charge by the Khan of protecting Christians in the Middle East.

Second mission to the Mongols (1249–1251)
At the Mongol camp near Kars, André had met a certain David, who in December 1248 appeared at the court of King Louis IX of France, who was preparing his armies in the allied Kingdom of Cyprus. André, who was now with the French King, interpreted David’s words as a real or pretended offer of alliance from the Mongol general Eljigidei, and a proposal of a joint attack on Ayyubid Syria. In reply to this, the French sovereign dispatched André as his ambassador to Güyük Khan. Longjumeau went with his brother Jacques (also a Dominican) and several others – John Goderiche, John of Carcassonne, Herbert "Le Sommelier", Gerbert of Sens, Robert (a clerk), a certain William, and an unnamed clerk of Poissy.

The party set out on 16 February 1249, with letters from King Louis and the papal legate, and lavish presents, including a chapel tent lined with scarlet cloth and embroidered with sacred pictures. From Cyprus they went to the port of Antioch in Syria, and thence traveled for a year to the Khan's court, going ten leagues (55.56 kilometers) per day. Their route led them through Persia, along the southern and eastern shores of the Caspian Sea, and certainly through Taraz, north-east of Tashkent.

Upon arrival at the supreme Mongol court – either that on the Emil River (near Lake Alakol and the present Russo-Chinese frontier in the Altai Mountains), or more probably at or near Karakorum itself, southwest of Lake Baikal – André found Güyük Khan dead, poisoned, as the envoy supposed, by Batu Khan's agents. The regent Oghul Qaimish, Güyük Khan's widow (the "Camus" of William of Rubruck), seems to have received him with presents and a dismissive letter for Louis IX. It is certain that before the friar had left "Tartary", Möngke, Güyük's successor, had been elected khagan.

André's report to his sovereign, whom he rejoined in 1251 at Caesarea Palaestina, appears to have been a mixture of history and fable; the latter affects his narrative of the Mongols' rise to greatness, and the struggles of their leader Genghis Khan with the mythical Prester John, and in the supposed location of the Mongols' homeland, close to the prison of Gog and Magog. On the other hand, the envoy's account of Mongol customs is fairly accurate, and his statements about Mongol Christianity and its prosperity, though perhaps exaggerated (e.g. as to the 800 chapels on wheels in the nomadic host) are likely factual.

Mounds of bones marked his road, witnesses of devastations that other historians record in detail. He found Christian prisoners from Germany in the heart of "Tartary" at Taraz and was compelled to observe the ceremony of passing between two fires, as a bringer of gifts to a dead Genghis Khan, gifts which were treated by the Mongols as evidence of submission. This insulting behavior, and the language of the letter with which André reappeared, marked the mission a failure: King Louis, says Jean de Joinville, "se repenti fort" ("felt very sorry").

Death
The date and location of André's death is unknown.

We only know of André through references in other writers: see especially William of Rubruck's in Recueil de voyages, iv. (Paris, 1839), pp. 261, 265, 279, 296, 310, 353, 363, 370; Joinville, ed. Francisque Michel (1858, etc.), pp. 142, etc.; Jean Pierre Sarrasin, in same vol., pp. 254–235; William of Nangis in Recueil des historiens des Gaules, xx. 359–367; Rémusat, Mémoires sur les relations politiques des princes chrétiens… avec les… Mongols (1822, etc.), p. 52.

title: André de Longjumeau


text:
Andriscus

Andriscus (Ἀνδρίσκος, Andrískos; fl. 154/153 BC – 146 BC), also often referenced as Pseudo-Philip, was a Greek pretender who became the last independent king of Macedon in 149 BC as Philip VI (Φίλιππος, Philipos), based on his claim of being Philip, a now-obscure son of the last legitimate Macedonian king, Perseus. His reign lasted just one year and was toppled by the Roman Republic during the Fourth Macedonian War.

Ancient sources generally agree that he was originally a fuller from Adramyttium in Aeolis in western Anatolia. Around 153 BC, his ancestry was supposedly revealed to him, upon which he travelled to the court of his claimed uncle, the Seleucid monarch Demetrius I Soter, to request assistance in claiming his throne. Demetrius refused and had him sent to Rome, where he was judged harmless and exiled to a city in Italy; he managed to escape, and after gathering support, primarily from Thrace, he launched an invasion of Macedon, defeating Rome's clients and establishing his rule as king. The Romans naturally reacted militarily, triggering war; after some initial successes, Andriscus was defeated and captured by the praetor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, who subdued Macedon once again.

