Emperor Sigismund and the Orthodox World ed. by Ekaterini Mitsiou et al. (review)

Sigismund of Luxemburg, one of the most colorful figures of the late Middle Ages, was controversial both during his lifetime and after his death. Opinions about his achievements have varied, depending on the point of view of the countries he ruled or with which he forged alliances or was engaged in conflicts. His role as a politician who shaped the history of entire Europe as a community of various nations and religions should also not be overlooked. As a declared Catholic, he is usually associated with wars against heretics, against the Czech Hussites, and against the Muslim Turks. His efforts for creating better relations with Orthodox Christians are less well known. This subject matter is the focus of a volume published by the Austrian Academy of Sciences that features seven papers, most of which were presented at a conference organized by the University of Cluj-Napoca in Romania.

The two longest and most important of the papers discuss the political history of Southeast Europe, where Sigismund’s policy as the western emperor and ruler of Catholic Hungary concern matters affecting Orthodox peoples under threat by the incursion of the Ottoman Turks. The longest and arguably most important paper in the volume is Dan Ioan Mureşan’s “A History of Three Emperors: Aspects of Sigismund of Luxemburg’s Relations with Manuel II and John VIII Palaiologos.” Sigismund is the central figure here, with the background featuring the Byzantine emperors representing the Orthodox world, which Sigismund wanted to help. He consistently lobbied for military support for Orthodox countries and tried to establish relations based on tolerance between followers of two varieties of Christianity, both on the territories under his direct rule and in the neighboring countries, by acting in aid of the union of the Churches. Mureşan is correct in saying that, in the political history of Central and Southeast Europe in Sigismund’s time, too much attention has been paid to the crusades he organized and too little to his efforts for tolerance toward Eastern Christians. His position in this regard was radically different from the policy of his predecessor on the throne, Louis the Great. According to the author, the king and emperor’s efforts had a positive influence on the situation of the Orthodox Church not only in the Kingdom of Hungary but also in other countries in the region such as Poland and Lithuania. It seems, however, that the author’s knowledge of the situation in those countries is not always up to date with the current research.

The second extensive article devoted to the history of Central and Eastern Europe in the times of Sigismund of Luxemburg was written by Alexandru Simon (“Annus Mirabilis 1387: King Sigismund, the Ottomans and the Orthodox Christians”). Unlike Mureşan’s paper, it is dominated by an analysis of political relations between states, ordered by area and direction of Sigismund’s policy. The titular year 1387 keeps returning as the starting point for the ruler’s great political game. This approach is conducive to focusing on the emergence of successive political constellations, whereas motivations and religious aspirations take second place.

Several shorter articles concern less-known sources or aspects of Sigismund’s history. Ekaterini Mitsiu discusses the opinions of Byzantine writers about four outstanding western emperors. Apparently, Sigismund made the most favorable impression among the Greeks. Meanwhile, although the research in the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople carried out by Johannes Preiser-Kapeller enabled him to find many places connected with Sigismund’s times, their significance for recognizing this ruler’s achievements is limited, which probably stems from the nature of the source. Mihailo Popović’s expectations were also thwarted with regard to the possibility of defining the role of the Order of the Dragon as...