Download PDF | Mobility And Migration In Byzantium A Sourcebook, By Claudia Rapp (Author) , V&R unipress , 2023.
501 Pages
Introduction
Mobility and migration were an integral part of Byzantium. This is true for geographical movement as for social mobility. The dynamic diversity of Byzantine culture would not have been possible without the contribution of other cultural traditions, norwould the longevity of the Byzantine political system have been sustainable without the possibility for social change.
All of this depended on the movement of individuals from one location to another. People moved in and out of Byzantium, and within the Byzantine Empire, for a wide variety of reasons: voluntarily in search of a better future, or coerced as a result of warfare, imperial settlement policy or natural catastrophes. They moved as individuals, in small families, in larger clans, or as parts of ethnic or religious groups, regardless of their status, whether free or enslaved. In the process, they fostered cultural, linguistic and political connectivity while struggling to maintain their identity or striving to adjust to their new surroundings.
From our particular vantage point as global citizens in the third decade of the second millennium where the many different push-and-pull factors that lead to migrations and mobility are ever present in our lives and in political discourse, these phenomena take on acute importance. Yet, they do not take center stage in Byzantine writing. Mentions of mobility and migration must be sought out across a large range of texts that survive from the period, and then carefully interpreted and contextualized, as will be explained below. The focus of this book is thus on Byzantine authors and their depiction of mobility and migration, from the middle of the 7th to the 15th century, across a wide array of genres. It has no aspirations to offer a complete documentation of movements within, into and out of the empire: such an undertaking would require the consultation of non-Greek sources as well as the inclusion of evidence from material culture and archaeology. Instead, we wish to demonstrate that the themes of mobility and migration are present in Byzantine writing to a far larger extent than might be assumed, if we only start looking
Contexts of inquiry This volume represents a collective effort that results from a research project in Vienna which is described in greater detail at the end of this introduction. The exploration of mobility and migration inserts itself into larger contexts of inquiry that have been prominent in medieval scholarship in recent decades, mirroring the political concerns of our current societies, especially in the northern hemisphere. I will mention only four, along with a small selection of relevant publications. First, agency: In the highly stratified societies whose hierarchies were defined by ecclesiastical and worldly rulership, to what degree were individuals able to articulate their autonomous self? What choices were open to them to determine their life trajectory? What kinds of departures from their original surroundings (figurative or geographical) did this require?1 Second, networks: What kinds of networks did historical agents create in order to achieve their goals? Howwere these networks maintained, for example through marriage or gifts? How were these connections articulated? Letters and the study of epistolography play a major role in this investigation.
Historical network research has made great advances to a better understanding of how networks were created, but also how different networks intersected and interacted, often across social hierarchies and over wide geographical distances.2 Third, migrations: The movement of individuals, groups, or peoples has drawn attention in a wide range of historical research, depending on its cause. Warfare that results from invasion may lead to the immediate displacement of the resident population (either as refugees or as prisoners of war), and results in the settlement of the invaders. Any military action involves soldiers being recruited and leaving their homes for parts unknown. These aspects have been studied by political historians in conjunction with the major invasions into Byzantine territory, by the Arabs, the Seljuqs, the Crusaders, and the Ottomans, but also by administrative and military historians who are investigating the organization of military recruitment in the context of provincial administration, and the origin of the theme system.
Religious missions require long journeys by the missionaries and bring them into contact (and often deliberate confrontation) with local people, their customs and beliefs. The sixth-century expansion of Christianity from the realm of the Eastern Roman Empire further East that led to the expansion of Syriac-speaking Christianity all the way to Asia, and the Byzantine missions to the Slavs in the 9th century that resulted in the spread of Constantinopolitan (‘Orthodox’) Christianity in northeastern Europe have been studied through this lens. Changes in the climate and the environment have been traced in recent years with the help of new scientific methods (such as pollen analysis or limnological sampling), leading to a better understanding of food scarcity as a motor for migration or hostile attacks.4 Fourth, global connectivities: Cultural interactions have traditionally been studied as they resulted from warfare or mission. In more recent decades, greater attention has been paid to border regions as contact zones with their distinctive profile.
Jerusalem or the Monastery of Saint Catherine in the Sinai emerge as entrepots of cultural and social exchange – often across multiple languages – alongside Constantinople and other major cities. The exploration of the Cairo Genizah documents and a rise in Mediterranean studies have led to investigations of transregional contacts. Greater attention to long-distance trade by land or by sea, along with important shipwreck discoveries, have further expanded the scope of inquiry all the way to the Indian Ocean and to Asia.5 Byzantium is now being studied not only as one of the three successor cultures that grew out of Greco-Roman antiquity in the Mediterranean, but also as an economic, political and cultural entity that was linked, directly or indirectly, with contemporary cultures and societies, whether in Iceland, the Sudan or China.
This is the background that makes the study of mobility and migration so relevant. In order to gain a better understanding of how the Byzantines themselves articulated their own ideas on these topics, we must begin with the sources. Telling the story Sources are never neutral snapshots, but always shaped by the lens of the author and coloured by the perception of the reader. Understanding the way in which authors chose their words and tell their stories brings us closer to the perceptions of the Byzantines regarding mobility and migration. Is this regarded as an opportunity or as a calamity? Are people who move for professional reasons envied for their extensive experience and new opportunities, or pitied for their unstable life? Do authors approve of imperial orders for forced re-settlements or do they report them as a way to criticize an emperor? Understanding how authors do (or do not) address these topics brings us one step closer to a broader appreciation of how and in what contexts the Byzantines themselves made mobility and migration an issue of reflection. The attitudes towards travel and mobility displayed by Byzantine authors change over time.7 In late antiquity, when the political unity forged by the Roman Empire ensured the possibility of safe and relatively easy travel across large distances, authors such as Cosmas Indicopleustes (‘the traveler to India’, 6th century) displayed a certain curiosity and eagerness to engage with distant regions and peoples. In the middle Byzantine period, as the empire dealt with invasions along its northern and eastern frontiers and their aftermath, the writings of the intellectuals of the political and ecclesiastical elite focused their attention exclusively on Constantinople, displaying a certain disdain even towards the provinces.