He was imprisoned for two years before being paraded in Metellus' triumph in 146 BC, after which he was executed. In the aftermath of his revolt, the Romans established the Roman province of Macedonia, ending Macedonian independence and establishing a permanent presence in the region.

Origins and early life
Details of his origins are vague and sometimes conflicting, though it is generally believed that he was a fuller from Adramyttium in Aeolis in western Anatolia. His exact date of birth is unknown, though according to his own story, he was "of maturity" when he made his claims of royalty in 154 BC, and had been raised by a Cretan in Adramyttium.

By his own claims, he was educated at Adramyttium until adolescence, until the Cretan died, after which he was raised with his foster mother. Upon reaching maturity, his mother (or foster mother, according to his claim) gave him a sealed parchment that was supposedly written by Perseus himself, along with the knowledge of the location of two hidden treasures, at Amphipolis and Thessalonica; he would later use these to advance his claims. Ancient sources are unanimous in calling him an impostor and dismiss the story as false; Niese suggests that there is a possibility of his claims being true, but generally agrees that he was a pretender; his main advantage in his claims was his close resemblance to Perseus.

Around 154/153 BC, he left Pergamon for Syria, where he declared his claim to be the illegitimate son of Perseus by a concubine. According to his own account, it was due to his mother (or foster mother) urging him to leave Pergamon to avoid the wrath of the pro-Roman Eumenes II.

In Syria
He first staked his claim in Syria. Livy and Cassius Dio write that he simply went from Pergamon to Syria and directly staked his claim before the Seleucid monarch, Demetrius I Soter. Diodorus Siculus offers a different account. According to him, Andriscus was already a mercenary in Demetrius' army. Due to his resemblance to the former Macedonian king, his comrades started jokingly calling him "son of Perseus"; these jokes soon began becoming serious suspicions, and at one point, Andriscus himself decided to seize the opportunity and claimed that he was indeed the son of Perseus. Niese attempts to reconcile both accounts, suggesting that he might have travelled to Syria and then enlisted as a mercenary before staking his claim.

He appealed to the king to help him win back his "ancestral" throne, and found great popular support among the Seleucid populace, to the extent that there were riots in the capital, Antioch. Large segments of the Seleucid population were of Macedonian descent, nurturing strong anti-Roman sentiment since the Roman conquest of Macedon in the Third Macedonian War; they were eager to help the claimant. They proceeded to such an extent that there were even calls for deposing the king if he did not help the pretender. Unmoved, or perhaps frightened, Demetrius had Andriscus arrested and sent to Rome.

In Rome
In Rome, he was brought before the Senate, where Dio writes that he stood "in general contempt" due to what was perceived to be his ordinary nature and transparently false claim. The Romans believed his claim to be fake, because the real Philip had died at Alba Fucens two years after his father Perseus. Considering him harmless, they simply exiled him to an Italian city, but he managed to escape; fleeing Italy, he went to the Greek world, to the city of Miletus.

Gaining support
In Miletus, he tried to advance his claims further, attracting significant attention and sympathy. When the leaders of Miletus learned about this, they arrested him and sought advice from visiting Roman envoys on what to do with him; the envoys were contemptuous of the pretender and told the Miletans he was safe to release. He continued his travels through Ionia, meeting former acquaintances of Perseus and gaining an audience with Kallipa, a former concubine of Perseus who was now married to Athenaios, brother of the Pergamene king Attalus II Philadelphus. Being a Macedonian by birth, and due to her former connections to the Antigonids, she accepted his claim and agreed to help him, giving him money and slaves, and probably recommending that he travel to Thrace, where he would find a following.

He was also received favourably in Byzantium. He finally arrived in Thrace, where he met Teres III, who had married the granddaughter of Perseus and was the son of Cotys IV, who had once been an ally of Perseus. Teres and the other Thracian chieftains, especially a certain Barsabas, received him enthusiastically; he held a coronation ceremony at Teres' court, was given a few hundred Thracian troops, and set off on his campaign.

