Editing Michael VIII Palaiologos (section)

==Michael and Charles of Anjou==
[[File:ShepherdByzempire1265.jpg|thumb|The restored Byzantine Empire in 1265 (William R. Shepherd, ''Historical Atlas'', 1911)]]

The [[Battle of Benevento]] on 26 February 1266 brought forth a new challenger to Michael, one with whom he would struggle for the rest of his life: [[Charles of Anjou]]. Michael, as Geanaklopos emphasizes, "from 1266 until shortly before his death in 1282 ... was constrained to devote almost complete attention to the defeat of Charles, the fulfillment of whose ambition would have brought about the destruction of the Byzantine Empire and reimposition of Latin rule in Constantinople."{{sfn|Geanakoplos|1959|pp=189f}} Charles strengthened his hold on the kingdom of Sicily by defeating [[Conradin]] at the [[Battle of Tagliacozzo]] on 23 August 1268. And looking for help to restore the [[Latin Empire]], on May 1267, Charles concluded the [[Treaty of Viterbo]] with the exiled [[Baldwin II, Latin Emperor|Emperor Baldwin II]] and [[William II Villehardouin]] under the guidance of [[Pope Clement IV]].{{sfn|Geanakoplos|1959|pp=195–200}}

In many ways Michael and Charles were alike. Geanakoplos quotes [[Nicephorus Gregoras]]'s comparison of the two men at length:
{{quote|Charles, motivated not by small but great ambitions, implanted in his mind like a seed the resolution of taking Constantinople. He dreamed that if he could become the master of it, he would restore the entire monarchy, so to speak, of Julius Caesar and Augustus. He was very able not only in planning what he wished to do but in easily translating his thoughts into action. Clearly he surpassed all his predecessors in the strength of his nature and intelligence... Nevertheless, neither his actions against the Greeks nor those of Michael Palaeologus against the Latins could be brought to a successful conclusion. For the strength of both was for a long time so evenly matched that it was well said (this was the opinion of discerning people) that if at that time such an Emperor had not been directing Greek affairs, the Empire would easily have succumbed to Charles, the King of Italy [''sic'']; and, conversely, if such a King had not then been at the helm of Italian affairs, the hegemony of Italy would with little difficulty have passed to Michael Palaeologus.<ref>Gregoras, 123, ll. 8–15; 144, ll. 16ff. Translated in {{harvnb|Geanakoplos|1959|p=190}}.</ref>{{efn|in the original text the Greeks are referred to as Romans "κατὰ τῶν Ῥωμαίων".Although the term "Hellen" appears as well.}}}}

Michael was also faced with a challenge on his Asian frontier. Although the peace treaty with the Seljuk Turks continued to be honored by both parties, nomadic [[Oghuz Turks|Turkmen]] had begun to infiltrate the Byzantine territories, and because of Michael's preoccupation with his Western foes, there was no organized response to this threat. Speros Vryonis also points out that due to his treatment of John IV Laskaris, "there resulted an outright alienation from Constantinople of large segments of Greek society in [[Bithynia]] and elsewhere." In 1269 Michael sent his brother the ''despotes'' [[John Palaiologos (brother of Michael VIII)|John Palaiologos]] into the southern part of Byzantine Anatolia to clear the [[Maeander River|Maeander]] and [[Cayster River|Cayster]] valleys of Turkmen; their response was to fall back before the Byzantine army, and when John was eventually recalled to face foes in Europe, the Turkmen pushed back and resumed their conquests and settlement. Thus by 1269, the cities of Trachia Studia and [[Strobilos]] on the [[Caria]]n coast were firmly Turkish possessions.<ref name=Vryonis>{{cite book|last=Vryonis|first=Speros|year=1971|title=The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century|location=Berkeley|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=978-0-52-001597-5|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wBpIAAAAMAAJ|pages=136–137f, 250f}}</ref>

Michael's response to the Treaty of Viterbo was to attempt to weaken papal support for it; if the Pope was convinced Charles of Anjou's invasion was a just and holy war, then the forces Michael could call on could not prevent its success. Michael returned to negotiating a union of the churches with Pope Clement IV, which he had agreed to, but the latter's death in November 1268 put an end to this approach. According to Geanakoplos, only a lack of resources prevented Charles from immediately launching an attack against Michael.{{sfn|Geanakoplos|1959|p=216}} Looking for some restraint on Charles, Michael made a shrewd appeal to King [[Louis IX of France]], the leading ruler of the West and the elder brother of Charles. Louis was more interested in a crusade against Muslims controlling the Holy Land than attacking a schismatic Christian. So he had Charles join his [[Eighth Crusade|Tunisian crusade]] in 1270. When Louis died in Tunisia, Charles took command, negotiated a truce, and sailed to Sicily, planning to attack Byzantium. At this point a miracle saved Michael: a violent storm destroyed Charles' fleet. "To the Greeks of Byzantium," writes Geanakoplos, "it must have seemed as if the Virgin, their protector, had saved them from disaster."{{sfn|Geanakoplos|1959|p=228}}

After a three year interregnum, during which Charles of Anjou attempted to sway the election, a new pope was elected, [[Gregory X]]. When Michael restarted talks of union, Gregory proved to be less accommodating and negotiated from a position of strength. Michael attempted to reason with Patriarch Joseph and the synod of the importance of agreeing to this union, and that the principle of ''oikonomia'' (which Geanakoplos suggests is best translated here as "considerations of self-interest") required them to accede to papal demands. But despite a propaganda campaign over the winter of 1274–1275, Michael was forced to depose Patriarch Joseph and replace him with his own supporter [[John Bekkos]] in order to obtain a grudging consent to the union.{{sfn|Nicol|1993|p=56}}