hen we think of Hungarian–Armenian relations, we tend to think primarily of the Armenians who settled in historical Hungary, particularly in Transylvania, since the 17th century. Yet these ties date back to the Middle Ages. On the occasion of the 2022 anniversary of the Golden Bull—one of the most important documents of Hungary’s historical constitution—there was much discussion of King Andrew II’s crusade.

In 1217 he became the only Hungarian monarch to lead a crusade to the Holy Land, from which he returned in early 1218.[1] Ahead of his army, the king travelled to Tripoli at the end of 1217 for a family event—specifically, the wedding of Bohemond IV, Prince of Antioch (1201–1216, 1219–1233), and Melisende, sister of King Hugh of Cyprus (r. 1205–1218). Andrew’s family ties entitled him to make this visit, as he was a cousin of the Prince of Antioch; Andrew’s mother, Agnès d’Antioch, was the daughter of the well-known crusader leader Renaud de Châtillon and Constance of Antioch.

It cannot be ruled out that King Andrew travelled by ship from Antioch to an Armenian port, and from there to Tarsus, the birthplace of the Apostle Paul, or perhaps further on to Sis, the capital of the Armenian Kingdom. The Crusader army certainly reached Cilicia—that is, Lesser Armenia—by land.

In the Middle Ages, there were in fact two Armenias: in addition to the territory known today, Armenian principalities began to emerge by the 1070s in the southeastern coastal region of present-day Türkiye, in the area of ancient Cilicia. From these, Prince Ruben (r. 1080–1095), founder of the Rubenid Dynasty, established Lesser Armenia, which lasted until 1375.

On his return journey from the Holy Land, the Hungarian king engaged in a remarkable amount of diplomatic activity. He behaved as one would expect from the head of a European middle power: he held talks with the leaders of the states he passed through, formed alliances, and forged diplomatic ties. His plan may also have been encouraged by the political détente among the countries of the region—the Latin Empire of Constantinople, Orthodox Byzantine Nicaea, and the Seljuk capital, Konya. As a result, from 1213/14 onward, the overland route through Asia Minor reopened and became safe.

‘[The Hungarian king] behaved as one would expect from the head of a European middle power’

In the Armenian city of Tarsus (today’s Mersin, Türkiye), King Andrew betrothed the only child of King Leo of Armenia (Levon the Magnificent I of Metsagorts, r. 1187–1219), Isabella (Zabel, 1215–1252), to his son, Prince Andrew (1210/12–1234). The bride’s lineage must have been attractive; Isabella’s mother was the daughter of the King of Cyprus and the Queen of Jerusalem.

Coins of King Leo I of Armenia PHOTO: Wikipedia

To this day, Hungarian historians remain baffled by the fact of the engagement. Most attribute this to the Hungarian king’s recklessness and haste, finding no serious motive behind the marriage plan.

In reality, by the early 13th century, the Kingdom of Armenia—which had become independent from the Byzantine Empire—had emerged as a significant factor on the political map of the Middle East and Asia Minor.[2] On the throne sat Leo, the kingdom’s founder, who by the 13th century had turned his country into a major hub of international trade, with its ports visited by both Venetian and Genoese ships.

Leo took advantage of the country’s exceptional geostrategic position: to the West, it served as the gateway to the Middle East. Leo consciously integrated Western, Frankish-style elements into his government and drew closer to the Latin kingdoms of the Holy Land. His soldiers were present at the siege of Acre and assisted King Richard the Lionheart of England in the conquest of Cyprus.

Frankish culture exerted a significant influence on Armenian secular society, though it is difficult to assess the extent and effectiveness of its reception. Leo remained tolerant toward the Latin Christian Church and even formally accepted the union with the Church. The Armenian prince requested a crown from the German emperor, whereupon in 1197 the imperial chancellor brought two crowns, one for the Cypriot ruler Aimery and the other for Leo.

‘Leo took advantage of the country’s exceptional geostrategic position: to the West, it served as the gateway to the Middle East’

Leo was crowned within the framework of a great ceremony on 6 January 1198, in the Cathedral of Saint Sophia in Tarsus—now the Great Mosque—in the presence of the Syrian Jacobite Patriarch and the Greek Metropolitan of Tarsus. The church became the site of the coronations of Armenian kings. For the ceremony, Nerses of Lambron, Archbishop of Tarsus, translated the Latin coronation liturgy into Armenian.

A unique ceremony took place, as while Leo was crowned and anointed with holy oil by Catholicos Gregory VI, head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the imperial regalia were presented on behalf of the emperor by Archbishop Konrad of Mainz, German Archchancellor and papal legate. At the same time, Leo was also crowned with a crown sent by the Byzantine Emperor Alexios III Angelos, which only served to reinforce the prestige of the new kingdom. With this act, the third Latin kingdom in the Holy Land was established, alongside Jerusalem and Cyprus.[3]

It is no coincidence that the Hungarian Holy Crown is often cited as a parallel to the dual Armenian coronation; King Béla III of Hungary had transformed it into its present form a few years earlier—perhaps as early as 1182—on the occasion of his son’s first coronation. At that time, an 11th-century Byzantine crown with Greek inscriptions, which was in the Hungarian treasury, was supplemented with crown bands bearing Latin inscriptions, the so-called Latin Crown.[4] The motivation in Hungary may have been the same as in Armenia: in territories bordering the Byzantine Empire, such a crown could signify legitimacy and, in the event of a weakening of Byzantine power, provide a legal basis for independence.

The main problem during Leo’s reign was the issue of succession to the Principality of Antioch. Raymond-Roupen, the son of Raymond of Antioch and Alice of Armenia and Leo’s nephew, was crowned ruler of Antioch in 1216, but was driven from the throne three years later, thwarting the Armenians’ plan to extend their power to Antioch. The war of succession, which began in 1201 following the death of Bohemond III, Prince of Antioch, lasted for nearly a quarter of a century.

Leo the Magnificent of Armenia PHOTO: Wikipedia

Leo was a shrewd politician who formed marital alliances with numerous rulers. Through his second marriage, he became the son-in-law of Aimery, King of Cyprus; his daughter from his first marriage, Rita (Stephanie of Armenia), married John of Brienne, King of Jerusalem; and his niece, Philippa, married Theodore I Laskaris, Emperor of Nicaea, though she was sent home in 1216. Leo won the friendship and support of both the Knights Hospitaller and the Teutonic Knights by granting them significant territories.

Thus, King Andrew arrived in Armenia just at the perfect time, as his kinship with the princes of Antioch—and, through them, with the Armenian dynasty—fit perfectly into King Leo’s plans. Moreover, Andrew was related to both the former Emperor of Constantinople and the current Latin Emperor. Leo rightly counted on the diplomatic support of the highly respected Hungarian king. This was facilitated by the fact that he had made his daughter his sole heir, which was made possible by Armenian canon law, which allowed for the transfer of royal power also to a female heir in the absence of a male heir.

King Andrew, of course, may have miscalculated and been overly impressed by the wealth and cultural vibrancy of the Kingdom of Cilicia. In preparation for the marriage, Andrew was likely accompanied by Armenians on the overland route he chose for his return journey, led by Chamberlain Jocelyn. Andrew could not have foreseen that Leo would die a year later, in 1219, which would cause serious domestic political instability. As a result, the Hungarian–Armenian marriage never took place, and Prince Andrew never made it to Armenia.

Leo’s daughter, Isabella, was subsequently given in marriage to Philip, son of Bohemond IV, Prince of Antioch, but their joint reign lasted only a short time. Philip not only looked down on Armenian church rituals, but his favouritism toward Latin nobles also outraged the Armenian nobility. Philip was stripped of his throne by the nobles, imprisoned, and died in captivity, perhaps as a result of poisoning. It is possible that the same fate would have befallen the Hungarian prince as well.

‘The Hungarian Armenian marriage never took place, and Prince Andrew never made it to Armenia’

Andrew likely envisioned a Hungarian empire, an ‘archiregnum Hungariae’, which would, above all, establish a strong, closely knit confederation in the Balkans and Asia Minor. We do not view the king’s 1219 letter to the pope as a pitiful explanation or defence at all, but rather as a boast. According to this, King Andrew boasted that everyone from Armenia to Bulgaria was his relative, and that even the Seljuk sultan was not averse to a dynastic alliance and baptism. As he writes:

‘Even if we returned against our will out of better judgment, during our fortunate return journey, we did no less good for the Holy Land than if we had remained around Jerusalem. For Leo, the renowned king of Armenia, wishing to gain greater strength through the union of our peoples to break the constant attacks of the neighbouring Turks, gave his daughter in marriage to our son…’

One argument in favour of the plan’s deliberate nature is that, as he continued his journey, Andrew married Maria (Maria Laskarina, 1206–1270), the daughter of Theodore I Laskaris, the Greek Emperor of Nicaea (r. 1205–1221), to his son Béla (later King Béla IV), and betrothed Maria’s daughter to the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Asen (r. 1218–1241). Apart from the Armenian betrothal, the marriages were consummated, and the Bulgarian wedding took place in 1221.

The king’s aforementioned letter to the pope reveals that the Hungarian king planned to marry his niece to the Seljuk Sultan Kaykaus I of Rum (r. 1211–1220). In the letter, Andrew wrote that ‘during our mission, the Seljuk sultan of Iconium [that is, Kaykaus I] also sent us an envoy, who said that if any of our daughters or relatives were to marry him, he would renounce his unbelief, convert to Christianity, and be baptized.’ This may be an exaggeration, but it is a fact that the sultan indeed reached out to the Crusaders, and in 1218, he even attacked the Ayyubid territories in Syria.

The Hungarian policy of ‘opening to the East’ around 1200 may have been the legacy of King Béla III, who was raised in Byzantium during his youth, as symbolized by the Holy Crown, which was assembled from Greek and Latin components. Among King Béla’s sons, Emeric (r. 1196–1204) assumed the title of King of Serbia in 1201, and as Prince Andrew, he took the title of King of Galicia and Volhynia in 1205. From the 1250s onward, Andrew’s son, Béla IV, styled himself King of Bulgaria.

The Habsburg rulers then held these titles until the end of World War I. King Andrew, of course, could not have known about the approaching Mongol armies, which not only reached Hungary by 1241 but also made Armenia a Mongol vassal in the 1240s. In fact, it was the Mongols who ruined Andrew II’s diplomatic masterpiece.

[1] Pál Engel, The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary 895–1526, London, 2001, p. 91.

[2] Mack Chahin, The Kingdom of Armenia: A History, London-New York, 2013, chapter 2/3.

[3] Ioanna Rapti, ‘Featuring the King: Rituals of Coronation and Burial in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia’, in Alexander Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria Parani (eds), Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean, Leiden, 2013, pp. 291–335.

[4] Endre Tóth, The Hungarian Holy Crown and the Coronation Regalia, Budapest, 2021.

‘On his return journey from the Holy Land, [King Andrew II] engaged in a remarkable amount of diplomatic activity. He behaved as one would expect from the head of a European middle power: he held talks with the leaders of the states he passed through, formed alliances, and forged diplomatic ties…As a result, from 1213/14 onward, the overland route through Asia Minor reopened and became safe.’