Conquest of Macedon
His first attempt to invade was unsuccessful, and he initially did not inspire much enthusiasm among the Macedonians; this made the Romans complacent about the pretender. However, he soon managed to encounter a force of Rome's Macedonian client republics, defeating them in Odomantice; he then invaded Macedon proper, defeating Rome's clients on the banks of the Strymon river. Amidst popular acclaim, he crowned himself king at the old Macedonian capital of Pella in 150/149 BC.

Popular support
Although the Macedonians' initial attitude had been lukewarm, his successes won him popularity and widespread support in Macedon. Anti-Roman sentiment was common in Macedon; the populace was obliging in overthrowing the old regime. Support for Andriscus was not uniform — there was significantly more hesitation among the gentry and upper classes, and somewhat more enthusiasm among the lower classes — but the popular mood was largely in his favour. His claims were bolstered by his correct prediction of the locations of two treasures, which he claimed were specified in the "sealed writing" that had been handed to his caretakers by Perseus, and had later been given to him. Even if there were apprehensions about the veracity of his claim, Niese notes that "one liked to believe what one wished; the re-establishment of Macedonia enabled liberation from the burden of Roman rule. The longer these burdens had been borne, the happier they [the Macedonians] were at the prospect of Macedonia under a king restored from the old lineage."

However, it has also been suggested that the extent of his support may not have been as widespread as often believed, and that a significant amount of the Macedonian populace remained pro-republican and pro-Roman. The relative lack of reprisals towards Macedon after his defeat, as compared to the destructions of Corinth and Carthage in the same period, has been suggested as evidence for this theory.

Military campaigns
Andriscus' reign was defined to a significant degree by his military campaigns, due to his being in a constant state of war with Rome. After his conquest of the Kingdom, he enlarged the army and began campaigns to conquer Thessaly, a key part of the realm of the old Antigonids. Initial resistance to him were from ad hoc forces of Roman allies in Greece, a few Roman units and legates in the region and some resistance from the remnants of Rome's client republics in Macedon, some elements of which seem to have survived for some time into his reign. Soon, however, the Romans sent a legion under the praetor Publius Juventius Thalna to defeat the pretender.

Thalna, however, appears to have underestimated Andriscus' strength, not taking into account the fact that the king's army had grown dramatically since his enthronement. Andriscus attacked and fought him at an unspecified location in Thessaly (Dio gives it as "near the borders of Macedon"); details of the engagement are scarce, but Thalna was killed and his forces almost annihilated. It was the worst defeat Rome would suffer at the hands of the Macedonians; Florus remarks on the irony of how "they that were invincible against real kings, were defeated by this imaginary and pretended king". The victory greatly increased the king's prestige; he obtained an alliance with Carthage, and his domestic popularity was increased dramatically, allowing him to stamp out republican resistance and conquer Thessaly.

Foreign policy
At first, Andriscus attempted to negotiate his position with Rome, but when it became clear that they would not recognize his throne, he embarked on a strongly anti-Roman policy, He continued to cultivate his relations with his Thracian allies, to whom he owed his throne; they would continue to provide significant forces for him during his reign.

Foreign interest in relations with him increased dramatically after his victory over Thalna; as mentioned before, Carthage, which was under attack from Rome in the Third Punic War, allied itself to him and promised him money and ships, though these could not be sent before his ultimate defeat. Significant sympathy, possibly cultivated to a degree by him, arose in Greece; however, the Achaean League remained pro-Roman and continued to resist and fight him. King Attalus II Philadelphus of Pergamon remained staunchly pro-Roman; the Pergamenes were terrified of the prospect of a revived and strong Macedonia on their doorstep.

Domestic policy
Domestically, Andriscus implemented a strongly anti-Roman and anti-Republican policy. Ancient historians interpreted this as his cruelty and tyranny; it has been suggested that these were simply manifestations of his anti-Roman policy and his persecutions of his opponents, including pro-Roman republicans.

At the same time, it is also possible that he was indeed tyrannical. His persecutions increased significantly after his victory over Thalna, costing him significant popularity; this would have dire consequences for him later.

