On their way to engage the inimical Pisan fleet, the Venetian armada stops in Pula to receive additional military support; met with refusal, the Venetian fleet attacks Pula, razes its walls, and sacks the city; defeated, Pula reacknowledges fealty owed to Venice (narrative account as featured in the so-called Annales Venetici brevis).
Anno Domini millesimo centesimo nonagesimo quinto, mense augustusa, exierunt Venetici cum galeis et navibus contra Pisanos et statim quod applicuerunt Polam, invenerunt homines eiusdem civitatis rebelles contra se et sic prendiderunt eadem civitate et dirruerunt muros usque ad terram et omnes res et mobilia secum detulerunt.
a) sic B: pro augusti.
“Hic anno IIIIo, erga Pisanos, nunc finitis treugis decenalibus, galeas decem et sex naves mictens Iohannem Mauroceno et Rogerium Permarino capitaneos ordinavit, qui Polanam urbem obsequia debita denegantem potenter agressi sunt, quam postea optinentes maritimis destructis muris ad pristinam fidelitatem reduxerunt.” – Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. Ester Pastorello, RIS, ser. 2, 12/1 (Bologna 1958), p. 273.
“Hoc tempore, anno Domini MCLXXXXIIII currente, completis treguis Pixanorum contra dictos Pixanos piraticam exercentes omnesque pro posse dapnificantes in mari galee V et naves VI in Veneciis subito armate fuerunt, cuius exercitus domini Iohannes Mauroceno et Ruçerius Permarino fuerunt in capitaneis deputati. Qui cum navibus mercatorum insimul de Veneciis discedentes, urbem Polanam applicuerunt, et a civibus dicti loci, quod de iure dare Venetis tenebantur, humiliter pecierunt, qui Polenses cum verbis obprobriosis et turpibus capitaneis dare aliquid denegarunt. Veneti vero dicti exercitus ob hoc indignati nimium et irati civitatem potenter expugnare ceperunt, quam invictis [sic: pro invitis] civibus habuerunt et expoliata civitate murisque diruptis eos reduxerunt ad fidelitatem pristinam.” – Venetiarum Historia vulgo Petro Iustiniano Iustiniani filio adiudicata, ed. Roberto Cessi and Fanny Bennato (Venice 1964), pp. 132–133.
“E venuta nimicizia tra’ nostri e’ Pisani, essendo insieme in armata al conquisto di Terra Santa, e questo, perché volevano i detti Pisani essere emoli a’ nostri, sì che al presente incominciarono a danneggiare i nostri, e venire coll’armata fino in Golfo e in Istria, e presero Pola. E inteso questo il doge fece armare 10 galere e 6 navi, capitani Giovanni Morosini e Ruggiero Premarin, e con detta armata andarono a Pola e quella ricuperarono, e abbruciarono alcune navi de’ Pisani ch’ ivi si trovavano.” – Marin Sanudo, Le vite dei dogi, ed. Muratori, RIS 22 (Milan 1733), col. 527.
This “rebellion” of Pula is read solely from narrative sources, the oldest of which being the Annales Venetici breves written in the 13th century, a narrative that was subsequently taken over and expanded first by Andrea Dandolo, then by the composer of the Venetiarum historia, and finally by Marin Sanudo (all quoted under the “Medieval Recollections” above). In historiography, this “rebellion” is interpreted variously by various authors, much of the existing interpretations informed by errors committed by 19th-century historians.
First, there is the question of the date of the expedition. The Annales Venetici breves are extremely precise here: the expedition took place in August of 1195 and there is no good reason to ignore this dating. Andrea Dandolo dates the event to the fourth year of Doge Enrico Dandolo’s reign, and this would concord with 1195, the doge being elected in 1192. Venetiarum historia dates the event to 1194, but most probably due to the erroneous calculation of Dandolo’s years of reign as given in Dandolo’s chronicle, from which the narrative in Venetiarum historia borrows liberally. Benussi and De Franceschi (cited above) date it to 1193, Alessandra Rizzi (cited above) gives a relative dating of 1192–1195. Everyone else dates the event to 1195. Due to all the above, there is no justified reason to date this expedition in any year but 1195, which is indeed the year appropriated by most historians.
Second, and more importantly, is the question of the nature of this Venetian expedition in Pula.
