The modest terms of the 1346 treaty and the Genoese attitude towards the Greek inhabitants of the island.

It is imperative to point out that both Treaty documents signed in Chios and Phocaea exhibit a thorough knowledge of local social conditions and affairs noticed by the Genoese that seemed to be aware of the local customs and well informed about the two places they planned to occupy. It must be assumed that the Genoese were well prepared for the terms of the Treaties that had been structured long before the siege, taking into consideration the information provided by the amazingly efficient intelligence services that the superba (the Republic of Genoa) had in the two places. It is also remarkable the fact that if the terms of the two Treaties are compared, it is obvious that the inhabitants of Chios were treated more leniently than those of Phocaea. This cannot be fully explained since Chios was not richer than Phocaea. The former was gifted with its strategic position and the monopoly of mastic trade, but Phocaea possessed alum mines (Alum, a hydrated sulphate rich in aluminium and other metallic elements, was widely used by ancient and ethnographic peoples as a mordant, as a cleanser/detergent and in a large range of medicinal uses) of much greater commercial importance. Possibly, Vignoso thought that the Chians deserved better treatment, because they bravely resisted his attacks for three months, while the defenders of Phocaea had only managed to fight against them for only four hours. In addition, the inhabitants of Chios were more highly civilized as compared to their Phocaean counterparts an element that could possibly attract the Genoese respect and recognition. 

The general attitude of the Genoese gathered by the treaties is rather that of a sovereign state to another, because it is specified by terms of agreement between two equal parts. The terms of the treaty of surrender were so moderate as to be astonishing.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that Vignoso paid particular attention to the control of his men’s actions while in Chios. There is a story unfolding his fair attitude involving even his young son Francesco that was punished by flagellation, because he had stolen some grapes. Although both Greeks and Genoese begged him to show mercy, because of Francesco’s youth, Vignoso ordered to be publicly punished and the stolen grapes to be hung round his neck. He said: ‘I’d rather be a just leader than a tender father’. Also, in an attempt to show sympathy and philanthropy to the Chian people, he left by his will 500 ducats to be used as dowries for the poorer Chian women that had suffered any loses because of the Genoese invasion.

Clearly, the hostile attitude of the Chians towards the Genoese stemming from the early memory of Martino Zaccaria’s oppressive domination on the island was soon inverted. The preliminary attitude of the Chians towards the Genoese colonists -manifested with their fierce resistance and initial reaction by crying ‘Death to the Genoese’ from the walls of their citadel- shortly after their presence on the island was reversed. This is clearly exhibited in the writings of Laonicos Chalkokondylas in 1480 that was a severe opponent to the Western domination that expressed his satisfaction regarding the collaboration and peaceful coexistence between the Greeks and Genoese in Chios. He emphasizes the fact that the Mahonesi had governed the island with prudence and the greatest of moderation. These two contradictory examples provide the framework for the newly-formed established Greco-Genoese relations between the 14th and 16th centuries that illustrate the shift from a state of despise and intolerance -based on preexisting political and religious hatred- to a new status of nearly mutual respect described as imperum merum et mixtum.