Even those who traveled abroad as ambassadors did not describe their experiences in detail. This changed in the late Byzantine period, when the Italian maritime republics expanded their trading networks to include Byzantium which now formed the pivot in an extensive transportation network that connected Asia with Latin Europe. This was the time when Byzantium held diminished political power in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical setting. In this context, individuals who had traveled, usually for the purposes of diplomacy and trade, began to present themselves as cultural brokers who made it their mission to share their impressions and experiences with their audience at home. Mobility and migration were a fact of life in Byzantium as in any other culture and period. We would like to know more about the frequency and scale of movement in order to gain a deeper understanding of the significance of movement within the political system. How often did this happen? How many people were involved? Was the social mobility of individuals facilitated and encouraged by the imperial government, or was it a matter of enterprising individuals operating at their own initiative? We would also like to understand the systemic aspects of mobility and migration. To what degree was the re-location of peoples from one region to another an essential part of Byzantine imperial governance, securing the continued functioning of the empire? How did the imperial administration organize its forced migrations? Was there an established administrative protocol that the imperial administrators could draw upon? Scholarship is just beginning to pay attention to these issues, and a more attentive approach to the surviving textual material through the lens of mobility and migration may well bring to light previously overlooked aspects.
The sources only rarely address mobility and migration directly. But absence of evidence should not be construed as evidence of absence. Instead, we must note with Anthony Kaldellis, that many Byzantine authors “cultivated a view of themselves as discrete and isolated”, rather than in dialogue with other peoples and cultures.8 The description of the people who move, the reason and modality of movement and the authors’ attitude to both, depends on the type of text that tells their story. An attempt at a classification Two parameters can be applied in the analysis of Byzantine writing on mobility and migration: whether the movement is depicted intentionally or incidentally; and who the actors are, whether nameless masses, specific groups, families or individuals. The first and largest category are texts where movement is mentioned on purpose. They draw attention to the fact of the movement itself, either as a remarkable feat or in order to depict or explain a particular situation. Such mentions appear in historical accounts, chronicles, biographies, ego-accounts, and saints’ Lives, while specialized handbooks offer advice on various concrete aspects of mobility Historians are driven to write about events that they consider unusual or momentous, and Byzantine authors are no exception. The decisive events in the history of Constantinople, and by extension of the entire Byzantine Empire, were the capture of the city by the Crusaders in 1204 and the Ottoman sieges that began in the 14th century, culminating in the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.
The resulting displacements of individuals, families and larger groups are described vividly by eye-witnesses who were themselves affected. Niketas Choniates stands out for his lively account as an eye-witness and participant in the exodus of highclass families from Constantinople after 1204 (1.1.1). The displacement of larger groups of people, by contrast, is reported in chronicles, often in a summary fashion: they describe how large numbers of inhabitants of cities or regions were either captured as prisoners of war or forcibly re-settled as a result of imperial policy. These are most often reported in the middle Byzantine period, in conjunction with the Arab advance of the 7th to 9 th centuries and with the Seljuq advance in the 11th to 13th centuries, although such forced displacements could also be triggered by religious dissent, as in the case of the Paulicians (1.6.3, 1.6.4). The forced movement of large groups of people from one region to another is a recurring theme in the Chronicle of Theophanes, who is one of the main sources for Byzantium’s initial confrontation with the Arabs in the seventh to ninth centuries (1.2.1).
The movements of marginal groups, whether religious or ethnic are reported in technical treatises (4.3.1), historical narratives, sometimes also biographies. Throughout Byzantine history and in various regions of the empire, migrating population groups maintained their own characteristics, clinging to their language and (religious) customs. The most prominent such groups are the Jews (3.4.5, 3.4.6), the Armenians (3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4) and the Vlachs (1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3), the latter further distinguished by their transhumance as cattle-herders which made them a perceived threat to settled locals. People who move around have more stories to tell than those who remain in one place. This explains why there are many reports of movement by authors who write ego-accounts from their own experience, whether as intellectuals (3.4.7) or ambassadors (3.1.0, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3). Poets sometimes assumed the stance of a first-person narrator affected by displacement (4.1.1). Ego-documents and autobiographical narratives that are written in retrospect tend to present the author’s mobility in positive terms, as an essential step in the trajectory of a life that has turned out successful, even if they occasionally acknowledge the challenges involved or recall the painful moment of the first departure from home.
Many of the descriptions of faraway places and their exotic appearance, the tales of distant peoples and their customs that were produced in Byzantium have their origin in the author’s own travels.
Monks and nuns, and especially holy men and holy women, cultivated an attitude of detachment from material possessions and family ties. Byzantium did not propagate the spiritual value of peregrinatio to the same extent as the Latin West, where it is particularly prominent in Irish monasticism. Indeed, compared to the West, there is a striking dearth of Byzantine texts specifically related to pilgrimage, such as travel guides or accounts of pilgrimage. Still, monastics are often depicted as being in motion, whether embarking on pilgrimage to Jerusalem or moving from one monastery or one spiritual father to another in their search of a suitable spiritual environment. Beginning with the 9th century, saints’ Lives record the involuntary displacement of their protagonists either as a result of the Arab incursions in Asia Minor or of Arab piracy in Sicily and the Peloponnese. These people either flee to safety, often moving from one place to another, or are captured as prisoners of war and, if they are fortunate, later return to Byzantium.
Their fate at the hands of the Muslims is often discussed in stories that address conversion to Islam (or resistance to it) and re-conversion to Christianity. Monastic living that lacked a permanent residence became popular again, after early beginnings in late antiquity, in the eighth and ninth centuries. In the 13th and 14th centuries, xeniteia (i. e. detachment, or living as a stranger) was propagated as a monastic virtue, as reflected in a number of hagiographical accounts where the protagonists make the lack of a stable abode their life’s calling.9 Among the sources that explicitly address mobility are a whole range of texts that were specifically created to assist in the preparation and execution of movement: military handbooks give guidance how to prepare and conduct a military campaign , and geographical treatises explain passageways by land and sea.10 Now that we have discussed those texts that place movement front and center, let us look at the second category, namely references to movement in texts that deal with other (not movement-related) topics.
An attentive reading can reveal a wealth of movement-related evidence, even in such disparate sources as judicial documents, imperial pronouncements, patriarchal archives, and inscriptions. They offer welcome and often detailed glimpses of the personal fate of individuals or small groups of people, but it is not clear to what degree these should be generalized. The depiction of mobility in writing where the authorial voice does not draw attention to itself, but is nonetheless present, is a topic with many ramifications that would repay intensive further study. Once we began looking at the non-literary sources, we found in court records the mention of women who walked on foot for a whole week in order to appear before a judge to get their marriage dissolved (4.2.2), or detected in the testament of an aristocrat his reflection on how he and his family had to start their new life in a new location and how he looked back with pride on their accomplishments in moving and settling in a new environment (3.2.2). Other instances could not be included: in a saint’s Life we encountered the description of the desperation of farmers driven to abandon their plots after droughts and famines;11 and in a monastic foundation charter, we could detect how the founder of the community, a nobleman from Georgia, expressed his relief at settling down in what is now Bulgaria after decades spent on military campaign in the service of the Byzantine emperor, but stipulated that only Georgians should be allowed to join this community, in a striking display of resistance to assimilation.12 While we have tried our best to include a wide range of examples, from a wide range of texts, we are aware that this cannot adequately capture the lived experience of the people involved. The texts often report only in cursory terms what we must imagine as the misery of refugees, the agony of prisoners of war, the despair of women fleeing domestic violence, the effects on settled families of the rapaciousness of pirates, the hardships of nomadic cattle-herders, the risky business of traders, and the back-breaking work of migrant laborers. The scholarly language we have been accustomed to use implies a certain level of detachment and abstraction, but this should never detract from the fact that – then as now – mobility and migration were often deeply emotional and lifechanging (and very frequently life-threatening) experiences whose memory lives on and shapes the self-perception of subsequent generations.
Guiding principles of the sourcebook The selection of source materials assembled in this volume highlights how Byzantine authors understood and represented the processes of mobility and the experience of people on the move. This also allows us to take stock of the variety of sources in which mobility and migration are mentioned. By adopting this focus on the written evidence, we are putting ourselves at the authors’ mercy, depending as we do on the information they chose to provide. Our only antidote to their subjectivity is to question their intentions, to pay attention to their literary artistry in manipulating the readers’ reactions, and to set their writing within larger literary and historical contexts. Indeed, an early, provisional title for this volume was ‘Perceptions of Mobility and Migration in Byzantium’. We are fully aware that our efforts are only a first step. A full assessment of mobility and migration in Byzantium would require recourse to archaeology and material culture, and the inclusion of texts written in other languages than Greek. The passages presented here come from texts that cover the period from ca. 650 to 1453, and derive from a wide range of sources, including archival or administrative documents. Our challenge was to ensure coverage across centuries, literary genres, and themes within this one collection. We also aimed to include women and the lower social strata who tend to be below the radar of the elite male authors who wrote historical narratives.
We have also given preference to texts written in the first person, as these may offer reflections from a personal vantage point. It is essential to pay attention to the way in which a particular movement is represented. Is movement described in a positive or a negative way? How does the author depict the agents in the text? What kind of language register is used? With these kinds of insights, it may be possible to come one step closer to an understanding of what mobility and movement may have signified to the Byzantines themselves – the characters in the text, the authors who tell their stories and the audience that receives them. For this reason, the text passages in each segment are arranged according to their date of composition, and not according to the date of the events they are describing. We have aimed to combine the betterknown passages with sources that have not yet been at the center of scholarly attention. Many of them are translated here into English for the first time. Organization of the sourcebook The book is arranged in five large thematic clusters.
The first cluster, Why moving? offers passages that illustrate the reasons for movement and migration. These could range from major historical events to professional advancement and private motives. Next to warfare and other forms of violent conflict, forced resettlement takes up a prominent place. The reasons for movement may have been systemic, imposed by imperial foreign, domestic or religious politics, or caused by natural catastrophes. Here we encounter larger groups of people, often nameless. Equally common was movement in pursuit of a livelihood, beginning with nomadic pastoralism, but also to advance one’s career prospects, to pursue an education, to engage in diplomacy, to seek physical or spiritual health, or for family reasons. Who moved? shifts perspectives from systemic necessity to individual agency: Here the emphasis is on the people whose occupation implied or required movement: the wealthy and privileged who maintained their extensive networks of influence through visits and marriages, skilled laborers in search of specialized work, dependent farmers at the whim of their landlords, men under arms who depended on recruitment and opportunities to fight near and far, merchants, traders and artisans who peddled their trade in different locations, entertainers and other self-made men and women who traveled around. Scales, configurations and perspectives takes yet a different vantage point: it depicts representations of movement depending on the number of people involved and their interrelations.
The accounts by ambassadors and messengers are rare ego-documents that talk not only about the circumstances of their travels, which are highlighted here, but could also be further explored with regard to their experiences in distant places and their perceptions of the world outside Byzantium. Kinship groups, families and clans are depicted as moving due to necessity or under duress, while the intentional movement of larger groups and confederations of people is represented as potentially violent and threatening. The diasporas and networks these people formed are treated by the Byzantine authors with distant respect and an undercurrent of suspicion. The volume would not be complete without addressing Modalities of movement, which offers some examples of the depiction of the various stages of movement, from departure to arrival and subsequent settlement. The means of movement that were available to the poor and the rich varied widely. The emotions at the moment of departure into an unknown future are experienced by young brides sent off to their future husbands and by intellectuals evicted from their home, and on a different scale by local groups who were forcibly re-settled in distant regions (cf. 1.2.1).
At the conclusion of the volume stands a cluster on The Imaginary that draws attention to the many differentways in which the Byzantines approached travel in the widest sense in their fictional and religious imagination: both as a painful departure from the known and as an adventuresome movement towards the unknown. In order to transport their characters to worlds beyond human reach, whether Heaven or the underworld, authors also imagined fantastic ways of transportation for them. Only rarely does the harsh reality of enslavement become fictionalized. Structure of the volume The five larger clusters are sub-divided into thematic segments, preceded by an introduction. Each segment features a selection of three or more text passages. Segment introductions and text passages are identified by a three-digit number. These are also used for cross-referencing. Each segment begins with a short introduction that addresses the general topic, sets the source passages that follow into a larger context, and offers bibliography for further reading.
The source passages follow a standard format to guide the readers: introduction, source passage in translation, further remarks and bibliography. First comes information about author, date and genre of the text (as has been noted above, we are guided by the date of composition of the text, not the date of the event that is being reported), followed by remarks about the literary aspects of the source passage, the historical significance of the movement, and information about the edition and, where appropriate, the translation that was used. If serviceable English translations were available, we have checked and adapted them. In many cases, we have created our own translations. The translation of the relevant passage is followed, where appropriate, by more detailed commentary. A bibliography suggests further readings. The book is intended for the widest possible audience – anyone interested in Byzantium and/or mobility and migrations, their representation in writing and their history – without sacrificing scholarly standards.
It is our hope that the book will also be useful in academic instruction. For this reason, the bibliographies mention introductory works and anglophone scholarship which will guide the reader towards further in-depth study. To encourage further research, particular efforts have also been made to include footnote references to the relevant biographical dictionaries (prosopographies), where more information about historically known individuals can be found. Supplementary material Further helpful material is to be found at the end of the book, in order to guide the non-specialist reader: The List of Terms explains Byzantine special words that appear frequently and remain untranslated. The List of Names includes both authors of texts and actors in the narratives. The List of Places allows insights into the regions that were most affected by mobility and migration. It is also the basis of the maps. The List of Source Texts by Date of Composition should facilitate further synchronic or diachronic study, and make the book especially suitable for classroom use. The citation system is that of the journal Medieval Worlds.13 For the spelling of Byzantine words in transliteration and for abbreviations of journal and series titles, we follow the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. How to cite individual entries Citations of sourcebook entries should follow the rules for entries in encyclopedias or dictionaries. For example: Simeonov, Grigori, Pastoralism: nomadic and transhumant, in: Claudia Rapp et al. (ed.), Mobility and Migration.
A Byzantine Sourcebook, Moving Byzantium 1 (Göttingen, 2023), 1.8.0, 155–158. Origins and context of this book: recent research at Vienna on mobility and migration The book is the result of sustained collaboration of a multi-generational and international group of scholars in the context of the ‘Moving Byzantium’ project at the University of Vienna and the Austrian Academy of Sciences. This work was financed through the Wittgenstein-Award of the Austrian National Research Fund (FWF, Z288-G25) granted to Claudia Rapp in 2015 for the exploration of ‘Mobility, Microstructures and Personal Agency.’ The following team members contributed to this volume: Dirk Krausmüller, Matthew Kinloch, Ekaterini Mitsiou, Ilias Nesseris, Christodoulos Papavarnavas, Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, Claudia Rapp, Giulia Rossetto, Rustam Shukurov, Grigori Simeonov, and Paraskevi Sykopetritou.14 In earlier years of the project, the Moving Byzantium team also included Emilio Bonfiglio, Nicholas Evans and Yannis Stouraitis.
‘Moving Byzantium’, the abbreviated project title, is also the title of the series that results from it, published by Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht for Vienna University Press, co-edited by Claudia Rapp and Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. It is suitable that this sourcebook, which represents a collective effort, should be the first volume in the series. A companion volume that follows the same format, covering the ‘migration periods’ of late antiquity and the early middle ages with the inclusion of Latin sources is in preparation by the Tübingen research group (DFG Forschungsgruppe) ‘Migration and Mobility in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages’.
Why Moving?
The first section offers passages that illustrate the reasons for movement and migration. These could range from major historical events to professional advancement and private motives. Next to warfare and other forms of violent conflict, forced re-settlement takes up a prominent place. The reasons for movement may have been systemic, imposed by imperial foreign, domestic or religious politics, or caused by natural catastrophes. Here we encounter larger groups of people, often nameless. Equally common was movement in pursuit of a livelihood, beginning with nomadic pastoralism, but also movement to advance one’s career prospects, to pursue an education, to engage in diplomacy, to seek physical or spiritual health, or for family reasons.
Claudia Rapp
Warfare
Warfare and all other forms of armed conflict were one of the main reasons for the movement of people, both those actively engaged in the conflict (fighters and support personnel on both sides, see 2.4.0) and those on whose territory the conflictwas carried out. The latter either moved temporarily to seek safety during the confrontations, or were forced to abandon their homes afterwards for a variety of reasons, most prominently forced re-settlement within the empire (see 1.2.0) or abduction as prisoners of war beyond its borders (see 1.3.0). Scholars of Byzantium have used three military confrontations to divide the history of the empire into three phases. The early Byzantine period ended with the Arab invasions, the middle Byzantine period came to an end with the arrival of the Crusaders, and the late Byzantine period was shaped by the advance of the Ottomans. The initial phase of the Arab expansion into the Mediterranean basin led to the loss of a considerable part of the empire’s eastern provinces, culminating in the conquest of Alexandria and the fall of Egypt in 641.1 Henceforth, annual raids took place in Byzantine Anatolia, while in 669 the Arabs even got as far as Chalcedon on the Asiatic coast of Bosporus, just across from Constantinople. The capital itself was besieged, unsuccessfully, from 717 to 718. The decline of Abbasid power in the second half of the 10th century gave Byzantium the chance to mount a counter-offensive, which was led by the emperors Nikephoros II Phokas,2 John I Tzimiskes3 and Basil II,4 all capable military leaders.5 As a result of these efforts the Empirewas able to and to reclaim provinces that had been lost in the previous centuries.6 When the crusading armies arrived at the beginning of the 12th century, the empire fought again in the East, this time against the Seljuk Turks who from the middle of the 11th century had started to encroach on Byzantine territory and had eventually captured places near the capital such as Nicaea.
The various crusader kingdoms and principalities in the Levant, which were founded after the First Crusade (1096–1099), formed also partly a threat to Turkish polities in Anatolia. This led to a shift in the balance of power, which gave the Komnenian emperors the opportunity to retake many of the lands that had been lost. They got, however, also involved in conflicts with the Crusaders such as in the struggle for the overlordship over the County of Antioch in Northern Syria.7 The culmination of this new political reality was the fall of Constantinople to the armies of the Fourth Crusade and the Venetians in 12048 (for the description of the flight of the Greek population from their fallen capital by Niketas Choniates see 1.1.1), an event that deeply affected the mentality of the Byzantines, even after the reconquest of the City in 1261 (see 1.1.2). In the last two centuries of its existence the Eastern frontier of the Empire was again threatened by various Turkish formations, with the Ottomans making constant advances (see 1.1.3) until they finally managed to conquer the capital itself in 1453. From the 7th to the 10th century a large number of military handbooks were composed in Byzantium. Their authors often give detailed instructions about the movements of troops. Some of the more well-known manuals were written by or attributed to emperors, who were experienced military leaders, such as Maurice in the late 6th century and Nikephoros Phokas in the 10th. Other works were compilations based on older material, produced during the reigns of Leo VI the Wise9 and his son Constantine VII10 in the age of encyclopedism.11 Although the consolidate its presence in Anatolia Byzantine manuals reflect up to a point the current military practices on the empire’s Eastern frontiers, they are mostly derivative and prescriptive rather than descriptive in nature.
Byzantine hagiography, by contrast, offers vivid descriptions of the effects of warfare on the lives of individuals, families, villages, cities, and regions. A surprising number of holy men were forced by military confrontations, but also by piracy and brigandage to lead itinerant lives. One of the most significant examples is the Life of Saint Christodoulos,12 who in the late 11th century was constantly on the move due to pirate raids and the advance of the Seljuk Turks until he finally founded a monastery dedicated to Saint John the Theologian on the island of Patmos (see 2.3.3).13 A cluster of hagiographical accounts of the 9th and 10th centuries features protagonists who were affected by the Arab attacks, and were either deported as prisoners of war (see 1.3.0) or killed by the enemy and subsequently celebrated as neo-martyrs. Saint Elias the Younger (ca. 823–903)14 lived a very tumultuous life [BHG 580]. He was taken prisoner by Arab raiders who brought him from his hometown in Sicily to North Africa. There he spent many years in captivity as a slave, before finally managing to gain his freedom.15 Generally it was the case that more prominent prisoners were exchanged orransomed, as this wasin the interest both sides, and in fact there are provisions in Byzantine military manuals for such occasions.
This was not, however, always the case. The forty-two high Byzantine officials that were taken prisoner during the sack of the city of Amorion (near modern Hisarköy) by the Arabs in 838 were executed several years later and were subsequently venerated by the Church as martyrs.16 In Byzantine historical writing, the focus is on emperors and their deeds, which are often described in great detail. Authors of chronicles, too, make mention of armed conflicts in their shorter entries of annual events, usually in a matter-of-fact style. With greater chronological distance to the events, the reporting tends to be less vivid; the people affected are no longer viewed as individuals, but begin to be treated as a nameless mass. The fate of the people who are actively or passively involved in the conflict is rarely mentioned, and even rarer are reports about their movements. The most detailed accounts are offered by historians who write in close proximity to the events they narrate, who observed them as eyewitnesses, or who themselves experienced some kind of displacement. Further reading Haldon, John, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204 (London, 1999). Haldon, John (ed.), Byzantine Warfare (Aldershot and Burlington, 2007). Haldon, John, Byzantium to the Twelfth Century, in: Anne Curry and David A. Graf (eds.), The Cambridge History of War, vol. 2: War and the Medieval World (Cambridge, 2020) 107–132. Stouraitis, Yannis (ed.), A Companion to the Byzantine Culture of War, ca. 300–1204, Brill’s Companions to the Byzantine World 3 (Leiden and Boston, 2018). Stouraitis, Yannis, Migrating in the Medieval East Roman World, ca. 600–1204, in: Johannes Preiser-Kapeller et al. (eds.), Migration Histories of the Medieval Afroeurasian Transition Zone. Aspects of Mobility between Africa, Asia and Europe, 300–1500 C.E., Studies in Global Social History 39; Studies in Global Migration History 13 (Leiden and Boston, 2020) 141–165. Treadgold, Warren, Byzantium and its Army, 284–1081 (Stanford, 1985). Treadgold, Warren, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford, 1997). Ilias Nesseris, Claudia Rapp 1.1.1 Niketas Choniates and his family flee from Constantinople after the Crusader conquest of 1204 Author: Niketas Choniates (born ca. 1155 in Chonai, died 1217 in Nicaea)17 Text: History (Chronike Diegesis) Date of text: late 12th century /first decade of the 13th century Genre: Historiography Literary context: Niketas Choniates’ History is the most important Byzantine source for the period from 1118 to 1207. Towards the end of his work, Niketas laments the conquest and plunder of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, which he observed and experienced first-hand, regarding them as divine retribution for the corruption of Byzantine society and its rulers. The passage below describes his own departure from Constantinople, after one of his homes was burnt down and a second one was seized by the invaders.
His narrative becomes even more dramatic when he reports his family’s flight from Constantinople first to Selymbria and then to Nicaea, where he spent the remainder of his life in the service of Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221)18 and also wrote his History, which is preserved in the manuscripts in three redactions. A paraphrase in a less erudite register of Greek was produced in the early 14th century. Historical significance of the movement: Niketas provides a rare autobiographical account of involuntary movement as a result of military action, following one of the most decisive events in the history of Byzantium, the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. Type of movement: involuntary / war / refugees. Locations and date of movement: April 1204-June 1206 (from Constantinople to Selymbria), June 1206-December 1206 (from Selymbria back to Constantinople); 1207 or 1208 (from Constantinople to Nicaea). Edition used: Niketas Choniates, History, ed. Jan-Louis van Dieten, CFHB 11/1–2 (Berlin and New York, 1975) vol. 1, 587–588, 593–594, 635. Translation used: Magoulias, Harry J., O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniates(Detroit, 1984) 322–323, 326, 348 (heavily modified by Claudia Rapp).19 Niketas Choniates, History [p. 587] (…) their leaders [of the Crusading armies] decided to allow those who wished to do so to depart from the city. So they left, gathered into groups, covered in rags, worn out by hunger, ashen in complexion, looking like corpses and with blood-shot eyes, shedding more blood than tears. Some lamented their possessions, others considered the loss of their belongings as their least worry and bewailed that a beautiful daughter of marriageable age had been seized and abused by someone, or they lamented that their wives had been taken away. Thus they went on their way, each one lamenting a different calamity. In order to add to my narrative also my own situation (…) [p. 588] I had a friend who had also shared my house, one of the Venetians (…) This excellent man, who had once enjoyed our hospitality and protection, now became our helper and defender in this critical moment. He led us to another house, where Venetians of our acquaintance resided. So we went in small groups, with downcast eyes and shoddily clad, led by him by the hand as if wewere his captives, and thus he guided us along the way.
Because this part of the city had fallen to the Franks, we had to leave again. Since our servants were dispersed here and there and they all had abandoned us, showing no human sentiment, wewere forced to carry on our shoulders our small children that could not yet walk, and hold in our arms a baby boy who had not yet been weaned. And thus we moved through the streets. We remained in the city for five days after the conquest, then we left as well. It was a Saturday [17 April 1204], and what had happened was not, I believe, by chance, but according to divine providence, and it was winter, and my wife was close to giving birth, so that the prophecy of Christ that “Pray that yourflight may not be in winter or on a sabbath” and “Woe to those who are pregnant” (Mt 24:19–20) were fulfilled, as if they had been spoken for us.20 Many of our friends and relatives and a crowd of others came together to see us on our way, and we were like a colony of ants, walking through the streets. (…) [As the group leaves the city, they take care to protect the women from unwanted attention by sheltering them in their midst. A beautiful girl, the daughter of an old judge,21 is nonetheless seized by a ‘barbarian’ and carried off to his home. Niketas succeeds in liberating her, by calling other Latins to assistance and through the power of his speech.] As we left the city, everyone gave thanks to God (for their safe escape) and lamented their fate. But I threw myself to the ground, as I was, and almost chastised the walls which alone were lacking in sentiment, shedding no tears, not even crumbling down, but still standing upright. [Niketas now launches into a long speech, laced with Biblical references, addressed to the walls of Constantinople.] [p. 593] After having emptied out the vexations overflowing from our souls in this fashion, we went forth crying and casting lamentations like seeds.
If we ever manage to return, reaping in jubilation the sheaves of the most auspicious change, that will be a gift from God, who comforts the weak in mind and girds them with the cloak of salvation and dresses them in the tunic of joy. The ecumenical chief shepherd22 preceded us, carrying neither a leather wallet nor gold about his loins, without a staff or sandals, and wearing a single tunic, a perfect evangelical apostle, or rather, a true imitator of Christ, except that he departed from New Sion (i. e. Constantinople) riding on a lowly donkey and was not planning to celebrate a triumph on that site.23 At this time we ended our journey at Selymbria24 and rested from our wandering, all of us being unharmed – thanks to God’s great generosity towards us and his perfect gift that will forever be remembered – and without having been subjected – like many of ours – to the rack or handcuffs of rope or whipping on the temples for the payment of a ransom. And we were nourished solely by God who provides food to all in the right season and a plentiful feast for the young ravens who call upon him, and who, furthermore, magnificently clothes the lilies of the field which neither spin nor sow (cf. Mt 6:28).
The peasants and those of low birth greatly taunted those of us who came from Byzantium [Constantinople]; foolishly, they called our suffering in misery and in nakedness equality, without being chastened by the evils occurring to those close to them. In fact, many seized upon lawlessness and said, “Blessed be the Lord, for we have become rich,” [p. 594] purchasing for a cheap price the possessions of their compatriots which were offered for sale. They had not yet received the beefeating Latins into their homes and thus did not know that they pour out their wine unmixed and pure in the same exact fashion that they pour out their anger, and that they treat the Rhomaioi with arrogance and contempt. Such was the fate that befell us and those of our station, as well as those who had participated in rhetorical studies with us.25 (…) [p. 635] Therefore for these reasons we left from Selymbria and returned to Constantinople, and after we remained in the city for six months we sailed to the East, escaping at one and the same time the sight and arrogance of the Latins. Therefore, we live as strangers in Nicaea,26 alongside Lake Askania, the capital of the province of Bithynia, which claims boastfully to have the primacy among all the eastern cities under Roman dominion thanks to the strength of her walls.
Our change of residence did not bring about any improvement in our condition, however, but we are once again deluged by sorrow, and we manage thanks only to God, because we only receive a negligible assistance from the hands of men and this is unpleasant for it is begrudgingly bestowed, and, one can say, they are inimical to sharing. We are nourished by a little bread and sometimes by a measure of wine, we are surfeited with the calamities of our compatriots aswell as of our own, receiving the cup of suffering without any taste of joy. Like a line stretching out into infinity, all that was oppressive, horrible, heart-rending, souldestroying, wholly devastating, and utterly desolating in full measure they brought to the Roman nation.27 Comments: Niketas’ narrative is carefully crafted and displays his rhetorical skills. He comes across as a man of privilege, indignant at his loss of status. His fate and that of his family depend on his personal network: a Venetian acquaintance shelters them for a few days, and other people of the same social stratum, such as the judge and his daughter, are part of the same group that leaves Constantinople to begin a new life elsewhere. Niketas inserts himself into the story as a heroic fighter who resists the brutality of the conquerors, offering a dramatic blow-by-blow account of his role in the release of the judge’s daughter from her captor.
This story of personal heroism must later have assumed legendary proportions, as it is repeated in greater detail in the funerary eulogy on Niketas by his equally learned brother Michael, Archbishop of Athens.28 In Umberto Eco’s novel Baudolino, Niketas appears as the interlocutor of the main character. Further reading Neville, Leonora, Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing (Cambridge, 2018) 219–225. van Dieten, Jan-Louis, Niketas Choniates. Erläuterungen zu den Reden und Briefen nebst einer Biographie, Supplementa Byzantina 2 (Berlin, 1971). Harris, Jonathan, Distortion, Divine Providence and Genre in Nicetas Choniates’ Account of the Collapse of Byzantium 1180–1204, Journal of Medieval History 26 (2000) 19–31. Harris, Jonathan, Looking Back to 1204: Nicetas Choniates in Nicaea, Mesogeios 12 (2001) 117–124. Simpson, Alicia and Stephanos Efthymiadis (eds.), Niketas Choniates: A Historian and a Writer (Geneva, 2009). Simpson, Alicia, Niketas Choniates: A Historiographical Study (Oxford, 2013). Ilias Nesseris, Claudia Rapp, Giulia Rossetto
Latins leaving Constantinople in 1261
Author: George Pachymeres (born in 1242, Nicaea; died after 1307 in Constantinople), latter 13th –early 14th century29 Text: Historical Narration (Syngraphikai historiai) Date of text: after 1307 Genre: Historiography Literary context: Pachymeres wasachurch official (protekdikos) as well as a prolific and versatile author. His interests and literary output cover the whole spectrum of knowledge from rhetoric, theology and philosophy to the Quadrivium of the sciences (arithmetics, geometry, music and astronomy).30 He is, however, most renowned for his prose history, which continues that of George Akropolites,31 and covers the period between the reign of Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258) and 1307, including the entire reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos (1258–1282)32 and part of that of Andronikos II (1282–1328).33 The first two books of his History are largely devoted to the events leading up to the recapture of Constantinople, which is described in great detail.34 A simplified version of the History is also extant, produced in the 14th century by a Byzantine scholar who has remained anonymous.35 Historical significance of the movement: Pachymeres was an objective and trustworthy historian, who followed the standards set by ancient Greek historiographers. He offered a reliable narrative of the events he described, some of which he witnessed himself; and about those he did not, he obtained information from eyewitnesses, which he then corroborated.36 It is important to note here that he did not rely on the work of George Akropolites although he knew it and probably had access to it. The account of the efforts of the Byzantines to reclaim their lost capital and the subsequent flight of the Latins, and the vivid description of these events – viewed by the author as a payback for the suffering caused by the Latins during the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 – are in stark and powerful contrast to the narrative of Niketas Choniates, who described the conquest of Constantinople by the armies of the Fourth Crusade (see 1.1.1). Type of movement: involuntary / war / refugees. Locations and date of movement: Latins returning from Daphnousia in the Black Sea to Constantinople to defend the capital and population fleeing the city during these events; July 1261. Edition used: George Pachymeres, Συγγραφικαὶ Ἱστορίαι, ed. and transl. by Albert Failler and Vitalien Laurent, Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, CFHB 24/1–5 (Paris, 1984–2000) vol. 1, 199.12–203.21, Book 2, 27. Translation used: Cassidy, Nathan J., A Translation and Historical Commentary of Book One and Book Two of the Historia of George Pachymeres, Unpublished PhD thesis (University of Western Australia, 2004) 71–73 (modified by Ilias Nesseris). George Pachymeres, Historical Narration, Book 2, 27 [p. 199] So their emperor, Baldwin,37 because he had become panic-stricken at the news, and taken leave of his senses, was able to think of nothing else but flight. And indeed, he abandoned the palace of Blachernai, as if dry land did not seem able to offer sufficient defense – he placed his trust more in the sea – withdrew swiftly to the Great Palace, and then, just as he was, after having shed his headdress (kalyptra) and his sword, the symbols of his imperium,38 he descended to the shore and entrusted his safety to a ship.39 On that same day the soldiers of the Roman division, who came to find and capture the emperor, used his imperial insignia as evidence of his flight and from this point onwards their confidence was increased, since the one they had been assigned to watch for had run away; so after they gathered up the headdress and the sword, they considered them to be a sufficient beginning and the first fruits of the loot taken in the city. And at the same time this signified to those who were still confident in him, that they would get nothing from him since he had preferred to flee. While this event was becoming revealed to them, as they were still struck by amazement not really believing that they possessed what they held in their hands, the rumour – and rumour is also divine – 40 swiftly reached those [i. e. the Latins] who were besieging Daphnousia;41 those men no sooner heard it than they felt themselves lost, trembling in horror for their wives and children. Nevertheless, they hastened to come to protect them as best as they could; for it is said that they had used about thirty long ships,42 both monoremes43 [p. 201] and triremes, 41 against Daphnousia. Sailing at speed with all of these, they rushed towards the City, putting their trust also in the great ship from Sicily that had many fighting men aboard, in order to defend their people and come to close quarters with their attackers; it was by such hopes that these men were animated as they rushed onwards. The kaisar [i. e., Alexios Strategopoulos]44 having been made aware of their approach, called upon the people of the Roman race, and they, being Rhomaioi, worked willy-nilly together with our forces. Baldwin had at the time in his entourage a certain servant (therapon oikeios/familiaris) 45 called John Phylax,46 a cunning man to whom profound thoughts came easily; he gave advice, which was most opportune and suited to the situation, that any other person would have hesitated to give, considering the destructive nature of the action. For he knew that they [i. e. the Italians] would fight out of necessity beyond their strength for the sake of their wives and families, their homes and all their be longings, attacking like wild boars to defend them, so that they would either prevail or fall gloriously; therefore he cut to the heart of the matter with prudence and suggested to light a fire, so that when the houses and all the redundant and unnecessary things would be burning, the women and children would necessarily seek safety in flight, salvaging only treasures of a pure and valuable nature; while the men, on the one hand, upon seeing from the ships the fire reducing their houses to ashes and, on the other hand, their wives and children raising their arms to signal for help, would pay no attention to their houses, which no longer existed, but would seek out and save the people; thus the ones seeking vengeance would give thanks and be content, if they could save themselves and their women and children, for they would have their triremes at their disposal to receive the crowd, and if others wanted to leave, they would also be allowed to do so, because the Sicilian ship was capable of taking them on board. As the advice thus formulated seemed sound, and even more so because they could not resist an attack on account of the small number of their soldiers, they immediately lit a fire, just where their [i. e. the Italians’] houses and goods were; and as it spread, it reduced the houses to ashes. The inhabitants, panicked like smoked-out bees, fled outside, and took to the hills of the city, naked as they were, and at the same time, fearing for their safety, tearfully calling out to those who were watching from outside what was happening. Then being at a loss [i. e. the Italians] as to what course of action to take – for if [p. 203] they pressed on, they would be in a difficult position as they were exposed, and their families would at the same time be in danger; and in case they were not victorious, they would be lost along with their women and children – they had recourse to supplication begging with great passion for their people and for their property, if they would agree to it; if not, itwould be enough for them to recover their relatives safe and sound. Many terrible and shocking things were done then, greater than any that has ever been seen or heard of; for respectable women and young girls, clad only in their tunic, and with even these being torn, or else wrapped up in anything they could find, ran ashamedly on bare feet towards their relatives under the gaze of many eyes. The Italians were therefore clearly repaid for what they had formerly done to the Rhomaioi; and at the same time the old prophecy was fulfilled: “Alexios, Alexopoulos and also Koutritzakes”. 47 Previously, before these events even occurred, the present writer had heard his father talking about it with another man and uttering these words. As they were Constantinopolitans they enquired about their own country, and sought to know if their fatherland would ever be retaken; this was at night and by candlelight – for I was the one hold the candle to make light for them – and these words came to be spoken by them, as if they knew just when this would take place; for they surmised that the recapture of the city would occur during the time of a future emperor, Alexios, along with the others named in the prophecy. However, it so happened that these men were the kaisar Alexios, his nephew Alexios,48 who contributed much, and Koutritzakes,49 the most important of the thelematarioi, 50 who in fact first put forward the idea of capturing the city. Further reading Neville, Leonora, Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing (Cambridge, 2018) 237–242. Hunger, Herbert, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, vol. 1: Philosophie, Rhetorik, Epistolographie, Geschichtsschreibung, Geographie, HdA 12; Byzantinisches Handbuch 5.1 (Munich, 1978) 447–453. Karpozilos, Apostolos, Bυζαντινοί ιστορικοί και χρονογράφοι, vol. 4 (Athens, 2015) 60–98. Nicol, Donald, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453 (2nd edition), (Cambridge, 1993). Ilias Nesseris 1.1.3 Turks advance in Asia Minor, Byzantines take to flight Author: Nikephoros Gregoras (born c. 1295 in Herakleia/Pontos, died ca. 1361 in Constantinople51 Text: Roman History (Historia rhomaike) Date of text: Second quarter of the 14th century (between the 1330s and the 1350s) Genre: Historiography Literary context: In his historical work consisting of thirty-seven books, Nikephoros Gregoras, a renowned scholar and theologian, covers the period from the conquest of Constantinople by the forces of the Fourth Crusade (1204) to the events of 1358/1359. He draws heavily on the works of earlier historians, i. e. Niketas Choniates, George Akropolites and George Pachymeres.52 The events that took place during his own lifetime are described in greater detail. He was greatly interested in the theological matters, esp. in the controversy on the Hesychast movement in Byzantine monasticism in which he was personally involved,53 but he also provided a clear, detailed and rich historical account, drawing from his own experience whenever possible. Historical significance of the movement: This passage illustrates how Asia Minor was lost to a coalition of nomadic Turkish groups who gradually made their way to thewestern parts of Byzantine Anatolia. They met with little resistance because the empire was greatly weakened through incessant wars with its neighbours (the Frankish principalities and the Angevin Kingdom of Sicily, the State of Epirus, as well as the Bulgarians and the Serbs) and internal division due to the Union of the Churches signed at the Synod of Lyon in 1274, the revolt of Alexios Philanthropenos54 in 1295 and the Arsenite schism. Some local governors, such as Manuel Tagaris, governor of Philadelphia (ca. 1309–1327),55 even cooperated with the Turks for personal gain.56 After the decisive defeat of the Byzantines by the Ottomans in the battle of Bapheus (near Nikomedeia in Bithynia) on 27 July 130257 and the ensuing devastation, the surviving population was forced to either join the Turks in hopes of a better future or to abandon the countryside and seek refuge in a few fortified cities (e. g. Nicaea or Nikomedeia) or in Constantinople and Thrace.58 Soon the northwestern part of Anatolia was depopulated and its economic life totally disrupted by constant Turkish raids.59 Andronikos II tried in vain to stem the tide by enlisting the services of the Catalan Company (see 2.4.0), but it was not long before the remaining cities fell into enemy hands and Turkish states were founded in the area. Type of movement: involuntary / war / refugees. Locations and date of movement: Turks advancing to western Asia Minor and Byzantine population fleeing from their cities towards Thrace; ca. 1302. Edition used: Nicephori Gregorae Byzantina historia, ed. Ludwig Schopen, CSHB, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1829) 214.1–215.2, Book 7, 1. Translation: Ilias Nesseris60 Nikephoros Gregoras, Roman History, Book 7, 1 [p. 214] During that year, a great number of disasters burst forth, just like when myriads of winds suddenly blow all together, carrying away and mixing everything. Since the eastern part of the Roman Empire had remained empty of troops, the satraps [i. e. emirs] of the Turks after forming a coalition ravaged everything up to the sea and settled by that time near the coastline. And most of the inhabitants, men, women and children, and all the flocks and herds as well as the property they owned, fell under the yoke of the enemies; and from those who escaped without being detected, some, on the one hand, sought refuge in the nearest cities, and some, on the other, crossed over to Thrace without equipment and stripped of their belongings. The Turks, after having made an agreement, divided the territory of Asia, which belonged to the Roman [i. e., Byzantine] Empire, by drawing lots. Karmanos Alisourios61 occupied the greatest part of continental Phrygia, the region up to Philadelphia and the places around Antiochia near the Maeander river.62 Another (satrap), by the name of Sarukhan, occupied the territories up to Smyrna and the coastline of Ionia. And another satrap, by the name of Sasan,63 after coming first, took away the territories around Magnesia, Priene and Ephesus. The territories from Lydia and Aeolis up to Mysia towards the Hellespont were occupied by the so-called Qalum64 and his son Karasi.65 Another (satrap), by the name of Osman,66 occupied the territories around Olympos67 and the rest of Bithynia. The territories [p. 215] from the river Sangarios68 up to Paphlagonia were distributed among the children of Amourios.69 Further reading Neville, Leonora, Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing (Cambridge, 2018) 243–248. Georgiades-Arnakes, Georgios, Οἱ πρῶτοι Ὀθωμανοί. Συμβολὴ ει᾿ς τὸ πρόβλημα τῆς πτώσεως τοῦ ἑλληνισμοῦ τῆς Μικρᾶς Ἀσίας (1282–1337) (Athens, 1947). Hunger, Herbert, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, vol. 1: Philosophie, Rhetorik, Epistolographie, Geschichtsschreibung, Geographie, HdA 12; Byzantinisches Handbuch 5.1 (Munich, 1978) 453–465. Karpozilos, Apostolos, Bυζαντινοί ιστορικοί και χρονογράφοι, vol. 4 (Athens, 2015) 140–186. Korobeinikov, Dimitri, Byzantium and the Turks in the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 2014). Lindner, Rudi Paul, Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia (Bloomington, Indiana, 1983). Nicol, Donald, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453 (2nd edition) (Cambridge, 1993). Shukurov, Rustam, The Byzantine Turks (1204–1461), MMED 105 (Leiden and Boston, 2016). Vryonis, Speros Jr., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through to the Fifteenth Century (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1971). Wittek, Paul, Das Fürstentum Menthesche. Studie zur Geschichte Westkleinasiens im 13.– 15. Jh., Istanbuler Mitteilungen 2 (Istanbul, 1934). Ilias Nesseris
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق