Download PDF | (History of Warfare 67) Savvas Kyriakidis - Warfare in Late Byzantium, 1204-1453 -Brill Academic Pub (2011).
275 Pages
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project began as a doctoral dissertation submitted in 2007 to the Centre of Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies at the University of Birmingham. I am most indebted to my mentors at Birmingham, Ruth Macrides and John Haldon who introduced me to the issues and sources of Byzantine history, directed my doctoral dissertation with great care, patiently watched over the progression of various drafts and offered me a great many useful comments, as well as constructive criticism. Without their encouragement and continued interest, this project might have never been completed.
I am also grateful to Dimiter Angelov for his continuous support and invaluable assistance in understanding some of the most difficult to interpret Byzantine authors. As a student of the Centre of Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, I have benefited from my conversations with Anthony Bryer, the Centre’s co-founder. I would also like to thank Frank Trombley for his useful suggestions and support. This project could not have been completed without the generous postdoctoral fellowships I have been rewarded by the Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations at Koç University and the Program in Hellenic Studies at Princeton University. Both institutions provided the ideal academic environment and resources for the extensive revision of my doctoral dissertation and its transformation into a book. I owe a great deal to scholars I met in Istanbul and Princeton.
To Eric Ivison, who taught me how to approach and evaluate archaeological evidence, I express my very special thanks for his encouragement, enthusiasm and genuine interest in my work. I am especially grateful to Slobodan Ćurčić, who willingly put his expertise on medieval fortifications at my disposal. I have always benefited from my long conversations with Mariya Kiprovska, Grigor Boykov and Heath Lowry who introduced me to Ottoman history and civilisation. Furthermore, I wish to thank the directors of the Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations and the program in Hellenic Studies, Scott Redford, Alessandra Ricci and Dimitri Gondicas for their useful advice, support, genuine interest in my work and for providing excellent conditions and a creative atmosphere for the successful completion of my project. I would like to thank Eve Richards for reading and editing a significant part of this work and Anastasios Tsiftsis for helping me to draw the maps.
NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION
I have employed a Greek transliteration of Byzantine names and technical terms. I also adhered to the practice of transcribing Byzantine names and not latinising them: thus Palaiologos, not Palaeologus; Kantakouzenos, not Cantacuzenus. However, some common first names have been rendered in their modern English forms: thus John, not Ioannes and Constantine, not Konstantinos. For well-known place names I have preferred the use of conventional modern English spelling: thus Athens, not Athina and Thessalonica, not Thessalonike and Gallipoli, not Gelibolu. For proper names and technical vocabulary pertaining to the Ottoman and non-Ottoman Turks, modern Turkish orthography has been used.
INTRODUCTION
The capture of Constantinople by the armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 fragmented the Byzantine empire. Territories which did not submit to the Crusaders fell into the hands of Byzantine magnates who became rulers of numerous small political entities. The most important of these newly founded states, which each claimed to be the successor of the destroyed Byzantine empire, were the empires of Trebizond and Nicaea in Asia Minor and the principality of Epiros in the Balkans.1 The so-called empire of Nicaea, which was established as a viable state by Theodore I Laskaris (1204–1221), was the most successful of these.
Laskaris averted the threat of a combined attack from the Latin empire of Constantinople and the Seljuks of Rum and overcame various local lords who, in the wake of the collapse of Byzantium, had established their own independent authorities in Asia Minor. His successors, John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) and Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258), conquered large territories in the Balkans. They forced the rulers of Epiros to abandon their claim to the imperial title and reduced the military strength of the Latin empire of Constantinople. Under John III and Theodore II, Nicaea prevailed as the legitimate successor to the Byzantine empire. In 1261, the Nicaean army captured Constantinople and Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259–1282), who had seized the throne from the Laskarids, restored the Byzantine empire. Yet, despite the conquests of the Laskarids and the recovery of Constantinople by Michael VIII, much territory which had belonged to the Byzantine empire before the Fourth Crusade remained beyond imperial control. Many Aegean islands, most of the Peloponnese, a large part of mainland Greece and the Ionian islands were ruled by Western European lords. Although the rulers of Epiros and Thessaly ceased to call themselves emperors, their states remained effectively independent territories.
