Posts Tagged ‘Byzantium’

Marino Sanudo Torsello, Byzantium and the Turks: The Background to the Anti-Turkish League of 1332-1334

By Angeliki Laiou

Speculum, Vol. 45, No. 3, (1970)

Introduction: Marino Sanudo Torello (ca.1270-1343) stands out among the many crusading propagandist of the early fourteenth century. He shared with all of them the desire to recover the Holy Lands, and with some of them the belief that this task could only be accomplished by an attack on Egypt; but he was unique in his knowledge of the political and economic forces at work, in the practicability of many of his suggestions, and in the influence his ideas had on political developments. Perhaps the single fact that best explains Marino Sanudo’s work as a crusading propagandist is his nationality: he was a Venetian, son of a member of the Senate, born around 1270. He was a relative of the Sanudi who governed Naxos and Andro, and spent a considerable portion of his life in the “Romania,” that is, the Byzantine Empire and those parts of Greece which were under Latin rule. He acquired a profound knowledge of the the affairs of these area, of the temper of the inhabitants, of the dangers presented by the advances of Turks and Mongols; in other words, Sanudo was an expert on the affairs of the East, and was treated as such by his country as well as by the Popes and other European potentates with whom he corresponded. His nationality also greatly influenced his thought. Although he wrote, “I am not in the service of any man or commune,” and he may have believed it, his crusading projects always took into account Venice’s political and economic interests; and in the latter part of his life he probably acted as an official or unofficial Venetian envoy to the King of Naples, the Pope, the King of France.

Marino Sanudo’s work as a propagandist of the crusade has been discussed by Magnocavallo, and by Atiya among others. This article in concerned with a particular aspect of his work, that is attitude toward and his relations with Byzantium. This subject has never been treated in any detail, and yet it had ramifications of great importance. Insofar as Sanudo reflected official Venetian policy, his attitude toward the Byzantines, which developed concomitantly with his rising concern about the Turks, clarified the policy of Venice in the Levant. Marino Sanudo’s work reflected the increasing fear of the Turks that spurred Venice, the Pope, and the Byzantines to gloss over their mistrust of one another, and to form, in 1332-1334, the first European alliance against the Turks. Because they complemented and explained each other, the changes in Venetian policy and in Marino Sanudo’s attitude will be discussed together.

Click here to read/download this article (PDF file)

A translation and historical commentary on book one and book two of the Historia of Georgios Pachymeres

By Nathan John Cassidy

PhD Dissertation, University of Western Australia, 2004

Abstract: My focus has been twofold. On the one hand I have highlighted and elucidated the events which Pachymerēs narrates, glossing with prosopographical and topological notes the people, places and things mentioned in the text, and explaining other esoteric details, such as the range of many and varied, ornate Byzantine court honorifics. On the other hand I have made a critical comparison between Pachymerēs and the other important sources for the period, Greek, Western, and Eastern, to provide explanations for differences in the various narratives, to suggest which source is the more accurate for any given event, and to fill up the narrative ‘gaps’ of Gomme. While I have attempted to avoid turning the commentary into a narrative, I acknowledge that in some places I have not been completely successful in this aim. However, I believe that every divagation is justified by the arguments that I put forward.

I must stress that both by training and inclination I am an historian, not a philologist, so the commentary will be historical rather than philological. This is despite the importance Pachymerēs himself places in the clever use of language and his frequent use of allusions to and quotes from other works, Classical, Byzantine or biblical. The question of mimēsis, how much Pachymerēs is directly trying to imitate or incorporate older texts, has received limited attention, and only where Pachymerēs’ use of the earlier text is vital to the understanding of his own work. Similarly, questions of language, and the way in which Pachymerēs uses it, have not been explored except in those instances where it directly affects the historical point our author is making. Pachymerēs’ Historia is an important source for a pivotal period in Byzantine Imperial history, and many scholars have not used it as efficiently as they could due to the denseness of his prose and his “tortuous syntax”. While the situation is changing somewhat, especially through the ongoing research of Albert Failler of the Institut Francais d’etudes Byzantines, the Historia still contain many mysteries. It is hoped that this commentary can solve at least a few of these.

Click here to read/download this article (PDF file)

Ammianus Marcellinus and Procopius of Caesarea : the eastern campaigns of Julian and Justinian, 4th and 6th centuries A.D

By Ian Kelso

MA Thesis, Dalhousie University, 1998

Abstract: Ammianus Marcellinus, a historian of the fourth century, and Procopius of Caesarea, in the sixth recorded their time in a way that left us two excellent accounts of eye witnesses. Ammianus’s Res Gestae record the actions of many, but none as well as those of the emperor Julian (361-363 AD). Especially Julian’s brief reign. More importantly his campaign against the Persians was recorded by Ammianus vividly, due to the fact that Ammianus was a staff officer in Julian’s headquarters. This gave him insight into the man and his methods and the ability to write a history that was of a higher quality than most. Ammianus’s classical education also assisted in his writing.

Procopius had a similar experience in his own time, but as a legal adviser on the staff of the leading general, Belisarius. Though he was not a soldier, he was well acquainted with soldiers and their ways. He was present at many of the major battles of the day, which gave him the knowledge he needed to write his works the Bella in 8 books(two on the Persian wars), the De AEdificiis and the Anecdota. All of these, when taken together, help to give a full picture of the people and events. He is the best historian for the emperor of the day, Justinian (527-565 AD), who had grand ideas of re-conquering the western half of the empire, but was delayed by wars against the Persians.

By using both of these historians it is hoped that the Persian campaigns of Julian and Justinian will be made clearer in the context of the emperors and their goals and flaws. The two historians will also be looked at to see what their abilities and skills were and where these skills originated. A source of their inspiration for writing their histories will be sought out as well.

Click here to read/download this thesis (PDF file)

Procopius on Roman, Persian and Gothic Strategy near Dara and Rome

By Christopher Lillington-Martin

Lampeter Working Papers in Classics (2008)

Abstract: This paper reinterprets Procopius’ descriptions of opposing Roman, Persian and Gothic strategies near Dara in AD 530 and Rome in AD 537-8 by reconsidering evidence pertaining to the location of temporary army camp sites. The method consists of reconciling his text with the landscapes of the areas concerned by supplementing the analysis with information gained from satellite imagery, cartography and field visits. This is evaluated, with secondary sources in mind, to analyse the landscapes and associated events described by Procopius. The satellite images are available via Google Earth and date from September and October 2004. By reconsidering Procopius’ account, after visiting the landscapes he described, we gain additional insights and can therefore reinterpret strategy and events.

Introduction: Analyzing the landscape and reconciling it with the literary description provided by this eyewitness is particularly appropriate as Procopius himself, with Homer in mind, offered reconciliation between landscape and literature:

“…Taracina; and very near that place is Mt. Circaeum, where they say Odysseus met Circe, though the story seems to me untrustworthy, for Homer declares that the habitation of Circe was on an island. I am able to say… Mt. Circaeum, extending … far into the sea, … has every appearance of being an island… for this reason Homer perhaps called the place an island.” Wars, V.xi.

This paper is concerned with reconsidering the strategies which culminated in three conflicts: one of AD 530 on a site 20-24 km West-Northwest of Nisibis (modern Nusaybin, Turkey), just East of the Roman–Persian frontier in Northern Mesopotamia and two of AD 537-538 on a site 3.5 km North of the Aurelian Walls at Rome. The first conflict was connected to Justinian’s policy arguably intended to generate conditions for the initiation of the re-conquest of the West led, initially, by Belisarius in which in the latter two conflicts took place. Military fortifications were related to all three conflicts because Belisarius occupied such strategic sites as bases from which to direct field armies to oppose Persian and Gothic manoeuvres. The first conflict took place near Dara (modern Oğuz, Mardin, Turkey). Analysis of Procopius’ text will discuss measurements of distances and relative positions of temporary field fortifications linked to Dara and Ammodios (modern Amuda, Syria) 8 km to the south. The interrelated strategies, and those of central Italy, as related to the two conflicts near Rome will be re-evaluated.

Satellite imagery and field visit evidence will be discussed in relation to landscape features which probably related to the historical conflicts. The relationship between textual and material evidence can be problematical when using a source such as Procopius in a relatively literal way and comparing it to aerial photography or using satellite imagery. However, Poidebard used Procopius to identify at least one tower mentioned by him and analysis of satellite imagery has convincingly located a Roman fort 30 km east of Nisibis. Before discussing the reinterpretations of strategies, it is pertinent to offer some background and summarise how this methodology has already been deployed by me to argue for a more precise location of the battlefield of Dara, A.D. 530, which Procopius described as having had temporary fortifications constructed across it.

Click here to read/download this article (PDF file)

Internal Strife and Unrest in Later Byzantium, XIth-XIIIth Centuries (A.D. 1025-1261). The Case of Urban and Provincial Insurrections (Causes and Effects)

By Alexis G.C. SAVVIDES

Byzantina Symmeikta, Vol.7

Introduction: The late Byzantine period, which is inaugurated with the death of the warrior-emperor Basil II the ‘Bulgarslayer’ on 15 December 1025, was one of steadily accelerating political, economic, administrative and military decline for the Eastern Empire. D. Zakythenos aptly observed that, although in the years following Basil II’s death the Empire seems to have maintained its territorial status, this preservation was in fact superficial, as the Turkish invasions and settlements manifest.