The Annales Venetici breves give a succinct but trustworthy account: as the Venetian fleet stopped in Pula on their way to fight against the Pisans, who were stationed in the Adriatic, they found the Istrian city rebelling against Venice. For these reasons Pula was attacked by the Venetians, its walls destroyed, and the city sacked. There is absolutely no mention of Pisans in or around the city of Pula.
Dandolo builds on this narrative and adds the following layers: the doge dispatched ten galleys and six ships to combat the Pisans in the Adriatic, the fleet being placed under the command of Giovanni Morosini and Ruggiero Premarino; the fleet stopped in Pula but the Istrian city “denied them due obedience” (obsequia debita denegans); thus, the Venetians attacked the city, destroying its walls, and finally brought it to heel, that is, “to its former allegiance” (ad pristinam fidelitatem). Again, no mention of Pisans in Pula.
Venetiarum historia builds on Dandolo’s account and adds the following: the fleet stopped in Pula on their way to fight the Pisans, and the captains “humbly asked” (humiliter pecierunt) from the citizens of Pula that which they lawfully owed to Venice (quod de iure dare Venetis tenebantur); the citizens of Pula rudely and disgracefully refused to do so; for this reason, the Venetians attacked them, conquered them and plundered the city, destroyed their walls and “restored them to their former allegiance”. No mention of Pisans.
So far, the three narratives are perfectly concordant with each other. Moreover, there are documentary sources that are also in synch with these narratives. Namely, the Venetian fleet stopped in Pula to receive further military support from the citizens of Pula which were bound to aid any Venetian military campaign in the Adriatic, as per the 1145 and 1150 oath of fealty (see docs. 1145_PP and 1150_PV). This is the “obsequia debita” of Andrea Dandolo and the “quod de iure dare Venetis tenebantur” of Venetiarum historia. Having refused to do so, the Venetians attacked them, razed their walls, pillaged their city, and forced the citizens of Pula back into obedience.
It was only Marin Sanudo who greatly modified the narrative: according to this late-15th-century account, it was the Pisans who conquered Pula as their ships reached the Adriatic and Istria, hellbent on piracy and plundering. The Venetian armada dispatched by the doge triumphantly reached Pula and “recuperated” the city, but razed the city’s walls in the process. Nonetheless, the Venetian navy was triumphant against the Pisans who quickly fled the Adriatic.
This Sanudo’s narrative is markedly different from the earlier, 13th- and 14th-century accounts. The story is “modified” to paint both Venice and Pula in a better light. Sanudo’s story was appropriated by Count Giovanni Kreglianovich-Albinoni in his Memorie per la storia della Dalmazia, vol. 2 (Zadar 1809), p. 48, from where it was taken over by Samule Romanin (cited above). To this day, this “embellished” account finds its way into historiography (De Franceschi, cited above). For example, Madden (cited above) writes how “the island of Pola [sic!]” “surrendered without resistance” to the Pisans, and Rizzi (cited above) writes how the Venetian fleet was dispatched to “liberate Pula, attacked by the Pisans”. These interpretation should be discarded, as they are based solely on Sanudo’s “embellished” narrative.
It was already Lenel (cited above) who criticized Romanin’s interpretation, but he did not know the source of this information and simply saw it as based on “modern sources”. The source is, however, identified as Marin Sanudo the Younger.
There is also another interpretation, most recently taken over by Ivetic (cited above), according to which Pula joined the rebellion against Venice and stood beside Zadar and Ancona in the jointly organized uprising of sorts. While it is possible that the Pisan presence in the Adriatic and Zadar’s rebellion against Venice fueled the anti-Venetian sentiment in Pula, the surviving primary sources do not corroborate the thesis of a joint anti-Venetian endeavor in which Pula, Zadar, and Ancona acted together.
Finally, Schaube (cited above) hypothesized that from this point onward Venice kept Pula on a tighter leash and imposed upon the city Venetian rectors. This interpretation finds apparent confirmation in the fact that in 1199 the rector of Pula, with the title of potestas, is indeed a Venetian, Ruggiero Morosini (doc. 1199_BP), but this alone is not enough to fully support Schaube’s bold thesis.
Taking all the above into account, the interpretation that Pula refused to offer military aid to the Venetian fleet, as promised by the oaths of fealty pledged in 1145 and 1150, and was therefore attacked, sacked, and had its walls razed by Venice, is the most probably, enjoying the most support from the primary sources and narrative accounts closest to these events.