The reign of Michael VIII’s successor, Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328) witnessed the loss of Asia Minor to the Turcoman principalities and the increasing strength of the Serbian kingdom, which grew in Macedonia, Epiros and Albania at the expense of the Byzantines. Andronikos II was overthrown by his grandson Andronikos III (1328– 1341) as a result of a civil war waged intermittently from 1321 to 1328. Andronikos III’s death in 1341 was followed by a catastrophic civil war between his close associate, John Kantakouzenos (John VI, 1347– 1354), and the regency of the legitimate successor to the throne, John V Palaiologos (1341–1391). In 1352, John V rose against Kantakouzenos, who was forced to abdicate two years later. During the conflicts between the clans of the Kantakouzenoi and the Palaiologoi, the Serbian ruler, Stefan Dušan (1331–1355) exploited the weakness of the Byzantines and captured almost all the Byzantine possessions in Albania, Epiros, Thessaly and most of Macedonia. Consequently, the Byzantine state was reduced in Thrace and Constantinople to a small district around Thessalonica, the despotate of Morea in the Peloponnese and a small number of northern Aegean islands.
Each of these territories constituted a de facto semi-independent principality ruled by members of the extended imperial family. Dušan’s son and successor, Stefan Uroš (1355–1371), was finally unable to maintain the unity of his father’s dominions. As a result, the Serbian empire disintegrated and a multitude of small centres of power was established in the Balkans. The emperor in Constantinople, together with the despots of the Morea and Thessalonica, belonged to this extremely fragmented world of powerful and ambitious men who, in their small principalities, were short of authority. These states were constantly at war with each other over ill-defined frontiers and territorial differences, the limited available resources and local pre-eminence. They lacked any elaborate administrative infrastructure and their unity and survival relied on the personality and wealth of their rulers, in particular on their ability to impose their authority over local magnates and recruit effective military forces to defend their lands.
The fate of many of these states was identified with that of their rulers. This fragmented political situation when they had already established themselves as the dominant power in Asia Minor, helped the Ottomans advance into the Balkans. Therefore, the period 1204–1453 was characterised by political fragmentation, endless wars between small political entities and continuous crises. It is in this respect that the study of Byzantine military thought and attitudes towards war is important. They reflect the continuous struggle of small states to survive and defend themselves against large numbers of hostile neighbours, some of whom had or gradually acquired the resources to develop military forces far superior to those of Byzantium.
The study of late Byzantine military institutions and military thought reflects also the attitudes of a state which, aware of its limited resources, wanted to avoid military conflict, but in response to the conditions of the time considered warfare unavoidable and the maintenance of a strong army led by a soldier emperor essential for survival. Regarding the arrangement of the material in the present investigation, the first chapter examines how late Byzantine rulers used imperial propaganda to justify the wars that they fought and to promote their military image, their military policies and their priorities. Moreover, the discussion of the role of the imperial office in the military affairs of the empire provides an insight into the relationship between the throne and the aristocracy, the members of which monopolised military command. The second chapter deals with the question of military leadership in late Byzantium. It investigates the military character and ethos of the higher aristocracy and compares them to concurrent developments in Western Europe. It also examines the effectiveness and role of late Byzantine generals on the battlefield. The third and fourth chapters deal with the categorisation of soldiers into various groups and examine their effectiveness on the battlefield.
They also discuss the views expressed in the sources concerning the various types of soldier, in particular the mercenaries, who were recruited from outside the empire and dominated the military conflicts of the period under discussion. The fifth chapter examines the organisation and supply of the military campaigns conducted by the late Byzantine armies. The sixth chapter discusses the role of fortifications in the defence of the late Byzantine empire, and the nature of siege warfare from the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries. The seventh chapter investigates the tactical effectiveness of the late Byzantine armies. It explores the role and use of infantry and cavalry, how the late Byzantines adjusted their military tactics to take into account the nature of their enemies and the Byzantine perceptions about the nature and strength of their enemies. A question which is treated in each part of the present work is the Western European influences on Byzantine attitudes towards warfare, military administration and the conduct of fighting.
Late Byzantine military developments should be examined in the general context of contemporary developments in Western Europe, the Balkans and in the East. Western European military practices had influenced Byzantium since the Komnenian period. It might be expected that these influences would be more apparent in the late Byzantine period. The development of trade increased the contacts between Byzantium and the West, while the Crusades and the establishment of Latin and Turcoman principalities in old Byzantine territories brought foreign military cultures closer to Byzantium. The most important constraint for the study of Byzantine military history after 1204 is the absence of military manuals, which are the most valuable sources for the study of warfare from the sixth to the eleventh centuries. The present investigation makes use of the military treatises which were compiled in earlier periods of Byzantine history, in order to examine how far the principles and instructions prescribed by their authors were followed in the later centuries. The only contemporary treatises used for the aims of the present work are those of the marquis of Montferrat, Theodore Palaiologos (1291–1338), and of Pseudo-Kodinos.2 However, neither of these can be seen as a strictly military treatise.