The Empire was literaly ‘impregnated’ with both rebellious and separatist uprisings on the part of eminent representatives of its military aristocracy, especially during the XIth, XIIth and XIIIth centuries. In the course of the former, i.e. rebellious movements, the insurgents attempted to overthrow the Byzantine ruler (of Constantinople until 1204 and of Nicaea following the latter date), whereas in the course of the latter, i.e. separatist or autonomy movements, they usually proclaimed the independence of the areas which they controlled or had been governing under the control of the central government.

The mighty rule of the bellicose sovereigns of the Macedonian dynasty (867-1025), a period during which Byzantium had reached the apex of its power and glory in south-eastern Europe and the Near East, was a thing of the past. Basil IPs decease was ensued by a rapid decline of the Empire’s military and socio-economic foundations, through which the great soldier-emperor, who had foreseen the dangerous growth and upsurge of aristocratic influence, had striven to curb the limitless greed of the nobiles, for the most part consisting the majority of the powerful landowners. In fact, Basil’s ineffective successors, ‘Macedonians’ only by name, offered to the most ambitious members of the military landed aristocracy the opportunity to obtain more privileges, thus contributing to the state of internal corruption and segregation.

In the decades following 1025 the most wealthy and prominent among the magnates were in a position to materialize their aspirations to topple their sovereign and usurp imperial power. It was through the insensible policy of the later Macedonians (1025-57) and their successors, the Comneno-Ducae (1057-81), that various pretenders were eventually enabled to raise arms against their suzerain. The situation of an ‘illusion of a durable peace’ envisaged by P. Lernerle some years ago to explain the fact that Basil’s epigoni did very little to continue the policies of the Macedonian house (which had established a long and uninterrupted pax byzantina), contributed significantly both to the internal disorder in the Empire as well as to its growing inability to oppose its external enemies effectively. It is precisely to this ‘illusion of a durable peace’ that D. Nicol referred to — some years before Lemerle — as “a sense of false security”.

Click here to read/download this article (PDF file)

Settlement and defence of Byzantine and Longobard northern and central Italy

By Neil John Christie

PhD Dissertation, University of Newcastle, 1985

Abstract: This thesis considers the patterns of settlement in Northern and Central Italy during the Byzantine and Longobard epochs, with close attention to the form of military occupation along the various provincial borders.

Chapter One considers aspects of both Byzantine and Longobard military organisation, in particular the question of Byzantine mobility and military landholding, and the origin of the Longobard arimanni. Chapter Two is divided into three sections: the first concerns the function and strategy of the fortifications and defensive systems of early medieval Italy and compares this to the pattern in Byzantine Africa; the second discusses the evidence for ‘unofficial’, non-military or refuge sites in the Alpine lands and throughout Italy; and the third describes the form of various defended settlements, considering their circuits and internal structurings.

In Chapter Three the evolution of the defensive systems in the Alps is traced from those erected by Rome and then the Ostrogoths, to those of Byzantium and the Longobards. Chapter Four expands the framework of Chapter Three, by discussing in detail the historical and archaeological evidence for the various regions of the Italian Alps in late antiquity, and also considers the data for Noricum, Pannonia and Istria.

The fifth chapter investigates the defensive lines and settlement changes that developed in the patchwork of territories that arose within Italy as a result of the Byzantine-Longobard wars, again combining the historical and archaeological data. It also contains an introductory discussion on the effects of the Longobard invasion and expansion on the administration of the imperial possessions. The Conclusion briefly summarises the study.

Click here to read/download this thesis – Part 1 (PDF file)

Click here to read/download this thesis – Part 2 (PDF file)

The ‘Crusader’ Community at Antioch: The Impact of Interaction with Byzantium and Islam

By Thomas S. Asbridge

Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Ser., Vol. 9. (1999)

Introduction: At the end of the eleventh century, in the wake of the First Crusade, a Latin principality was established at Antioch, in northern Syria. Founded by the crusade leader Bohemond (1098-c. 1105), this Latin community experienced a period of territorial expansion under the energetic rule of his nephew, Tancred (c. 1105-12), followed by seven years of less aggressive leadership by Roger of Salerno (1113-19). The principality suffered a serious setback with the defeat of its army at the evocatively named battle of the Field of Blood in 1119, during which Prince Roger was slain. Power then passed to a regent, King Baldwin II of Jerusalem (1118-31), until Bohemond II (1126-30), the son of Antioch’s first prince, arrived in northern Syria.

These rulers, drawn from an almost exclusively southern Italian Norman background, laid the foundations of a Latin settlement which survived in a hostile political environment untd 1268. My research into the early history of this settlement has sought to define the nature of the community which they helped to create. They were, of course, not presented with the metaphorical blank sheet of paper. Nor were they able to fashion the principality according to an idealised vision. Instead, military and political expediency compelled them to establish a functional settlement as rapidly as possible.

My aim has been, therefore, to assess the extent to which the principality’s development was influenced by the surrounding Levantine world, western European practice or, perhaps, the founding concepts of crusading. I have also sought to contextualise my findings by comparing the principality with the other Latin settlements created in the Levant, such as the kingdom of Jerusalem, and other medieval frontier societies in areas such as Sicily and Iberia. This article considers what I think makes Antiochene history distinctive; the influence exerted by Islam and eastern Christendom, both within the principality and on its borders. It explores the impact of external military pressure, the survival of Levantine administrative forms and the evidence of Latin Antioch’s early interaction with Islam.

Click here to read/download this article (PDF file)

What the West has won by the Fall of Byzantium?

By Marianna D. Birnbaum

Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, Issue 41 (2004)

Abstract: After the Fall of Byzantium, a large number of Greek humanists arrived in Europe. They greatly affected the study of Greek language and thought in the whole of Europe. This paper investigates three main areas of their influence: teaching, translating, and publishing.

Introduction: Wittily, Paul Oskar Kristeller wrote that the Renaissance could be practicallyreduced to the traveling of books and people.

It is a well-known fact that more than any other phenomenon, it was the restoration of Greek that widened the horizons of Western European scholarship. This was preliminary due to the scholars who exiled, or having fled the former Byzantium, became the source of a reconsidered education. In the following, I hope to shed additional light on the direct role of those Greek refugees in the revival of classical learning.

“Latin erudition, however ample, is imperfect without Greek,” wrote Erasmus who arrived in Italy during the fall of 1506. As he put it, “Italiam adivimus…Graecitatis potissimum causa.”

Indeed, Greek refugees from Ottoman held or threatened territories, in fleeing to the west, funded centers of learning or accelerated the development and dissemination of humanist thought. Well educated, versed in languages, wherever they landed, they became engaged in teaching, or editing and copying manuscripts, i.e. in the pivotal activities of the new learning.

It was Venice, with her closest connection to Byzantium that became the primary hub of Greek refugees, causing Cardinal Bessarion to refer to the Serenissimaas “almost a second Byzantium.” Greek humanism also became a political tool toVenice, because of her special relationship to Byzantium.

As it is widely considered, the beginnings of Greek studies in Italy can be traced to the Councils of Ferrara and Florence. However, the most lasting legacy of the Council Meetings, I propose, was their by-product, the scholarly activities they had triggered.

The first scholar to be mentioned here must be Manuel Chrysoloras (1355-1415), who should be credited with single-handed founding the discipline of Hellenic studies. Although Chrysoloras translated Plato’s “Republic,” his most important contribution to Hellenic studies was his grammar and his students. They included the ‘already famous,’ such as Leonardo Bruni and Palla Strozzi and dozens of newcomers to the discipline. In the memorable quote of Chancellor Bruni, it was Chrysoloras who inspired him “to learn the language no Italian had understood forthe last seven hundred years.”

In the following I shall attempt to present at least a broad evaluation of the impact Greek scholars had on the acculturation of Hellenic humanism in the late fifteenth and the early decades of sixteenth century Italy. I am going to consider two groups, albeit they often overlap: that of the scholar/teachers and of the copyists.

Click here to read/download this article (PDF file)

The concept of marriage in Roman, Byzantine and Serbian mediaeval law

By Šarkić Srđan

Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, Issue 41 (2004)

Abstract: In this paper the author is exposing definitions of marriage that were accepted in Byzantium and mediaeval Serbia, although it was not insisted in them on wedding as a religious rite. Leo VI, at the end of the 9th century, was the first to prescribe Church benediction as an obligatory form of entering into marriage.

Novels of latter Emperors placed marriage under the complete jurisdiction of the Church, but they were not incorporated in Serbian translations of Byzantine legal miscellanies (Nomokanon of St. Sava and Syntagma of Matheas Blastares). Therefore in articles 2 and 3 of Dušan’s Law Code it was prescribed that no marriage could be contracted without wedding ceremony and Church benediction.

Click here to read/download this article (PDF file)

Introduction

Procopius about the supreme god of the Slavs (Bella VII 14, 23): Two critical remarks

By Loma Aleksandar

Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, Issue 41 (2004)

Abstract: A passage from Procopius, Bella VII 14, 23 is reconsidered, in which the beliefs of the heathen Slavs are described. It is shown to be corrupted. The main emendation proposed here consists in separating the word dçmioyrgón from the preceding tçz ástrapçz and connecting it with the following ápántõn: consequently, the supreme god of the Slavs is said not to be the producer of lightning, but the creator of the universe.

Click here to read/download this article (PDF file)