Coinage
The extent and nature of Andriscus' coinage is a matter of debate. It has been suggested that many of his coins were overstrikes of previous Antigonid, republican and Roman coinage. He issued a very small amount of silver drachmae, on which he pictured himself as a Hellenistic king, and added Herakles on the reverse. Only three coins of Andriscus are known, two of which are overstruck, one on a drachm of the Thessalian League, the other on a Roman denarius. It is therefore possible that he also used the denarii he seized as booty after his victory against Thalna to mint his own coins. The coins are also of poor quality, due to the short duration of his reign, the need to reuse old dies and the need to quickly produce wartime coinage.

Some non-royal coinage has also been discovered and dated to the period of his reign, possibly struck by the remnants of the pro-Roman republics. It has also been suggested that the king was more liberal than implied by the sources, and allowed some degree of independent coinage.

Downfall and death

Thalna's defeat shook Roman prestige in the East, and made the Senate realize the full significance of the revolt. They organized a full consular army of two legions under praetor Quintus Caecilius Metellus, to defeat Andriscus and check, if not quell, his uprising. Arriving in Greece in 148 BC, Metellus marched along the Thessalian coast in a combined land and sea advance, while the allied Pergamene fleet threatened the coastal district of northern Macedonia. To protect himself against both offensives, Andriscus took up a defensive position with his main army at Pydna, where Metellus engaged him in battle. In the ensuing Battle of Pydna, Andrisus was decisively defeated. His harsh persecutions during his reign now showed their consequences; this single battle was enough to make him lose control of Macedon, as the people submitted to Metellus. He was forced to flee to Thrace, his original base of support, and began organizing a new army; however, Metellus pursued him swiftly and routed his forces before he could prepare them. Andriscus then fled to the Thracian princeling Byzes; however, Metellus managed to persuade the latter into becoming a Roman ally and handing Andriscus over as a prisoner, ending his reign.

He remained a prisoner over the next two years, while Metellus subdued any remaining Macedonian resistance, organized Macedon as a province and settled the Achaean War of 146 BC. When Metellus returned to Rome in 146 BC, he received the agnomen Macedonicus for his victory and was granted a triumph. Andriscus was brought in chains and paraded in the triumph, and later executed — the last king to reign over Macedon.

Assessment and legacy
Ancient sources are extremely hostile, not only to the origins and claims, but also of the character of Andriscus — Diodorus calls him "shot through with cruelty, greed and every base quality"; Dio and Livy call him "a man of the lowest kind". They also describe him as cruel and tyrannical; accusations of tyranny probably reflect his harsh persecutions of pro-Roman and pro-republican elements in Macedon. At the same time, it is possible that he was indeed tyrannical, especially after his victory over Thalna, and perpetrated acts of terrorism and repression against his subjects.

His main legacy was that in the aftermath of his revolt, the Romans understood the strength of anti-Roman feeling that had arisen in Macedon, and realized that the old administration could not be sustained — a thorough reorganization was necessary. Another reason why reorganization was necessary was that Andriscus' persecutions had killed many pro-Roman republicans and thoroughly disrupted the old administrative structure; it would be difficult to re-establish it. Therefore, the Senate made Macedon a Roman province, with Metellus as its first governor.

title: Andriscus


text:
Andronikos III Palaiologos

Andronikos III Palaiologos (Ἀνδρόνικος Δούκας Ἄγγελος Κομνηνός Παλαιολόγος; 25 March 1297 – 15 June 1341), commonly Latinized as Andronicus III Palaeologus, was the Byzantine emperor from 1328 to 1341. He was the son of Michael IX Palaiologos and Rita of Armenia. He was proclaimed co-emperor in his youth, before 1313, and in April 1321 he rebelled against his grandfather, Andronikos II Palaiologos. He was formally crowned co-emperor in February 1325, before ousting his grandfather outright and becoming sole emperor on 24 May 1328. His reign included the last failed attempts to hold back the Ottoman Turks in Bithynia and the defeat at Rusokastro against the Bulgarians, but also the successful recovery of Chios, Lesbos, Phocaea, Thessaly, and Epirus. His early death left a power vacuum that resulted in the disastrous civil war between his widow, Anna of Savoy, and his closest friend and supporter, John VI Kantakouzenos, leading to the establishment of the Serbian Empire and the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the Balkans.

Life
Andronikos was born in Constantinople on 25 March 1297. His father, Michael IX Palaiologos, began reigning in full imperial style as co-emperor c. 1295.

In March 1318, Andronikos married Irene of Brunswick, daughter of Henry I, Duke of Brunswick-Grubenhagen. In c. 1321 she gave birth to a son, who died in infancy.

In 1320, Andronikos accidentally caused the death of his brother Manuel, after which their father, co-emperor Michael IX Palaiologos, died in his grief. The homicide and the general dissolute behavior of Andronikos III and his coterie, mostly the young scions of the great aristocratic clans of the Empire, resulted in a deep rift in the relations between young Andronikos and his grandfather, still reigning as Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos.

Emperor Andronikos II disowned his grandson Andronikos, who fled the capital, rallied his supporters in Thrace, and began to reign as rival emperor in 1321. A few months after the rebellion began, Andronikos II relented and named Andronikos III his co-emperor. The concession was not enough to prevent intermittent civil war between the two monarchs in the years 1321 to 1328.

Empress Irene died on 16/17 August 1324 with no surviving child. Theodora Palaiologina, sister of Andronikos III, married the new tsar Michael Shishman of Bulgaria in 1324. Andronikos III, then a widower, married Anna of Savoy in October 1326. In 1327 she gave birth to Maria (renamed Irene) Palaiologina.

Andronikos III concluded the Treaty of Chernomen of 1327, an alliance with tsar Michael Shishman of Bulgaria against Stephen Uroš III Dečanski of Serbia. In 1328 the Byzantine civil war ended with the deposition of Emperor Andronikos II, who retired to a monastery.

Military history
Ottoman Turks besieged Nicaea in Asia Minor, historically the provisional capital of the Byzantine Empire from the Fourth Crusade until the Byzantine recapture of Constantinople. Andronikos III launched a relief attempt, which Ottoman sultan Orhan defeated at the Battle of Pelekanon on 10 or 15 June 1329.

Also in 1329, Andronikos III sent a naval expedition against Martino Zaccaria, Genoese ruler of the Lordship of Chios (which also included Samos and Cos). The expedition deposed Zaccaria, and regained Byzantine control of the islands.

An alliance with Bulgaria failed to secure any gains for the Byzantine empire. On 28 July 1330, the Serbians decisively defeated the Bulgarians in the Battle of Velbazhd (modern Kyustendil, Bulgaria) without significant Byzantine participation. The Ottomans continued to advance in 1331, finally taking Nicaea (İznik). Andronikos III wanted Nicomedia and the other few Byzantine forts in Anatolia not to suffer the same fate and sought to pay off the Ottomans with tribute.

Andronikos III reorganized and attempted to strengthen the weakened Byzantine navy, which comprised only 10 ships by 1332; in emergencies, he still could muster a hundred extra merchant ships.

Having failed to gain anything against Serbia, Andronikos III attempted to annex Bulgarian Thrace, but the new tsar Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria defeated Byzantine forces at the Battle of Rusokastro on 18 July 1332. Andronikos III secured peace with Bulgaria by territorial concessions and the marriage of his daughter Maria (renamed Irene) to Ivan Alexander's son, the future Michael Asen IV of Bulgaria.

The Muslim traveler Ibn Battuta visited Constantinople towards the end of 1332 and mentions meeting Andronikos III in his memoirs. Byzantine sources do not attest to the meeting.

Stephen Gabrielopoulos, ruler over Thessaly, died circa 1333; taking advantage of the secession crisis, Andronikos III extended Byzantine control over the region.

Syrgiannes Palaiologos, entrusted with the governorship of Thessalonica, deserted to the side of king Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia and aided their advance in Macedonia. Serbs soon found themselves in possession of Ohrid, Prilep and Srumitsa. Syrgiannes then directed capture of Kastoria, after this Serbs marched down towards Tessaloniki,soon reaching city's walls. Byzantines responded with a well-conceived plot. Byzantine general Sphrantzes Palaiologos, posing as a deserter, entered the Serbian camp and killed Syrgiannes Palaiologos. Dušan's plans were seriously upset, for his successes until then had been chiefly owing to Syrgiannes' strategic abilities, knowledge of Byzantine position and his allies who had surrendered fortresses to Serbs. Furthering Dušan's willingness to negotiate was intelligence that Byzantines just repelled a major Turkish raiding party, enabling more Byzantine troops to aid Tessaloniki front and the report that Hungarians were mobilizing to attack Serbia in the north. Serbs agreed to peace on 26. August 1334. Byzantines recognized Serbian gains in Ohrid, Prilep, Strumitsa, Siderokastron, Chermen and Prosek.

Andronikos III meanwhile effected the recovery of Phocaea in 1334 from the last Genoese governor, Domenico Cattaneo. However, this victory failed to stem significantly the Ottoman advance in Asia Minor. Byzantine rule gradually vanished from Anatolia as tribute failed to appease Ottoman sultan Orhan, who took Nicomedia in 1337, leaving only Philadelphia and a handful of ports under Byzantine control.

Despite these troubles, Andronikos III took advantage of a secession crisis in the Despotate of Epirus in 1337, regaining Byzantine control from Nikephoros II Orsini. Thessaly was also reconquered by Andronikos III during this period.

In 1340, Dušan fell seriously ill. At this critical time, one of Dušan's leading commanders, Hrelja deserted to Byzantines. He could do this because he had possessed holdings right on Byzantine-Serbian border that included region of the middle of Struma river, with Strumitsa and other two other strongly fortified castles near-by.

In 1341, the Latin lords of the Peloponnese sent a delegation to Constantinople, seeking to swear allegiance to the Byzantine crown. An ailing Andronikos III then received the Latin delegation on one occasion, shortly before succumbing to an illness on 15 June 1341.

Domestic policy
John Kantakouzenos, megas domestikos of Andronikos III and later emperor, wielded effective administrative authority during the reign, while the Emperor personally enjoyed hunting and waging war.

Andronikos III also reformed the judiciary through his creation of a panel of four judges, designated "Universal Justices of the Romans".

Family
Andronikos III was first married in 1318 with Irene of Brunswick, daughter of Henry I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg; she died in 1324. They had an unnamed son, who died shortly after birth in 1321.

In 1326, Andronikos III married as his second wife Anna of Savoy, daughter of Amadeus V, Count of Savoy and of his second wife Marie of Brabant, Countess of Savoy. Their marriage produced several children, including:

 * Maria (renamed Eirene) Palaiologina, who married Michael Asen IV of Bulgaria
 * John V Palaiologos (born 18 June 1332)
 * Michael Palaiologos, despotes (designated successor)
 * Irene (renamed Maria) Palaiologina, who married Francesco I Gattilusio.

According to the contemporary Byzantine historian Nicephorus Gregoras (c. 1295–1360), Andronikos also had an illegitimate daughter, Irene Palaiologina of Trebizond, who married emperor Basil of Trebizond and took over the throne of the Empire of Trebizond from 1340 to 1341. The contemporary traveller Ibn Battuta (1304–1368/69) also records in his Rihla the existence of another daughter, who had been married to Öz Beg Khan of the Golden Horde, converted to Islam, and taken the name Bayalun. Ibn Battuta claims to have accompanied her to Constantinople from her husband's court in late 1332 or 1334.

Succession and legacy
Andronikos III died at Constantinople, aged 44, on 15 June 1341, possibly due to chronic malaria, and was buried in the Hodegon Monastery after lying in state at the Hagia Sophia. Historians contend that his reign ended with the Byzantine Empire in a still-tenable situation and generally do not implicate deficiencies in his leadership in its later demise. John V Palaiologos succeeded his father as Byzantine emperor, but at only nine years of age, he required a regent.

The energetic campaigns of emperor Andronikos III simply lacked sufficient strength to defeat the imperial enemies and led to several significant Byzantine reverses at the hands of Bulgarians, Serbians, and Ottomans. Andronikos III nevertheless provided active leadership and cooperated with able administrators. Under him, the empire came closest to regaining a position of power in the Balkans and the Greek peninsula after the Fourth Crusade. The loss of a few imperial territories in Anatolia, however, left the Ottoman Turks poised to expand into Europe.

Within a few months after the death of Andronikos III, controversy over the right to exercise the regency over the new emperor John V Palaiologos and the position of John Kantakouzenos as all-powerful chief minister and friend of Andronikos led to the outbreak of the destructive Byzantine civil war of 1341–47, which consumed the resources of the empire and left it in an untenable position. The weakened Byzantine Empire failed to prevent the formation of the Serbian Empire and, more ominously, the Ottoman invasion of Europe.

title: Andronikos III Palaiologos