Theodore was Andronikos II’s second son by Yolande of Montferrat. In 1306, he was sent to rule Montferrat and in 1326 compiled a treatise on the art of governing and military strategy. Since he lived almost all of his adult life in the West, where he acquired his entire first-hand military experience, his treatise is heavily influenced by the context of warfare in fourteenth-century Italy.3 Nevertheless, Theodore’s work is useful for comparisons between Byzantine and Italian practices and attitudes towards warfare. The treatise of PseudoKodinos, a work on court hierarchy and court ceremony, was compiled in the mid-fourteenth century. Its anonymous author provides useful information concerning the function of military offices, the role of imperial guard units and the organisation of military campaigns. The absence of military treatises means that most of our knowledge of late Byzantine military history derives from the narrative sources.
The most important of these is the History of John Kantakouzenos (ca. 1295–1383). His work, which covers the period 1320–1362 and was compiled in the 1360s, is a detailed narrative of the political and military events of the period and the main source for the civil wars and conflicts between the cliques of the social elite which dominated the first half of the fourteenth century.4 Having been the supreme commander of the Byzantine army and an emperor for more than three decades, Kantakouzenos provides information on every area that this work touches, ranging from the justification of warfare to Byzantine attitudes towards foreign mercenaries, and from battlefield tactics to the social distinctions within military forces.
However, most of the information provided by Kantakouzenos on these questions is incidental. His aim was not to describe the Byzantine administrative system, but to explain his view of the events which ensued from the 1320s until the 1350s, in which he played a leading role. Justifying his support for Andronikos III in the civil war of 1321–1328, he presents him as a great general, while his image of Andronikos II is very negative. Kantakouzenos was present at almost every military operation he describes. However, his tendency to overemphasise his personal influence on the outcome of military conflicts prevents us from reaching safe conclusions on the nature of the military conflicts in his account. After Kantakouzenos, the most useful sources for the study of late Byzantine history, of the thirteenth century in particular, are George Akropolites (1217–1282) and George Pachymeres (1242–ca. 1310). Akropolites’ work is the main source for the history of the so-called empire of Nicaea. Warfare dominates his account.5
However, it was only after 1246, when he started accompanying the emperors on their campaigns in the west, that he began to provide circumstantial details concerning the composition, strength and effectiveness of the Nicaean army. Akropolites constantly tries to dismiss Theodore II’s military skills and expresses rather negative views about the generals whom Theodore II elevated to high office, although he himself was one of them. He was the only one of the new men thus promoted who survived Michael VIII’s usurpation and therefore it was too dangerous for him to associate himself with the policies of Theodore II.6 Consequently, Akropolites’ description of Theodore II’s military policies and campaigns should be treated cautiously. The account in the Synopsis Chronike, which is a chronicle dealing with the events from the Creation of the World to 1261 and commonly attributed to the metropolitan of Kyzikos, Theodore Skoutariotes, complements the History of Akropolites.
The author’s version of the history of Nicaea relies on Akropolites, without, however, sharing the latter’s negative description of the Laskarids. He adds details concerning the military operations of Theodore II which Akropolites omits and presents a more positive view of his reign.7 The work of George Pachymeres covers the period 1250s–1307. Although a cleric in the patriarchical hierarchy, Pachymeres possessed substantial secular knowledge and put forth economic reasons as an explanation for the military developments of the period, as well as the attitudes and activities of the soldiers. Moreover, his account complements and contradicts the History of Akropolites.8 Pachymeres provides useful information regarding the evolution and strength of the army and also of the impact of internal political and social conflicts on the effectiveness of the Byzantine military forces. What makes Pachymeres particularly interesting is that he provides a reasoned explanation for the disintegration of Byzantine control over Asia Minor and the effect which this development had on the army.
It should be noted, however, that his critical attitude to the fiscal policies of Michael VIII and Andronikos II seems to have made him idealise the Nicaean past and he uses Theodore II as a model ruler to contrast with the first two Palaiologoi. The account of Nikephoros Gregoras which covers the period 1204–1359 complements the information provided by Pachymeres and Kantakouzenos. Unlike Kantakouzenos, Gregoras was a supporter of Andronikos II. He objected to many of the policies of Andronikos III, whom he repeatedly portrays as a poor and inexperienced general. Furthermore, Gregoras provides us with important information about the battlefield tactics employed by the Byzantines and their enemies and describes in detail the difficulties of the Byzantine armies in dealing effectively with the fighting techniques of their opponents.
The fifteenth-century chronicles were written after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The work of George Sphrantzes covers the period 1401–1477 and is compiled in the form of annalistic memoirs. Sphrantzes was a high-ranking court official who served at the court of Manuel II (1391–1425), John VIII (1425–1448) and Constantine XI (1448–1453). He also held positions in the Morea and undertook many diplomatic missions. He fought on the side of Constantine Palaiologos in the Morea and was present at the fall of Constantinople. However, he provides very little information about the military affairs of the empire. The Histories of Doukas, which cover the period 1341–1462 (only after 1389 in detail), and of Laonikos Chalkokondyles which narrate the events of the period 1298–1464 focus on the rise of the Ottomans. They say very little about the Byzantine armies. Nonetheless, they are useful sources for our understanding of the development of the Ottoman army and the nature of fifteenth-century warfare. Non-Byzantine chronicles compiled in territories which had belonged to the Byzantine empire before 1204 and which place Byzantine warfare in the wider geographical and cultural context constitute a significant source for the present study. The most important of them is the fourteenth-century Chronicle of the Morea, which has survived in three different versions.
It makes lengthy comparisons between the battlefield tactics used by the Byzantines and the Franks and provides information on the similarities and differences between the Franks and the Byzantines with regard to conduct on the battlefield and attitudes towards warfare. The fifteenth-century anonymous Chronicle of the Toccos is an excellent source of material on the small-scale warfare between the small principalities in fifteenthcentury Greece and Albania. Its main subject is the military deeds of the ruler of Cephalonia, Carlo Tocco, who for a short time extended his dominions into the Peloponnese. This anonymous work illustrates the advanced political and regional fragmentation of the Byzantine world during the fifteenth century.9 The Chronicle of Ramon Muntaner, one of the leading members of the Catalan Grand Company which was employed by the Byzantines in the first decade of the fourteenth century is very useful for the study of the role of foreign mercenaries in Byzantium and the warfare between the Byzantines and the Turks in Asia Minor. It would be impossible to fully understand the conflict between the Byzantine government and the Catalans without comparing the accounts of Pachymeres and Gregoras to the information provided by Muntaner. The fourteenth-century Chronicle entitled Storia di Romania was compiled by the Venetian Marino Sanudo; he spent much of his life in the possessions of Venice in the Aegean and can complement the information provided by the sources listed above.
The reliance on narrative histories to reconstruct the military history of the later Byzantine empire means that certain constraints should be admitted. Although matters of war dominate the historical accounts of the period, most late Byzantine authors had no military experience; they did not personally observe the warfare between Byzantium and its enemies. Consequently, their descriptions of battles and campaigns are frequently vague and summary. They pay little attention to such matters as tactics, terrain, armaments or logistics and they relate rather little about military organisation and war making. Most of the information they provide is of a circumstantial nature. Moreover, the fact that a knowledge of classics often took precedence over the accurate and precise description of military operations meant that the major historians of the late Byzantine period made rather little use of contemporary technical terminology. For instance, the use of the terms strateumata, dynameis, stratopeda, stratia, tagmata and taxeis, to refer indiscriminately to the various army units prevents us from fully understanding the internal organisation of the late Byzantine military forces. This inconsistency makes it difficult to study thoroughly the meaning, role and internal differences of the allagia, a term which appears mainly in documentary sources and in chronicles written in a language close to the contemporary spoken language. Similarly, the use of generic phrases such as, ‘war engines of every kind,’ prevents us from reaching safe conclusions concerning the nature of siege warfare during the period under discussion. Moreover, almost all historical accounts were compiled in Constantinople and tend to report events which took place near the capital. Therefore, they provide very little information concerning Byzantine military operations and arrangements in territories such as Epiros and the Peloponnese.
The large number of imperial orations (vasilikoi logoi) which were compiled in the late Byzantine period, together with funeral orations and speeches addressed either to the residents of an individual city or to the Byzantine people in general, provide the backbone for the study of the ideological aspects of warfare.10 As was the case with all imperial prerogatives in late Byzantium, the authority of the emperor to wage war was not defined by legal scholars. Instead, rhetoric was the main means through which political messages were conveyed and political thought was expressed.11 Byzantine orators followed rhetorical models which were established long before the thirteenth century and the rules of the genre meant that imperial orations should praise the emperor, mention what the ruler was supposed to achieve by virtue of his office and omit failures. Nonetheless, imperial panegyrics should not be treated merely as attempts by the authors to praise their emperors and patrons. As George Dennis has pointed out, unlike narrative histories, imperial orations were compiled shortly after the events which they recorded and since people in the audience had played an active role in these events, imperial orations cannot be complete fabrications.12
The analysis of the allusions to contemporary events which can be found in the encomia lead to useful conclusions concerning the image of the emperor as warrior and the justification of the military conflicts in which the late Byzantine armies were involved. Furthermore, through panegyric late Byzantine orators found the opportunity to voice their opinions on important public issues.13 The letters compiled by Byzantine emperors such as Theodore II and Manuel II or important statesmen such as Demetrios Kydones (1323/24–1397/98), who was the mesazon of John VI, John V and Manuel II, provide scanty but useful information about the military affairs of the empire. However, the fact that the authors felt compelled to follow the rules of epistolography meant that the large number of letters compiled by emperors who led military forces are of little use for the study of Byzantine warfare.14 For instance, Theodore II avoids being specific and the actual events he refers to are veiled in metaphor. Manuel II Palaiologos makes it clear that epistolography is not the best source from which to reconstruct historical events. Being a vassal of the Ottoman ruler Bayezid I (1389–1402), Manuel II followed him in one of his expeditions in Asia Minor in the winter of 1391.
In a letter he compiled during this campaign, Manuel refers to the hardships and difficulties that the army had to face due to campaigning out of season. However, he does not provide any detailed information, for, as he comments, the hardships they suffered call for a historian not a letter-writer.15 Documentary sources, such as the monastic archives and the registers of the patriarchate of Constantinople, could have provided the bulk of information concerning the maintenance and categorisation of late Byzantine soldiers, as well as the social differentiation in the military forces and the status of soldiers in the wider society. However, very few of them have come down to us and hence relying on this type of source to reconstruct the organisation and nature of the army could lead to over-generalisation and misleading conclusions. Archaeological evidence provides a valuable insight into Byzantine strategy, military organisation and siege warfare.
The investigation of siege warfare in the later Byzantine period is essential for understanding the effectiveness of the Byzantine armies, since sieges and the defence of strategic cities formed an important element of Byzantine war planning and strategic thought. The written sources indicate that sieges and blockades of cities and fortresses substantially outnumbered pitched battles. Therefore cross referencing between written material and archeological findings is essential in understanding the nature of sieges during the period under discussion, the technological developments in warfare and the role of fortifications in late Byzantium. The study of late Byzantine warfare is in many respects still an underdeveloped field. This reflects the scarcity of the surviving sources and, perhaps, a general view that in late Byzantium the army was composed of various ineffective foreign and disloyal mercenaries, who were hastily recruited whenever the need arose, and that all the operations the Byzantine armies undertook were defensive and reflected desperate responses to enemy advances. This interpretation can be seen as part of a wider tendency to examine later Byzantine history as a period of the decline of a long enduring civilisation.
However, this approach reinforces the perception of an unchanged and monolithic Byzantium which was doomed to destruction, which prevents modern scholarship from placing late Byzantine society and culture, and therefore warfare, in the context of contemporary developments in late medieval Europe, in the Balkans and in the East.16 There is only one monograph dealing with the subject. Mark Bartusis produced in 1992 a survey and analysis of the history of the late Byzantine army. Beyond the history of the army, Bartusis’ study focuses on the military organisation and administration of the Byzantine empire, on the troops of various kinds, their numbers and their financing. It is the only social and administrative study dedicated to the late Byzantine army.
Aside from the above-mentioned work, modern scholarship has produced a limited number of articles dealing with aspects of military administration, such as Bartusis’ discussion on the smallholding soldiers in late Byzantium, Oikonomides’ contribution to the study of financing of the soldiers of the early Palaiologan period and Panagiotides’ examination of the role of storehouses and markets in supplying military campaigns.17 Thus, very little research has been done in respect of the study of war making, the examination of the military ethos and attitudes towards warfare, the effectiveness of the various groups of soldiers fighting for Byzantium, the role of mercenary soldiers, the nature and role of military leadership and the influence which other medieval cultures exerted on Byzantine military thought, organisation and practice.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق